Mayweather vs DelaHoya

[Uke]

Again, Uke, just because it exists doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the sport. I'm seeing something in you that helps explain why you were so rabid about jumping on my "bling" comment. Everything I have said in terms of what I think would be good for boxing involves gentlemanly conduct and sportsmanlike behavior. In other words, my attitude is that behavior that helps to eliminate the racism and bigotry in our sport is "good."

Contrast that with your own words.

Time and again, you've made the case that brash, flashy, polarizing fighters are good for the sport. That says to me that you think it is healthy for fighters to propegate the very behavior you seem to want to condemn. You mentioned Bernard Hopkins? Let's talk about him for a sec. He's enjoying his success right now, and he's not out there thumping on a drum telling everybody how tough or screwed up he had it. In other words, he's being a gentleman about his success. On the other hand, you have Floyd. He's on the top of his game, making more money per fight than Bernard did in his first nineteen title defenses put together. And somehow, Floyd feels justified running his mouth? Bernard took a stand against the corruption that was screwing with his career, and he managed himself. He was a man of principle, and that seems to carry over to his business dealings even today.

In a nutshell, Bernard could no doubt speak loud and true about the corruption in boxing, but unlike Floyd Mayweather Jr., Bernard Hopkins feels no need to trumpet the fact that he overcame that corruption.

Uke, look back at your posts. Then read mine. Look at what you're complaining about most, and then look at what you're using to justify the things you're trying to defend. I don't want to quote them, because I'll only be accused of picking and choosing quotes. But if you're honest about it (which, by precedent, I doubt you will be, at least publicly), you'll see that you're complaining about things like racism and bigotry and corruption, and all the while, you're citing those very things as reasons fighters make money. It's everything that's wrong with the sport, and somehow, in your mind, also the thing that's best for the sport?

How does that make sense to you?

You obviously know nothing about Bernard Hopkins. He's one of the loudest, outspoken boxers who VERY MUCH DOES trumpet about corruption in the sport. In fact, there is no other boxer in the last 20 years that has done more and complained more about the corruption in boxing than Hopkins. Let's just get that out of the way first.

Next, there isn't a thing that Mayweather has done that Hopkins hasn't with the exception of being flashy. Hopkins just isn't flashy. But Hopkins has been his own biggest cheerleader for over a decade. From telling Larry Merchant to shut up to telling the world that other boxers are ducking him, to accusing Don King of fixing boxing so that he can't get big paydays. So what are you talking about? I'm seriously beginning to get the idea that you don't know anything about the fighters that we discuss.

Did you forget to mention that Bernard Hopkins is a convicted felon who has done time in prison? This is a bad example for you to be using, but its too late because you already did.

Next, don't say you won't quote me because you'll get accused by me for picking and choosing. Highlight anything that I write as long as you highlight a thought in its entirety and in context. I do it to you all the time.

But if you're honest about it (which, by precedent, I doubt you will be, at least publicly), you'll see that you're complaining about things like racism and bigotry and corruption, and all the while, you're citing those very things as reasons fighters make money.

At what point have I been dishonest? Where have I ever lied and privately tried to smooth something over? My problem with almost everything you write, from martial arts to boxing is that you ignore the burden of proof. Everything you've written so far is nothing more than your personal feelings based on more of your personal feelings. How many facts have I used in this discussion alone to illustrate my point? How many facts, not opinions have you used to show that Mayweather is bad for boxing?

At what point have I ever said that making money is bad for the sport? At what point have I ever stated that being flashy is bad for boxing? When have I ever stated that boosting interest in fights by pretending to have animosity was bad for boxing? Where have I cited that racism, bigotry and corruption are the reasons that boxers make money?

Not for nothing, but your last reply had nothing to do with the majority of things that were being discussed. I feel as though at every turn you're trying to show every boxer you can think of as more disciplined and well mannered than Floyd Mayweather, but you fail at every turn.

Why not discuss the fact that Mayweather has not only been more dominant than other boxers, but has conducted himself so well that you now realize you have to focus on the recent Mayweather/DLH 24-7 to criticize his behavior?

Why not come clean and admit that this has more to do with Mayweather's lack of modesty than anything else? And once you do admit that, you'll have to admit that a lack of modesty doesn't warrant the name calling and criticism that you've slandered Mayweather with.

Why not discuss the fact that many of the best athletes in every sport show off, in some form or fashion? Mayweather is only more flashy with his cash. That's where the criticism ends.

In the end, regardless of all this dancing around we've done here, the issue was that Mayweather is good for boxing because he excels at it. He's proven to be one of the best at it. He uses no drugs. Doesn't drink. Doesn't smoke. Ever. He's is widely regarded as the hardest training boxer. He's fast. He's smart. He's got incredible endurance. He's slick. He's basically all things boxing.

Just because he's not someone you could see yourself hanging around with doesn't make him any less of a man, champion or icon. Another man lacking modesty would only be a problem for those who live with envy in their hearts. Believe it or not, but its true.

