Mayweather vs DelaHoya

[Uke]

I've never watched MTV's Cribs, so I don't know what any of the people on it are like. There's a strong chance, though, that if they walk around bragging about their money and talking about how much better than other people they are, I wouldn't like them.

What I'm trying to say is pretty simple, Uke. I don't like Floyd Mayweather. The reason, distilled for easy digestion, is that I find it distasteful for a Champion to act the way he acts. I find it unattractive as a fan and a spectator to see someone at the top of the game using it as a platform to flash his money, put down his opponents, act like a petulant little child, and promote a self-image that I consider to be repulsive.

You said Floyd would be far better for boxing than Oscar De La Hoya. Remember that? My issue with that statement is that while Floyd may be one of boxing's all time greatest talents, he has not shown me anything in terms of being one of boxing's all time great champions. To me, being the champion means being a representative of the sport, and an ambassador of sorts to all kinds of people. It doesn't just stop with being a boxer. So when Floyd (or Ali, or anyone else) uses the Championship as a platform to disrespect opponents, to brag about how "Philthy Rich" they are, or to pull little childish pranks on people like stealing their gym bags, I find it "Un-Championlike."

You're really pressing the issue of me "attacking another culture," too, aren't you? My dear Uke, anything I said about Floyd was directed at Floyd Mayweather Jr. Apparently unlike you, I was talking about Floyd Mayweather and Oscar De La Hoya, not the pros and cons of American subcultures. Trying to make a discussion about two boxers into some big hidden secret meaning regarding America is just....weird. Trust me, if I were talking about which subculture annoys me, it would not be the hip hop crowd (unless we're talking about the wannabe gang bangers that think it's cool to beat people up, shoot people, or sell drugs to kids). I'd be railing against the whole "Emo," self-mutilation, "nobody understands me" nonsense that's on the upswing. But I'm not talking about subcultures, Uke. I'm talking about Floyd Mayweather, and why I think he's a piss-poor role model and Champion.

Now, I've addressed your main points as best I could, considering I've never seen an episode of Cribs in my life. Now it's your turn.

Please explain to me how someone that talks and behaves the way Floyd is behaving can be "good for boxing" as you have previously asserted. Tell me what aspects of Floyd's behavior you'd like to see in up-and-coming boxers. Tell me how Floyd's behavior should carry over to the kids in the sport. And tell me how the press image he's chosen for this fight - by all measures the biggest exposure he's ever had as a fighter, reaching the widest audience ever - will bring out the best in our sport.

This one is too easy.

You're definition of a boxing champion is a subjective one. One which I feel is unrealistic and part of the reason that there are so many mislead youth today.

What is good for any competition are those who excel at its goal. What is good for swimming is the best swimmers. What's good for MMA is the best fighters. What's good for boxing is the best boxers.

You, like so many, wish to use athletes, celebrities and whoever else as role models for the children, which IMO is absurd. Its that same goal of outsourcing that has parents blaming genres of music and television programs for their children's behavior instead of shouldering the blame themselves.

When people attempt to use entertainment as a source of values for their children, they are to blame for whatever negative elements manifest. Since when have entertainers become responsible for setting examples for youth? Since when have strangers become responsible for the examples your children follow?

You sound like the people who protest music videos because of the images they show on television. I protest those people because their children shouldn't be able to watch those programs if they were being properly monitored. Those kinds of people are blame mongers. They expect the programs on television to raise their children.

What you suggest about boxing is no different. Claiming that boxers should be ambassadors to all people sounds silly. You're trying to elevate a sport icon to a political figure of sorts when that isn't his place or platform! What you're doing is trying to romanticize the roles of professional athletes because they were able to fight better, shoot more baskets, run faster or hit more home runs. Why should they be responsible for how your kids turn out, when your kid has parents who are both capable of teaching him wrong from right? Why are athletes held to these standards when actors and musicians are not? Is throwing a punch or dribbling a ball more noble than playing a guitar or singing a song?

Its basically bullshit. Stop worrying about what these athletes are doing. Stop worrying about their lives. As you said earlier, none of them give two shits about you or me or anyone else that isn't dear to them. And vice versa. I only care to watch a competition, not getting caught up in what political party an athlete endorses or what his stance on global warming is.

They're just athletes, but its the kind of worship that certain people heap upon them that cast them into positions that they never belonged in from the beginning.

