is mayweather an intelligent fighter?

Previously there's been lots of talk concerning khans and hearns lack of intelligence, but what about Mayweather? Intelligent or not?

Broner showed (for short spells) that maidana is next to useless on the back foot. He is unable to get shots off, he almost exculsively defends, and is a poor counter puncher. For whatever reason Broner didnt go on the offensive enough and try to exploit thisfact. However you'd expect TBE to have enough pop in his punches, and the intelligence, to do so.

Maidana has shown in every fight he is at his absolute best when someone is static against the ropes, what did Floyd do? Stand for six rounds against the ropes, entirely passive, throwing the odd counter.

Floyd didn't exploit Maidanas weakness (by pushing him onto the back foot) but instead played to his strengths (by allowing him to wing away against him on the ropes).

So is floyd someone with immense skill and speed, great offensive/defensive reflexes combined with [immediate unconscious] preemptive vision and a learned ability to spoil......or an intelligent fighter?

Super intelligent fighter.

Look at how much more dominant he is towards the end of a fight than the start. Yes he's intelligent.

OMG

I am seriously considering quitting this forum after reading such TOSH.

3fingers wrote:For whatever reason Broner didnt go on the offensive enough

Possibly because he was having his head punched in.

I think when we have a pop at Hearns and Khans lack of intelligence.......It's relative to the fact that they must be pretty intelligent fighters to have used their gifts to get them to the top.......Khan and Hearns problems is that they tend to get carried away with what they are doing offensively whilst forgetting the defensive side.....Hence lack of savvy..

Anybody that outboxes Leonard for 12 rounds has to be pretty clever.....

Mayweather like Hearns is a smart fighter but a little less inclined to get carried away offensively.....

Often think the fight with Hagler was as much to do with Hearns hurting him early as it was with Hagler's swarming..

Hearns and Khan lack the intelligence of other fighters with their talent at the top level.......It's not to say they lack intelligence........

Mayweather is 37 3fingers...............Anyone with a grasp of history knows he's number 1 at an age when he has no right to be...........Like Manny and a lesser extent Hoppo they are amazing fighters..

He's just about the most intelligent fighter out there, for me. Amazing ring IQ. No doubt he's got heaps of natural athleticism and skills on top of that, of course, but it's his ring generalship and smarts that make him that extra little bit more special.

Just has that talent of sizing an opponent up, figuring out how to beat them and crucially doing it in a way that makes it as easy for him as possible. That usually makes for a pretty low-key fight, but as him and Uncle Roger like to say, there's nothing cool about getting punched in the face.

Always think the Judah fight is a great example of his ability to think and adapt under pressure.

You not think people forget the guy is 37 ??........Chris

Why did it take 6 rounds for a super intelligent fighter to adapt? Why not start with the correct plan? Alternatively, having started with the incorrect plan, why not adapt in the 4th or 5th? Why wait till round 7 when realistically, bar a KO (or KD), the best you can get is a draw? Maybe he is so intelligent he knew he could gave away 6 rounds, and still get the result because he is money embodied?

Howard Eastman was intelligent but where did it get him??

Or maybe he was intelligent enough to know at 37 he coukdnt go on the offensive from the get go and sustain it.

3fingers wrote:Why did it take 6 rounds for a super intelligent fighter to adapt? Why not start with the correct plan? Alternatively,  having started with the incorrect plan, why not adapt in the 4th or 5th? Why wait till round 7 when realistically,  bar a KO (or KD), the best you can get is a draw? Maybe he is so intelligent he knew he could gave away 6 rounds, and still get the result because he is money embodied?

Why couldn't Robbo adapt to Fullmer at 37 ??

As you get older like Holmes said at 35 against Spinks.........You see things but aren't quick enough to exploit them...

Think you don't appreciate why great fighters aren't usually great in their late 30s..........View History !!

Hagler struggled with the one dimensional Mugabi at 31..............Mugabi got humilated off the young Norris.....A year or two later..

So was leonardo divinci, useless in a boxing ring though.