And the reason that I mentioned Louis and Johnson was to show that even when one boxer is outspoken and the other is polite and reserved, the outcome was basically the same. So why should a boxer give a damn what the people think? At what point did the people earn the right to judge an athletes personal life?

As long as athletes perform in their events and stay out of trouble with the law, that's all that should be required. You think waaaaaay too much of your power as a fan if you think you get to cast a ballot as to how athletes lead their lives.

You watch Glory Road yet?

[Uke]

Some of the staged stuff is entertaining and I know its done for marketing, but boxing is about...well...boxing. Two guys squaring off to determine whom is the better athlete.

I totally agree.

We've been talking about cleaning up boxing starting off with good sportsmanship and using Floyd as an example. Top performers set the example for others, whether they like it or not.

What does that have to do with your criticism not applying to Mayweather?

Its not just Tyson, guys like Tapia and the like get associated with all kinds of crazy behavior outside the ring. It makes the sport look bad.

Actually, what they do makes themselves look bad, not boxing. When a garbage man rapes a woman, does that give all garbage men a bad rap? When a Marv Albert, known sports commentator got into a situation involving sex and abuse, did that make every commentator look bad? Marv had a lot more talk time than the players do! Did OJ Simpson make all football players look bad? Football players on a whole get into trouble alot more often than boxers, and people don't care. They go to watch their team win. Kobe gets accused of rape. Do people stop going to see him play? Do his shoes stop selling? Do people stop wearing his jersey? Nope.

Art, heavy metal and soft-core porn are not spectator sports for the masses. Children are major consumers of spectator sports as are adults; again the top performers become the center of attention for any sport and set the example.

Since when have art and music concerts not been spectator events for the masses? Museums are nothing but concert halls for art. And just so you know, whether children go to sporting events or not has nothing to do with how the athletes lead their lives. If athletes do something that you feel is objectionable, don't take your kids. Its that simple. Football and basketball games are not Disney on Ice. They aren't made for kids, but children can attend them.

Proof of that are the dances that the cheerleaders do at half time. Some people feel that they are too sexually orientated for children. Yet the cheerleaders haven't changed the dances.

Top performers may become the center of attention for whatever sport, but if you're relying on them to give your child the "Don't do drugs, take your vitamins and say your prayers" spiel then you're living in fantasy land. Do people actually take their kids to sporting events to find role models and receive life lessons from athletes?

That's a personal problem.

[Tom Yum]

Top performers may become the center of attention for whatever sport, but if you're relying on them to give your child the "Don't do drugs, take your vitamins and say your prayers" spiel then you're living in fantasy land. Do people actually take their kids to sporting events to find role models and receive life lessons from athletes?

Some might.

The parents may not all have those intentions, but it does happen. Kids tend to idolize a particular athlete, especially the big names. They copy their styles, their language, their attitude etc.

Adults can and do know better, but boxing shouldn't be about bad-ass attitude; and there are alot of characters in boxing that don't contribute positively to the sports image - which should stay on what happens in the gym and the ring.

About your garbageman analogy - if many garbagemen start jacking people, yeah, their image would certainly change for the worse.

[Uke]

That's funny, I never knew that boxers had to go through charm school

Hahahahahahaha ..... Ya know?

[Uke]

Some might.

The parents may not all have those intentions, but it does happen. Kids tend to idolize a particular athlete, especially the big names. They copy their styles, their language, their attitude etc.

I don't care whose kids idolize who, its still not the responsibility of the athlete to be a role model. That is pretentious nonsense. As you said earlier, boxing is about boxing, not about the example a boxer sets. If people think for the price of a ticket they're going to get a boxing match, a role model and a babysitter then that's their own stupidity. Worrying about the examples athletes give is outsourcing the blame for when your own kids don't turn out right.

Adults can and do know better, but boxing shouldn't be about bad-ass attitude; and there are alot of characters in boxing that don't contribute positively to the sports image - which should stay on what happens in the gym and the ring.

Tom Yum, when has boxing ever been about men being gentlemen? When has boxing ever been about anything other than controversy and violence? How can a sport that's about beating another man's face and ribs in be about a positive example? Its an oxymoron like a "polite massacre". In other words, stop trying to tell other grown men how to behave. That's what the law is for. Outside of the law no man, especially men who don't even know the man they're criticizing have the right to begin preaching about how he should act. That implies that you think that your opinions on conduct are superior to his, even though they aren't. That's why this entire debate is pretentious.