According to your rationale, men with airtime and elite sport skills have to all wear suits and be eloquent speakers with outspoken opinions on society and ethics. What kind of nonsense is that? If they chose to be that way then its fine, but having to be cast in that mold simply because you excel at sports is stupidity.

Why is Mayweather good for boxing? Its because he is the best boxer. Even if he loses this match against DLH he is still the best boxer. He came from featherweight to jr middleweight to face a man who has been fighting at or around 154 for years. That's why this match is taking place at 154 and not 147 ... to give DLH an advantage. Any astute boxing fan or student knows that.

What's good for boxing is the best boxer. When the best boxers fight each other, that's best for boxing. When talented amateurs turn pro under solid guidance that's good for boxing. When incompetent judges are blacklisted from scoring fights, that's good for boxing. When fighters are willing to go up to fight better competition because their own division is weak, that's good for boxing. When an icon of boxing can draw more attention to the sport, that's good for boxing.

All those other things are extracurricular and have no weight on boxing. Whether you like a man or not doesn't mean he's good or bad for boxing. Those are your opinions. He might be more marketable because of a clean image, but that has no bearing on whether he's good or bad for boxing. Worrying about a clean, cut image has more to do with whether you yourself can identify with a boxer, not whether he is good or bad for boxing.

Some might argue that Mike Tyson was terrible for boxing, but Mike Tyson was thee largest grossing attraction in boxing history. No boxer, clean cut or otherwise, has commanded more attention or bigger numbers than Mike Tyson. What does that tell you? It tells you that people want a spectacle. They want something exciting and entertaining. They want violence and blood. They want the raw, unadulterated rage that Tyson was known for.

Before Tyson, boxing was a dying sport. Interest in the sport was at a low. People weren't buying tickets or tuning in. When Tyson left, their was a huge decline in boxing ratings. To be honest, I know people who say that they've never paid for a PPV unless it was a Tyson bout. People who weren't even boxing fans began throwing boxing parties just to watch Tyson knock someone out. It didn't matter who, just that Tyson was in the fight.

Now by your standards, Tyson was horrible for boxing, yet he did more for the sport and the interest that boxing needs to survive than any other boxer in the last 21 years.

My question to you is that what do you think that boxers being clean cut would accomplish? Do you think that it would sell more tickets? Do you think that it would sell more PPV's? Do you think that it would raise the skill level of the boxers? Do you think that it would make boxing as a sport more popular?

On all counts you'd be wrong. As I pointed out, just a few years before Tyson turned pro, boxing was dying. And it wasn't because of a lack of talent. Larry Holmes was an excellent boxer who was underrated and under-appreciated. But he had as much flare as a wet match. As Don King put it, people would rather pay to watch Ali watching boxing on TV then pay to actually see Larry Holmes fight.

[Uke]

And by the way, were you talking about the same Jim Lampley who was recently arrested for beating his wife, and who is paid by HBO to say whatever they want him to?

Just checking.

Because after all, Jim Lampley is the one who decides what's best for the sport.


Not the fans or anything...

No, not at all. But if you read carefully above in my post, you'll see that Mike Tyson was the largest grossing attraction in the history of boxing. That's a commonly known fact. Not Oscar DelaHoya, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins or Floyd Mayweather can beat his numbers as it pertains to PPV's and tickets sold.

So, being that the fans paid more cash to see more of Tyson than any of the above, that speaks volumes about your theory as to what is good for boxing, now doesn't it? And we both know that Tyson is the embodiment of all the things you've been saying that you don't like.

Even when Tyson came out of jail and was just a shadow of his former self, people paid more to see him fight than they did all the above. Which goes to show that it isn't about boxing ability, a clean cut image or modesty concerning wealth. It has to do with entertainment value.

In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius:

"Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"

[Uke]

I'm positive. Not every person on Cribs is as flashy, but 90% of them are just as if not more flashy than Floyd has been.

As far as what brings money into a sport, yes that is what's good for a spectator sport.

Interest = money, and without them the sport as we know it would die from lack of both.

As far as making the sport more respectable .... respectable by who? Its a sport, not a stripping contest! I knew you were attempting to make boxing seem more noble than what it is.

I've asked you what did you think that the clean cut image would do for the sport. Do you think that it would sell more tickets? Do you think that it would sell more PPV's? Do you think that it would raise the skill level of the boxers? Do you think that it would make boxing as a sport more popular?

