Nothing lasts forever. If there is a market for silly fights, so be it. There are true BOXING FANS, and there are people who want to watch crappy junk. The true boxing fan does not go to watch amateur fights. We wish and want the best. That is why MMA are poor fights because they mostly throw crappy kicks and there hands are crap. And although there wrestling is good, they are not good at boxing or kicking. Hence the virtually pad less gloves. If any of those champs fought any boxing champs in there respective divisions, they would be seriously hurt. So I am a true boxing fan that waits for prime battles, and let's the circus go by.
I respectfully disagree with the characterization of Mayweather as someone 'who did not look particularly good.' Given the expectations of this fight and of Mayweather who has never been known as a heavy banger, I can't say I was disappointed. Just the size, weight, and youth of someone 18-years his junior presents its own challenges to someone who has been out of the ring so long, no matter how legendary. Like with McGregor, Money seemed to half-step his foot-work in a way where you can't tell if it is intentional or not. Mayweather is a true Alpha in my book and he seems to be able to calculate every contingency and be both the puppet and the puppet-master at the same time. To what degree did Money carry Paul or McGregor? Who is going to polygraph him?
To be fair, did Paul carry Money? Didn't we hear Paul's corner tell him not to go for the knockout and just box before the final round? Paul did seem to be able to take Money's shots, but again, 'carrying' and to what degree is speculative on both sides.
Are we even fair using standards and metrics brought in from real boxing to judge the fight or fighters? Do we need a new paradigm?
Nothing lasts forever. If there is a market for silly fights, so be it. There are true BOXING FANS, and there are people who want to watch crappy junk. The true boxing fan does not go to watch amateur fights. We wish and want the best. That is why MMA are poor fights because they mostly throw crappy kicks and there hands are crap. And although there wrestling is good, they are not good at boxing or kicking. Hence the virtually pad less gloves. If any of those champs fought any boxing champs in there respective divisions, they would be seriously hurt. So I am a true boxing fan that waits for prime battles, and let's the circus go by.
A freak show, i pay to watch boxing not a circus performance.
I respectfully disagree with the characterization of Mayweather as someone 'who did not look particularly good.' Given the expectations of this fight and of Mayweather who has never been known as a heavy banger, I can't say I was disappointed. Just the size, weight, and youth of someone 18-years his junior presents its own challenges to someone who has been out of the ring so long, no matter how legendary. Like with McGregor, Money seemed to half-step his foot-work in a way where you can't tell if it is intentional or not. Mayweather is a true Alpha in my book and he seems to be able to calculate every contingency and be both the puppet and the puppet-master at the same time. To what degree did Money carry Paul or McGregor? Who is going to polygraph him?
To be fair, did Paul carry Money? Didn't we hear Paul's corner tell him not to go for the knockout and just box before the final round? Paul did seem to be able to take Money's shots, but again, 'carrying' and to what degree is speculative on both sides.
Are we even fair using standards and metrics brought in from real boxing to judge the fight or fighters? Do we need a new paradigm?