If Howard Eastman were intelligent he would have realised an apathetic attitude in the ring would not take him to glory. Maybe he was intelligent, maybe he did realise lazyness was bad, maybe he just didn't care? Certainly a talented boxer, but one who his ability as he should?

Are we not perhaps guilty of occasionally misclassifying composure with an ability to counter punch as ring intelligence?

You are guilty of forgetting that fighters at 37 aren't at the top of their game..

3fingers wrote:Why did it take 6 rounds for a super intelligent fighter to adapt? Why not start with the correct plan? Alternatively,  having started with the incorrect plan, why not adapt in the 4th or 5th? Why wait till round 7 when realistically,  bar a KO (or KD), the best you can get is a draw? Maybe he is so intelligent he knew he could gave away 6 rounds, and still get the result because he is money embodied?

I think Hatton should have just knocked Pacquiao out in the first round. Then he'd never have got knocked out himself. Why didn't he just do that instead of putting himself in a position where he himself could wind up getting splattered?

No matter how good your ring IQ is, sometimes if the other fella is right on his game and you're a little bit off, you're just now allowed to do what you want, as and when. I'm sure if Mayweather could have started dominating earlier on, he would have done. But the main thing is he got there eventually.

There's never been a fighter born who was on top of their game every single time they got through the ropes. Mayweather has less off nights than most, but he's not infallible. Rather than suggesting that Mayweather isn't as smart a fighter as people think, I reckon the closeness of that fight is more down to Maidana putting forward a fantastic effort and fighting out of his skin. Fairer in this case to credit Maidana than to berate Floyd, I think.

Why did Robbo wait for the second fight to leave Fullmer on the deck ??

Essentially Holmes said as you get older your speed reflexes go, therefore you ability to exploit a opening is reduced.. He did not say as you get older your ring cognition degenerates to such an extent that you are unable to see the things you once did. There is no sign of Mayweathers ability to exploit an opening being reduced, he just fought the wrong fight for six rounds, he stood static with his back against the ropes for large portions of the fight, he was not inclined to throw effective counters because of the barrage of extremely dangerous heavy punches coming his way. Maybe he realised at 37 his legs are not what they once were, hence saved his energy for 7 onwards. If so, thats pretty intelligent.

3fingers wrote:Are we not perhaps guilty of occasionally misclassifying composure with an ability to counter punch as ring intelligence?

How long did it take him to adapt to Mosley's jab to the body, right over the top combo?

There isn't any sign to you........

Why was a smart two handed boxer like Hagler caught by a lead uppercut by the one dimensional Mugabi in the 4th round ??.....Why was the younger than Mayweather Leonard embarrassed by the oft-beaten ex-lightweight Camacho ??

Why did the all conquering Karpov lose to the young Kasparov in the 80s......It's because time takes it's toll !!......

You have to think about what you are doing as opposed to just doing it naturally !!

There is a reason why Manny, Mayweather, Robbo are amongst the very few fighters to be at the top at their age.......

History shows they have no right to be..

I honestly dont know how as a spectator we can differentiate between boxing ability and ring IQ. I can understand when someone does something silly, say when khan opens up and get KO'd, people might see it as a lack of ring intelligence, however maybe its a lack of emotional intelligence, maybe the occasion just got the better of them, maybe they actually do gave a highring IQ.

Like I say I dont know how as spectators we can truly comment (purely by observation) on ring IQ, how we can seperate it from extreme talent, unconscious motion, or the abilty to follow simple instruction from a well schooled coach?

What the hell is ring iq?

The best way to answer your own question would be to ask yourself If the Mayweather that beat Gatti or Baldomir.......

Would have struggled like he did the other night ..

Floyd always stays calm and doesn't get emotional, that is a great trait for boxing.  He stay really focused on the job.

Floyd is also smart in that when he does good work he often stands back and admires it or wiggles his shoulders or bounces around a bit.  When he does something good he emphasises it with his body language.  His grace, speed and athleticism obviously add to the impression.