Mike Brewer's problem is that rich athletes don't have to behave according to the guidelines that working class people do. They are no longer slaves to money and because of that, many don't care who they offend. They no longer have to abide by certain guidelines because their job isn't contingent upon whether they're boss likes them. They don't have to worry about making friends because everyone wants to be around them. They don't have to be likable guys in hopes that someone with influence might take them on board because they are the people with influence. That is what really bothers Mike Brewer. It has nothing to do with gold teeth and fur coats. It's the fact that athletes like Mayweather don't apologize for being successful with loads and loads of modesty. In a sport where the best aren't always the most liked or appreciated, Mayweather decided to acknowledge his own accomplishments publicly, and that kills Mike Brewer.

Don't look at what Mike Brewer writes. Look specifically at what he harps on about.

About your garbageman analogy - if many garbagemen start jacking people, yeah, their image would certainly change for the worse.

Ok, maybe you're right about the garbageman. But you still haven't discussed the fact that Kobe was charged with rape and he's more popular than ever. Tyson did time for rape and was popular than ever. Where is the damage to the sport? Where is the damage to reputation?

So let's forget about the garbage and put those men in perspective.

[Tom Yum]

I don't care whose kids idolize who, its still not the responsibility of the athlete to be a role model. That is pretentious nonsense. As you said earlier, boxing is about boxing, not about the example a boxer sets. If people think for the price of a ticket they're going to get a boxing match, a role model and a babysitter then that's their own stupidity. Worrying about the examples athletes give is outsourcing the blame for when your own kids don't turn out right.

Its not the service exchanged for the price of a ticket, its the intangibles that come with that price, Uke. Its true boxing should be about boxing, not all the fluff, garbage around it. This problem doesn't exist in K-1, a business just like boxing, where people exchange cash in order to view two athletes slug it out.

Even Bob Sapp is a gentleman after he tries to smash his opponent.

Tom Yum, when has boxing ever been about men being gentlemen? When has boxing ever been about anything other than controversy and violence?

Correction: good sportsman. I'm not a big fan of the hotheads or the criminally insane athletes - in any sport. Some guys are little more vocal and colorful and I can agree that it makes the game more human and can sell more tickets, but bad sportsmanship is bad sportsmanship. Let guys do their talking in the ring.

Boxing should be about...boxing.

In my opinion, the early UFC's were rampant with all kinds of trash talking and potentially damaging stuff for the sport; I recall kick boxer Pat Smith talking trash to Tank's entourage and he getting beat up. Kimo and Joe Son...Yeah, some of that stuff was laughable and made early UFC seem like drunken sideshows, but its cleaned itself up alot.

There's a little drama between the fighters and I'm sure it helps sell, but I'm guessing the drama is really about whose going to kick whose butt rather than some staged BS.

How can a sport that's about beating another man's face and ribs in be about a positive example?

Its the time, blood, sweat and tears invested into that mans ability to land knockout punches and rib breaking body shots. Its a man working hard at his craft, learning about himself and reaping the benefits of everything that he does.

Its more than the violence - which I'm suprised you mention, because that too is a sheeple argument against boxing as a legitimate sport.

Its an oxymoron like a "polite massacre". In other words, stop trying to tell other grown men how to behave. That's what the law is for. Outside of the law no man, especially men who don't even know the man they're criticizing have the right to begin preaching about how he should act. That implies that you think that your opinions on conduct are superior to his, even though they aren't. That's why this entire debate is pretentious.

I'm not going to deny Mayweather's work ethic and his personal trials; I certainly don't think my opinions are superior to his. The man is a superb boxer - no matter how good he is, his character and behavior matters.

Mike Brewer's problem is that rich athletes don't have to behave according to the guidelines that working class people do. They are no longer slaves to money and because of that, many don't care who they offend. They no longer have to abide by certain guidelines because their job isn't contingent upon whether they're boss likes them. They don't have to worry about making friends because everyone wants to be around them. They don't have to be likable guys in hopes that someone with influence might take them on board because they are the people with influence. That is what really bothers Mike Brewer. It has nothing to do with gold teeth and fur coats. It's the fact that athletes like Mayweather don't apologize for being successful with loads and loads of modesty. In a sport where the best aren't always the most liked or appreciated, Mayweather decided to acknowledge his own accomplishments publicly, and that kills Mike Brewer. Don't look at what Mike Brewer writes. Look specifically at what he harps on about.

There's a big difference in surrounding yourself with people who want to be around you for the man you are versus what you own. A great example of this is the boxing career of Tyson; take Tyson's associate "Crocodile". He wasn't Tyson's friend no matter how loud he cheered for him - he respected Tyson's payroll and when the money was gone, so was he.

You're correct in saying that the best aren't always the most liked or appreciated but its because everyone wants to tear that person down and steal his position/fame etc.

[Uke]

Its not the service exchanged for the price of a ticket, its the intangibles that come with that price, Uke. Its true boxing should be about boxing, not all the fluff, garbage around it. This problem doesn't exist in K-1, a business just like boxing, where people exchange cash in order to view two athletes slug it out.

Even Bob Sapp is a gentleman...lol.

But in events like the UFC and Pride everyone is not! Tito Ortiz for example. Quinton Jackson represents the very things that you and Mike Brewer seen to hate.

