BoxRec

I wanted this fight to sink in a little because I honestly felt like I was the only one that thought that this was a really close fight. From both sides, HBO and Showtime Announcers and Hosts, this fight was not even remotely close. The punch stats from the fight had me scratching my head as well because I didn't see FMJ land half of those punches claimed to be tallied as landed punches. All of the post fight news also reiterated the views that this was a complete domination. So, was I blinded by my heart on this one? I normally see a fight impartially and only get surprised by fraudulent scoring.

This fight reminded me so much of the Alvarez/Lara fight. In fact, I think Lara did a better job than FMJ did overall with the running and love taps. Subsequently, I thought that Manny did a better job than Alvarez did overall. The judges that night got it right by awarding Canelo with the victory because if you reward a boxer for not initiating the action and causing a dull fight then you are setting a bad precedent in the sport in which fighters typically mimic successful performances of boxers. That will lead to more dull fights. That's why i think that there was horrible scoring in this fight. There were at least 5 rounds where nothing happened and all 5 rounds went to Floyd on each of the 3 scorecards. Why? Manny was trying his hardest to make it a fight and initiating the action in those rounds. Nothing significat scored so why give it to the guy running? There were 2 rounds Manny clearly won and there were 3 or 4 that Floyd clearly won. These other nothing rounds is where i have a problem. What about round 12? Floyd was clearly giving that round up but judges had the gall to score that round for Floyd. I just don't get it.

People like Pauli Malignaggi tear Manny up for not being active but it takes two to tango and there's not much a guy can do when a boxer who will go down in history as the best defensive fighter, runs the whole fight. Obviously output will be down overall. I'm not saying Manny won the fight but I definitely felt the scorecards were a joke. How one judge only had Manny winning 2 rounds is a joke. I just saw it closer and i think that a fighter was awarded for retreating and the other fighter was not given ANYTHING for initiating the action. SAD

HomicideHenry wrote:It doesnt matter if Manny managed to land ONE good punch... it wasnt enough... and it never will be enough to beat a guy like Floyd. Mosley, at least, can say he dropped Mayweather. Manny's ring IQ was so low in this fight, it just shows that he is rather one-dimensional. He had no back up plan. (The only way to really beat Mayweather is to be able to adapt to every situation there is, at every moment, or to out score him and Maidana came the closest). I know people are upset, and there was alot of broken hearts last night--- but let's face the facts, even if this fight happened five years ago, there would of been no difference. Last night made that completely obvious.

I think Jose Luis Castillo actually beat him the first time around.

caldo2025 wrote:I wanted this fight to sink in a little because I honestly felt like I was the only one that thought that this was a really close fight. From both sides, HBO and Showtime Announcers and Hosts, this fight was not even remotely close. The punch stats from the fight had me scratching my head as well because I didn't see FMJ land half of those punches claimed to be tallied as landed punches. All of the post fight news also reiterated the views that this was a complete domination. So, was I blinded by my heart on this one? I normally see a fight impartially and only get surprised by fraudulent scoring.

This fight reminded me so much of the Alvarez/Lara fight. In fact, I think Lara did a better job than FMJ did overall with the running and love taps. Subsequently, I thought that Manny did a better job than Alvarez did overall. The judges that night got it right by awarding Canelo with the victory because if you reward a boxer for not initiating the action and causing a dull fight then you are setting a bad precedent in the sport in which fighters typically mimic successful performances of boxers. That will lead to more dull fights. That's why i think that there was horrible scoring in this fight. There were at least 5 rounds where nothing happened and all 5 rounds went to Floyd on each of the 3 scorecards. Why? Manny was trying his hardest to make it a fight and initiating the action in those rounds. Nothing significat scored so why give it to the guy running? There were 2 rounds Manny clearly won and there were 3 or 4 that Floyd clearly won. These other nothing rounds is where i have a problem. What about round 12? Floyd was clearly giving that round up but judges had the gall to score that round for Floyd. I just don't get it.

People like Pauli Malignaggi tear Manny up for not being active but it takes two to tango and there's not much a guy can do when a boxer who will go down in history as the best defensive fighter, runs the whole fight. Obviously output will be down overall. I'm not saying Manny won the fight but I definitely felt the scorecards were a joke. How one judge only had Manny winning 2 rounds is a joke. I just saw it closer and i think that a fighter was awarded for retreating and the other fighter was not given ANYTHING for initiating the action. SAD

Even when we disagree I can usually find something to respect in most of your posts.

In this one it is the Lara/Alvarez comparison. But you are wrong nonetheless.

Lara only outlanded Canelo by 10 punches, not the almost 2 to 1 ratio Floyd enjoyed.

And Canelo had a a 36 punch edge in powershots; but Pac fell short in powershots by almost 20.

Anyone looking at the fight knew Floyd landed A LOT MORE punches, and more flush as well.

Pac had the biggest punches of the night, no doubt.

But they were few and far in between.

Because Manny simply wasn't effective by and large with his "aggression"... hell alot of punches he thrown were all catching air, and by a good distance. Outside of the 4th round, I didn't see where he did really all that much. People amaze me, when they think punches on the arms, gloves, amount to something. I'm sorry, but it doesnt. A single solid jab flush on the nose, is going to matter more than someone landing hard shots on someone's arms and gloves.

