Mayweather vs DelaHoya

[Uke]

I can't speak to every charity that Mayweather gives to, but I know he does give to charity. its very possible that he doesn't publicize his charitable work and contributions because he's not campaigning as a political force in boxing like DLH is.

As far as my claims go, they are not simply claims. It is a popular observation among astute boxing fans and historians. DLH has lost nearly every significant and major challenge that he's been in. He was awarded wins despite losing, not because he actually won. The fights weren't even close in scoring.

And just on a last note, if you're going cautious styles and an unwillingness to risk a little to win, you need to look a lot harder at your boy DLH. Seems to me, the fight that will define him as a boxer is the DLH vs Trinidad fight. A fight in which he was winning before he got cold feet and took the other half of the fight off. He could have easily won had he even maintained a measure of competitiveness in the second half of the fight. Yet he chose to run, round after round, showing how a lack of heart can lose a man a fight that he's already won.

You'll never be able to say that about Mayweather. I understand that you don't want to see Mayweather pitch virtual shut outs all the time, but its still a lot more dominant that Oscar DelaHoya has been. I've never seen DLH or any other fighter except RJJ impose his will on a fighter the way that Mayweather did against Gatti.

You've never seen DLH beat the hell out of a fellow P4P'er the way that Mayweather destroyed Diego Corrales. And just so you know, DLH hasn't been #1 P4P on ANYBODY'S list. EVER. There's no wonder why. If we're going on boxing merits, DLH is the lesser fighter.

I'm not saying that Mayweather can't lose. I'm saying that in terms of legacy, DLH needs this fight just as much as Mayweather. When you see them in the ring, look at how much bigger DLH is. He's the bigger and stronger guy. If he wins, they'll say he was bigger and stronger and Floyd had to go all the way up to face him like Trinidad did Hopkins. But if Floyd wins, they'll say that it was skill over brawn. Smarts over strength. David over Goliath.

[Uke]

If a fighter never takes any real risks to win big in the ring, what's the difference between staying away and trying to play the scorecards or doing just enough to get by? You say Oscar ran from Trinidad, and that may be a fair assessment. But isn't that what Mayweather is doing every time he sits back and coasts?

No, it isn't. Mayweather is constantly face to face with his opponents. No one, and I stress no one can ever say that Mayweather ran from them. He, even in front of the hardest punchers, will stay right in front and keep his ground.

What DLH did against Trinidad was bicycling. What Floyd does is stay toe to toe once he's got his man softened up and shuts down the man's offense while beautifully counterpunching. Two very different things. I've rarely if ever even seen Roy Jones get toe to toe like Mayweather does and just completely dominate. RJJ's success was predicated on his reflexes and speed overwhelming from the outside. Mayweather's success is predicated on his timing and his unbelievable defensive skills which allow him to effectively counterpunch stronger and more powerful men on the inside.

[Uke]

Floyd Mayweather Jr. Jump Rope Routine

[Uke]

Uke,
I don't know if you saw the 24/7 HBO special tonight, but that is precisely the attitude from Mayweather I've been talking about. I understand that it's gamesmanship, but it's just unpalatable to me. I don't like seeing a "Champion" build his image on the fact that he's willing to outcurse his opponent or that he's willing to steal another guy's gym bag. What's more, it presents a striking commentary on what you've said would be "good for the sport."

Mike, I knew what you were talking about from the beginning. But my point has always been that it seemed like it was the "bling" factor that led you to make those comments rather than a bad attitude or lack of boxing skill.

We straightened that out.

Also, I did see it. My the first thing everyone said was "It seems so contrived." And I agree with her assessment. Mayweather, like Ali in many of his matches, admittedly stated that there can't be two good guys in a match of this magnitude. So, he chose to be the bad guy, but in my opinion he doesn't do that good of a job. He tries to be mean and rude, but we've never seen him curse and act like a fool before. That's why Judah was the bad guy in their match. Judah literally acts like that outside the ring, not just to sell interest. Judah gets into out of the ring altercations FOR REAL. Have you heard of Mayweather getting involved in anything like that.

I watched not only the 24/7 show, but the coming attractions where Floyd curses and immediately apologizes to his mother. Its because he's trying to act the part of a bad boy, not because he is. Men who train as hard as Mayweather don't have the time to get into trouble. Tyson, when he was training in the manner that Cus had him training, would probably never got into to trouble if he had continued to follow that blueprint. It wasn't until Tyson got lazy in his training habits and hardcore with his partying that things went terribly wrong for him. Again, no one who stays in shape even between fights and maintains their conditioning gets into trouble like that.

I do understand that how Mayweather has chosen to portray himself seems cheap, and almost makes him seem like a wannabe punk. But you've been around the business long enough to know when a fight is being sold. Floyd has always been more about himself, and expressing his confidence about his own abilities rather than slandering the other fighter. The 24/7 program is for show.

The antics are no different than what Ali did dozens of times. I'm not sure what you remember Mike Brewer, but Ali was not a loved man in America for many, many years. That's the price of playing the big mouthed bad guy.

[Uke]

I hear you. I just don't feel the same way. If you've ever watched the movie "Pumping Iron" the same antics were used then. No one was hurt and no one was deemed bad for bodybuilding for it either. Its a psyche out.

But if that kind of stuff turns you off, then he's not the guy for you.

[Uke]

That's all I've been saying, Uke! I don't like the guy. I know he'll probably win the fight, but I can't stand his attitude and posturing. If you'll recall, it was you that decided I was wrong for not liking him because of anything other than his boxing ability!

As for Pumping Iron, I consider it a very different kind of thing. First, it wasn't a 24/7 press tour. Second, as a behind the scenes look, every "mind game" played, whether stealing a guy's t-shirt or Arnold giving "bad advices" to Franco, it was explicitly stated that it was all a big game. Floyd isn't playing it that way at all, and he never has.

Honestly, I don't remember Floyd ever trash talking before the Gatti fight. He never had to. Now that he's fighting for the big money, he wants to be a draw despite him being the best boxer in the biz.

What does a boxer who wants to draw interest in his fights do when he's already the best and most talented boxer currently fighting, but other more well like boxers make more money due to having a bigger following? He sells the fight, that's what he does! He wants the money. Period.

He's already established himself as the best boxer. Why not earn the money to go along with it? Even Oscar is doing his best to give his version of boy scout-trash talking. Its called selling the fight.

Ever since Gatti, Floyd got into it with Zab Judah, but mostly due to Judah's mouth and taunting. But it sold that fight! You can't argue with success.

Before the Gatti fight, when did you see Mayweather talk trash? I'm interested in knowing? When he did seem mouthy, it was because he was giving himself accolades, not because he had to take shots at other fighters. He's always expressed that he'd like to fight DLH. He always felt that he could beat him. I think most of his hostility(if its even genuine) towards DLH comes from his rift with his father.

So, I don't think you can make a case for DLH being a loud mouth wanna be gangster. He's hasn't usually initiated trash talking, and he's never been in trouble with the law. He doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs.

My original issue was the way you highlighted the "bling" factor Mike Brewer, not the way you dislike his choice of words. You don't demonize a man for his choice of clothes, jewels and cars. I've never heard someone being bad for a sport because they are flamboyant with his clothes and cars.

But in the end its a personal choice.

[Uke]

He did trash Gatti extensively, calling him a bum and "barely a decent club fighter," but that's not the point. I want to go back a little to when you got upset with me for not liking Floyd because of aspects outside his boxing skill. You said it wasn't right for me not to like him, or to say he would be bad for the sport becauise of the way he lives his life outside the ring. You took issue with the fact that part of why I don't like the guy is because he's always running his mouth about his money, and always stroking his own ego.

We can go back and read the posts, Mike Brewer. They're still here. I took issue with you trying to highlight his clothes, cars, and jewels as a reason to call him a wannabe pimp. I believe the term you used was "bling". I never cared whether you like Floyd or not. I did however care about your attempts to assassinate his character based on his possessions and the flamboyant nature that he demonstrates. We can revisit those posts if you like. As far as him running his mouth, I compare him to Ali. And Mayweather hasn't run his mouth nearly as much as Ali has.

It would be different if Mayweather ran his mouth and didn't back it up. He's the best in the business and if he had decided that this is how he wants to be depicted during his 15 minutes of fame, then he's earned that right. I can't tell anyone who to like, but I will take issue with bullshit like "bling" criticism when it rears its head. I made that clear so I don't know why we're rehashing this as if I'm contradicting myself, because I'm not.

Yup. Just checking. To me (and my opinion is the ONLY one that counts when determining who I like and who I don't) Someone who already has a closet bigger than most people's houses, who has enough clothes in that closet to warm half the homeless population of New York...and who still finds it necessary to act like a complete asshole to sell a fight that would likely be seen as the biggest fight of the last ten years anyway? That's not someone I think is "good for boxing." I personally believe that when you have the money, resources, and talent of a Floyd Mayweather, and when you have a worldwide platform and huge media exposure, what's good for the sport is encouraging the up-and-comers to be better sportsmen, better citizens, and better people. "Good for the sport" to me means reducing corruption, increasing fair play, and putting a spotlight on the kind of behavior that makes the sport good for fans and athletes alike.

Exactly!!!!! Reducing corruption ... let's look at that. DLH has been the recipient of more corrupt decisions than any other current boxer. That is well known among fans of the sport. Winning fights that you clearly did not win is not fair play whatsoever! Boxing is no different than any other spectator sport. There will always be elements of a show or entertainment. That's why they give nicknames and such. Its a circus. Without Mike Tyson, boxing would have been a wasteland years ago, and anyone with sense and eyes knows that. He breathed new life into a dying sport. Even now without Tyson boxing is declining. Its not nearly as popular as baseball, football or basketball. DLH is the man because he has the largest fan base: Latino.

The Latino fan base are the ones buying tickets and PPV's on a much larger scale than any other group. That's DLH has the pull that he does. He's a draw. How else can you explain his success? He's no JC Chavez. He's lost nearly every significant match he's had but has been awarded gift decisions that had crowds booing. What DLH brings to the table is the adoration of loyal fans who pay money.

Floyd Mayweather Jr. is an astounding boxer. He is a talent the likes of which we have not seen since Sugar Ray Leonard in his prime. But he is a galactic prick. He's someone that could probably afford to wipe his ass with hundred dollar bills for the rest of his life, and in your words, "wants the money, period." The whole "Too much is not enough," Philthy Rich, "I'm hanging with Fitty Cent cuz we both 'real muthafuckas" is not in any way "good for boxing" in my opinion, and it's even worse if it's an act! That means his own character is so non-existant or weak that being the world's greatest boxing talent isn't enough to keep people interested! He has to lie about who he is, what he believes, and what he stands for just to sell a fight? What about all that "being the best" stuff?

We already know that he's a phenom. But he also has want to draw interest to his fights to make more money. Nobody had a problem with Tyson being Tyson. And even the hypocrites who did paid to watch his fights. Tyson was the largest grossing fighter of all time. Even more than DLH. His numbers were huge. Tyson was a PPV phenom that revolutionized how it was done. People either loved him, or loved to hate him, but they tuned in. I believe that Mayweather may be trying to capitalize on that same gravy train.

But what bothers me is when men like Mayweather are criticized for his slang and wealth. I know that how Mayweather behaves and talks may not be Yuppie friendly, but its how much of the youth today speaks. Not just Black either. Mayweather is heavily into the hip hop culture and owns his own label, and he behaves like the typical rap player. So maybe you don't like Hip hop either, but that hasn't stopped it from being the #1 genre in the USA. You may not like wearing baseball hats backwards or you may be an animal rights activist and hate the fact that he wears fur coats, but that doesn't stop people from buying them everyday.

Seems like Mayweather is just the icon you point your energy at, but its the "hip-hop" lifestyle that you really dislike and and have a problem with. The flamboyant display of wealth bothers you, as well as the fact that Mayweather has no problem and makes no apologies for living that way. Its just a different side of the coin.

Mayweather is who he is and makes no apologies. I do remember however DLH in the news for domestic violence. The media didn't blow that up like they do every single thing that Mike Tyson does. They didn't highlight that when DLH fought Hopkins like they did Mayweather's recent law troubles when he fought Gatti. Maybe someone will say they don't like Mayweather because he goes to strip bars, but then you can say that DLH married a woman who posed nude for millions to see in a magazine.