Correction: good sportsman. I'm not a big fan of the hotheads or the criminally insane athletes - in any sport. Some guys are little more vocal and colourful and I can agree that it may sell more tickets, but bad sportsmanship is bad sportsmanship. Let guys do their talking in the ring.

Exactly. You're not, but you're not a spokesperson for every fan either. Neither is Mike Brewer. Your argument is completely based on your tastes, but not on the fact that sports gross in billions regardless of your tastes and the people who might share them! So your argument about athletes who show off/brag/flaunt wealth/etc hurting sports makes sense in what way? How has it hurt any sport? In order for you or Mike Brewer to make a statement that behavior like Mayweather's has hurt any sport you have to show evidence of damage, which neither of you have been able to do. Has it hurt attendance? Attendance represents the interest and desire to see these athletes and support their efforts by PAYING CASH for tickets and PPV's. So again, has attendance dropped in any sport where athletes behave like Mayweather?

The answer is no, which makes the argument that you and Mike Brewer have been trying to make null and void. Oh and as far as "Let guys do their talking in the ring", who does it better than Mayweather in the ring? With these facts and evidence against you argument, one has to ask what you point was again?

Its the time, blood, sweat and tears invested into that mans ability to land knockout punches and rib breaking body shots. Its a man working hard at his craft, learning about himself and reaping the benefits of everything that he does.

Its more than the violence - which I'm suprised you mention, because that too is a sheeple argument against boxing as a legitimate sport.

Violence is THEE oldest sport, so don't be too surprised, Tom Yum. And if we are discussing time spent perfecting a craft and effort exerted, then why are wasting time criticizing Mayweather when its common knowledge that no one works harder than Floyd?!?!? And so you know, this discussion is all about Mayweather, not other boxers. Hence the title of this thread.

I'm not going to deny Mayweather's work ethic and his personal trials; I certainly don't think my opinions are superior to his. The man is a superb boxer - no matter how good he is, his character and behavior matters.

You couldn't deny Mayweather's work ethic or his ability if you wanted to seem competent in this conversation. No one could. But his behavior and character should only matter to his family and the law. I wonder if people stopped going to Bulls games because of Dennis Rodman's behavior and character? For every statement you make, there is proof that it isn't so.

I have to sincerely ask why you and Mike Brewer won't act equally as courteous and provide me with facts and examples that would serve as proof for your own statements?

There's a big difference in surrounding yourself with people who want to be around you for the man you are versus what you own. A great example of this is the boxing career of Tyson; take Tyson's associate "Crocodile". He wasn't Tyson's friend no matter how loud he cheered for him - he respected Tyson's payroll and when the money was gone, so was he.

You're correct in saying that the best aren't always the most liked or appreciated but its because everyone wants to tear that person down and steal his position/fame etc.

Exactly. And since none of them want to be around the majority of the fans, why would they alter their lifestyle for the reasons you gave? Fans are fickle. They love you one day, then hate you the next. And for no good reason. It has nothing to do with personal lives. People loved Tyson after he came out of prison. People still love Kobe.

Do you know when fans stop loving icons? Its when they stop performing. Patrick Ewing was an all time great, but because he never brought the Championship home to New York, the fans began booing him at the Garden. He's never been flashy or rude or impolite. But the fans turned on him. It had nothing to do with who he was. It had all to do with what he DIDN'T do.

Just so you know, fans don't want to be around athletes for the men that they are. THEY DON'T KNOW THEM!!!! You only think that you know them. Knowing a man's name and where he works doesn't mean that you know him or even any real thing about him. You try to identify with them because of their ability to win in competition. Everybody loves a winner, but don't pretend that it has a thing to do with their personal life. You only know what they tell you. So basically you and Mike Brewer are asking athletes to pretend for the sake of the fans.

Well I have news for you: That's not included or implied in the price of the ticket either.

[Tom Yum]

But in events like the UFC and Pride everyone is not! Tito Ortiz for example. Quinton Jackson represents the very things that you and Mike Brewer seen to hate.

I agree. While both guys are awesome fighters, I find some of their over the top attitude a little too much.

Exactly. You're not, but you're not a spokesperson for every fan either. Neither is Mike Brewer. Your argument is completely based on your tastes, but not on the fact that sports gross in billions regardless of your tastes and the people who might share them! So your argument about athletes who show off/brag/flaunt wealth/etc hurting sports makes sense in what way? How has it hurt any sport? In order for you or Mike Brewer to make a statement that behavior like Mayweather's has hurt any sport you have to show evidence of damage, which neither of you have been able to do. Has it hurt attendance? Attendance represents the interest and desire to see these athletes and support their efforts by PAYING CASH for tickets and PPV's. So again, has attendance dropped in any sport where athletes behave like Mayweather?

