How commendable is Floyd Mayweather’s style?
Obviously one of the top two boxers in boxing today, Floyd Mayweather gets his share of praise in the unbelievable amounts of money he gets for his fights. Now, it’s time to add to the chorus of haters and question if he really deserves every accolade he’s given.
When people talk about how talented and incredible Mayweather is as a fighter, it’s an easy argument to make. In 41 fights, he’s won them all, with 25 KOs. He’s beaten everyone that’s been thrown at him, and many of them have been boxing’s biggest names. De la Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Gatti and Mosley all suffered defeat at his hands. But how did that really happen, and what does it say about him?
There are two ways to look at it. When people praise Mayweather, they’re often praising flashy generalized facts—record, praise, dominance. But when you actually get into the politics and specifics of Mayweather’s ascent, the way his career has been handled and controlled, and the kind of fighting he does, things begin to look a bit out of proportion.
The first thing to consider is handling. When Mayweather began fighting professional, he was already a superstar. As son-in-law to retired boxing champion Roger Mayweather, and son to legendary trainer Floyd Sr., Mayweather had everything worked out for him. He was already an incredibly valuable asset, coming from one of boxing’s royal families. Therefore, it was imperative that handling did everything it could to ensure Mayweather would move up the ranks and be the superstar destiny had already cut out for him. The fact is that until his 18th fight, Mayweather didn’t really take on any competition. When he won the Super Featherweight title, and took on Angel Manfredy, that began to change, but not earlier.
There’s also the fact that with many of the greats Mayweather has dusted, they’ve already been way over the hill and couldn’t realistically be said to be the competitors they were made out to be. This is another example of genius handling on the part of Mayweather’s team. But the reality is that Mayweather has a real knack for taking out guys after they have no steam left, and then banking on their reputations. In boxing, reputations die hard and always long after fighters. But that only means they’re always up for grabs and personal gain.
De la Hoya, Corrales, Gatti, Baldomir. All of these guys were finished by the time Mayweather got to them. Just look at their records. Baldomir had nine losses going into the Mayweather bout. De la Hoya had four, as did Marquez. In the last case, Marquez was coming up in weight to welterweight, which put him at a huge disadvantage. Gatti was incredibly shot by the time he took on Mayweather, having already six defeats and a triad of devastating bouts with Micky Ward. See a trend starting to emerge here? Mayweather isn’t so much the product of incredibly talent; he’s the product of opportunistic and subtly evasive handling.
Finally, there’s the question of Mayweather’s actual skill. Many have criticized him for ‘running’ around the ring and failing to fight. It wouldn’t be too much to say that he’s boring to watch, because he never instigates anything. He has patented a style that has proven remarkably successful, but in terms of entertainment factor completely impotent. Mayweather never takes chances. Instead he uses his agility and speed to counter when necessary, sweeping around the ring constantly and making his opponents put on the hustle. But philosophically the idea of a win here needs to be seriously questioned. How can you win a fight if you arguably never get into one in the first place?
Tags: