Floyd Keeps Saying There's no "Blueprint" to beat him...

Mayweather is my pick too...by wide decision. Not to disparage Shane in anyway, he is one of the top three 147lbers in the world. I like Mayweather due to styles. Shane operates best when the opponent comes to him...I like Mayweather to use boxing 101 positioning stuff like keeping his lead foot close to Shane's...creating alittle more distance between himself and Shane's right hand. Mayweather knows Shane can outfight him...He wants a fencing match. Mayweather has a fantastic (and short) quick jab to make contact with Shane and take away his rythym. Mayweather's quick pivots either to the right or left make it almost impossible to follow up on him even when you do score on him. Mayweather will give Shane the impression that he is there, but won't be...Mayweather will set up his counters, then pivot.I don't see Shane being comfortable having to force the fight. This falls right into Floyd's comfort zone.
Mayweather wide decision against a still dangerous Mosely...Just the wrong style.

 

I'm reading and this is very nice stuff from you two.

 

If he beats Chad Dawson, he has to be talked about in juxtaposition with Moore in the same manner that some factions talk about Ray Leonard with Ray Robinson. Whilst I don't agree with those that do so, I can certainly see why they would ... if they choose to discuss whether Hop was as good as Moore, I would qualify it with the activity comparison and the KO record. However, I too, would certainly recognise the historical significance of such a feat. I'm aware of Hop's challenging of haye and I think that it's just a publicity stunt ... if not, watching Haye, I could certainly devise a strategy for his defeat, however, I think Hop to be too small of frame, too low of workrate and not proven enough of chin at that weight to withstand Haye's style. However, as I said previously, a losing admirable effort would definitely rise his stock as far as I was concerned.

Admittedly, his facing of these Mexican trio is to be commended. I would play Devil's Advocate and ask you if you felt that he fought all three at the right time? Do you see him being equally 'impressive' versus primed versions of these fighters? Do you think that the first Marquez fight was a clear verdict or was it a fght where he was exposed stylistically and if not for the knockdowns, he was absolutely schooled by a superior fighter?

I think there's argument for Pernell being one of the greatest 20 of all time, but that's neither here nor there. We're agreed on his ring genius being superior to that of Floyd's when I think about it, but then I'd qualify my use of ring genius by saying that it incorporates command of fundamentals, in-ring intelligence and innovation - Pea's showmanship and ability to innovate are on a whole 'nother level to many ATGs, not just Floyd in this consideration.

Then of course, the cherry on top is the fact that for me his stock rises in his beating of Ramirez, both times IMO, second time being an incredible schooling (I'm merely factoring in the performances) and the schooling of a man so vastly superior to anyone that Floyd beat in the beating of a still great Chavez. I put much stock in that performance, especially seeing that it's counter-intuitive that he'd beat Chavez on the inside as well as from the outside for my money. Add to that the artistry of the Haugen fight, the Nelson, the bouts with McGirt and you have enough to show you just how good this man was. I guess I'm disappointed with Floyd because I believe that such was his talent that he could arguably match Pernell and even surpass him if he had chosen to do so. There were fights to be made and he didn't make them - regardless of why not, this cannot be held as a positive.

 

I don't understand why some people say that Mosley has a stylistic advantage. How? He's a huge puncher, so what? Floyd will use his superior speed and skills and i think he'll come out relatively unscathed. This boxing however, so Mosley might land a bomb that changes the flow, but i expect a relatively easy victory for him.

And then more people will make threads "see how Mosley nearly exposed that fraud, he laid the blueprint, all you have to do is ......"

 

I think Barrera would have beaten any version of the prince but Naseem wasn´t the same as in his prime in this fight anymore. He believed in his own hype and got powerhappy which lead to the detoriation of his other skills. Sadly, could have been much better.

 

Ahm, my question about his bills was an rethoric one. My argument is that if as a fighter you have two fights to chose. One in which you face less of a challenge but bigger money than the other but in the second fight you still earn millions which should you chose?
For some fighters is´t too much about business and not enough about legacies. Like Mayweather. Like Jones. I dispise this behaviour. This leads too meaningless fights against or between fighters that have no business fighting anymore. Like Hopkins-Jones.

How many times was this done on here? I post a list and what happens next is that PowerPuncher shows up and posts some excuses for every single one that did not happen. We had this discussion in the past and it doesn´t lead to anything. To tell you the truth I´m tired of it. However here are some names: Benn, Nunn, Julian Jackson, McClellan, Eubank, Watson, Calzaghe, Ottke, DM, Rocchigiani, Jirov, Juan Carlos Gomez.

 

Banned. Sadly.