The answer is no, which makes the argument that you and Mike Brewer have been trying to make null and void. Oh and as far as "Let guys do their talking in the ring", who does it better than Mayweather in the ring? With these facts and evidence against you argument, one has to ask what you point was again?

The argument hasn't changed, Uke.

Boxing isn't just a business; its a sport whose business depends entirely on the public eye. Top perfomers get alot of attention and their attitudes and gestures are imitated by impressionable youths. Top performers are seen as leaders.

Need an example of a leadership where character mattered (and since the what's good for business theme keeps popping up): Enron.

All of the Corporate Execs believed they were smarter than the markets and the rest of the world. They could back it up with financial statements, earnings announcements and well bribed IB-ers and auditors who would eat their own if they told otherwise.

Violence is THEE oldest sport, so don't be too surprised, Tom Yum. And if we are discussing time spent perfecting a craft and effort exerted, then why are wasting time criticizing Mayweather when its common knowledge that no one works harder than Floyd?!?!? And so you know, this discussion is all about Mayweather, not other boxers. Hence the title of this thread.

Not suprised at all. Pankration goes back to the days.....even when you were a kid, Uke. I'm joking of course; you're probably in pretty darn good condition.

I have to sincerely ask why you and Mike Brewer won't act equally as courteous and provide me with facts and examples that would serve as proof for your own statements?

Exactly. And since none of them want to be around the majority of the fans, why would they alter their lifestyle for the reasons you gave? Fans are fickle. They love you one day, then hate you the next. And for no good reason. It has nothing to do with personal lives. People loved Tyson after he came out of prison. People still love Kobe.

People love a good come back story.

I think alot of people were hoping Tyson would come back to the focused man he was before he lost his only confidant and source of guidance.

Do you know when fans stop loving icons? Its when they stop performing. Patrick Ewing was an all time great, but because he never brought the Championship home to New York, the fans began booing him at the Garden. He's never been flashy or rude or impolite. But the fans turned on him. It had nothing to do with who he was. It had all to do with what he DIDN'T do.

Just so you know, fans don't want to be around athletes for the men that they are. THEY DON'T KNOW THEM!!!! You only think that you know them. Knowing a man's name and where he works doesn't mean that you know him or even any real thing about him. You try to identify with them because of their ability to win in competition. Everybody loves a winner, but don't pretend that it has a thing to do with their personal life. You only know what they tell you. So basically you and Mike Brewer are asking athletes to pretend for the sake of the fans. Well I have news for you: That's not included or implied in the price of the ticket either.

Pretend for the sake of the fans??

You can't be insinuating that all professional athletes are behaving badly when the cameras aren't rolling. I don't think big George Foreman had to pretend that he was a good man with a good heart even during the moments he leveled guys with his ham-like fists.

[Uke]

I agree. While both guys are awesome fighters, I find some of their over the top attitude a little too much.

More opinion. So why don't you start your own NHB event and enforce a code of conduct. Then you could watch fights and be impressed with the fighters behavior at the same time. Until then, the current formula is working just fine for the other events.

The argument hasn't changed, Uke.

Boxing isn't just a business; its a sport that catches the public eye. Top perfomers get alot of attention and their attitudes and gestures are imitated by impressionable youths. Top performers are seen as leaders.

No one argued that athletes aren't seen as leaders. The point was that anyone can be looked upon as whatever. It is not their responsibility to conform to other people's expectations of them.

Not suprised at all. Pankration goes back to the days.....even when you were a kid, Uke. I'm joking of course; you're probably in pretty darn good condition.

I'm not sure I follow, but okay.

People love a good come back story.

I think alot of people were hoping Tyson would come back to the focused man he was before he lost his only confidant and source of guidance.

I hope I don't sound combative or argumentative, Tom Yum, but there is a lot of assuming and speculating going on in this debate. Respectfully, what does a come back story have to do with athletes who behave in the context we are discussing? Kobe and Rodman weren't comeback stories?

Pretend for the sake of the fans??

You can't be insinuating that all professional athletes are behaving badly when the cameras aren't rolling. I don't think big George Foreman had to pretend that he was a good man with a good heart.

I'm not insinuating that at all. I am stating that what you see on camera is what a person wants you to see, not necessarily who that person really is. Most people, not just celebrities, don't reveal their inner most feelings or thoughts to just anyone. Those things are reserved for loved ones and confidants. When a man begins to feel like he knows someone intimately just because he watches them play ball or box then something is strange about that man. When a man tells his children to listen to the messages that a complete stranger utters, something is wrong with that man.

We tell our children not to talk to strangers, yet some are fine letting them idolize and trust celebrities that we do not know. Where do you draw the line? If you subscribe to that school of thought, you're no different than the parents who let their children sleep of Michael Jackson's house.

[Tom Yum]

More opinion. So why don't you start your own NHB event and enforce a code of conduct. Then you could watch fights and be impressed with the fighters behavior at the same time. Until then, the current formula is working just fine for the other events.

