Floyd Mayweather: Not Even Fighter of The Month
I just received my BWAA invite to their 2007 awards dinner on May 1, 2008. The second I saw Floyd Mayweather was voted "Fighter of The Year" by boxings finest, I threw the invitation out. Mayweather being voted FOTY is another layer of proof that todays boxing writers are more fans than anything else.
Miguel Cotto clearly faced and defeated better opposition than Mayweather did, not to mention he won more convincingly. Mayweather beat Oscar De La Hoya by split decision in 2007. The trouble with that is Oscar hasn't won a big fight since 2002, and has been a part-time fighter since 2004. Floyd followed the De La Hoya fight up with a 10-round TKO over undefeated Jr. welterweight, Ricky Hatton. In that fight, I had Mayweather up a point going into the final around. Other than the final blow Mayweather landed to end the fight, nothing else beyond him struggling with the limited Hatton will be remembered. On the other hand, Cotto stopped Zab Judah (who Mayweather had to come from behind to win a decision against in late 2006), and decisioned Shane Mosley, who beat Oscar De La Hoya in 2000 & 2003. For the record, I had Mosley over Cotto by a point.
Along with Cotto, Kelly Pavlik had a better 2007 than Mayweather did. Pavlik scored a pair of seventh round stoppages over hard hitting Edison Miranda and undisputed middleweight champ Jermain Taylor. Like Cotto, Pavlik fought two of the better fighters in the division in which they campaign. Compared to Mayweather, who chose a semi-retired fighter, and another who campaigns in a division beneath him.
I'm not going to take the time to compare Mayweather's body of work to other fighter of the year recipients, you do it, because it makes me ill when I do it. In closing, Floyd Mayweather being voted FOTY is another reason why boxing is sometimes hard to take serious and 90% of boxings finest writers should start covering hunting and fishing.
Labels: Fighter of The Year, Floyd Mayweather, Frank Lotierzo, Miguel Cotto, Shane Mosley, Zab Judah
posted by Frank Lotierzo @ 1:11 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
The fact is, I don't care about all this bullshit. If guys fight twice or maybe three times a year, what's the difference who gets picked? Mayweather fights twice and wins one of his fights on a split decision. Big deal. Even Cotto, who had a good year, did nothing special. Pavlik? Nice year, but he beat Miranda who, it turns out, is nothing. And then he was being outpointed by Jermain Taylor until Jermain got caught. I'd go with Jorge Linares, but he only fought three times. Guzman completely outclassed Soto. That's a great win, but it's his only one. Hell, both Vazquez and Marquez looked better going 1-1 against each other (their third fight taking place this year) than most of the guys considered. Unless fighters start fighting with more frequency (and are judged by more competent people), why waste our time with this kind of thing? Let the BWAA give it to anyone they want.
I agree Charles, no one fighter had a spectacular year. My point is, Mayweather's body of work was the least accomplished of those in te running.
Frank, you may have been warranted for throwing out the invite to the BWAA dinner in Los Angeles, but not because of Mayweather. I concurred with that decision to name him 2007 fighter of the year, as difficult as it may be to explain that decision given what he has done this past week and all this year.
Mayweather clearly won the De La Hoya fight and deserved a clear-cut decision. That one judge, Tom Kaczmarek, wrongly had it 115-113 for De La Hoya should no more be a factor than any other screwy scoring in boxing. Mayweather also defeated De La Hoya more decisively than Cotto did Mosley, even though that was a unanimous decision. Mayweather-De La Hoya was as close as it was because of Mayweather’s caution; Cotto-Mosley was close because Mosley could not be dominated by Cotto and was coming on at the end.
But the vote for Mayweather would not have come without the Hatton fight. Here he knocked out the 2005 fighter of the year, and an undefeated fighter at that time. Cotto’s knockout was of a faded Zab Judah, who had not won a fight since 2005, and had lost to Baldomir and Mayweather since then.
Pavlik’s big knockout in 2007 was of Taylor, who almost knocked him out in the second round of that fight. Taylor, by the way, had looked far from being a world-beater in his previous fights with Cory Spinks, which many thought Spinks really won (and Spinks lost to Verno Phillips in his next fight), a much smaller Kassim Ouma (who also lost his next two fights, to Saul Roman and Cornelius Bundrage), and the draw with Winky Wright, which many also thought Wright should have won.
When Mayweather landed that check hook which sent Hatton into his wonderland, I immediately knew that Mayweather was fighter of the year. It didn’t matter that the cautious Mayweather, who also is often a slow starter, took his time waiting to unload on Hatton. That check hook was an old school technique of beauty, a timeless present to us all.
I also disagree with those who accuse referee Joe Cortez of playing too big a role and taking Hatton out of his fight by stopping his clinching and holding, and thus securing the outcome for Mayweather. Floyd is just a technically superior all-around boxer to Ricky, and it showed that night.
I do agree with Charles that when top fighters fight only once or twice a year, it becomes problematic picking a fighter of the year. In recent years, fighters like Vernon Forrest and Glen Johnson have had two big wins in a year to win that honor, and then faded.