And Manny did eat alot of jabs and alot of right hands. Besides, there is a mindset in boxing that if the challenger cannot definitely win a round, its going to go to the champion anyways, and let's face it Manny couldn't find range most of the fight, and hell there was a round where he only threw a dozen or so punches, and landed less than half. It wasn't close. And how anyone can make an argument for it being close, I think needs to watch some more tapes, and get better educated.

It's the De La Hoya situation all over again... just because someone "looks" like they are making a fight out of it, doesn't mean they were in any way, shape or form effective about it. Nor does that mean they were competitive. I'd argue more in favor of De La Hoya being 'closer' in his fight with Mayweather, than Manny was. And by alot.

It reminds me in a way of how a couple of my casual boxing friends view fights... in their mind... whoever landed the biggest bombs, or who actually hurt someone, should be the winner. In their view, for example, when Foreman fought Holyfield they thought Foreman was really competitive and because he hurt Evander at some point, he should of gotten the nod. And I looked at them and say: "Outside of that moment, Holyfield landed dozens and dozens of shots! How can you totally disregard all that?" and their view is, the jabs and counters from Holyfield didn't look like anything important, though they were often and flush.

It's people seeing boxing matches as being fights. It's people seeing an artform (defense) as a sign of weakness or ineffectiveness. It's people judging fights by their hearts, not their heads. The heart sees what it wants to see. And for many, they don't want to admit that Manny lost, or that Manny lost BIG TIME. A rematch would only be far worse, because Mayweather has shown in repeats he just makes someone look even more weak and inept.

crow wrote:

benion wrote:I noticed Floyd stood there when Manny feinted. Manny works off the feint and Floyd didn't bite.

Not in the fight i watched; Floyd did bite plenty.

And Floyd never managed a solid hit on his adversary, all night long.

A first for Floyd.

Pac didn't look to have been in a fight at the end.

Has it been so fast you didn't see it? Neither did Manny:

HomicideHenry wrote:Because Manny simply wasn't effective by and large with his "aggression"... hell alot of punches he thrown were all catching air, and by a good distance. Outside of the 4th round, I didn't see where he did really all that much. People amaze me, when they think punches on the arms, gloves, amount to something. I'm sorry, but it doesnt. A single solid jab flush on the nose, is going to matter more than someone landing hard shots on someone's arms and gloves.

And Manny did eat alot of jabs and alot of right hands. Besides, there is a mindset in boxing that if the challenger cannot definitely win a round, its going to go to the champion anyways, and let's face it Manny couldn't find range most of the fight, and hell there was a round where he only threw a dozen or so punches, and landed less than half. It wasn't close. And how anyone can make an argument for it being close, I think needs to watch some more tapes, and get better educated.

It's the De La Hoya situation all over again... just because someone "looks" like they are making a fight out of it, doesn't mean they were in any way, shape or form effective about it. Nor does that mean they were competitive. I'd argue more in favor of De La Hoya being 'closer' in his fight with Mayweather, than Manny was. And by alot.

It reminds me in a way of how a couple of my casual boxing friends view fights... in their mind... whoever landed the biggest bombs, or who actually hurt someone, should be the winner. In their view, for example, when Foreman fought Holyfield they thought Foreman was really competitive and because he hurt Evander at some point, he should of gotten the nod. And I looked at them and say: "Outside of that moment, Holyfield landed dozens and dozens of shots! How can you totally disregard all that?" and their view is, the jabs and counters from Holyfield didn't look like anything important, though they were often and flush.

It's people seeing boxing matches as being fights. It's people seeing an artform (defense) as a sign of weakness or ineffectiveness. It's people judging fights by their hearts, not their heads. The heart sees what it wants to see. And for many, they don't want to admit that Manny lost, or that Manny lost BIG TIME. A rematch would only be far worse, because Mayweather has shown in repeats he just makes someone look even more weak and inept.

Excellent post +1!

KBB wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Because Manny simply wasn't effective by and large with his "aggression"... hell alot of punches he thrown were all catching air, and by a good distance. Outside of the 4th round, I didn't see where he did really all that much. People amaze me, when they think punches on the arms, gloves, amount to something. I'm sorry, but it doesnt. A single solid jab flush on the nose, is going to matter more than someone landing hard shots on someone's arms and gloves.

And Manny did eat alot of jabs and alot of right hands. Besides, there is a mindset in boxing that if the challenger cannot definitely win a round, its going to go to the champion anyways, and let's face it Manny couldn't find range most of the fight, and hell there was a round where he only threw a dozen or so punches, and landed less than half. It wasn't close. And how anyone can make an argument for it being close, I think needs to watch some more tapes, and get better educated.

It's the De La Hoya situation all over again... just because someone "looks" like they are making a fight out of it, doesn't mean they were in any way, shape or form effective about it. Nor does that mean they were competitive. I'd argue more in favor of De La Hoya being 'closer' in his fight with Mayweather, than Manny was. And by alot.