I'm not saying NHB is bad overall; to the contrary its been a great thing for the martial arts. The behavior of a few highly visible individuals should be looked at since their image is in the limelight and they are leading the way.

I hope I don't sound combative or argumentative, Tom Yum, but there is a lot of assuming and speculating going on in this debate. Respectfully, what does a come back story have to do with athletes who behave in the context we are discussing? Kobe and Rodman weren't comeback stories?

Not at all, Uke. I enjoy our discussions. Yeah, we're getting off on a bit of a tangent. The point I was mentioning was that alot of people wanted to see Tyson make a great comeback after he spent time in prison because they felt bad for him or they wanted to see him on top again or because they just liked the way he could tear his opponents apart, thus there was still a fan base for him and he was popular.

I'm not insinuating that at all. I am stating that what you see on camera is what a person wants you to see, not necessarily who that person really is. Most people, not just celebrities, don't reveal their inner most feelings or thoughts to just anyone. Those things are reserved for loved ones and confidants. When a man begins to feel like he knows someone intimately just because he watches them play ball or box then something is strange about that man. When a man tells his children to listen to the messages that a complete stranger utters, something is wrong with that man.

I understand that. Same could be said of any public speaker, a preacher even. A man doesn't have to tell his children what messages to listen to; the child will hear all of them.

We tell our children not to talk to strangers, yet some are fine letting them idolize and trust celebrities that we do not know. Where do you draw the line? If you subscribe to that school of thought, you're no different than the parents who let their children sleep of Michael Jackson's house.

Speaking of sleep, I'm on the verge...catch up with you guys later.

[Uke]

You didn't. You said that money is the standard for what's good for the sport. You said that being flashy is good for the sport. You've claimed that the racism and bigotry are bad - so reprehensible in fact, that you made my statements an issue on culture itself - and yet you wave off racism and bigotry if a fighter is just using them as tools to make money. My point, Uke, is that you're claiming that it's wrong for someone to judge a fighter based on things outside boxing, and you're claiming that Floyd Mayweather would be better for boxing than Oscar. You're claiming that I'm wrong for judging Floyd by criteria like his flashiness, his tendency to run his mouth, and his attitude and image. You've said that it's wrong for me to do that. Then, you turn around and make the case that those things are some of the very qualities that determine how many fans come to the sport! Which is it, bro?

Is it something I'm not supposed to judge a fighter by? Or is it something that actually helps define the sport? you can't have it both ways.

Excuse me ... where have I waved off bigotry or racism? Please point that instance out.

It seems that you've taken every single point that I've ever made out of context. I spend more time correcting things that you take out of context than I do posting. And I don't mean that disrespectfully. Its just true.

First, you will not be able to show and instance of me waving off racism or bigotry.

Second, I didn't say that flashy is good for the boxing. I said the best fighters are usually flashy, and the best fighters are good for the sport. As it pertains to basketball, yes people do like the entertainment value of something like And1 brings to the game. They like slam dunks. They like dribbling tricks. The like no-look passes. But no one comes out to boxing to see fur coats and jewelry. That's Floyd's personal choice of attire.

Third, I have not said that flashiness, attitude or image are any of the reasons why fans come to the sport. If anything, I've been saying the opposite. I've said a solid performance is what keeps people coming regardless of whether they wear fur coats or "bling". An athlete should not be judged by what they do outside of their sport if they aren't breaking the law.

Fourth, what I actually said was tickets and PPV's sold demonstrate the interest in a sport. If sales do not decline, then obviously neither has the interest in the sport. That is how I equated money to success. People paid in record breaking numbers that no boxer since has been able to match to watch Tyson fight. And he is the epitome of what you say is bad for boxing. If that were true and boxing fans shared your views, we would have seen a drop in ratings and ticket sales because of Tyson's behavior. That didn't happen, which proves my point whether you acknowledge it or not.

Oh, and Bernard is a convicted felon who got out of jail after paying his dues and doing his time, turned his life around, and made himself a success by any measure. I personally find his fights a little boring, and although I like the fact that he stands as an example of what a guy can do, even with jail time and bad choice behind him you are correct in that I haven't see many of his press conferences.

The only time I really watched Bernard speak was the Taylor fight, and I don't recall hearing him talk any of the trash that Floyd is talking about Oscar.

The above passage could only be written by someone who has no knowledge of the boxer. Bernard Hopkins went to Puerto Rico and slapped the flag out of Trinidad's hands onto the floor. A riot nearly broke out in the streets! Hopkins had to be escorted away by armed guards. Most boxers talk trash to gain interest in the fights. From Mayweather/DLH 24-7 to John Ruiz dressing up like a pimp to say that Roy Jones was his bitch. When Roy wouldn't talk trash back or pretend to be angry, Ruiz publicly stated that he had a personal grudge against Jones because Jones wouldn't help to promote the fight in an effort for Ruiz to make up the money he conceded for the fight to happen.