Of course you never answered that because you know for all the pretentious things that you've written that it would mean nothing to most people. Proof of that was shown in the example of who people actually came out and paid to see. DLH doesn't command the most interest or the highest payday. He isn't the most respected boxer. All his clean cut image does what?

I'm sure guys like Irish Mickey Ward are very respectful and clean cut. No one cares who he is or what he's doing. No one ever really did until he did what? Until he got into a savage war with Arturo Gatti.

Now, if you think making boxing into an obscure sideshow that no one watches except for thee most diehard fans, but the boxers dress and behave in a manner that suits you, then you all of your statements have been self absorbed.

When I speak about what's good for boxing, I speak about what will benefit the fans ... the people who are supposed to get their money's worth. The people who come to be entertained, not take examples from men who beat each other up for a living or dribble a ball.

When you speak about what's good for boxing, you only speak about what you personally feel that you'd like to see. You like the uniform, clean cut flavor of possibly the military, or maybe its just that you think people should all have to conduct themselves in one specific manner, erasing elements of individuality. But in either case, your reasons are selfish ones that don't benefit anyone but you.

Therefore, what you've written isn't good for boxing. Its good for Mike Brewer.

What you and some people have forgotten is that athletes are first and foremost entertainers and performers. When you begin demanding them to dress, act and live a certain way, you automatically put more importance on their personal lives rather than their performances. That's where your folly began.

[Tom Yum]

As far as making the sport more respectable .... respectable by who? Its a sport, not a stripping contest! I knew you were attempting to make boxing seem more noble than what it is. I've asked you what did you think that the clean cut image would do for the sport. Do you think that it would sell more tickets? Do you think that it would sell more PPV's? Do you think that it would raise the skill level of the boxers? Do you think that it would make boxing as a sport more popular? .

As far as selling more tickets - who knows? Pull-up an economic trade journal that shows bad sportsmanship = greater revenue. Do you think an improvement in sportsmanship would sell fewer tickets?

Look at the olympics. That's the cream of the crop (if not close to) the best athletes in every sport world-wide. You didn't see Dan Obrien kicking sand in the competition's face, smiling with gold teeth and getting high in crazy parties. I don't doubt the man and others like him may have celebrated, drank and enjoyed their participation/limelight but you don't see the over-the-top, excessively flashy bling and bad mouthing that takes away from the sport.

Of course you never answered that because you know for all the pretentious things that you've written that it would mean nothing to most people. Proof of that was shown in the example of who people actually came out and paid to see. DLH doesn't command the most interest or the highest payday. He isn't the most respected boxer. All his clean cut image does what?

I'm sure guys like Irish Mickey Ward are very respectful and clean cut. No one cares who he is or what he's doing. No one ever really did until he did what? Until he got into a savage war with Arturo Gatti.
.

Image, in a highly visible sport, matters.

When Mike Tyson was the world's youngest heavyweight champ, focused on boxing and under the watchful eyes of Cus D'amato, people were drawn to the sport. Boys and young men alike flocked to the sport because here was a young man, from the streets, who had talent and worked his way to the top.

People who didn't watch the sport before, watched Tyson. I started watching Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Tommy Morrison as a youngster, but Tyson's electricity, focus and humilty kept me watching. He was humble and made millions marketing for Pepsi and Nintendo.

After Cus died and he fell into the hands of other managers, who churned and burned him, Tyson's fall soured the public and made people think boxers are all crazy/violent thugs -which is far from the truth.

Top performers are looked upon as leaders sometimes, whether they like it or not and can influence the image no matter which venue.

Look at Enron...

Now, if you think making boxing into an obscure sideshow that no one watches except for thee most diehard fans, but the boxers dress and behave in a manner that suits you, then you all of your statements have been self absorbed.

When I speak about what's good for boxing, I speak about what will benefit the fans ... the people who are supposed to get their money's worth. The people who come to be entertained, not take examples from men who beat each other up for a living or dribble a ball.

When you speak about what's good for boxing, you only speak about what you personally feel that you'd like to see. You like the uniform, clean cut flavor of possibly the military, or maybe its just that you think people should all have to conduct themselves in one specific manner, erasing elements of individuality. But in either case, your reasons are selfish ones that don't benefit anyone but you. .

I don't see Brewer knocking individuality. I see him voicing his legitimate concerns about the sport's reputation as a practitioner, as a customer and as a trainer.

And chances are, there are probably other customers, practitioners and trainers who would agree with what he's saying drawing from their own, independent experiences and not just Mike Brewer's.

