The
judges got it right. This is BOXING, not FIGHTING. Boxing is actually
more like the board game go. You win when you land more clean shots
than the other guy. It's not about flailing wildly to wow the fans.
Pacman threw a lot, but they missed badly or were blocked by FMJ. That
counts for nothing. It's like soccer - do teams try to score all the
time and put their defense at risk? No, they hold onto a lead when they
have it, pick their spots, and feel out the opponent looking for
weaknesses. 1-0 is no worse than 5-4. It's not a video game.
From
a boxing skills standpoint - Manny was terrible last night. The guys he
destroyed before were bums (Algieri, Margarito, Rios, Hatton, etc.) who
just made him look good because they played to his strengths. Real
boxers like Morales and Marquez gave him fits (and 2 losses, could have
been 3). Manny is still a great boxer, but he can't beat someone with
the smarts, reach, and few weaknesses like FMJ.
"Running"
is essential to smart boxing - footwork wins matches, not punching.
Only an idiot would just stand there toe-to-toe and trade blows (like
that moron Margarito when he fought Pacman). You stick and move, like
what Ali said. It's not rocket science. It also frustrates opponents and
makes them take chances that you can exploit. Maybe it's not what the
fans want to see, but then they should watch MMA.
---
Hyped up boxing is like the Super Bowl - a majority of viewers don't know much about the sport and may have unrealistic expectations. Esp. for boxing - it's likely that 75%+ of the FMJ-Pac viewers had not watched a boxing match in the last 6 months, nor could even name 5 former opponents of each fighter (much less understand their styles and tactics).
A "great fight" can be due to action or drama, even if it lacks stars (see the Provodnikov-Bradley brawl, and of course the fights between Mickey Ward and Gatti). Or a great fight can be between 2 superstars, regardless of the content/outcome (Pac-De La Hoya was a major fight that actually sucked because it was so one-sided). I think FMJ-Pac was the latter. It was never going to be like a Rocky film, and even the swindler Arum and the morons at ESPN weren't promising that. But a lot of folks paid for the possible chance to see Floyd get loss #1, and maybe get messed up (the haters have been waiting decades to see that). Pac seemed as good of a candidate as any to deliver that, even if he was still a 2:1 dog.
A Floyd fight consists of: control the distance/pace, land from distance, block/dodge/move a lot, and clench if you get in trouble. The other top defensive great boxer in history, Pernell Whitaker, is the same. If people wanted to see something else, then they should have passed on this event.
However, Floyd is known to respond to the style of his opponent. So the blame for the "boringness" lies with Pac. Maybe due to his shoulder injury, overconfidence, age, or whatever - Manny wasn't as active (throwing like 40 punches/round when he really needed to throw 70-100 to pressure Floyd). If Manny was more active, he would have hit Floyd more, and would have opened himself up to Floyd's counters. That is probably more what the people wanted to see (the Floyd-Maidana 1st fight proves that he can trade damage and be exciting). But Manny and Roach's game plan was not like that, so they get the blame. Why would Floyd voluntarily try to go after a guy who is known to be a very dangerous, aggressive puncher, when he knows that he can beat him in a "Floyd-style" fight? That approach is what got Manny KO'ed by Marquez, and Floyd is smarter than that. A win is a win, and a painless win is even better.
Personally I thought it was an entertaining fight, but I'm biased and I appreciate Floyd's style. And there's always a chance that Manny will land the KO shot, so that keeps people at the edge of their seats. But he didn't, yet it seems everyone is blaming Floyd for the fight's disappointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment