Talk:Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

Hello guys, In the boxing titles list the entry "WBA Welterweight Champions (147 lbs)" should be added. This is the title Floyd won against Maidana on May 3 2014 as correctly described in the Professional Boxing Record Table in the notes column

Thanks for your time and best regards Emazomenos (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the fact that the wba welterweight title is added in the notes column of the fight against Maidana should be enough. Please find a link to espn's boxing champions listing for reference http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/champions. Thanks

Emazomenos Dear editors of this entry. To my view my previous request for editing of the Boxing titles list by adding the WBA welterweight title captured at May 3rd has not being answered. I am thus re-opening the request and I will be expecting your comments. Thank you

As far as I can tell, this has been done. If I am mistaken, please feel free to re-open the request. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unique business model

I'm surprised this article doesn't yet have a section on Mayweather's "unique business model" since that is such a large part of his financial success relative to the masses of other boxers who ended up with a very small proportion of the gate for their fights. Here are a couple articles in case some one wants to get started on this:

• http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/05/02/floyd_money_mayweathers_unique_business_model_punch_him_then_pay_him.html
• http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2192887-making-money-how-floyd-mayweather-produces-boxings-biggest-fights

—Noah (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

The "Mayweather vs. Castillo I" section has a clear pro-Mayweather bias, completely overlooks the controversy surrounding that decision, implies that Harold Lederman was the only person who thought Castillo won the fight—which obviously is not the case—and suggests that the only reason the Compubox numbers heavily favored Castillo was because Castillo "repeatedly hit on the break." The following changes should be made:

1) The first paragraph of the section lists the judges' scorecards, as well as the AP and Daily News cards, which all had Mayweather winning the fight. However, in the third paragraph, after the one sentence that states, "At the end of the fight, Harold Lederman had Castillo winning 115–111," the following should be added: Ringside commentators Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant also felt that the judges made the wrong decision. After Mayweather's victory was announced, Lampley said, "Not the fight we saw. Definitely not the fight that this announcing team was watching at ringside. Not the first time it's happened." Merchant later added, "I don't think there's much controversy. I think most people think that Castillo won...But the house fighter got the decision." [Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCTWc3xFiw (105:33)]

This paragraph should conclude with the sentence (originally in the 5th paragraph of the section) that reads, "Compubox statistics indicated that Castillo landed more overall punches and significantly more power shots over the course of the fight."

The next paragraph should be the bit about Kellerman disputing Lederman's card: ESPN's Max Kellerman disputed Lederman's scoring, writing in his boxing column: "Harold Lederman, the (HBO) unofficial ringside television judge, gave the third round to Castillo, which I think demonstrates that Mayweather suffers from the same scoring syndrome that afflicted Pernell Whitaker. Mayweather is so seldom hit cleanly in his face, that when a clean shot is landed against him it registers all out of proportion in the observer's mind. Meanwhile, the three clean shots Mayweather just landed against his opponent do not make the same kind of impression".[76]

Then eliminate the following, regarding the Compubox numbers and Lederman's card: "however, these statistics did not accurately reflect the judging (rounds are scored in isolation). Mayweather also outscored Castillo in jabs thrown and landed. Lederman's scoring for this fight may be seen as inconsistent; in both Bernard Hopkins vs. Jermain Taylor fights Lederman had Taylor winning 115–113, despite Hopkins landing more overall punches and significantly more power shots during both fights.[77][78] Taylor threw and landed more jabs, however." These are all tangential attacks on Lederman, whose card was already criticized in the previous paragraph. It was clearly written by a Mayweather supporter trying to defend a controversial win and brush off any criticism/evidence that he should actually have lost the fight.

2) Eliminate the following sentence: "Mayweather won the fight by using his jab effectively and staying away from Castillo for much of the fight." Anyone who saw the fight knows that that's an absurd statement, as Castillo controlled most of the fight and had Mayweather on the ropes a number of times.

3) Eliminate the following sentence: "With Castillo repeatedly hitting on the break, this led to a large number of his punches landing." Castillo landed over 200 punches. The idea that a "large number of his punches" landed because he hit 3 or 4 times on the break is absurd.

4) Eliminate "by the pro-Castillo crowd" from the following sentence: "Judges Jerry Roth and John Keane scored it 115–111 and judge Anek Hongtongkam scored it 116–111, a decision that was loudly booed by the pro-Castillo crowd." The sentence as it's written implies that the only reason the crowd booed is because they were "pro-Castillo," rather than because many impartial observers believed that Castillo should have won the fight. Also, the fight was held at the MGM Grand, Mayweather's adopted home, whereas Castillo is a native of Mexico.

5) The following sentence-"He defeated Castillo, winning the WBC and vacant Ring lightweight titles with a 12-round unanimous decision at the MGM Grand Garden Arena before a crowd of 6,920"-should be changed to read, "He defeated Castillo in a controversial decision, winning the WBC and vacant Ring lightweight titles with a 12-round unanimous decision at the MGM Grand Garden Arena before a crowd of 6,920." This lead sentence of the section should reflect the fact that this was by far the most controversial decision of Floyd Mayweather's historic career.

TheDudabides (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Whether or not the current article "has a clear pro-Mayweather bias" as you claim, your proposed changes appear to have a clear anti-Mayweather bias, and more importantly, other than one You-tube video for a quote, is unreferenced. Information needs to be sourced from reliable sources and statements such as "Anyone who saw the fight knows that that's an absurd statement," are just your PoV. - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My proposed changes hardly have an "anti-Mayweather bias." I just find it odd that the ringside commentators who called the fight on HBO were openly speculating that the fight was wrongly decided—and was intentionally done so for financial reasons—and somehow that didn't find its way into this entry. I sourced these statements with a link to the YouTube video of the broadcast. You could also mention that Steve Kim, who was on press row that night, had Castillo winning 116-112 and later wrote that, "In many ways you could call it a business decision, after all, while both were then under the Top Rank promotional banner, it was Mayweather who was the American and former Olympian, who had the HBO contract and the upside." (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/73723228/jose-luis-castillo-nearly-beat-floyd-mayweather-12-years-ago) Again, I don't have an anti-Mayweather bias whatsoever; I just think these are important facts that were inexplicably omitted from this entry. Mayweather's an all-time great, but this was an extremely controversial decision, and this article should make that clear. Like I said in my original request, the most telling part of this entry is the bizarre attempt to discredit Lederman's card, which, in keeping with the rest of section on Mayweather/Castillo I, reads more like a defense of Mayweather than an unbiased accounting of the facts.