For all the Mayweather knockers...

[briantracy09]

The Mayweather knockers have the following questions and use these to discredit Floyd...


QUESTIONS
1. Why isn't he fighting the tough challenge of Shane Mosley? Floyd will never fight him.
2. Why is Floyd fighting JMM instead of Pacman.


ANSWERS
1. Floyd beat Oscar at 154 (when Floyd weighed 150). Oscar clearly beat Mosley the second time round and was a much harder challenge than the current Mosley (who looked good against the limited Margarito who didn't have bricks that time). Don't forget Mosley was almost beaten by Mayorga.

2. JMM outboxed Pacman over 24 rounds and deserved the victory in both fights.

[Counter-puncher]

2. JMM outboxed Pacman over 24 rounds and deserved the victory in both fights.

i love it when people say this as though it were FACT.

take 3 swing/ difficult to score rounds in any fight, which there were in both pac-JMM fights, give them to the other fighter, and you can say with equal confidence that pacquiao beat him twice.

personally, i can see how those fights could be scored either way. i happened to give them both to Pac by a point.

but WTF with all this misplaced certainty, and its always seemingly the JMM boosters who do it, I mean am i the only person who *could* see how that fight could be scored either way????

[Dioufy]

I had the second fight a draw, even with the KD for Pacquiao.

[banjo]

Floyd did beat Oscar at 154 but he beat an Oscar who had fought less than 6 rounds in nearly 3 years(and that was against the punchbag that is Mayorga) and wasn't anywhere close to the fighter he was a decade earlier.

As for the Pacquiao-Marquez fights I felt both could have gone either way.

And as for Mayweather himself, I have no problem with him fighting Marquez after a long period of inactivity, Marquez is arguarbly the number 1 fighter in the world right now.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I don't have a problem with this fight either - though Marquez may just be too small come fight night.

[Datsue]

but WTF with all this misplaced certainty, and its always seemingly the JMM boosters who do it, I mean am i the only person who *could* see how that fight could be scored either way????

Part of boxing mate.

Nothing so definitive as a knockout, & nothing so ambiguous & open to interpretation as... Any other result, really.

You know Barthes, "Le monde où l'on catche" (excuse my French)? Where he was talking about wrestling & postmodernism? That was nothing. I think there's a whole flipping interstitial postmodern library to be written on the interpretation of a boxing match.

As to the whys & wherefores of why people grasp simple answers to complex questions, people terrified of ambiguity (that's ninety per cent of people then) see something difficult that challenges them & go all Alexander with the Gordian knot on it, so to speak. It's a natural human reaction, which should be immediately suspect because it jibes with the pronouncements of those with some sort of vested interest in the promotion of a fight & trolls on the Interweb, who also regularly come out with these definitive, reductive sort of statements.

PS: As to the fight itself, Marquez may be too small to fight equally with Floyd. But we won't know that until the opening bell, or rather shortly after, which is where boxing intersects with quantum physics (Schrödinger's cat or maybe Schrödinger's Mexican lightweight?), which is the point where I need to go & have a lie down...

PPS: I am an unashamed Marquez nuthugger, but also quite reasonable, so of course I can admit that the two fights were razor close. I demand an apology on behalf of all other reasonable Marquez nuthuggers.

[Captain Hook]

The Mayweather knockers have the following questions and use these to discredit Floyd...


QUESTIONS
1. Why isn't he fighting the tough challenge of Shane Mosley? Floyd will never fight him.
2. Why is Floyd fighting JMM instead of Pacman.


ANSWERS
1. Floyd beat Oscar at 154 (when Floyd weighed 150). Oscar clearly beat Mosley the second time round and was a much harder challenge than the current Mosley (who looked good against the limited Margarito who didn't have bricks that time). Don't forget Mosley was almost beaten by Mayorga.

2. JMM outboxed Pacman over 24 rounds and deserved the victory in both fights.

Where the fornicate did all this come from? The point?

[Counter-puncher]

but WTF with all this misplaced certainty, and its always seemingly the JMM boosters who do it, I mean am i the only person who *could* see how that fight could be scored either way????

Part of boxing mate.

Nothing so definitive as a knockout, & nothing so ambiguous & open to interpretation as... Any other result, really.

You know Barthes, "Le monde où l'on catche" (excuse my French)? Where he was talking about wrestling & postmodernism? That was nothing. I think there's a whole flipping interstitial postmodern library to be written on the interpretation of a boxing match.