In the end, it really just seems that you dislike Floyd's attitude not because he trash talks, because prior to the Gatti fight he was not known for that, but because it mirrors a genre a music and culture that you're not comfortable with. And that's ok. We are all entitled to our opinions.

What's good for boxing is though is another case. I think that you feel YOUR idea is good for boxing, not what actually is good for boxing. Interest, which translates to dollars, which is the true lure that gets the best to fight each other is what's good for boxing.

As examples of Champions I thought were good for boxing (regardless of their relative ability or talent) I would point at Floyd Patterson, Ray Leonard, Jack Dempsey, and Archie Moore. Look back at tapes oftheir interviews and press conferences, and you'll see guys who were respectful of their opponents, and who brought respect to their sport. They were, in most respects, gentlemen. That's a quality I find sorely missing from boxing's roster of fighters today. Call me old-fashioned, but I miss it!

I respect your ideas of what was good for boxing, but guess what? Boxing wasn't nearly the draw back then that it is now! That isn't good for the survival of the sport. Plus, I like to be realistic. These men are fighters. They knock people out for a living. There is no reason to try and William Wallace these bastards and try to depict them as warrior-poets. People believe that they are violent and that's part of what gets people to watch. Whether you like it or not, most people watch boxing for the same reason they went to the Colosseum centuries ago: They want blood. I'd say more than 70% of boxing fans don't even appreciate the science. They like the brutality of it all. They like the carnage. Not the civilized barbarian who has the manners of a boyscout but the wrath of a savage. That's just your own idea of what you'd like to see.

I've said this before, I don't denounce your opinion but I do not agree with it. Its that same way of thinking that prohibits football players from doing the touchdown celebration. Its that same way of thinking that forces NBA players to have a dress code. Some people just want some things to stay the same.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that Jack Johnson was just as outspoken and flamboyant as Floyd Mayweather 100 years ago. Maybe more so. It probably wound up being his undoing. But was it wrong? Of course not. But there were millions of jealous and angry men who seemed to think so.

[Hardball]

Wow, I haven't visited this thread in a couple of weeks--looks like things have gotten ugly. LOL

[Uke]

What's wrong with the word "bling?" It's what he calls it! It's what a very large cross section of the population calls shiny, diamond encrusted jewelry. What's wrong with that word, and why are you so hung up on it? When Floyd walks out in a floor-length fur coat and a fur hat sporting a giant 8" wide "Philthy Rich" platinum necklace covered in diamonds, I think he looks like a pimp. Again, an image I think does little for the respectability of boxing. There are a ton of reasons I don't like the guy, and guess what? You can take issue with them all you want, but it's not your job or your right to tell me why or why not to be someone's fan.

As for the hip hop image, I have no problem with it at all. In fact, I'm sitting here right now wearing a new pair of South Pole jeans and a Brooklyn Express shirt. Nine out of ten of my workout CD's are hip hop. I've got nothing against it at all. What I have a problem with is you trying to make me some kind of racist because I used the word "bling." I'm really interested in hearing you explain why that's a "bullshit" comment.

And Floyd is who he is without apologies? WRONG!!! You just said yourself that he was playing a role to sell this fight and make more money! Which is it, Uke? Is he being himself without apologies? or is he playing a role to sell tickets?

This is my issue.

I just got finished writing a post that says that you are entitled to your opinion. I will always defend every ones right to express their opinion. However, you've accused me of calling you a racist. You've just basically told me that its not my job to tell you who to like, which I myself stated in my own post. And now I'm being challenged about the word bling.

First off, the bling comment that you made was posted here a while ago and discussed then. The posts are here. Why you're choosing to rehash that dead issue now is beyond me.

Second, I am not telling you who to like! I'm stating facts! If you and I are going to list positive and negative things about each fighter, then so be it. That's not Uke's declaration to Mike Brewer to demands that you like or even respect Floyd Mayweather. If you'd like to know why I felt the way I did about the bling comment, go re-read post #28 up until now. That will say it all!

Floyd isn't wearing anything that most rappers don't wear themselves. Having jewelry is bad for boxing? Or is having a fur coat bad for boxing? Is there a dress code for boxers that I am unaware of? Or is it just Floyd Mayweather?

