It's harder to box like Mayweather then be a brawler.

Take less chances, drag the fight down the road, play the odds, use your opponent's aggression against them etc. It's easy to see that is the style that increases your chances of winning while taking less punishment, leaving you fresh to also last longer. . Hence, why people think names like Ali, Mayweather, Leonard are amongst the greatest fighters ever but, what they don't consider is that they are fighting a style that is easier to have success with.

Three G has come out and said it ("I can fight like Floyd" but it's boring) Cotto has also said (Mayweather looks for the easiest way to win) and I think more fighters will be saying it in the future and I don't blame them. Here they are taking chances fighting in an exciting way to entertain fans and yet somehow the guys that take less chances are considered greater...that's gotta be very frustrating. It's time the truth gets out and credit appropriately handed out in terms of not only who wins what but, who wins what how. This thread makes little sense, time and again the TS believes the fighters that are considered greatest also accomplished what they did it in the most difficult manner?? ...that's some little kid belief stuff right there.

 

very salient point. Lomachenko is a master.

 

To fight as a "brawler", well, not sure what that means....

 

Alvarez also recently stated as such. What does that say about Mayweather? He is so good, that he can control the fight not just for the victory, but for a very exact manner of victory. That's special.