Mailbag: People love to hate Floyd
By Kevin Iole, Yahoo Sports
December 11, 2007
I don't know what fight you were watching, but it was Mayweather doing all the holding and elbows to the face. I understand you have to make your column sound good and all, but you don't have to lie!
Hatton tried to make it a physical fight and muscle Mayweather the way he did to Kostya Tszyu in 2005. Tszyu allowed Hatton to maul him, but Mayweather kept his forearm up to fend off Hatton. That never would have occurred had Hatton boxed or even gotten inside and punched, but he was trying to maul Mayweather and wear him down. Mayweather had to stand up to it and he did.
HATTON IN REMATCH
You must be kidding. Although Mayweather was the better fighter, he was definitely not comfortable and somewhat worried that Hatton was going to land big in the early rounds. Match them up again and again and I say Hatton will soon land big and punish Mayweather. It was just Mayweather's night. And Floyd has to be the biggest no tack loser I have ever seen with the nickname "Money." It is obvious that he sold his soul and it looks pathetic. I guess class is not his strong point!
In my round-by-round analysis, I wrote that Mayweather began to appear comfortable for the first time in the ninth round. But he was still controlling the fight. Hatton only landed 63 punches in 9½ rounds, an absurdly low number. He wouldn't defeat Mayweather once if they fought 100 times.
MORE ON CHEAP SHOTS
You, like the other refs, failed to notice Floyd's cheap shot forearms. You are dead wrong saying that Floyd dominated the fight until the 10th round. That is completely biased. You are no expert. It apparently was an uphill battle for Ricky to win over the pro-Floyd judges and yourself. Floyd is the most annoying fighter in history and you continue to reward him with accolades. Fair, he knocked out Ricky Hatton in the 10th. That was impressive. But your overall analysis of the fight is weak and one-sided. Did "Money" give you a few sheckles from his Gucci pouch? That was a battle. Better than the Mayweather-Oscar De La Hoya fight for sure. Credit that to Hatton.
Maybe if you heard how a British reporter wrote on the fight you and others like you would give up on this ludicrous notion that it was a close fight. Kevin Garside of the London Telegraph wrote Sunday, "There were mutterings of disquiet about the performance of referee Joe Cortez, who repeatedly stepped in to unlock the warring bodies, but the truth was inescapable: Mayweather is a genius of the ring, a gladiator in tap shoes, who met the bulldog head on
. "Where finesse was needed, Hatton offered the bludgeon. Mayweather thought on his feet. Hatton did not think at all. He was cut in the third, battered in the fourth and docked a point in the sixth. Somehow he ploughed on, an English man of war hopelessly rampaging towards a bloody end."
Folks, get it through your heads: Hatton was not in the fight.
Where do you rank Mayweather as far as the all-time greats are concerned? I put him No. 2. Rocky Marciano is No. 1. Where does the loss leave Hatton? He appeared to be devastated.
I don't have Mayweather in my top 50 yet. He may get there someday, but he needs more big wins, such as one over Miguel Cotto. As for Hatton, it's abundantly clear he's not a welterweight. He belongs at super lightweight. He will continue to fight.
Kudos to Mayweather for letting his actions do the talking in response to Hatton's arrogant big mouth. It's also poetic justice to the arrogant Brits for dissing our country in our country.
For those who aren't aware, the mostly British crowd roundly booed the U.S. national anthem. It was a despicable act that deserves to be condemned. Jeff Powell of the London Daily Mail wrote a good column on it. You can find it here.
LOTS OF BRITS
After reading you round-by-round analysis, I came away thinking there were more Brits in attendance or perhaps more Hatton fans than Mayweather fans. What are your thoughts?
There were far more Brits than Americans. Even though promoters announced the fight had sold out in a half hour, it was a bogus claim because tickets were scooped up by casinos and ticket brokers and not made available to the public at large in any quantity. But the Brits managed to find tickets and helped make for an electric atmosphere inside the arena.
If I had any trust for what I read on Yahoo! Sports, you killed it tonight. We all saw this fight live and while we all have to commend Mayweather for a great job done, you make it seem like Hatton did nothing. I'm sorry, but you really come across as overly biased and opinionated with this one.
With great columnists like Dan Wetzel, Michael Silver, Adrian Wojnarowski, Michael Arkush, Jeff Passan and Tim Brown, among many others, Yahoo! Sports, in my opinion, is far and away the top destination on the ‘net.
That said, here are a few statistics courtesy of CompuBox from Saturday's bout to chew on: From the fourth round through the ninth, Hatton landed a total of one jab. He connected on just 17 percent of his total punches. He landed in single digits in nine of the 10 rounds. Down the stretch in Rounds 8-10, he was out-landed 56-12.
Bottom line: Mayweather received kudos because he performed like the No. 1 fighter in the world, which he is.
After Manny Pacquiao defeats Juan Manuel Marquez in their rematch on March 15, Pacquiao is looking to move up in weight. Why not fight Hatton? That would be a fight for you, two brawlers in the ring going toe-to-toe. Neither would back down. Hatton vs. Pacquiao would be a classic.
I hadn't thought of that potential match, but I agree completely. It would be a lot of fun and would make each guy a lot of money. We may hear more about that idea.
Before the fight, the analysis was that Hatton would have to get in close. You noted in your round-by-round that Cortez kept breaking them up. To what extent did this not allow Hatton to use his preferred tactic and thus help Mayweather to dominate at long range early?
Hatton had to get inside, but instead of bobbing and weaving and punching his way in the way Joe Frazier used to, Hatton sprinted in until he was chest-to-chest with Mayweather. He gave himself no punching room. Worse, he kept grabbing Mayweather, who responded by putting his elbows and forearms up to try to fend Hatton off. They never fought much at a distance, particularly early. It was chest-to-chest most of that time.
Who wins in a fight between Mayweather and Miguel Cotto? After seeing both fight recently, I have to go with Mayweather by close decision.
Ultimately, I think Mayweather's speed and quickness would be the difference in that fight. But Cotto is the one guy who could give Mayweather a legitimate run. This is a fight that has to happen.
I heard that Bernard Hopkins made some disrespectful comments about fighting Joe Calzaghe, such as "I am not going to lose to no white boy." What I find more disturbing than his comments is the media's silence on these statements. Lets be truthful: If Calzaghe made the same comments about Bernard Hopkins, such as "I am not going to lose to a black boy," every media person would be making this story front page news and calling for an apology from Calzaghe. He probably would be run out of boxing. I don't think the media has ever shown a more blatant example of double standards then they have by not calling Bernard Hopkins' comments stupid and ignorant and calling for an apology from him. Even in your article there is no mention of these comments. I guess my question is why?
What Hopkins said was in bad taste and such comments should not be condoned any more than we're outraged at the virulent racists comments I've received about Mayweather. Hopkins was flat wrong and deserves a public censure. That said, Hopkins isn't racist. He was trying to play to the racist crowd that he knows exists, hoping they'll buy his fight with the intention of hoping Calzaghe beats him up. He should not have done it, but I know Hopkins and I know he's not racist. It was a low-class way to try to sell a fight, not the comments of a prejudiced man.
Updated on Tuesday, Dec 11, 2007 2:34 pm, EST