It reminds me in a way of how a couple of my casual boxing friends view fights... in their mind... whoever landed the biggest bombs, or who actually hurt someone, should be the winner. In their view, for example, when Foreman fought Holyfield they thought Foreman was really competitive and because he hurt Evander at some point, he should of gotten the nod. And I looked at them and say: "Outside of that moment, Holyfield landed dozens and dozens of shots! How can you totally disregard all that?" and their view is, the jabs and counters from Holyfield didn't look like anything important, though they were often and flush.

It's people seeing boxing matches as being fights. It's people seeing an artform (defense) as a sign of weakness or ineffectiveness. It's people judging fights by their hearts, not their heads. The heart sees what it wants to see. And for many, they don't want to admit that Manny lost, or that Manny lost BIG TIME. A rematch would only be far worse, because Mayweather has shown in repeats he just makes someone look even more weak and inept.

Excellent post +1!

When DLH "ran" against Tito, I felt he still landed more punches and landed some hard shots.

I thought you could easily have given him some of those last 4 rounds.

And I thought DLH had built up a large enough lead anyway; he didn't really need the last 4.

That is what makes Oscar's crapping on this fight more noteworthy.

Floyd was much more effective against Pac than Oscar was against Tito and he did it the whole fight.

When Oscar was asked what he'd been thinking, he said "I gave him a boxing lesson".

Well, if it was boxing back then, WTF was it Saturday night?

Even when we disagree I can usually find something to respect in most of your posts.

In this one it is the Lara/Alvarez comparison. But you are wrong nonetheless.

Lara only outlanded Canelo by 10 punches, not the almost 2 to 1 ratio Floyd enjoyed.

And Canelo had a a 36 punch edge in powershots; but Pac fell short in powershots by almost 20.

Anyone looking at the fight knew Floyd landed A LOT MORE punches, and more flush as well.

Pac had the biggest punches of the night, no doubt.

But they were few and far in between.

I wish I could contest this somehow but my view is clearly in the minority of anything i've read. Even they guy that i watched the fight with didn't agree with me on fight night. So I think I may have ended up watching the fight as a Manny sympathizer and I also could have been affected by the crowd that clearly cheered when Manny scratched his ass.

My problem was more with the scoring in those first 8 rounds, I guess. Floyd clearly won round 1 and Manny clearly won rounds 4 and 6, those are the only clear cut winners from the first 8 rounds. This was before Floyd found that the check left hook and jackhammer jab would win him the fight in the later rounds. Not one of the three judges gave any of those 5, tough to score, rounds to Manny. Then there's the damn 12th round that I don't know how a judge in their right mind could give that round to Floyd when he didn't even want the round.

Again though, I need to let some time pass and watch it again with the volume off. I was just hoping that it would be more clean cut and not up for interpretation. I was hoping that if Manny lost, he got KO'd. Because any other way, we'll never hear the end of this from the Manny people and they will never fight again. No one will ever watch that again.

crow wrote:

benion wrote:I noticed Floyd stood there when Manny feinted. Manny works off the feint and Floyd didn't bite.

Not in the fight i watched; Floyd did bite plenty.

And Floyd never managed a solid hit on his adversary, all night long.

A first for Floyd.

Pac didn't look to have been in a fight at the end.

Think you need to watch the fight again. Turn down the volume. Manny missed soooo many times but the crowd still roared, giving the impression he was actually being effective. Manny's face was reddened after the bout from eating power shots and jabs. If your TV didnt show this maybe the colour needs adjusting.

caldo2025 wrote:

Even when we disagree I can usually find something to respect in most of your posts.

In this one it is the Lara/Alvarez comparison. But you are wrong nonetheless.

Lara only outlanded Canelo by 10 punches, not the almost 2 to 1 ratio Floyd enjoyed.

And Canelo had a a 36 punch edge in powershots; but Pac fell short in powershots by almost 20.

Anyone looking at the fight knew Floyd landed A LOT MORE punches, and more flush as well.

Pac had the biggest punches of the night, no doubt.

But they were few and far in between.

I wish I could contest this somehow but my view is clearly in the minority of anything i've read. Even they guy that i watched the fight with didn't agree with me on fight night. So I think I may have ended up watching the fight as a Manny sympathizer and I also could have been affected by the crowd that clearly cheered when Manny scratched his ass.

My problem was more with the scoring in those first 8 rounds, I guess. Floyd clearly won round 1 and Manny clearly won rounds 4 and 6, those are the only clear cut winners from the first 8 rounds. This was before Floyd found that the check left hook and jackhammer jab would win him the fight in the later rounds. Not one of the three judges gave any of those 5, tough to score, rounds to Manny. Then there's the damn 12th round that I don't know how a judge in their right mind could give that round to Floyd when he didn't even want the round.

Again though, I need to let some time pass and watch it again with the volume off. I was just hoping that it would be more clean cut and not up for interpretation. I was hoping that if Manny lost, he got KO'd. Because any other way, we'll never hear the end of this from the Manny people and they will never fight again. No one will ever watch that again.

The night I watched, I could only find 4 rounds to give to Manny

I watched it 2 more times and that went to 3.

The fight was not close.