And BTW, I don't have a problem with the word bling. I took issue with you founding you're entire argument as to why Mayweather isn't good for boxing on the premise of "bling", which IMO is still bullshit. And I, just like you, am entitled to that opinion. My reasons given for why Oscar Delahoya wasn't good for boxing were ALL boxing related. It had nothing to do with whether I like him personally or not. How does a man's personal life have anything to do with boxing unless he's into drugs or crime?????

How does the best boxer in the world take a back seat to a man who has benefited from more corruption in the sport of boxing than any other boxing active today? How is Floyd Mayweather less good for boxing because he wears expensive clothes and jewelry? Does he disrespect women? Does he have strippers half naked dance down the isle when he makes his ring entrance? Does he advocate drugs or alcohol?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. How is DLH better for boxing? Is it because he wears an Armani suit as opposed to a fur coat? Or is it because DLH already has an established fan base and doesn't need to use antics like trash talking? If that were the case, I'd say that Shane Mosley is best for boxing because he neither talks trash or wears bling. AND!!!! He's already beaten DLH twice. But is he at the top of the hill? The answer is no. For all his talent, Shane Mosley was never a star because he's a boring person, and unless you're a boxing fan, you don't know his name.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with Floyd Mayweather making noise to get noticed by fans and non-fans alike. Were it not for his so-called loud mouthed antics, there would be no Mayweather/DLH 24/7 because no one would watch it. When was there anything like this before? When did two boxers have their own weekly show? No one has!

Mayweather is a business man who understand that Oscar DelaHoya already has his own fanbase, so he had to generate interest on his end. Otherwise he'd end up like Larry Holmes: An unappreciated phenom who may have been one of the best, but people only remember him for beating up an old Ali and hated him for it.

So just to put this conversation back on track, you can like whoever you like. I could care less if you hated Mayweather. He's no friend of mine. But to go after a man's character just because of his style of dress is insane. He's the best in the biz, and because the only thing about him that is questionable in your eyes is his taste of clothes and company you went after that. There was nothing else negative you could say about the man.

He dresses like a pimp and he hangs out with "Fitty Cent". He is a loudmouth like Ali(your fav) but he flaunts his wealth to a greater degree which seems to be a huge affront to you. You must really hate MTV Cribs! And that's why Mike Brewer doesn't like Floyd Mayweather. That's fine! That's your choice. But if I felt you were a racist, I'd tell you. You know I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM telling anyone here anything.

Lastly, Floyd is who is he without apologies. That means that he is flamboyant. He does flaunt his wealth. He keeps company with whoever he chooses. But the trash talking manifested during the Gatti fight. It didn't carry over to the Mitchell fight. It picked up again in response to Zab Judah's comments. You didn't hear any trash talking during the Baldomir fight. But now that he's talking trash, just like Ali, to promote not only the fight but his show Mayweather/DLH 24-7, which I'm sure is all about ratings, he's a loudmouthed pimp.

What kind of shit is that? He gets into it with Gatti and DLH and all of a sudden he a loudmouthed pimp? Two fights where he has words and he's a loudmouth? Actually, Gatti provoked the war of words by saying he was mad a Mayweather for having legal troubles and not being responsible enough to make the fight. Mayweather took offense and then and ONLY then did the war of words ensue. Zab Judah had been telling everyone who would listen that he was going to whup Floyd's ass. So of course Floyd responded.

Now, the boxing association and HBO have given this loudmouthed pimp his own show? Hmmm ... I wonder why? I'm sure it has nothing to do with building interest for the fight. I'm sure that the producers aren't coaching these guys to really seem like they don't like each other. I'm sure that they, the producers, don't realize that conflict and animosity sell fights.

So before you get into the mode where you're telling me about a fighter Mike Brewer, make sure you know what and how things happen. You clearly don't if you label the man a loudmouth after only having two fights that turned into a war of words.

I could see if he were like Haseem Rahman wrestling Lennox Lewis on ESPN. I could see if he were like Mike Tyson starting a melee during a prefight show. I could see if he were like Barrera sucker punching Erik Morales at a prefight conference. I could see if he were Lamon Brewster smacking the microphone off the podium. But Mayweather does none of those things.

