You're right.......my knowledge of boxing extends to watching fights that come on HBO, Showtime and occasional PPVs, so I do not watch it like I do college hoops, the Oakland A's or the NFL.  However I have been watching at this clip for at least the last fifteen years.  I have at least a decent working knowledge of the "sweet science".  I also have a great knowledge of sports and what people want to see from its "stars".

Your argument about the beauty of Floyd being a counterpuncher and a "boxer" is great.  However it doesn't hold water in terms of his legacy and it shouldn't have won him that fight last night.  Since you are a boxing aficionado, I would submit the following question to you.  What is the rule about champions and their titles?  Hasn't it always been the case that the challenger has to "do more" to take the title off the champ?  Hasn't this always been a general rule in boxing?  Floyd didn't do that last night.  

"Sugar" Ray Leonard was a tremendous boxer but was always willing to mix it up in big fights.  See his fights against Hagler and Hearns.  He knew what it meant to be on a big stage and he knew what the crowd wanted to see.  "Floyd" is often compared to Sugar Ray.  After last night I'm not sure if any kind of comparison to Leonard holds any water.  In their respective primes, Leonard was by far a superior fighter.

"No, cause it ain't sh*t. Ain't nothing but 10 grand. What's 10 grand to me? Ain't sh*t ... Next time I might shake my d*ck." --Randy Moss
[ Parent ]