As to the whys & wherefores of why people grasp simple answers to complex questions, people terrified of ambiguity (that's ninety per cent of people then) see something difficult that challenges them & go all Alexander with the Gordian knot on it, so to speak. It's a natural human reaction, which should be immediately suspect because it jibes with the pronouncements of those with some sort of vested interest in the promotion of a fight & trolls on the Interweb, who also regularly come out with these definitive, reductive sort of statements.

the Bourdieu-trained french sociologist jean-lois wacquant says of many writers that they tend to import a 'pre-fabricated exoticism' into their analysis of the game. i present the above as exhibit A in support of his argument.

heaven forbid it might be something as simple as simple favouritism on the part of many rooters, for one fighter or another, oh no, its all to do with the a priori ambiguity of the act of viewing.

yes i have read Barthes. postmodernism for children and beginners.

maybe there is some kind of postmodern library to be written on boxing, ooh the endless variations implicit in a differential world diffracted through subjective prisms, etc.

but it'd mostly be bollocks. most of the key factors in winning fights, or in analysing them are, in my view, a good deal more material and a good deal less ineffable than your 'postmodern spazzy free-for-all' take on things. one guy's bigger, the other guy's faster, another guy is more experienced, another guy is shot.

[jamesmcdonnell]

but WTF with all this misplaced certainty, and its always seemingly the JMM boosters who do it, I mean am i the only person who *could* see how that fight could be scored either way????

Part of boxing mate.

Nothing so definitive as a knockout, & nothing so ambiguous & open to interpretation as... Any other result, really.

You know Barthes, "Le monde où l'on catche" (excuse my French)? Where he was talking about wrestling & postmodernism? That was nothing. I think there's a whole flipping interstitial postmodern library to be written on the interpretation of a boxing match.

As to the whys & wherefores of why people grasp simple answers to complex questions, people terrified of ambiguity (that's ninety per cent of people then) see something difficult that challenges them & go all Alexander with the Gordian knot on it, so to speak. It's a natural human reaction, which should be immediately suspect because it jibes with the pronouncements of those with some sort of vested interest in the promotion of a fight & trolls on the Interweb, who also regularly come out with these definitive, reductive sort of statements.

the Bourdieu-trained french sociologist jean-lois wacquant says of many writers that they tend to import a 'pre-fabricated exoticism' into their analysis of the game. i present the above as exhibit A in support of his argument.

heaven forbid it might be something as simple as simple favouritism on the part of many rooters, for one fighter or another, oh no, its all to do with the a priori ambiguity of the act of viewing.

yes i have read Barthes. postmodernism for children and beginners.

maybe there is some kind of postmodern library to be written on boxing, ooh the endless variations implicit in a differential world diffracted through subjective prisms, etc.

but it'd mostly be bollocks. most of the key factors in winning fights, or in analysing them are, in my view, a good deal more material and a good deal less ineffable than your 'postmodern spazzy free-for-all' take on things. one guy's bigger, the other guy's faster, another guy is more experienced, another guy is shot.

Boxing scoring tends to be very subjective, it shouldn't be, because I think the criteria are pretty clear cut.

For instance I thought that both Marquez fights with Pacquaio, though close, were clear wins for Marquez.

However, the evidence bears out that judges differ enough in their interpretations for their to be quite marked differences in their scoring, and therefore it's a subjective rather than objective process.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

As FMJ-JMM is on PPV who will buy it? I'm going to because I'm a big FMJ fan and I think it will be pretty interesting. BTW I had both Pac-JMM fights to JMM by about a point.

This still isnt a super fight, its a decent enough 1 but FMJ is bigger (not by as much they claim), faster, younger, slicker. He should dominate. Pac at least has speed and power to bother FMJ, so it maybe a better fight, but then again JMM is the better boxer so this maybe better

[alexpaterson]

I like Floyd I think he is a very good boxer and hes taking a very hard fight in JMM but he is out of his weight class a fight with Pac will probably happen he wants that fight so does Pac they're both big names its bound to happen eventually I dont think hes a chicken at all

[Datsue]

the Bourdieu-trained french sociologist jean-lois wacquant says of many writers that they tend to import a 'pre-fabricated exoticism' into their analysis of the game. i present the above as exhibit A in support of his argument.

heaven forbid it might be something as simple as simple favouritism on the part of many rooters, for one fighter or another, oh no, its all to do with the a priori ambiguity of the act of viewing.

yes i have read Barthes. postmodernism for children and beginners.

maybe there is some kind of postmodern library to be written on boxing, ooh the endless variations implicit in a differential world diffracted through subjective prisms, etc.

but it'd mostly be bollocks.

Ah, sorry. I shall run my jokes past you next time.

most of the key factors in winning fights, or in analysing them are, in my view, a good deal more material and a good deal less ineffable than your 'postmodern spazzy free-for-all' take on things. one guy's bigger, the other guy's faster, another guy is more experienced, another guy is shot.

Thank you for putting me on the straight & narrow.

[Counter-puncher]

you're welcome