That's how boxing works. That's how the business works. You don't have to agree with how things are, but they are that way nonetheless! If you didn't know all this already(which you apparently didn't), the you're welcome for the lesson.

[Tom Yum]

From Mayweather/DLH 24-7 to John Ruiz dressing up like a pimp to say that Roy Jones was his bitch. When Roy wouldn't talk trash back or pretend to be angry, Ruiz publicly stated that he had a personal grudge against Jones because Jones wouldn't help to promote the fight in an effort for Ruiz to make up the money he conceded for the fight to happen.

Roy Jones Jr. still beat the tar out of Ruiz, despite giving 30-40 lbs.

[medic06]

Wow! This thread has taken so many turns, are y'all still talking about boxing?

I had to reread starting at the first post. . . . . .

What it boils down to is that Mike Brewer is angry and bitter at Mayweather. Mayweather is living his version of the American dream and it just burns Mike's hide because Mike feels he hasn't worked hard enough and doesn't deserve the success he has. Or, in the proper urban vernacular, Mike Brewer is a 'hater'.

[Uke]

Wow! This thread has taken so many turns, are y'all still talking about boxing?

I had to reread starting at the first post. . . . . .

What it boils down to is that Mike Brewer is angry and bitter at Mayweather. Mayweather is living his version of the American dream and it just burns Mike's hide because Mike feels he hasn't worked hard enough and doesn't deserve the success he has. Or, in the proper urban vernacular, Mike Brewer is a 'hater'.

Took me 7 pages to say what medic06 did in one post. See what being polite/PC gets you? Its just more work. Wish you would have chimed in sooner, medic06. I like your condensed versions.

[Uke]

To me, when people become known for referring to women as bitches and hos, for calling one another by slave epithets on a regular basis, and by basically advocating everything from killing cops to doing drive by shootings as a matter of course, they become known for things that would fall under the caegory of bigotry. When a guy like Tupac raps about how whites "gave 'em crack and let 'em deal to brothers," he's slandering whites. That is racism. I shouldn't have to make a case for sexism (see also - black guys calling people "chickenheads," "bitches," and "hos" -while a white DJ loses his job over similar comments, they make millions)

First off, I’d like to start this dialogue off by pointing that every race, including whites, have their own colloquialisms that they use exclusively among their friends and family. For instance I’ve heard Italians call each other everything from “paisan” to “you fcukin’ cocksucker”. In their culture, those are terms from endearment. You don’t hear Hispanics or Blacks calling Italians paisan or “fcuking cocksuckers”. It would be disrespectful unless you were intimate with the person. Many races nowadays including Whites call each other “bitch” or “ho” affectionately. Just like there are tons of White youth that call each other the “N” word in nearly every other sentence. They've grown comfortable enough to attempt to call Blacks the "N" word as well at their own peril. They aren’t racist and most know that, but they are using a word meant for a specific cultural group to show affection. The “N” word became popular at first to de-power the word among Blacks, but now it’s out of hand.

Next concerning Tupac, how much do you actually know about the man? I have a feeling that just like when you spoke about Bernard Hopkins, you’re again speaking from a very limited amount of knowledge and information while attempting to seem functional. Tupac wasn’t incorrect about the crack/cocaine situation, but that’s another debate for another time. If you want to learn something before you run your mouth about it I’d suggest you go and look up “Cointelpro”. There you can see the beginnings and progression of the creation and redistribution of crack cocaine. Until then you’re functioning off of your own very limited opinion.

As far as Imus losing his job, I was adamantly against that. Imus was insensitive and he knew that he had stepped on a sensitive subject, and he apologized sincerely. I am a huge advocate for free speech, but you piggy-backing on that issue to make a case was very, very weak. That decision to terminate Imus had nothing to do with me, so again, it was a weak attempt to give your argument merit that it never got.

As far as killing cops, do you know what that was in response to? It was in regards to police profiling and police brutality. Ice-T wrote cop killer in response to a time when police brutality and racial profiling was out of control. By the way, it wasn’t a rap song. It was a heavy metal rock song featuring punk/metal band Body Count in case you missed it. I said that to point out that you again put your foot in your mouth by not realizing that its not just one culture(hip hop) or just one group(Blacks) that share these views or makes these songs.

I do however dislike and denounce “gangsta rap” that advocates dealing drugs, murdering each other and overall destroying American communities. However, gangsta rap is not the whole of hip hop. It isn’t even the majority. It only came about with Tupac and Biggie, but once the music execs saw that it sold, that’s all they wanted. You wouldn’t know about that because you are a spectator to the culture that you’re preaching about, not a man who has taken the time to research to understand the issues before you criticize them.

Many, many rappers like Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Kanye West and Common have given interviews stating that unless you are willing to create music that is degrading and violent, then record execs, who are mostly White, will not let your record see the light of day. They want what SELLS. And did you know that over 75-80% of all rap sales are made by White males between 13-30? Of course you didn’t. Otherwise you’d have had better sense to have brought this up!

