Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Floyd Mayweather, still disliked after all these years
Floyd Mayweather, still disliked after all these years
http://www.secondsout.com/usa/lusal....s=473&cs=20704
By Matt Wells: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s plodding but convincing win over Carlos Baldomir drew howls of derision from all corners of the boxing world. Even the news that Floyd hurt himself in the fight barely stemmed the tide. Was his performance really that terrible, or is there something else motivating these complaints?
Saturday's contest was so under whelming, we were told by HBO commentator Larry Merchant, that Tiger Woods himself left before the action was over. Now, one might argue that a practitioner of the sport of golf is perhaps not the best judge of what is and is not boring. But his point was clear: the crowd in attendance that night was bored to tears with Mayweather's hesitant performance. As boxing's consensus pound-for-pound king, he was making himself, and by extension the sport, look bad on a night when its exposure was ostensibly at a maximum.
The story that is emerging in the wake of this fight is this: Mayweather is simply too unimpressive as a fighter to carry the sport and lift it to new heights the way former greats had been able to. Even when the biggest spotlight shone down on him, he failed to deliver anything worth remembering. He is too dull, too unskilled, and too unlikeable. The venomous post-fight tirade he unleashed at Larry Merchant seemed to confirm this impression: he is too much attitude, too little skill.
Of course Mayweather's announcement concerning his supposedly impending retirement has come to dominate the headlines in the wake of the post-fight press conference. But it's worth setting this bit of news aside for a moment and looking at this other matter in more detail: is Floyd really that dull a fighter?
It is worth contrasting Mayweather's fortunes with those of the man most want to see him fight next: Oscar De La Hoya. The differences are striking. De La Hoya is the kind of fighter that can generate nearly a million par-per-view buys taking on the likes of a Ricardo Mayorga. His fights draw sell-out crowds dotted with a who's-who in shiny Hollywood glitterati. When taking on Hopkins, a packed house rose and cheered him from the opening bell, with those in the most exclusive seats seemingly unaware that the whole thing was something of a mismatch. That is the mark of a true star: the ability to bring in the phonies.
So how did De La Hoya attain such notoriety? Does is have anything to do with his style? Well, he certainly can't be called a boring fighter. He has had his share of roaring KO victories, and his gutsy performance against Fernando Vargas stands out as his best come-from-behind win. But in recent years Oscar has cooled off a touch, as his punching power diminished as he claimed the weight class ladder. Against Trinidad he notoriously coasted over the last few rounds, costing him the fight, and you could argue that he did the same in the second fight against Shane Mosley, though the scores there were much more controversial. Against Bernard Hopkins he was cautious; against Felix Sturm, he barely registered. Yet Oscar's reputation, especially among casual boxing fans, has barely diminished, as was evidenced by huge numbers he drew against Mayorga.
It is obvious that there something of a double-standard at work. As De La Hoya let Sturm slap him around for twelve rounds, for example, the HBO crew did not attack him nearly as viciously as they did Mayweather. As he played it safe against Hopkins, they cheered his ability to hang in there with the bigger man, something that you could argue Mayweather was inclined to do as well (Lampley had mentioned the weight difference between him and Baldomir several times during the undercard fights.) Mayweather has always had injury problems with his hands, yet it was only in the very late going did it seem to occur to Lampley et al. that something was preventing Floyd from going all out; even then, they didn't give the idea much credence. Floyd just couldn't win with the crew, even if he was dominating the fight.
It's pretty clear why these different biases exist, of course: De La Hoya, by and large, is simply more well-liked than Mayweather. De La Hoya has charisma and is generally a pleasant individual; Mayweather has a rap sheet and a bad attitude. Floyd has tried to clean up his in image in the past year or so. He has avoided getting into any further trouble outside the ring, and is usually more congenial with the media (his tirade against Merchant notwithstanding.) Yet he has not been able to overcome the negative perceptions that have built up around him over the years.
Is that it, though? Is De La Hoya rich and famous because he's a nice guy, and is Mayweather not quite so rich and famous because he's a jerk? Somehow that solution seems unsatisfying. If jerks can't find fame and fortune, how is it that Mike Tyson is still arguably the most famous active (well, sort of active) fighter in the sport? How is it that Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Terrell Owens is one of the most recognized figures in the National Football League? Neither of these guys is about to win any congeniality awards.
Well, the answer to those questions seems obvious: both Tyson and Owens are (or were, in Tyson's case) thrilling to watch. Tyson built his reputation as a vicious KO king, while Owens position as a receiver guarantees him his fair share of highlight-reel performances. So maybe you have to be either an exciting or an appealing athlete in order to become a superstar in your sport.
If that's the case, though, how is it that James Toney is such a popular fighter? Toney is no Tyson or De La Hoya, but he is not that far off in terms of name recognition, either. He has world-class talent, but his style is at least as defensive-oriented as Mayweather's, especially in recent years. Moreover, in terms of his likeability, he alienates huge swaths of fans with his erratic, arrogant attitude. At the same time, he has just as many, if not more, loyal supporters. A Toney fan generates interest, even at this very late stage of his career. Witness the attention focused on his fight with limited challenger Samuel Peter.
The seeming secret to Toney's success is that he polarizes boxing's fan base. Many people will tune into his fights just to cheer against him. This, of course, is an old trick in the sport. Ali worked it to perfection, and many others have tried it, to varying degrees of success. One of those that gave it a shot was Mayweather himself.
Heading into his fight against Arturo Gatti, Mayweather seemed well aware that it would be impossible for him to garner the same support as his popular opponent; you're not going to walk into Atlantic City and turn a crowd against Gatti. Knowing this, he did his best to play the villain. His detractors may say that he was merely being himself, but a close look at his antics in the lead-up to that bout reveals his often deliberate attempts to draw flak. In interviews, he badmouthed Gatti to an extreme degree, invoking the term "paper champion" as much as humanly possibly. He repeatedly told viewers to tune in to "watch him lose." He never had a kind word to say about anybody but himself. Mayweather may have a bad attitude at times (or oftentimes, depending on your point of view), but he was in rare form in those days.
The problem for him is that these tactics didn't really work. Sure, people tuned into the fight, but they did so either because they were die-hard Gatti supporters or because it was intriguing match-up. Mayweather put on a quality performance, and he was given his proper due. But the residual benefits of that fight were minimal for him. He didn't really gain the fame or attention he was seeking. He is still not a "name" fighter outside boxing circles like De La Hoya is, or like Roy Jones once was. He didn't earn himself a notoriously arrogant reputation like Ali did in his early years. He just didn't generate much of a reaction, period. And that's bad news for him.
The fact is that Mayweather, for whatever reasons you can think of, just isn't a very appealing person. That's not the same as saying that he is a terrible human being. Certainly his actions outside the ring have testified badly to his character, but he has given us no reason to believe that he isn't committed to cleaning up his act. But appeal is about more than how nice a guy you are, and somebody can be appealing without necessarily being liked. Toney is a good example, but there are plenty of others. Boxing arguably thrives on these kind of people. But Floyd cannot even manage to generate the kinds of responses that these men generate. A lot of fans don't feel strongly about him either way. And those that don't like him don't even dislike him enough to want to see him lose.
Floyd's defensive style can make for some dull moments, but on the whole he is typically far from boring. Against Baldomir, he can and should be forgiven for his performance given his injury and the size difference between him and his opponent. But few pundits and fans seem willing to let Floyd off the hook for this. Of course he has done next to nothing for virtually his entire career to help his cause in this regard. But it's still too bad that boxing's best current active fighter remains such an unpopular figure.
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Fenster
Heh heh heh.
Bookmarks