The horrible state of modern boxing, I blame the fans

First topic message reminder :

Morning

Having watched the weekends action which left a sour taste in my mouth and reading comments on here how Ortiz deserved it, I'm really concerned about the mindset of the new generation of boxing fans. It was a cheap shot an act you don't want to see in boxing, If Khan or Pacquiao had done it, the Mayweather fan boys would've been in uproar, so lets be honest for a moment. I've read unsavoury comments like "Mayweather shouldve sent Merchant into a grave" by one poster on here. Why ?? May I ask please ? The gentleman is 80 years old and was asking relevant questions which we would like answered, do you really want the post fight interview to be "Thanks to God, Team Money and all the people whove bathed my feet and cooked my food" and not answering the questions posted to him??

The fans today seem embrace vile rants, intolerable language from pet fighters, David Haye's "Its going to be one sided as Gang Cuddle in a bad way" Mayweathers " Mother effing this mother effing that" Does this really appeal to you, I'd much prefer a gentleman to be the face of boxing.

The fans seem to want extravagant entrances, I had to turn the tv over waiting for Haye/Klitschko entrances it was embarrassing I follow boxing not dramatic wrestling, what was the point of it?

Fighters wearing different and multi-coloured gloves these days, should be stopped.

Boxing fans need to grow up, act like men.

Thanks

TCribb

The genius of PBF wrote:True boxing fans would say Floyd Mayweather had the more exciting style...if your a fight fan you would say Manny.

The art of boxing is hit and not be hit...Floyd Mayweather does this better than anyone.

Floyd Mayweather is without doubt the more exciting fighter than Pacquiao.

The term ' exciting ' is subjective and, therefore, a matter of opinion. I get excited watching Locche or Whitaker, whereas some would prefer to watch paint dry.

There is no right or wrong, here.

sometimes i reckon youre bert sugar...

I wouldn't call Mayweather more exciting, I appreciate watching him fight more than anyone else because of the skill level but it doesn't get the heart pumping, on the flip side I also don't find fights such as Gatti against Ward exciting because of the lack of skill. Somewhere inbetween is perfect.

i think that human emotion isnt taken into account when we consider people protecting there fighters from what they believe will be there impending doom. unless you are eluding to it just being damatos ego wanting to keep a heavyweight world champ.

Him winning the title against Moore couldn't have helped, has there ever been a fighter who's lost two consecutive heavyweight title fights to two different men before? Would assume that there was a better option for a title shot.

AlexHuckerby wrote:i think that human emotion isnt taken into account when we consider people protecting there fighters from what they believe will be there impending doom. unless you are eluding to it just being damatos ego wanting to keep a heavyweight world champ.

I wouldn't presume to second guess D'Amato's motives, Alex. I am, however, absolutely certain that Patterson was embarrassed by it all and, as a man of principle and unswerving dignity, made it his business to face Liston.

Patterson was a great man.

decided to stick to his principles instead of staying ontop with a question mark hanging over him. now that is something that is rarer in the modern era...

The Money Man wrote:Him winning the title against Moore couldn't have helped, has there ever been a fighter who's lost two consecutive heavyweight title fights to two different men before? Would assume that there was a better option for a title shot.

Off the top of my head I can only think of Walcott, Money Man, who was upended by Louis and then tried his luck against Charles, against whom he lost a couple before hitting the jackpot.

There have been one or two since - Patterson himself, for example - but I can't think of anybody else prior to Moore. Even Corbett wouldn't qualify, since he was defending champion when he lost to Fitz and challenger when he lost to Jeffries.

I had read somewhere a quote from (or at least attributed to) D'Amato that stated he wanted Floyd to win fights with for the belt to boost his earnings. He felt that it was his duty to ensure he made his money to be comfortable in later life and that came ahead of facing the best out there, at the time, Liston.

AlexHuckerby wrote:decided to stick to his principles instead of staying ontop with a question mark hanging over him. now that is something that is rarer in the modern era...

Absolutely, Alex.