The most cerebral fighter I have seen is Benny Leonard. I wouldn't have Mayweathers ring intelligence on par with B Leonard's.

Strongback wrote:Floyd always stays calm and doesn't get emotional, that is a great trait for boxing.  He stay really focused on the job.

Floyd is also smart in that when he does good work he often stands back and admires it or wiggles his shoulders or bounces around a bit.  When he does something good he emphasises it with his body language.  His grace, speed and athleticism obviously add to the impression.

The most cerebral fighter I have seen is Benny Leonard. I wouldn't have Mayweathers ring intelligence on par with B Leonard's.

Benny Leonard was hardly an athlete now was he.

You can't compare the 2. Leonard has a lot of romancitised historionics associated with his name.

With age effecting performance then is it not right to assume the older man would be better than the younger man earlier in the fight? Or that reflex would abondon the older fighter for 12 rounds?....and not just the first 6 when he was fresh? In any case, no doubt, floyd will slow with age. That is not my question. The purpose in asking 'is floyd intelligent' Is to question the whole concept of ring intelligence, what it comprises, and how we as fans feel we can judge it.

3fingers wrote:With age effecting performance then is it not right to assume the older man would be better than the younger man earlier in the fight? Or that reflex would abondon the older fighter for 12 rounds?....and not just the first 6 when he was fresh? In any case, no doubt, floyd will slow with age. That is not my question. The purpose in asking 'is floyd intelligent' Is to question the whole concept of ring intelligence, what it comprises, and how we as fans feel we can judge it.

Wouldn't the more intelligent fighter get better as the fight went on?

Scottrf wrote:

3fingers wrote:With age effecting performance then is it not right to assume the older man would be better than the younger man earlier in the fight? Or that reflex would abondon the older fighter for 12 rounds?....and not just the first 6 when he was fresh? In any case, no doubt, floyd will slow with age. That is not my question. The purpose in asking 'is floyd intelligent' Is to question the whole concept of ring intelligence, what it comprises, and how we as fans feel we can judge it.

Wouldn't the more intelligent fighter get better as the fight went on?

Not If you think the fighter is an a**hole..

For me Boxing IQ is the ability to read you opponent's punching patterns while in the fight and adjust your game to overcome challenges. Some fighters only fight the same way. Some fighters seem to give thought to their particular opponent's movements.

The Maidana fight is definitely Mayweather's worst display of Boxing IQ that I've seen. It was a poor choice of initial game plan, and it took him longer to adjust than usual. That said, Floyd is still the best that I've watched in this respect.

I'd agree Boxthis, adaptation is generally my take on ring intelligence. Though when I think hard enough I'm not so sure.

Is being capable of switching from counter puncher to aggressor, or go from orthodox to southpaw learned abilities or ring IQ? When switching, is it down to your own intelligence or instruction from your team?

If you have the ability to change styles then is it actually intelligent to adapt to getting punched in the face? If I smack a puppy it'll stop pooping on the floor? Its not particularly intelligent, just not stupid. It has the ability to stop pooping on the floor and it does. If the boxer had the ability to adapt but continued fighting the same way, he would be stupid for doing so. If he changed what he was doing to avoid being punished (just like the puppy) it's not exactly intelligent; so maybe the speed of adaptation, as a consequence of punishment, is the better indicator of intelligence.

Elsewhere it's been proposed conserving energy at an advanced age is intelligence..well I'm pretty thick, but I know when I'm 38 I'll not be as fit as a 24 year old athlete.

Being able to switch tactics isn't as easy as you state. There's another guy in there you need to react to, and taking orders from your team and implementing them is intelligence. If your corner tell you he's susceptible to the left hook you can't just go in wildly swinging left hooks, you need to be able to react to the openings. It's easy enough in theory but some aren't able to divert from their natural tendencies while in the ring.

