Ricky Hatton vs Floyd Mayweather

[Unstoppable]

So here we got one of the biggest fight of our lifetimes. In case some of you have been hiding under your basement and making levels i'll give a rough history of each fighter.

 

I never seen Ricky fight but his record is 43 wins (31 KO's) and 0 losses. Suffice to say this guy knows how to kick your ass, and mine too. Multiple championships and a humbleness in and outside the ring. He dosen't need to brag like other fighters. He walks the walk and dosen't talk shit. More info here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Hatton

 

Next we have Floyd Mayweather. 38 wins (28 KO's) and 0 losses. Really it's hard to say he's not the best boxer in the whole world. Everyone that they've put up against him has been defeated. Only about once has there ever been an opponent to put him in an uncomfortable situation. This guy not only talks but he backs it up. I don't like how his persona is all flashy but I do respect his boxing skills. He is the best fighter in the world until proven otherwise in my perspective.

 

On December 8, 2007 a fight worth seeing will take place. I wouldn't want anything more in the world than for Ricky to rip Mayweathear to pieces. Reason being he thinks he's invincible and frankly his fascination with money is sickening. It's going to be an interesting fight that's for sure. I might even order it on PPV.

 

What about you guys? Anyone out there in Europe interested in seeing this fight?

Edited November 25, 2007 by Unstoppable

[Crispy]

Who vs wha?

 

Honestly, I don't see the point of boxing. (This is boxing, right? Oh yeah, you mentioned boxing skills. OK.) OMG guys lol let's watch pplz bash da shit out uv eech other fr hrs LOLZORS!!!1!

 

Quality entertainment all round.

 

Though I suppose reducing the brain-cell count and life expectancy of aggressive members of the population can only be a good thing. Roll on Darwin.

[SplaTtzZ]

I prefer UFC myself, the fights are more technique oriented and usually have more action.

[Tels]

I prefer UFC myself, the fights are more technique oriented and usually have more action.

 

I am not interested in boxing at all, but I always wonder how:

 

I never seen Ricky fight but his record is 43 wins (31 KO's) and 0 losses.

 

Followed by:

 

Next we have Floyd Mayweather. 38 wins (28 KO's) and 0 losses.

 

Followed by:

 

(about Floyd) Really it's hard to say he's not the best boxer in the whole world. Everyone that they've put up against him has been defeated.

 

How come every boxer I read about has never lost?

[oDDity]

Usually because their opponents are carefully chosen. Boxing is all abut bluff and hype. It's more realistic than wrestling, but not much.

[demagogue]

Wow, not many boxing fans around here...

Let's see if I can come up with replies in order.

 

- If you think boxing "skills" stop at "bashing", then you should read more about boxing, or any martial art.

Also, as you go up the ranks, like the fights at this level, bouts are decided by judges who are looking at technique.

 

- Yes, and I'm sure obstacle, battle-golf would have more thrills than regular golf. But there's no pedigree. Modern boxing is literally about a century older than UFC. Sometimes you want the original. Admittedly, it's a little ironic to say that, though, since contemporary boxing has become so fragmented, without a clear heir to the original. And I'm kidding about the first line, I can enjoy watching UFC, too, as I like martial arts (I did some shorenji-kempo). I just like a style being self-contained, consistent, and with some kind of real tradition of practice.

 

- Odd gave a good answer. Boxing has a swarmy side, like most professional sports, although in boxing it's even more endemic and swarmy than usual. What it has in its favor is a legion of fans that put a lot of pressure on it to be fair, and make sure the swarminess stays out of the ring, and raise hell when it doesn't. The top level fighters usually deserve being top level. But it's fair to complain about the ridiculous bout choices that are made that manipulate how the field seems to stand, stone-walling some people out and securing some people in.

 

As for this fight, I don't think I'll be able to see it. I'll be interested in how it turns out, though.

I might watch it later if it turns out to be a classic fight.

Edited November 25, 2007 by demagogue

[Crispy]

I can appreciate that there's skill involved in martial arts. However, somehow I have a hard time thinking of boxing and wrestling as martial arts; I recognise that they fit the definition, but when I think "martial arts" I don't think of them.

 

All the images I see of boxing and wrestling are of big muscled brutes pounding the snot out of each other until they're literally not capable of standing. Quite a stark contrast to watching fencing or aikido or even kendo. It seems to me that the thrill involved is a lot more visceral and bloody, and that really doesn't appeal to me.

[demagogue]

It's after I did some shorinji kempo (which is like karate + judo) that I could watch boxing (and listen to friends that had boxed before) and realize they had a lot of similar techniques, like every time you hit with one hand, your other hand has to go to a defensive position coordinated with the hit position, and you have to alternate hit and defense positions with both hands, coordinated, in tandem and very quickly, manipulating the "beat" to some complex rhythm. It actually reminds me of playing the piano in that way, doing some tricky Latin rhythm. And it's finding and exploiting the tiny gaps in the other guy's rhythm that gets you hits, just like he's doing to you.

 

If it's the sight of big-guy slugfest that's turning you off, you should watch some featherweight boxing to appreciate the hand-work.