Even John F. Kennedy begged him not to fight Liston.

think haye would be added to the list soon.
or would he not count seeing as one was a unification?

HumanWindmill wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:decided to stick to his principles instead of staying ontop with a question mark hanging over him. now that is something that is rarer in the modern era...

Absolutely, Alex.

Even John F. Kennedy begged him not to fight Liston.

seriously?!

sodhat wrote:I had read somewhere a quote from (or at least attributed to) D'Amato that stated he wanted Floyd to win fights with for the belt to boost his earnings. He felt that it was his duty to ensure he made his money to be comfortable in later life and that came ahead of facing the best out there, at the time, Liston.

Thanks for that, sodhat.

I had no idea what D'Amato's true motives had been. Publicly, he blamed Liston's involvement with the mob, which is nonsensical. Jim Norris and the IBC ( a front for Blinky Palermo and Frankie Carbo, ) had taken an iron grip on boxing throughout the entire fifties and, ironically, Liston would be the very last ' Carbo ' fighter before the dissolution of the IBC and the jailing of Carbo, ( or Palermo - can't remember which. )

AlexHuckerby wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:decided to stick to his principles instead of staying ontop with a question mark hanging over him. now that is something that is rarer in the modern era...

Absolutely, Alex.

Even John F. Kennedy begged him not to fight Liston.

seriously?!

100% true.

=/ the power boxing once held...

d'amato was cus d'amato right?

That's him, Sean.

Or Gus Tomato, as I like to call him.

Yeah, changed his name to Gus Tomato during the Tyson years.

Damn, Windy was too quick.

the very same

HumanWindmill wrote:

The Money Man wrote:Him winning the title against Moore couldn't have helped, has there ever been a fighter who's lost two consecutive heavyweight title fights to two different men before? Would assume that there was a better option for a title shot.

Off the top of my head I can only think of Walcott, Money Man, who was upended by Louis and then tried his luck against Charles, against whom he lost a couple before hitting the jackpot.

There have been one or two since - Patterson himself, for example - but I can't think of anybody else prior to Moore. Even Corbett wouldn't qualify, since he was defending champion when he lost to Fitz and challenger when he lost to Jeffries.

In that they were two consecutive lineal title fights rather than consecutive challenges by the fighter in question

Moore lost to Marciano who vacated, the vacant title was fought for between Moore and Patterson

Hope that makes sense.

Scottrf wrote:

tcribb wrote:Well I see your point sir, but lets be honest and a 100% straight had Pacquiao or Khan acted that way, do you think the Mayweather fans and team would be so forgiving?

I'm not a Mayweather fan, I'm a boxing fan and I would have the same opinion. You'll notice all the professional boxers and analysts blaming Ortiz, not Mayweather.

Pretty much agree with that Scott. Whether its came from tweets, articles or interviews the pro's are putting all the blame on Ortiz.

Though it may seem strange to say this i think the only potential winner out of all this mess will end up being Ortiz.
Reasons for this:

• He can always blame Mayweather/Ref for the defeat, even though he was always on for a hiding.
  
• He may get another rematch which will turn out to be another good pay day.
  
• Mayweather was always expected to win.
  
• He'll be getting a lot of media coverage over the controversy.

Kev would agree to a point but think the one thing that may go against him is there is still a little mud stuck to him from the Maidana fight and people could construe the inexplicable headbutt as him looking for a way out, couple this with him grinning like he had won the fight when it was called off and time will tell but his stock may suffer from this.

The Money Man wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

The Money Man wrote:Him winning the title against Moore couldn't have helped, has there ever been a fighter who's lost two consecutive heavyweight title fights to two different men before? Would assume that there was a better option for a title shot.

Off the top of my head I can only think of Walcott, Money Man, who was upended by Louis and then tried his luck against Charles, against whom he lost a couple before hitting the jackpot.

There have been one or two since - Patterson himself, for example - but I can't think of anybody else prior to Moore. Even Corbett wouldn't qualify, since he was defending champion when he lost to Fitz and challenger when he lost to Jeffries.