Scottrf wrote:Being able to switch tactics isn't as easy as you state. There's another guy in there you need to react to, and taking orders from your team and implementing them is intelligence. If your corner tell you he's susceptible to the left hook you can't just go in wildly swinging left hooks, you need to be able to react to the openings. It's easy enough in theory but some aren't able to divert from their natural tendencies while in the ring.

Excellent post..........Not only is changing tactics difficult because you've had a game plan you've been working on for two months in preparation.......

It's also a confidence booster to your opponent that he's winning in the tactical department..

Always remember Starling vs Simon Brown.......Another fight where Starling was brought in to boost a record and instead gave a clinic..........Brown turned to southpaw halfway through the fight and when he did Starling just stopped and looked at him.......As If to say you must be desperate and do you think I haven't fought better natural southpaws before !!

I didn't state changing tactis was easy, because its not. Changing tactics generally involves employing different skills. Changing tactics requires having learned the skill/tactic to be employed. Once learned it must be practiced in countless rounds sparring.

When learning to fight a coach might develop a style for you, depending on what he thinks suits your stature, physical abilities or temperament; this style might be reinforced by success to the detriment of other styles, thus losing a handy component of adaptability. Those with the ability to change styles often have a natural talent and athletisism, and have probably benefited from a range of sparring partners throughout their early development (maybe changed clubs/trainers during adolescence,  or were fortunate to be part of a large successful club during their youth).


I think the question of ring intelligence, like intelligence, is a philosophical question.

Someone who learns facts may be regarded as intelligent in the same way someone who learns boxing skills be regarded as having a high ring IQ. I have trouble conceptualising what ring intelligence, or intelligence for that matter, actually is.

If I was pushed to give a definition of ring intelligence then I'd say "its an ability to draw on learned skill and prior experience and apply them effectively to new situations".

Unfortunately the definition I give is discriminatory to some. Those with an amazing learned skill set mixed with athletism are often regarded as intelligent, because they can adapt, while those with the intelligence to see what needs to happen but lack the physical prowess to put into action might not (to the observer at least) display any level of intelligence because, for intelligent thoughts to be acknowledged by the fan, they must be translated to action/results.

I'd edit the grammar and spelling mistakes too but cant be bothered

Na seems a good post, agree with it.

Mayweather is 37, he can't fight offensively for 3 minutes of every round, he uses his defence to conserve energy, and throw lightening quick counters. Maidana was windmilling at 100 miles an hour at the start of the fight, I was shouting that mayweather needed to stop going to the ropes, hold the centre of the ring and throw right hand leads. Easier said than done when a 165lb bull is charging at you.

Teddy atlas' review of the fight was that mayweather has fallen in love with his own defence and was unwilling to change. No one falls in love with being punched in the head. I think maidana needs some credit in this fight and mayweather needs a little slack.

The ref also needs a little credit. Tony weeks could have done his job from the black jack table at the MGM grand. If joe Cortez had of been there we would have seen a completely different fight.

Well id say he is one of the most intelligent fighters out there and probably one of the most intelligent in the past 20 years since he has been in the sport.

He did say he was going to just go toe to toe with him and have a proper fight to give fans excitement. He did also say he could have made it a bell of a lot easier if he had fought properly, which i actually believe.

Look at when he fought Alvarez, he was on the front foot from the get go against a very large big fighter.

Mayweather very intelligent fighter,should he give Maidana a rematch I would say he puts the record straight with a  comprehensive points win.

Could it be Mayweather for once couldn't see a threat from Maidana and was thinking in terms of boxing lesson,it happens to the best.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Well id say he is one of the most intelligent fighters out there and probably one of the most intelligent in the past 20 years since he has been in the sport.

He did say he was going to just go toe to toe with him and have a proper fight to give fans excitement. He did also say he could have made it a bell of a lot easier if he had fought properly, which i actually believe.

Look at when he fought Alvarez, he was on the front foot from the get go against a very large big fighter.

Alvarez is a different animal to Maidana, not least in terms of stamina, there was a 300 punch output difference between Alvarez and Maidana. I also think Maidanas 165lbs was a stronger 165 than Alvarez.