That doesn't mean you have to like him. You just hate successful rich guys who promote their fights by playing the villain while wearing expensive jewelry. And that's fine by me.

[Uke]

The "bling" comment had more to do with a cultural attribute than anything personal about Floyd Mayweather. As I pointed out before, if it were something personal to do with Mayweather like his actions, his reputation, or his legacy as a boxer then I wouldn't have even cared.

But this seemed more like an attempt to criticize the culture with which Mayweather identifies with. I have never seen anyone on this site criticize anyone for wearing fur or wearing expensive jewelry before, and it struck me as odd that this became the focus of your criticism for Mayweather not being good for boxing.

My statements then are the same as they are now. Hip hop is a worldwide phenomena that has become more popular than any music. The culture is reflected in television, movies, advertisements, dress and in nearly every other facet of society. From the UK to Japan to the US to Brazil to Ghana, the world knows and identifies with hip hop.

The specific statements that you made that I took issue with that related to "bling" and the hip hop culture were:

"a loudmouth, materialistic punk"

"Floyd is a boxer who wants to be a pimp"

"I think that's what the sport needs. Not another Neon Deion Sanders wannabe whose primary concern is bling and rims."

Now, you can sit there and pretend that I took your statements out of context, or you can read your quotes above and recognize that your statements were not only blatantly criticizing Mayweather for his qualities that can be identified with hip hop, but every other "flashy" athlete that may be too showy for your liking.

The interesting part of this debate is that the showy or flashy athletes are often the best ones who don't only offer touchdown dances or self praise in a post-fight interview. They offer entertainment, and they offer stats the rise above other players. People come to see them, just like people come to see "In your face" slam dunks in And 1 events. But for some, it lacks too much modesty which isn't the way of the world.

Boxing, like it or not, is no different than a carnival or a circus. Its a spectacle, no matter how much die-hard fans want it to be more noble. Its still two men beating each other's brains how, no matter how much skill is involved. And like a carnival, there will be a man with a loudspeaker hyping up the event so that people will want to see it. That man has been replaced with commercials and pre-fight conferences, but the tactic is the same. Good vs bad. Right vs wrong. Light vs dark. Normal vs strange. Mayweather has stated that in every fight there has to be a good and a bad guy, and he's chosen to be the bad guy. But he's hardly bad for boxing.

And as far as calling you a racist, I've already addressed that a few pages back.

I don't think you're a bigot, Mike. Well, not on purpose anyway.

Had I felt that you were a racist, I would have wrote that instead of the above.

The funny thing is that if you met Mayweather, I'm positive that it would be "Mr Mayweather this", and "Mr Mayweather that". You might argue that you are too respectful and too well mannered to have to be insulting to a man you haven't met, but anyone you can call a punk and a wannabe pimp shouldn't be deserving of your calling them "mister". Which is where the bullshit part comes into play. You'd be trying to socialize with him to tell the story about how you met him later.

Don't take this personally! I'm not just lumping you into this category. You're just one of the people who'd talk shit about him and then later beg him to hold your hand while you get a polaroid taken.

[Uke]

This is the point! I have many times said that you are entitled to dislike who you dislike. Still, you are defending yourself unnecessarily! I have written that I don't care who you like, but you have ignored that. I have written that you are entitled to your opinion. You have ignored that. I have written that you are entitled to dislike "bling" and hip hop. You have ignored that.

We've agreed to disagree, but still you insist on pursuing dialogue geared to discovering why I don't agree with what you wrote! I have given examples of that, and still you persist!

I have explained that I didn't like the shots taken at the culture being masked as critique of the champion. Just say you don't like that stuff and don't make believe that it has something personally to do with Mayweather. I believe that you used this conversation to rant about hip hop culture when you could have easily started another topic about it. That was my problem. I urged you earlier in the conversation to keep it about boxing, but you seemed unable to do that.

What's interesting about this topic is that I actually agree with much of what you have to say about the bling factor in hip hop, and I've written that fact before. However, I know enough about boxing and the fighters to not have to take cheap shots at them that in the long run have no place in a conversation like this. So do you, and that's why its beyond me why you'd have to reach for trivial shit like that in a boxing discussion.