In case you didn't put two and two together, the money generated from Gangsta rap CD and DVD sales comes from the White community. The decision to flood the market with gangsta rap comes from White music execs. There are tons of artists who have made positive rap music that has been shelved and will never see the light of day. Hip hop artists have been forced to go underground and start independent labels just to be able to make their own music their own way without it being "gangsta-fied".

Have you ever heard of Immortal Technique? Do you own any of his music?

Oh, and when a white guy like me uses a term like "bling" it must be some kind of attack on hip hop culture, right? But within a few dozen posts, you cite just how acceptable it is by saying "Jim Lampley said it!"

It had nothing to do with you being White, Mike Brewer! You have no idea whether I am White or not, so it would only stand to reason that you have assumed that I am Black because I challenged your criticism and have a dislike for your righteousness. How prejudiced is that?!?! It had to do with your condescending comments about “bling” and the authoritative way you speak about a culture you clearly know little about aside from owning a few T-shirts and CD’s!

Uke, you are a study in personal inconsistency. You say you don't care who I like or why, and then you drone on with questions asking me to explain. You say that I should not make judgements about Floyd Mayweather based on anything except his boxing ability, and then you post example after example of other people known for their trash talking. In fact, as I recall, in another thread, you levelled some criticisms about Joe Calzaghe that were not based on his ability, but his choice of venues. We happen to agree on that issue, but it seems your advice is only solid when you want it to be. You say you don't care why I choose to like a boxer, and then you refer me to a Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous show on MTV that I've never seen as if watching other people flaunt their wealth will change my mind about Floyd?

You are a case study in selective reading comprehension. I’ve explained this issue already, but still you harp on it. It’s the same with martial arts. I had gotten to the point where I began to ONLY post your quotes for the sake of proving that my opinions had nothing to do with your flip-flopping reasoning, but you still found reason to argue against the very things you wrote then later contradicted! The posts are still here! And you’re doing it again, arguing with pure emotion and opinion with no facts.

It’s not about me caring about who you like in the sense that I am going to lobby for you to like them. Now read that in context, Mike Brewer!!! I do care about you slandering someone that I happen to like and respect. The entire debate has shifted to being about “Who’s good for boxing”. I felt the best boxer was the best for boxing. I felt that the man who didn’t need corrupt gift decisions was good for boxing, as that promotes more corruption. I felt that the man who had momentum and was shaping boxing around his victories was good for boxing. You felt that Mayweather was bad for boxing because of:

1) His style of dress
2) His friends and affiliates like 50 Cent
3) His expensive jewelry
4) His bravado and antics meant to sell fights

I could care less than a damn whether you like Mayweather, but using that criteria to judge whether he is good for boxing or not is rooted in jealousy and envy. Medic06 recognized it not because I told him, but because it’s so very obvious by what you write! What makes it even worse is that you admit that the man is thee most dominant and talented current boxer today! You acknowledge that he has more skill, ability and a stronger work ethic than DelaHoya, but Floyd’s style of dress and mannerisms don’t meet your standards.

Now if you read it slowly and carefully, you’ll see that the above paragraph has less to do with me caring about whom you like and more about me challenging the petty unrelated reasons you gave as to why Mayweather isn’t good for boxing.

In fact, as I recall, in another thread, you levelled some criticisms about Joe Calzaghe that were not based on his ability, but his choice of venues. We happen to agree on that issue, but it seems your advice is only solid when you want it to be.

Excuse me, but how does Calzaghe avoiding other boxers in other countries not fall in the category of boxing criticism? This is the exact lack of reading comprehension that I mentioned above.

Tell you what. I'd hate for you to spend all your time correcting me, but I'm going to need you to clarify just one more point.

Are you going to tell me that the racism and bigotry you've defended as part of the hip hop culture is any different than the racism and bigotry you've criticised in boxing?

Again, I’d like you to show me where I’ve defended prejudice anywhere! Me challenging your statements about “bling” being the deal-breaker that makes Mayweather unfit to be viewed as good for boxing isn’t defending racism or bigotry. Me defending his right to wear fur coats and expensive jewelry isn’t defending racism or bigotry. Me defending his right to identify with the hip hop culture, especially because he owns his own Hip Hop label, is not me defending racism or bigotry.

You assuming that I’m Black or Hispanic because I don’t agree with you is prejudice. You made that clear when you wrote and I quote "a white guy like me uses a term like "bling" it must be some kind of attack on hip hop culture, right?" So no White guy who identifies with and listens to hip hop would call you on that obvious critique on something you've demonstrated rudimentary knowledge of? If you think that you live in a bubble.

You looking outside of boxing for reasons to assassinate Floyd Mayweather’s character is personal bias that had no place in this discussion from the beginning.