The way I see it Canelo v Mayweather is similar to Arguello v Mancini, in that you have a young ethnically backed up and coming network star taking on the proven champion and losing in decisive fashion. It looks like in both cases the talk will be of the challenger being too young, that he bit off too much too early. I wasn't alive at the time, could someone shed some light on how Mancini was viewed after that fight as both a fighter and a financial draw? And do you think Canelo will follow suit?
-
-
Originally posted by walrusthewill View Post
You know....I will tell you something I do remember as I look back. It always seemed to me that back in the day losing a fight was not the Typhoid Mary that it is today. It seems to me that today fighters fight less, there are less rounds in a championship fight so less gets resolved, and promotionally the young guys are all expected to have a great record or they are picked over because they can be.
Derrick Chisora said something yesterday which I wholehartedly agree with and is on point: He said that "it shouldn't matter if a fighter wins or loses as long as the fighter does a great job. Especially a young fighter, but even a fighter like Mancini or Canelo (who is alas a young fighter) should not have to dwell on a loss. I think in Mancini's day this was perhaps understood better. You kind of saw it with the late Gatti BTW....His fights with Mickey Ward were not about the win or lose.
Comment