In that they were two consecutive lineal title fights rather than consecutive challenges by the fighter in question

Moore lost to Marciano who vacated, the vacant title was fought for between Moore and Patterson

Hope that makes sense.

Got it, Money Man.

In that case just Walcott.

Jersey Joe faced Louis in Louis' last defence and, following Louis' retirement, fought Charles in an eliminator for the title. Louis owned both their contracts, and it was a condition of his retirement that these two would contest the crown. Shortly thereafter he sold the contracts to a lawyer friend of Jim Norris, and what went on to be the IBC was formed.

rowley wrote:Kev would agree to a point but think the one thing that may go against him is there is still a little mud stuck to him from the Maidana fight and people could construe the inexplicable headbutt as him looking for a way out, couple this with him grinning like he had won the fight when it was called off and time will tell but his stock may suffer from this.

Agree Jeff, the headbutt isn't ideal, but if his promotional team have any sense they will try to deflect that criticism and keep pushing him in the limelight. whether thats via pushing for a rematch, or talk about him taking on other opponents.

Boxing needs characters. The Good Guy v The Bad Guy and in Haye's case the good guy winning. In a sport where the protagonists punch one another in the face it can be expected.

Many thanks good sir, always assumed Moore would be the only one.

It was a very interesting point, Money Man, and the central thrust of it - the manner in which it might have affected Patterson - is especially interesting, in my opinion.

What is interesting is that with Moore it works both ways, although Pattersons evident vulnerabilities weren't yet exposed it must have been a worry for D'amato putting him in with someone who had floored Marciano but at the same time proved himself not top notch at the weight.

That makes a lot of sense to me, given D'Amato's cautious nature. Floyd was only a whippersnapper at twenty one, also. However much Patterson is criticised with the benefit of hindsight, that was a heck of an achievement.

Darned good fighter, and a great man, in my book.

Seeing him cradle Johansson after the knockout in the second fight is my abiding image of him.

The Money Man wrote:Seeing him cradle Johansson after the knockout in the second fight is my abiding image of him.

Is there footage of these fights?

On youtube there is yes

i think alot of casual fans have to trust the promoters to put on good shows, they cannot be expected to follow 4 different world rankings and british rankings at all the weights and different levels of champions, its unrealistic. if promoters keep selling these one sided fights as genuine 50/50 fights (ie haye vs harrison) they will lose interest all together

to be fair haye harrison was sold on it being a grudge match not many believed it was a real contest but the masses were sold by audleys destiny story and hayes remarks on audley due to it being a grudge.

tcribb wrote: My point is I'm reading Mayweather didn't do anything wrong, maybes in the land of the law but it was an unsavoury ending and an awful cheap shot, no getting away with it, I'd feel cheated as a fan if I paid top dollar for that.

~Sir, this is a boxing forum frequented by a wide collection of savory and unsavory members of the public, so it's not a stretch to understand that even the bad lads need their h(z)eroes to look up to, so enter one Mr. Moneybags to kisses, hisses and jeers.

The fight was heavily orchestrated with the resident Golden Boy sacrifice of the year being paid double if he will only kiss and hug the ugly toad who would be prince but for more than a dozen criminal charges against him.
It boots the potential big fight can with Mr. Manny down the road one more time until Mr. Moneybags comes out of his next retirement to fight Mr. Khan Yes We Can or whatever the latest hug'em/kiss'em Golden Boy ritualistic sacrifice at the MGM Grand.

The burning question is, who is better, Mr. Maidana who made Mr. Vicious quit in a legitimately contested thrilla, or Mr. Moneybags, who made Mr. Vicious go all pinkly through the night?

Burning questions, burning bushes, the nattering masses want to know the answers via:

1. Youtube
2. Twitter
3. Facebook
4. 606v2

You talk some unadultered crap.

I agree Boxers are just classless these days......

No calling guys Uncle Tom or saying no black guy will ever take my title etc..

Long may they stay classless.

Scottrf wrote:You talk some unadultered crap.

I thought you were a bit out of order then, but then I realised who you were talking to. You're right.