[yt]1bUyh9tGVZQ[/yt] The very def. of the sweet science and Fundamental objective is Hit and do not get hit. It is also not "running", that's a misconception due to a lack of experience and understanding, from people. With that being said, Mayweather is not a boring fighter.
he says there are some fighters that are exciting but you don't know if they're going to win and the first one that comes to mind is Cotto
Leading up to his fight with Glover, Rampage was complaining about the UFC giving him fights against wrestlers and guys with gameplans. :yep
mayweather is an interesting fighter, not boring at all to me but then I find most fighters interesting on some level.
I spend lazy Sundays watching mayweather fights over because you have to watch em 5 or 6 times to appreciate just how many things he does It's like watching a classic movie, it gets better everytime Mayweather vs Marquez is the greatest level of defensive boxing you'll ever see Don't tell the *****s though
Mayweather is great technically but it's how you use that technique which dictates whether or not you are entertaining. Man Utd can use great technique and strategy in shutting down a team, score one goal and go back to shutting them down. Great talent, great technique, great strategy, great execution but it is boring. Likewise, Floyd lacks power and punch output thus is generally considered boring. Who wants to watch something when they know exactly what will happen for 36 mins - lead right hand, shoulder roll, counter hook, jab to the body, block, parry, block, repeat. When Floyd ups his workrate/punch output/spite/damage like against N'dou, Corley, Gatti etc then no one calls him boring. Some people like to think they are lovers of the sweet science when they say his boring fights aren't boring. It's rather cringey and embarrassing. You aren't in the know, merely part of a group that is getting conned by the likes of Hopkins, Mayweather etc when they talk up a fight and then engage like it's the theatre.