Mayweather had never won this award before from the BWAA. I think a minor factor in his win was watching history, and knowing that he may never be in a position again to win it. If the BWAA never gave him that award, and he is the best pound-for-pound fighter and a surefire Hall of Famer, how would that look?
The Ring, by the way, also gave him the award this year, but they had first given it to him back in 1998, when he was 7-0 with five stoppages, including his emergence as a top fighter by stopping Genaro Hernandez. The BWAA gave it to Shane Mosley in 1998, who was 5-0 with five stoppages.
Finally, there are the entertainment and business factors. The term “fighter of the year” is in essence vague enough that it might include marketability. Mayweather was the winner on two pay-per-views with huge audiences for that medium. He may not have been the top draw in each, but he certainly helped their sales.
If you wanted a better reason to toss that invite, it should have been for the BWAA’s failure to vote for Vazquez-Marquez 2 as fight of the year. Instead they chose Pavlik-Taylor 1. I think too many people in the BWAA are wedded to HBO to give such historical, spectacular fights as Vazquez-Marquez 1 and 2, which were on Showtime, a fair break. That choice, of passing on Vazquez-Marquez 2 for anything, will go down in history as a blunder of momentous proportions.
Eddie, Mayweather defeated De La Hoya more clearly than Cotto did Mosley? So what, both were close fights, and Mosley is a better fighter than De La Hoya, on top of remaining active. At least Shane is a full time fighter.
As far as him knocking out Hatton, the 2005 fighter of the year, so what. Hatton wouldn't come close to beating anyone of the top-eight welterweights in the world. Minus the final left-hook, Mayweather hadn't separated himself from Hatton, other than looking better.
Mayweather struggled with Judah for no less than the first third of the fight. Cotto beat Judah more clearly than Mayweather because of styles. The way I see it, Mosley is better than De La Hoya and Judah is/was better than Hatton.
Regarding Pavilk: he was only dropped by Taylor because he was screwing around. And Taylor was the undefeated & undisputed champ. Until Pavlik, he hadn't lost once in the ring conclusively.
As far as entertainment, Cotto, Pavlik, and both Marquez/Vazquez are far more entertaining and exciting to watch. I could care less about that crap. Floyd Mayweather hasn't brought one new fan to Boxing. In just about every PPV fight Mayweather has had, it's because the other guy was the draw (Gatti, De La Hoya & Hatton).
I'm sorry Eddie, you haven't swayed me a bit. Mayweather is as much a creation by the hungry media for a star, as he is a great fighter.
Let's forget about extended history in relation to Mayweather's all-time standing. Throw away Mickey Walker and Ray Robinson as potential welterweight opponents for him. Maybe younger writers don't know about these guys. Emile Griffith and Luis Rodriguez (both of whom would have beaten Mayweather) may also be too much ancient history for our current crop of journalists. Okay, I'll accept that. So let's try to imagine Mayweather getting past Ray Leonard or surviving ten rounds with Thomas Hearns. Would he do okay against the Duran who savaged Ray Leonard in their first fight?
You only have to go back twenty-five years to find guys who would have beaten Mayweather. Want to look at slightly more recent welterweight champs? Does anyone who actually knows anything about boxing believe that Mayweather would have handled Donald Curry in Curry's prime?
And still we get guys like Jason Abelson writing for The Fight Network who puts up an article stating, "Beat the undefeated WBA welterweight champion (Cotto-ed.), and only the most ignorant of cynics would even hesitate to put Mayweather near the top of boxing’s best-ever list."
Want more? How about this from the same article?
"Floyd Mayweather is one win away from being the best fighter of the last 30 years, hands down. Add a win over any reigning middleweight champion, and you’re talking about the greatest fighter of all-time."
So if Floyd Mayweather beats--get this--Felix Strum, he becomes the greatest fighter of all time.
Ezzard Charles went 5-0 against Charley Burley and Archie Moore, two guys who'd have to be regarded as being somewhere near the all-time top twenty. That's the kind of statistic that warrants inclusion into the all-time list.
If current writers' senses of history are so skewed that they really believe that Floyd Mayweather (a fighter about whom I have only good things to say, incidentally) is hovering somewhere near the greatest of the greats, we may as well confine our boxing reading to this blog and little else.
Mayweather is even money at best versus fighters like Simon Brown, Marlon Starling, Carlos Palomino and Pipino Cuevas. Prime Curry would've taken him apart and stopped him. The best Whitaker at 147 would give him an ulcer, and Mosley who beat De La Hoya in 2000 would've had his way with him.
Mayweather is an outstanding fighter. He's a smart boxer, and is fundamentally sound. He lacks a big punch, but hits hard enough to win. It's just that he doesn't have one signature physical trait, or win on his record.
Anyone who thinks Mayweather, by beating Cotto, solidifies him as one of the greatest of the greats, flat out doesn't know what they're watching. On that, there's no debate.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home