There are some aspects of individuality in boxing that are funny as hell and good marketing tools; there are some aspects that simply take away from boxing's main attraction: seeing who the better fighter is.

Therefore, what you've written isn't good for boxing. Its good for Mike Brewer. What you and some people have forgotten is that athletes are first and foremost entertainers and performers. When you begin demanding them to dress, act and live a certain way, you automatically put more importance on their personal lives rather than their performances. That's where your folly began.

There are some colorful individuals in muaythai and K-1, but they aren't so over-the-top about their own abilities and they also keep a considerable level of good sportsmanship. K-1 is a business too where people come to get entertained but the focus, just like boxing is on the ability to physically outscore or knockout a prepaired opponent and less on the fluff that surrounds that ability.

[Uke]

So it's your assertion that boxing fans have no interest in seeing champions who don't behave like dicks?

No, my assertion is that people have paid in record numbers to see the most notorious dick(Tyson) that boxing has ever produced.

Before Tyson, Ali was thee most popular dick that boxing produced, and he is arguably the most popular boxer of all time.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

People aren't going to PAY CASH to see someone they don't wanna see!

Love them or hate them ... people tune in because they want to see them.

[Tom Yum]

Tyson wasn't viewed as a dick during his entire career.

He came from a street-hardned background and that was well known from all the articles written about him. His boxing skills spoke for him even after the point he became the youngest HW title holder.

Unfortunately, he was just a kid who rose to fame really quick barely understanding what it means to be a responsible adult and when his only parental figure died, he got consumed, taken for a ride and reverted back to the street kid he started out as.

[Uke]

As far as selling more tickets - who knows? Pull-up an economic trade journal that shows bad sportsmanship = greater revenue. Do you think an improvement in sportsmanship would sell fewer tickets?

Quite possibly. And who would know better than the promoters? They often orchestrate fights at pre-fight conferences just to make it seem like there is more tension to sell a fight. When Barrera sucker-punched Morales, it looked completely staged. Many times it looks staged. Just like when Lewis got into a wrestling match with Rahman. They spent over a minute squaring off on ESPN when security stood by and let it happen. And you know security is always on set because of liabilities. You two seriously need to learn the business. Its all a part of the show, and the fact that you liken fabricated tension to unsportsman-like conduct goes to show that you don't know as much as you think you do.

Floyd Mayweather has shown love to every opponent after the fights are over. Hell, he hugged Zab Judah in an effort to resume the match after the melee broke out.

Look at the olympics. That's the cream of the crop (if not close to) the best athletes in every sport world-wide. You didn't see Dan Obrien kicking sand in the competition's face, smiling with gold teeth and getting high in crazy parties. I don't doubt the man and others like him may have celebrated, drank and enjoyed their participation/limelight but you don't see the over-the-top, excessively flashy bling and bad mouthing that takes away from the sport.

First of all, Floyd Mayweather doesn't get high, smoke or even drink for that matter. Second, he doesn't wear gold teeth either. Get your facts straight. You may respond by stating that you weren't referring to Floyd or that you exaggerated for effect, but in either case it does nothing for the debate when you stretch the truth in an effort to make a point.

Now, let's look at the Olympics. The Olympics are not spectator based sports. The success or failure of the Olympics are not contingent upon ratings or tickets sold. The Olympics are held regardless of how many turn out to watch. The Olympics do not pay athletes. The Olympic Games is a self contained organization that operates under its own rules independent of promoters and networks and/or state regulatory commissions.

They don't need to sell the Olympics. At least not in the way promoters must sell boxing events. Olympics can afford to make whatever rule they wish to, but that doesn't mean that people still don't make statements. I guess you never heard of Tommy Smith and Juan Carlos? All they did was raise their fists in support of a movement that called for equal treatment of all men and they were suspended. Was that over-the-top or bad mouthing? Because as soon as they were suspended, both an Australian and German medalist wore pins to support those two an their cause.

So while the Olympics have their own rules about conduct, the event itself is no stranger to gestures that were deemed inappropriate.

Image, in a highly visible sport, matters.

When Mike Tyson was the world's youngest heavyweight champ, focused on boxing and under the watchful eyes of Cus D'amato, people were drawn to the sport. Boys and young men alike flocked to the sport because here was a young man, from the streets, who had talent and worked his way to the top.

