it's very clear that the event was to mayweather's advantage; it was located in las vegas, he got the money he wanted... and so on. the man is known for running/defense... but this specific fight was too much. it was just sloppy, and because he's so focused on the dollars, he chose not to play chess. even if your defense is better, having a relatively decent offense is key, if you are on the level of mayweather. his jabs were weak (which sadly, was advantageous for him- since he got a bunch of points), and he just did a bunch of close clinching/hugging.
ali at 35 (!!!) was better, just in the 10 seconds with michael dokes, from 1977. that ten seconds of ali ducking someone half his age was much more compelling then the 12 rounds of mayweather's foolishness. ali had a HUGE ego, but he wasn't always just talk.
and is mayweather saying that, because of his undefeated record, he's better than ali, despite ali getting in the ring with dudes like george foreman??!! and when ali fought frazier in '71, they specifically said that the clinches would work against ali's favor- but mayweather got all these points with all that hugging and running away, throwing some weak punches along the way??!!
another good one is leonard v. hearns in '81. leonard had a defense position that worked much better than mayweather's, if you are judging from this particular fight. leonard ran, but he didn't run away from the punch.
there's so much to say about this craziness... but the fact that mayweather was met with a barrage of 'boos', to me says a lot. you can hide behind money, you can hide behind your crew, you can hide behind your undefeated record- but if the people don't support you, what do you have?
"greatness is not guarding yourself from the people; greatness is being accepted by the people."- mike tyson