 

The wrestling (judo) part of shorinji kempo that I learned ... it's about finding center of gravity turn points; it's not actually all about necessarily overpowering the other guy, but finding and exploiting that turn point that uses his own center of gravity against him, before he gets to yours. What judo and shorinji kempo add that I don't think Western wrestling has are turn points on weak joints, like in the wrist or elbow, that can bring a guy down really fast.

Edited November 26, 2007 by demagogue

[sparhawk]

All the images I see of boxing and wrestling are of big muscled brutes pounding the snot out of each other until they're literally not capable of standing. Quite a stark contrast to watching fencing or aikido or even kendo. It seems to me that the thrill involved is a lot more visceral and bloody, and that really doesn't appeal to me.

 

To some extent you are right. But I guess it's quite different if you train yourself, instead of just watching it. Also you can not really compare wrestling (assuming you mean professional wrestling and not olympic), and boxing. Wrestling is entertainment. The fights are to some extent coreographed and the results are precluded.

I don't like watching boxing, because I find it boring. Wrestling is quite fun though, depening on what you watch. You just shouldn't take it seriously.

[sparhawk]

It's after I did some shorinji kempo (which is like karate + judo) that I could watch boxing (and listen to friends that had boxed before) and realize they had a lot of similar techniques, like every time you hit with one hand,

 

Yeah, it was the same for me. When I started martial arts training, I suddenly realized how similar techinques are used in wrestling and boxing. Not just the attacks, but even more so the falling and defense techinques. In wrestling even more than in boxing though.

 

In my new club, we do a lot more boxing traning, because the trainer comes from kick-boxing, and this makes it more interesting to watch it, because you can compare how they employ the techniques. If you never thought about it, boxing might seem to you just like two blokes hitting each other until one falls down, but there is a lot of technique involved.

[Unstoppable]

Well tonight is the fight and I might order it. Anyone around England/Europe area might be able to go to a Pub and see it for free? Who is going to see the fight tonight?

[Macsen]

It's becoming a bit of a golden age for British boxers. But Ricky Fatton tends to get cut around the eyes and bleed a lot. I'd like him to win it but I don't see it happening.

 

I'll be in bed with a cold.

[oDDity]

Nah, I'd never pay for it (boxing or sex) 9 out of any 10 boxing matches are actually quite boring. Only the occasional one really takes off.

[demagogue]

How boring it is depends on what you're looking at.

A lot of times the best boxing actually doesn't have much "action" because both boxers are good at reading each other, so their legit hits are harder won, and there's more subtle stuff going on like both wearing down the others' endurance in a race to break the other first, and finding and exploiting their weak points. I actually like watching a match best after I've already seen it once and read the commentary about what made the difference, so I'll know what to look for and can appreciate it. But anyway, just a matter of taste; I like a good slug-fest when it comes to that, like anybody else, too.

 

I'd like to watch it, but not pay-for-view.

I have to say they've hyped this fight enough, though ... Seriously, every other time I turn on HBO there they are again, and I wonder what on earth could they have to add this time! I wonder if it hasn't gotten over-hyped.

Edited December 8, 2007 by demagogue

[oDDity]

It's not so much about 'action', it's more that too many fights are mismatched, because 'named' guys are going in against career boxers they know they will beat, or one guy isn't really trying, he's there for the money. It's actually quite rare in pro boxing to see two equally matched opponants really giving it their all.

In that respect, I prefer to watch amateur boxing.

[Unstoppable]

You can watch it for free here.

 

http://livefooty.doctor-serv.com/

[Unstoppable]

Floyd won by knockout twice in round 10. He was too much for Ricky. He caught Ricky doing exactly what he does and that is moving forward. He got out of the way and hit him with a left hook and ricky hit the corner and fell. After that the second knockout came fast since Ricky had not recuperated. Good game. I was still going for Ricky of course but Floyd Mayweather was simply better.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Unstoppable

[Macsen]

Joe Calzaghe just won Sports Personality of the year, with Hatton in 3rd place. Looks like boxing is becoming popular again...

[Unstoppable]

Floyd should retire in my book. His hands have taken a beating and if he wants to enjoy his later years he needs to retire.

[Macsen]

He can afford new hands.

[demagogue]

I think he was making two points there, 1 - if his hands get injured, it'll be a huge liability to his fighting; 2 - the longer you box the more potential for some brain damage to leave him with Parkinson's or the like later on.

[Macsen]

I know, I was just making a joke.

 

On a serious note, I don't think he'll have much brain damage because he doesn't often get punched. That's why they call him 'pretty boy', no?

[Subjective Effect]

What's wrong with his hands anyway?

[Unstoppable]

He broke a rotartor cuff or dislocated it on his left hand during a fight. He couldn't continue but I believe he won by score card. Not exactly sure of the details but he di dwin the fight since he has no losses.

 

Also from all the fighting his hands have taken a beating and he has to go to physical therapy a few times a week. For his back and his hands. They put the hands into a goo that looks like white chocolate. Then the therapist wraps them around some special plastic paper and lets them sit there. He also gets electro shock therapy for his back.

[Macsen]

What's wrong with his hands anyway?

Let's just say, those big red puffy things at the end of his arms ain't gloves...