People who didn't watch the sport before, watched Tyson. I started watching Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Tommy Morrison as a youngster, but Tyson's electricity, focus and humilty kept me watching. He was humble and made millions marketing for Pepsi and Nintendo.

After Cus died and he fell into the hands of other managers, who churned and burned him, Tyson's fall soured the public and made people think boxers are all crazy/violent thugs -which is far from the truth.

Top performers are looked upon as leaders sometimes, whether they like it or not and can influence the image of their venue. Look at Enron...

If people are stupid to think that all boxers are crazy/violent thugs because of what Tyson has done, then nothing will help them. If supposedly rational, thinking adults cannot view boxers objectively and treat each instance of a situation appropriately, then they aren't rational at all. They simply want the world to cater to what they believe is wrong and right.

What you are really defending here is the sheeple effect. You're trying to make a case that people follow what they see, which is just another version of the "life imitates art" discussion. Which will inevitably lead to censorship because some people think that they know what is best for everyone and therefore attempt to dictate what images and messages everyone should see and hear.

If someone found nudity in renaissance art objectionable would it be better for museums if they banned it? If someone found heavy metal objectionable because they spoke about devil worship or because they spit in cups and passed it around or because the bit bat head's off, would it be better for concert halls if heavy metal was banned?

Who is a bigger pimp than Hugh Hefner? He's got to be 80 years old, with 18 year old girlfriends. That's not objectionable to you? So its will be ok for your daughter to come home with a 37 year old man when she's 18? He has girls who are fresh out of 12th grade posing nude in his magazine. Celebrities from all over the world come to his mansion to have sex with the young girls that he affiliates himself with. But no one is calling for a ban on Playboy.

But let a man who has worked himself to the top over the last 20 years wear boxing wear a fur coat and jewelry and he's an asshole, a pimp and a low life, even though he doesn't drink, smoke, do drugs and is not a pimp.

I don't see Brewer knocking individuality. I see him voicing his legitimate concerns about the sport's reputation as a practitioner, as a customer and as a trainer.

And chances are, there are probably other customers, practitioners and trainers who would agree with what he's saying - from their own, independent experiences.

There are some aspects of individuality in boxing that are funny as hell and good marketing tools and some aspects that are just too much.

And that entire passage has to do with individual taste, not harm done or money lost. Tom Yum, since you've chosen to comment I'd like to hear from you what you've ever seen Floyd Mayweather do in or around the ring that was unprofessional or unsportsmanlike? I'd like to read your answer.

What I find distasteful is that the best fighters are usually flashy, loudmouthed show offs, and this criticism exists solely because there is little else about them to critique. From Floyd Mayweather, up to Bernard Hopkins up to Roy Jones up to Mike Tyson and as far back as Jack Johnson in the 1800's. My entire problem with this line of criticism is that it is reminiscent of the same bullshit that the media used to hammer the old champions with. Its the same shit, just wrapped in a different box.

Don't make it about being conservative. One of the best fighters of all time was mild mannered and conservative, and the media in America still gave him nicknames like the Shufflin' Shadow, the Coffee-Colored Kayo King, the Dusky Downer and the Dark Destroyer. It had nothing to do with his image or manners. It had to do with them letting him know that no matter what he did or how he might rise, he'd always be just a Brown Bomber to them.

There are some colorful individuals in muaythai and K-1, but they aren't so over-the-top about their own abilities and they also keep a considerable level of good sportsmanship. K-1 is a business too where people come to get entertained...but the focus is on the ability to kick ass and less on the fluff that surrounds that ability.

As it should be. The focus is always on the performance because that's what is important in a sport. Who discusses what MLB or NBA players wear off the field and court? Who worries about what jewels they own? Who looks for boxers to be ambassadors in this day and age? Afterall, there will only be one Ali.

[dogzilla]

When is the fight?

[Uke]

Again, Uke, you're relating money with respect. I don't buy it.

Tyson was a respectful and capable heavyweight when he became champion. He would still run over and help opponent's up after a win, and talk about how capable they were. When he lost his mind and started playing the thug role, people dismissed him as a circus act. Ali drew resord crowds as well, and I'll grant you many people found him and his behavior distasteful. However, I think those people were tuning in to see the other guy kick his ass - not to fatten Ali's purse.

