Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
corvette
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
First off, Floyd hasn't always fought like this. He is old and has had to adjust his style. Second, he didn't run. I only consider it running if you don't throw punches like you mentioned in the Peterson Garcia fight. Peterson jumped around the ring avoiding punches but not throwing or landing. If you are landing consistently and making your opponent miss then I don't consider it running. Floyd didn't even back up the whole time. He circled a lot and sometimes stood in the middle of the ring. Again, if this weren't such a big fight and it weren't Floyd, most people wouldn't be saying anything about this fight.
Dude...
You need to watch some more Mayweather fights.
Floyd has always fought like that.
Watch the Oscar fight...then the Corely fight.
Floyd was on the ropes PLENTY in those bouts.
I think Powerpuncher is on your side here, but you're a bit thick and can't see it! When Floyd was younger, he was pretty aggressive. I don't think he spent much time on the ropes against Corrales and Gatti. At 38, he has adjusted because he has the quality to do so. And like Powerpuncher said, if you're constantly landing, it's not really running, it's ringcraft.
Look at this dumb nutthugger.
Floyd was on the ropes when he first got Gatti in trouble........dumb motherfucker;D
He was on the ropes when Chop Chop nailed him at 140.
Cut some bigger holes in your hood and watch some fights.;D
Floyd was aggressive when he was younger........... at 130 and 135.....Only a fool or a groupie would expect a small guy like Floyd to remain aggressive as he moved up agianst bigger strong punchers.
You're not a fool or a groupie are you:confused:
He changed his style to a degree as he moved up.
Watch him since he moved to 147..
He camped on the ropes against Oscar several times..watch the fight.
He fought Pac the same way he fought Carlos Baldomir...watch the fight.
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Mayweather having Pederson used as a measuring stick for him. Brilliant :p. I must be in the minority, I think Peterson boxed better in the first have than giving credit for. What Mayweather did is what Mayweather does, defense first and time it out late. Both had effect but I could go a lifetime without ever watching them again. That said...Peterson turned into a free swinging fool the second half. He pressed for a ko. But he still sucks.
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
corvette
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
corvette
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
First off, Floyd hasn't always fought like this. He is old and has had to adjust his style. Second, he didn't run. I only consider it running if you don't throw punches like you mentioned in the Peterson Garcia fight. Peterson jumped around the ring avoiding punches but not throwing or landing. If you are landing consistently and making your opponent miss then I don't consider it running. Floyd didn't even back up the whole time. He circled a lot and sometimes stood in the middle of the ring. Again, if this weren't such a big fight and it weren't Floyd, most people wouldn't be saying anything about this fight.
Dude...
You need to watch some more Mayweather fights.
Floyd has always fought like that.
Watch the Oscar fight...then the Corely fight.
Floyd was on the ropes PLENTY in those bouts.
I think Powerpuncher is on your side here, but you're a bit thick and can't see it! When Floyd was younger, he was pretty aggressive. I don't think he spent much time on the ropes against Corrales and Gatti. At 38, he has adjusted because he has the quality to do so. And like Powerpuncher said, if you're constantly landing, it's not really running, it's ringcraft.
Look at this dumb nutthugger.
Floyd was on the ropes when he first got Gatti in trouble........dumb motherfucker;D
He was on the ropes when Chop Chop nailed him at 140.
Cut some bigger holes in your hood and watch some fights.;D
Floyd was aggressive when he was younger........... at 130 and 135.....Only a fool or a groupie would expect a small guy like Floyd to remain aggressive as he moved up agianst bigger strong punchers.
You're not a fool or a groupie are you:confused:
He changed his style to a degree as he moved up.
Watch him since he moved to 147..
He camped on the ropes against Oscar several times..watch the fight.
He fought Pac the same way he fought Carlos Baldomir...watch the fight.
Well I've humoured you and entertained you for long enough and I've cut you a little slack because a.) you are clearly a troll and
b.) you are clearly thick as pigshit.
you are a dopey dumbass twat who has no clue either about boxing or about trying to put a point forward without making yourself look a prick.
On many other threads, When I've asked you questions you couldn't answer, you just clam up and go on another thread to start winding somebody else up thinking that nobody will notice that you've been made to look an idiot on the other thread.
At the end of the day, everybody is laughing AT you and have sussed you out. it's pretty sad and pathetic really. Like all jokes, it's funny for a while , but then it just becomes stale and boring.
Message to Master,
I've changed my mind and was wrong. feel free to block this sap!
