Let?s drop all the pretense and make believe fair-minded analysis when it comes to Floyd Mayweather. Nobody on either side of the great Mayweather debate is going to stop seeing their own world in anything other than absolute black or white.
To the hardcore Mayweather fans and apologists, the five-division world champ can do no wrong. His every move is a testament to his greatness. Yeah, TBE.
To the die-hard Mayweather hater and critic, ?Money? can do nothing right and his every move as a pro has been a cynical stab at getting more reward out of less risk.
The two schools of thought will never agree and most everyone standing on Mayweather middle ground has lost interest in a discussion that is more battle of political spin than honest analysis.
But, while the biased pro-Mayweather crowd is as delusional as true fans often tend to be, the critics are even more distant from reality. Nothing but nothing, under any possible circumstance is ever good enough to stop the serial naysayers from taking whacks at Mayweather and his body of work.
When Carlos Baldomir beat Zab Judah to become the lineal welterweight champ, it was widely regarded as a fluke, caused more by Judah?s lack of focus and fire than anything else. Judah was still regarded by most as the best in the division?until Mayweather moved up to 147 and fought him. The critics moaned– What about the lineal champ? Why is Mayweather afraid of the true lineal champ? And when Mayweather beat lineal champ Baldomir, the critics cried?What about Antonio Margarito?
Then, it was– What about Ricky Hatton? What about Shane Mosley? What about Miguel Cotto? What about Canelo? Mayweather answered all those questions, but gained no ground in the hearts and minds of the critics, who, through each challenge, pointed to Manny Pacquiao as the one true challenge that would prove whether Mayweather was as good as he says.
And after Mayweather beat Pacquiao? Well, the critics argued that Mayweather waited five long years for Pacquiao to grow frail and weak. If Mayweather had beaten Pacquiao five years ago, no doubt the cries would?ve centered around Pacquiao being too small and not really a welterweight.
Now, the same critics are pointing to Gennady Golovkin. If he can beat Golovkin, they say, it will be the true test of Mayweather?s worth. Failure to face Golovkin means that Mayweather has been exposed as the fraud and coward they claim him to be. But even should Mayweather beat Golovkin, history tells us that ?Triple G? will be played down as not really that good, utterly unproven, and/or weakened by any sort of catchweight condition that may exist.
So, really, what?s the point of fighting Golovkin? Mayweather knows enough to know that no opponent chosen will satisfy the critics. Even a feared ?beast? like Golovkin will be played off as a chump if Mayweather beats him. If you?re Mayweather, why bother taking any risk at this point? Might as well pick as weak of an opponent as possible because, at the end of the day, your fans are going to love you no matter what and your critics will never give you the credit you deserve.