Again, when we're talking about what's good for the sport, I'd wage that it's not the existing fans boxers need to woo. Boxing fans will keep tuning in, and they'll keep paying to watch good fights. It's the new fans, the parents of amateur athletes, and the youth of the sport that need the convincing. It's not just spectators that need to be won over, but the future athletes of the sport. I personally believe that it's a bigger draw to all involved to see classy, respectful Champions than to see loudmouths. Listen to people talk about past Champs like Arguello, Dempsey, and yes, De La Hoya. They are universally respected not only because of their achievements in the ring, but their quality as men.

And that, to me, is a far better "legacy" to leave than "Yeah, he could fight. But what an asshole!" Better for the man, and better for the sport.

There is no need for the level of respect you are calling for in any sport. There is a code of conduct, and if that conduct is violated then players are fined or suspended or both. Calling for them behave a specific way outside of not breaking the law is absurd.

Here's a great example for you. Go watch the movie Glory Road. This debate is rooted in the same elements that you and I are discussing right now.

When he first recruited the new players, he expected them to play the game his way. He learned, like they learned, that there is a middle ground. Play his tactics with their own flavor. Back then basketball was more segregated than boxing was, so there was little to no urban cultural impression made. Once the color line disappeared, the game changed. The rules didn't. The tools didn't. But the style of play dramatically changed. And you can see that today.

Basketball players get arrested all the time. So do football players. So do baseball players. Does that stop people from buying tickets and watching the games? Did Tim Hardaway saying that he didn't want to play with homosexuals create a dip in ticket sales or ratings? No. They can be fined, but does it stop the momentum of ticket sales or fans from being interested? No.

So stop trying to isolate boxing as some entity where special rules apply. People who love boxing are going to continue to watch boxing. Their children will watch their parents watching boxing and eventually watch boxing themselves. When there is a exciting boxer to watch, people will watch him. Not because of how he dresses. Not because of how he speaks. They'll watch him because he is great at boxing. Nothing else.

You can dodge the point I made about people wanting to see Tyson and paying for the privilege if you want to. But that fact still stands. And people were paying to see Tyson in record breaking numbers way after he became King's pawn.

I personally believe that it's a bigger draw to all involved to see classy, respectful Champions than to see loudmouths. Listen to people talk about past Champs like Arguello, Dempsey, and yes, De La Hoya. They are universally respected not only because of their achievements in the ring, but their quality as men.

And those men(with the exception of Dempsey) were beaten by better men who had bigger mouths. Who expressed themselves the way the felt comfortable. They earned the right speak their mind in a society that certainly didn't want them to. And the man who is remembered as being the greatest boxer of all time(Ray Robinson) was a flashy guy who lived very similarly to Floyd Mayweather. They both liked to party. They both liked to dress in expensive clothes. They both liked women. What's the big difference?

And that, to me, is a far better "legacy" to leave than "Yeah, he could fight. But what an asshole!" Better for the man, and better for the sport

Tell that shit to Jack Johnson who wound up living in exile and eventually in prison because he loved a woman that America deemed "not right" for him. Yeah he could fight, he was one of the best, but in the end America showed its true colors and told him how he'd have to act to be released from prison.

Tell that shit to Joe Louis, who was polite, conservative and a veteran who not only served his country, but defeated Hitler's fighter in a victory that became symbolic of America's dominance. He died penniless because the IRS took everything he had because he didn't pay back taxes on money he donated to the Army to help them during the war. They forced him out of retirement so that a young Marciano could beat him, and then further stripped him of his dignity by forcing him to compete in pro wrestling matches after that. America left Louis by the wayside and then made Schmeling an Executive at Coca Cola.

Yeah, both those men could fight, one was outspoken and the other quiet and polite, but America saw them both as assholes, or didn't you know that?

[Uke]

Tyson wasn't viewed as a dick during his entire career.

He came from a street-hardned background and that was well known from all the articles written about him. His boxing skills spoke for him even after the point he became the youngest HW title holder.

Unfortunately, he was just a kid who rose to fame really quick barely understanding what it means to be a responsible adult and when his only parental figure died, he got consumed, taken for a ride and reverted back to the street kid he started out as.

Aside from the first 3 years of his professional career, Tyson went downhill and was viewed as an asshole. Ever since his marriage to Robin his life went completely the wrong way.

Forget the stories. If you wanted to know when Tyson's career was changing all you had to do was go to Bentley's. He was always around in NY. He was always around the people.

[Uke]

Yes, it is.