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ruthless rocco
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
RiGo, Roy, ali, mike, sweet pea, srl, bernard
You honestly believe those guys never ran before? You need to go back and watch more than the "classics".
ran before and running all the time are two different things
How did Mayweather outland Manny by almost double if he ran ALL THE TIME??!! @
chris6878
Because Manny didn't throw anything and stood there whilst Mayweather went on the run. That's what I saw anyway. Effective, but definitely more running than boxing and definitely more snoozing than fighting from Manny too.
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Just had a convo with a fella at work, non boxing fan who watched the fight
I haven't watched the fight
Him: did you watch the fight?
Me: no was it any good?
Him: no it was boring
Me: did he deserve to win?
Him: he deserved to win but he just grabbed him all the time
That's the very first conversation I've had with that fella about boxing, I don't even know if he knows I am a regular boxing fan
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
Lamont peterson vs danny Garcia.........People say Lamont ran all night....IMO he did what floyd does. Juke, jump back really far and all this other stuff to avoid being hit.
So why is it when floyd does it he is TBE and displaying the sweet science, but anyone else is just a runner?
RiGo, Roy, ali, mike, sweet pea, srl, bernard and many others would stand right infront of you utilizing headmovment and blocking ability to avoid punches and land punches. That is how "pretty boy" floyd faught, But Money Mayweather sucks balls.
I really wonder - have you ever stepped inside a boxing ring?
Because I have and I can tell you it's a lot smaller than it looks. There is no place to run.
If you move your feet and it helps you to avoid getting hit then to me that's called footwork.
There's a lot of saltiness about the fight and in particular about the way Mayweather won. Here's the thing though - Mayweather was the undefeated fighter and if Manny wanted that "0" then it was up to him to take it.
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
Lamont peterson vs danny Garcia.........People say Lamont ran all night....IMO he did what floyd does. Juke, jump back really far and all this other stuff to avoid being hit.
So why is it when floyd does it he is TBE and displaying the sweet science, but anyone else is just a runner?
RiGo, Roy, ali, mike, sweet pea, srl, bernard and many others would stand right infront of you utilizing headmovment and blocking ability to avoid punches and land punches. That is how "pretty boy" floyd faught, But Money Mayweather sucks balls.
I really wonder - have you ever stepped inside a boxing ring?
Because I have and I can tell you it's a lot smaller than it looks. There is no place to run.
If you move your feet and it helps you to avoid getting hit then to me that's called footwork.
There's a lot of saltiness about the fight and in particular about the way Mayweather won. Here's the thing though - Mayweather was the undefeated fighter and if Manny wanted that "0" then it was up to him to take it.
why yes sir I have been in a ring, and yes it is small. Im also sprinter, and played football in college and after..........Im very quick agile. If I dont want to be touched i can shake you out your boots in a phone booth. So saying there is no place to run is bull shit.
People wanted to see action. People wanted to see a fight, not a yellow caution signal all night.
If anything may couldve used his philly shell and banged with pac a lil bit. shit, people paid mega money to watch this. He didnt even attempt to beat pac up, just content to punch, run, hug, repeat all night
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
Lamont peterson vs danny Garcia.........People say Lamont ran all night....IMO he did what floyd does. Juke, jump back really far and all this other stuff to avoid being hit.
So why is it when floyd does it he is TBE and displaying the sweet science, but anyone else is just a runner?
RiGo, Roy, ali, mike, sweet pea, srl, bernard and many others would stand right infront of you utilizing headmovment and blocking ability to avoid punches and land punches. That is how "pretty boy" floyd faught, But Money Mayweather sucks balls.
I really wonder - have you ever stepped inside a boxing ring?
Because I have and I can tell you it's a lot smaller than it looks. There is no place to run.
If you move your feet and it helps you to avoid getting hit then to me that's called footwork.
There's a lot of saltiness about the fight and in particular about the way Mayweather won. Here's the thing though - Mayweather was the undefeated fighter and if Manny wanted that "0" then it was up to him to take it.
why yes sir I have been in a ring, and yes it is small. Im also sprinter, and played football in college and after..........Im very quick agile. If I dont want to be touched i can shake you out your boots in a phone booth. So saying there is no place to run is bull shit.
People wanted to see action. People wanted to see a fight, not a yellow caution signal all night.
If anything may couldve used his philly shell and banged with pac a lil bit. shit, people paid mega money to watch this. He didnt even attempt to beat pac up, just content to punch, run, hug, repeat all night
is it good to play football at college in america
i played football at college (real football obviously), but when talking about playing football the first thing i think about saying isnt that i played football at college
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chris6878
Lamont peterson vs danny Garcia.........People say Lamont ran all night....IMO he did what floyd does. Juke, jump back really far and all this other stuff to avoid being hit.
