I was going to write a whole long post about the fight, but I find that Ricky Hatton has said everything I was going to say, in a much better way, and with greater authority, here.
The only thing I might add is that one of the things that counts against Mayweather in the public perception is that he always (or almost always) plays the villain in the build up to his fights. Which makes sense from his point of view, because it keeps people's interest. Because he's stuck with an interesting problem, in that he's enough better than the rest of his division that the fights aren't all that close, and he's a counter-attacking fighter, and people don't seem to get the effort and precision involved in being a good counter-attacker, so that's not a big box office draw either. If he didn't play the villain, it'd be very similar to the problem there is in the heavyweight division, where we know who is going to win (a Klitschko) and how they're going to win so people aren't all that interested, so they don't watch, so the purse isn't that big. And if my job involves people trying to hit me in the head, I am going to try to get paid as much as I can.
So Mayweather plays the villain and people pay to watch people hit him, and, of course, he's good enough that they don't. Because Mayweather has an exceptional defence, one that I wish to show several UK boxers as something to be emulated. He does other things that I think help him, such as staying in reasonably close to fight shape (unlike people who shall remain un-named but are obvious), so there's less stress on his body overall, which may be why Old Father Time has bitten him less than other people.
Basically unless he turns up too old on the 2nd of May (which can happen and in the [paraphrased] words of Bernard Hopkins, you never know you're too old until you turn up too old), Mayweather is winning this one.
I am still, however, utterly hoping and praying that Pacquiao will win.
The only thing I might add is that one of the things that counts against Mayweather in the public perception is that he always (or almost always) plays the villain in the build up to his fights. Which makes sense from his point of view, because it keeps people's interest. Because he's stuck with an interesting problem, in that he's enough better than the rest of his division that the fights aren't all that close, and he's a counter-attacking fighter, and people don't seem to get the effort and precision involved in being a good counter-attacker, so that's not a big box office draw either. If he didn't play the villain, it'd be very similar to the problem there is in the heavyweight division, where we know who is going to win (a Klitschko) and how they're going to win so people aren't all that interested, so they don't watch, so the purse isn't that big. And if my job involves people trying to hit me in the head, I am going to try to get paid as much as I can.
So Mayweather plays the villain and people pay to watch people hit him, and, of course, he's good enough that they don't. Because Mayweather has an exceptional defence, one that I wish to show several UK boxers as something to be emulated. He does other things that I think help him, such as staying in reasonably close to fight shape (unlike people who shall remain un-named but are obvious), so there's less stress on his body overall, which may be why Old Father Time has bitten him less than other people.
Basically unless he turns up too old on the 2nd of May (which can happen and in the [paraphrased] words of Bernard Hopkins, you never know you're too old until you turn up too old), Mayweather is winning this one.
I am still, however, utterly hoping and praying that Pacquiao will win.
.png)