Floyd is not objectionable to be because he wears fur and gold and diamonds. He's objectionable to me because as a Champion, he shows no humility and he rubs all those material things in people's faces. Tell you what. Ditch all the culture-war nonsense you're trying to make this into and explain one thing to me:

Does Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s behavior (and by that, I'm referring to stealing Oscar's gym bag, acting like a child, and talking the kind of trash he's been talking in this most recent series pf press conferences) strike you as the admirable and respectable behavior of a World Champion?

When you think of the guy that embodies all of the things that are great about boxing, is Floyd Mayweather really the guy who encapsulates it best for you?

First off, what I've stated isn't nonsense. Boxing has a rich history of racism and bias that hasn't ended. Just ask Oscar DelaHoya's partner, Bernard Hopkins. He's a legendary champion who will be the first to tell you just how fcuked up the boxing establishment and media is. Don't take it from me. Take it from a man who is an important part of it.

There is a lot of merit to the statements and examples that I've given. Whether you're equipped or willing to go there doesn't take away from the merit of my argument.

Next, I see we are now only discussing Floyd's latest antics, and not the whole of his career and his behavior. A subtle concession on your part. As I have stated before, Floyd supposedly stealing a bag is nothing but showmanship for the camera. Him getting in DLH's face is showmanship for the camera. Floyd has a career worth of fights were he did not do those things, and now, because the biggest fight of his career is receiving more media coverage and its own weekly HBO special, you now hate him because he is playing the bad guy? This perplexes me because you claim to be around boxing and study it. Yet, you don't know showmanship when you see it?

I could see if Mayweather bit DLH's ear. I could see if Mayweather sucker punched him in a conference. I could see if Mayweather pulled a Zab Judah and fouls DLH during the ring instructions. He's done none of those things. Even on Mayweather/DLH 24-7, people like his doctor tried to explain to viewers that the negative press is just sour grapes from folks who don't know him.

He couldn't have said that better.

Yes, it is.

So you've never bought or read a Playboy magazine? Hmmmm....

[dogzilla]

Tnx for the info Mike.

[Micker]

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...

Mayweather is going to make Oscar look like an old fool. Believe me, I would love to see Oscar win, but I just don't see any senario other then Floyd beating the hell out of him.

[medic06]

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

[Tom Yum]

Quite possibly. And who would know better than the promoters? They often orchestrate fights at pre-fight conferences just to make it seem like there is more tension to sell a fight. When Barrera sucker-punched Morales, it looked completely staged. Many times it looks staged. Just like when Lewis got into a wrestling match with Rahman. They spent over a minute squaring off on ESPN when security stood by and let it happen. And you know security is always on set because of liabilities. You two seriously need to learn the business. Its all a part of the show, and the fact that you liken fabricated tension to unsportsman-like conduct goes to show that you don't know as much as you think you do.

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.

First of all, Floyd Mayweather doesn't get high, smoke or even drink for that matter. Second, he doesn't wear gold teeth either. Get your facts straight. You may respond by stating that you weren't referring to Floyd or that you exaggerated for effect, but in either case it does nothing for the debate when you stretch the truth in an effort to make a point. .

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.

If people are stupid to think that all boxers are crazy/violent thugs because of what Tyson has done, then nothing will help them. If supposedly rational, thinking adults cannot view boxers objectively and treat each instance of a situation appropriately, then they aren't rational at all. They simply want the world to cater to what they believe is wrong and right

What you are really defending here is the sheeple effect. You're trying to make a case that people follow what they see, which is just another version of the "life imitates art" discussion. Which will inevitably lead to censorship because some people think that they know what is best for everyone and therefore attempt to dictate what images and messages everyone should see and hear. .

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.

If someone found nudity in renaissance art objectionable would it be better for museums if they banned it? If someone found heavy metal objectionable because they spoke about devil worship or because they spit in cups and passed it around or because the bit bat head's off, would it be better for concert halls if heavy metal was banned?

Who is a bigger pimp than Hugh Hefner? He's got to be 80 years old, with 18 year old girlfriends. That's not objectionable to you? So its will be ok for your daughter to come home with a 37 year old man when she's 18? He has girls who are fresh out of 12th grade posing nude in his magazine. Celebrities from all over the world come to his mansion to have sex with the young girls that he affiliates himself with. But no one is calling for a ban on Playboy. .

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.

Hugh Heffner? Not relevant to the discussion, even though his well written articles can't be purchased unless one is atleast 18 years old. And for good reason.