So why is it when floyd does it he is TBE and displaying the sweet science, but anyone else is just a runner?
RiGo, Roy, ali, mike, sweet pea, srl, bernard and many others would stand right infront of you utilizing headmovment and blocking ability to avoid punches and land punches. That is how "pretty boy" floyd faught, But Money Mayweather sucks balls.
I really wonder - have you ever stepped inside a boxing ring?
Because I have and I can tell you it's a lot smaller than it looks. There is no place to run.
If you move your feet and it helps you to avoid getting hit then to me that's called footwork.
There's a lot of saltiness about the fight and in particular about the way Mayweather won. Here's the thing though - Mayweather was the undefeated fighter and if Manny wanted that "0" then it was up to him to take it.
why yes sir I have been in a ring, and yes it is small. Im also sprinter, and played football in college and after..........Im very quick agile. If I dont want to be touched i can shake you out your boots in a phone booth. So saying there is no place to run is bull shit.
People wanted to see action. People wanted to see a fight, not a yellow caution signal all night.
If anything may couldve used his philly shell and banged with pac a lil bit. shit, people paid mega money to watch this. He didnt even attempt to beat pac up, just content to punch, run, hug, repeat all night
I didn't want to see action, I wanted to see boxing and Mayweather outboxed the shit outta Manny. Clinical in approach and did all he had to do to win.
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
just like anybody, i love knockouts but i dont mind a masterful performance. i stand firm that if you think that floyd was just "running" the whole fight, you need to change sports you watch or at least just watch selective fights. i love boxing with the good and bad and have been bored through many fights over the years, but i have never complained that a fighter was too boring if they were good. i understand that they are there to win and i understand that the sport has all different styles. i get frustrated when a fighter is boring and isnt trying to win (like when he is really running).
lets take the good with the bad. its the same for all sports. some teams play fast paced, while others slow down the pace. it can be frustrating sometimes and make the game ugly, but i will never complain if its effective because its called being smart. mayweather wasnt overly exciting but he was smart and won the fight.
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
just like anybody, i love knockouts but i dont mind a masterful performance. i stand firm that if you think that floyd was just "running" the whole fight, you need to change sports you watch or at least just watch selective fights. i love boxing with the good and bad and have been bored through many fights over the years, but i have never complained that a fighter was too boring if they were good. i understand that they are there to win and i understand that the sport has all different styles. i get frustrated when a fighter is boring and isnt trying to win (like when he is really running).
lets take the good with the bad. its the same for all sports. some teams play fast paced, while others slow down the pace. it can be frustrating sometimes and make the game ugly, but i will never complain if its effective because its called being smart. mayweather wasnt overly exciting but he was smart and won the fight.
yeah if you dont want to watch floyd dont watch him
im never that arsed about watching him, not all because of his style but mainly because hes an irritating bellend
but what do you say to non boxing fans when they say the fight was boring because he held all the time? fight of the century?
Re: difference between floyd and other running fighters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
yeah if you dont want to watch floyd dont watch him
im never that arsed about watching him, not all because of his style but mainly because hes an irritating bellend
but what do you say to non boxing fans when they say the fight was boring because he held all the time? fight of the century?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM
You have to know something about a sport to appreciate it.
The general public who think of boxing as Mike Tyson, or Will Smith as Ali, or the Rocky franchise, don't understand the sport. They bought the Pacquiao hype job. I'm not saying it's the public's fault...but saying that Floyd just grabbed and ran all night is like saying Wimbledon is just people hitting balls over a net, or the Indy 500 is just cars going round in circles, or the Tour de France is men riding bikes up and down hills.
It was called the fight of the century because it was the two most iconic fighters fighting today squaring off against each other for the largest boxing purse ever. It was called the fight of the century because it was going to sell more PPVs and generate more money than any other boxing match ever. It was called the fight of the century to make money.
It was not guaranteed to be an exciting fight. If you know anything about Mayweather's style, then you aren't surprised by how he fought. If you know anything about the sweet science, and respect what it means, then you more than likely enjoyed the fight. If you were looking for an all out war, then you were looking at the wrong event. This was never going to be Gatti vs Ward or Corrales vs Castillo or Tyson vs Spinks...if you thought it was, then you're a moron.
What would you tell someone who watches the World Cup expecting to see something special? "The beautiful game" my ass! Talk about pathetic boring sporting events that are overblown hype jobs filled with fake injuries.