If I used the fact that Oscar has had domestic violence issues in the past to try to validate the reason that he isn't good for boxing, then I would be full of shit. The best boxers are good for boxing. The boxers who win impressively are great for boxing. The boxers who train hard so that their matches are competitive are excellent for boxing.

The boxers who align themselves with the right political connections to win matches that they actually lose in the eyes of the fans ARE NOT good for boxing. You have one boxer that works hard and wins his matches so impressively that he's hailed P4P#1. Then you have another boxer that works not so hard and coasts by and wins matches that he's clearly lost in the eyes of everybody but the corrupt judges.

With Oscar DelaHoya's star power, shouldn't he have at least been P4P#1 at some point in his career? He NEVER has been because he's never beaten anyone significant enough to be considered even in the top 5.

The last real victory significant that DLH had that wasn't a gift decision was against an already washed up Fernando Vargas. His next victory was another of his "gift decisions" against Felix Sturm, who casually outboxed DLH and stated on air: "I know that this is America and they must give this decision to DLH because of his upcoming fight with Hopkins".

So again, who is good for boxing?

A man who works harder than any other boxer today, and wins his matches because he masters his craft and doesn't need to rely on guts because his hard work pays off. His confidence comes from knowing he's prepared and has put the necessary footwork in.

-or-

A man who doesn't have to train as hard, but wins anyway due to ridiculous calls and judges. He can't win against elite fighters so corrupt judges are necessary. Every honest boxing fan and writer knows DLH is only "Golden" because he has the right connections and the right palms greased to keep his name pristine. His career as a boxer will go down in history as a this generation's "untouchable underachiever".

However, he's polite. He's well mannered. He wears nice, expensive suits and ties. He's always ready to give his trademark smile.

But is he the epitome of boxing? Hell no. Being well liked and being the icon of a thing are two different things.

[Uke]

I'm watching the Mayweather/Judah replay, and Jim Lampley is going on about how Jay Z is his new best friend. He sounded like he was a kid meeting his hero. He said "I met Jay Z last night. I was hanging with the man." Jim Lampley, commentator on the premier boxing network, sounding like he was privileged to hang out with Jay Z, the man who made "Big Pimpin" and "Money Cash Hoes".

Hmmm ... Jim doesn't seem to think its bad for boxing, and Jay Z talks more about cars, rims, jewelry and possessions than anyone.

Also, I wanted to bring up again MTV Cribs. If Floyd Mayweather is a wannabe pimp who is nothing but materialistic and his major concern is bling and rims, what does that say for everyone who has been on MTV Cribs? They display millions of dollars worth of possessions. They have a fleet of cars. They have jewelry and tawdry furniture that cost more than the average man's house. From Ozzy Ozborne to Hugh Hefner to Evander Holyfield.

So all of the people who have been the subject on Cribs fit the same criteria as Floyd Mayweather too, right? Or is this just a selective criticism you save for him?

Does Hugh Hefner have ADD? Do the million dollar paintings seem any less tawdry than Mayweather's million dollar jewelry?

[Uke]

Is this about me caring or is this about the issue? I never understood that. I don't care who who you like, but I have taken issue with the idea that you would use Floyd Mayweather as a stage to slyly attack another culture.

You say you haven't even though its clear as day. I'm not lobbying for you to like Floyd Mayweather, but the truth is I am trying to get a better understanding of what it is you were trying to say.

I did make the statement declaring that I don't care who you like in terms of personal likes. I did not say that I didn't want to understand the statements that you've been making so that I can digest them properly, since you make it seem that I've been taking them out of context.

I'd like to see where the double talk is. Please point it out. Oh, and please address the post about MTV Cribs! Of course you don't have to, but I felt that there were certain similarities to that show and your judgement of Mayweather and I was interested in your opinion.

I don't even think that the last post was argumentative! I just think that you felt like using the slip, duck and dodge move because the real double talk was pointed out in that post. Its ok for celebs to shamelessly flaunt their wealth, but as soon as Mayweather did it he became all the negative things you said.

On second thought, I don't really think your reply is necessary.

[fozzy40]

I've never bet on anything in my life but I'm putting money on this fight. What are the odds for DLH by KO in the 10th? Just curious...

[dogzilla]

when is the fight?