Mayweather v Castillo I

This is the fight, and if there is anything resembling a blue print on beating Floyd, this is the fight.

Full fight here, would love to know how you score it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqRoaaNfHgA&list=FLBcFoQPB7137UekX118Db0A&index=1

The older Floyd gets the bigger the blueprint would be.........It was close but i still had it for Mayweather

I'll have to watch it again when I get in. Haven't seen it for a few years but I think I gave it to Castillo marginally.

Mayweather by a couple of rounds, but your right in that was the blueprint. But i feel, like Truss, that the Blurprint has well and truly changed.

In his recent fights against Cotto and Ortiz, he appeared a lot more aggressive and stood and traded at times which was odd, maybe signalling his loss of footwork, all be it slight maybe? Im not sure.

Never the less, i feel he will stay undefeated and that there isnt anyone out there to trouble him if im honest.

Funny thing is mobile...That Floyd gets a lot of flak for this fight because they can't hit him with anything else...

Yet forget that Turpin beat Robbo..........Was Turpin much better than castillo??

Everybody has a guy who gives them problems......but a cheap imitation never works..

No two fighters are the same..... Castillo just had that style..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Funny thing is mobile...That Floyd gets a lot of flak for this fight because they can't hit him with anything else...

..

Apart from not fighting Manny.

Haven't seen it in a while, but I had it for Mayweather, just.

Think they were both at fault there Rowley....but you're right..

Performance wise then....

Agree totally truss, nobody involved in the whole affair is blameless. Floyd for me is the bigger tragedy of the two because irrespective of when they fought I always thought he beat Manny and think had he done so when it mattered think he could have been a genuine top ten guy of all time.

I agree he would have won.........not sure it affects his placing as much as people think...

Think ten years on his results will determine his position..and the politics will disappear..

Indeed. It is bizzarre how much Flak Mayweather does indeed get. People constantly watch him for his brilliance in the ring, but yet there is an element of people that want him to be knocked out.

Like you said, fighters have guys who give them problems, aka Pacquiao/Marqeuz

Think personality comes into it mobile.......If he was more of a gentleman maybe he'd be higher up in affections and cut some slack.....

I imagine Jack Johnson was "Overrated" during and after his career until it all died down..

Case for him being overrated now..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
I imagine Jack Johnson was "Overrated" during and after his career until it all died down..

Case for him being overrated now..

Careful Truss, you're in danger of sounding like London Ring Rules. You are right though I do think Johnson gets too much of a pass for his level of opposition and avoiding the likes of Langford and Jeanette, but that is a debate for another day.

LRR...I have such wonderful memories of him....

I have Johnson 3 on my list so I'm probably hung by my own petard...

But I know that Jeffries and Burns thought he was overrated and wouldn't give him just due..

Maybe racial politics as much the normal variety..

Funnily enough Truss I sometimes have him as high as third, so hard to know how he was rated at the time as obviously so many comments have to be viewed with the racism of the time in mind. Like you have seen Jeffries be fairly dismissive of him but have also seen him say Johnson would have beaten him at his best so who knows his genuine views.

Like the Floyd and Manny situation I believe Jack beats Jeanette and McVea pretty much whenever they fight. There was probably only Langford who would have had a genuine chance against him and even in that you’d probably have to make Johnson the favourite.

Rowley wrote: There was probably only Langford who would have had a genuine chance against him and even in that you’d probably have to make Johnson the favourite.

Was he the favourite when he fought him? And beat him?

Definitely the biggest struggle of Floyd's career. I had it 113-113 (six rounds apiece, and then of course the point deductions in rounds that each men were winning otherwise) and there's certainly a case to be made for both men.

What's odd is that this was the antithesis of a normal Floyd Mayweather twelve round fight. When he goes the distance, it's often a case of him experiencing some problems early on, maybe even in to the middle stages occasionally, before he figures his man out, takes away their biggest strengths and pulls clear towards the end. Instead, Floyd got off to a flyer here and gradually saw the fight getting away from him as it progressed.

I've always thought that it would have taken a defensive wizard / slickster (a Whitaker, a Winky Wright, maybe even a Frankie Randall) to have the best chance of beating Floyd, but in this fight Castillo showed that constant pressure, moving to the right to negate and phase out Floyd's razor-sharp left hook and following him every step of the way can cause him issues as well.

That said, as I reasoned when this fight was brought up a couple of months back, I do think that Mayweather had a little bit of an off night here. His defense was as tight as ever, but he just never got going offensively, certainly not after the first four or five rounds. He came perilously close to just allowing himself to get outworked.

The thing is, Mayweather doesn't get around the ring like that anymore and, whereas he looked pretty small compared to Castillo, he tends to match up pretty well in the size and strength stakes with most Welterweights these days. In essence, the Mayweather of 2013 is a notably different fighter from the 2002 version.

Was Castillo I the blueprint? Well, I'm expecting Guerrero and Alvarez (if the fight happens, I still have misgivings) to box Floyd in a very similar manner, so I guess we'll find out!

114 Floyd..............115 Castillo ..................Soldier according to your card

Math not a strong point??

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote: There was probably only Langford who would have had a genuine chance against him and even in that you’d probably have to make Johnson the favourite.

Was he the favourite when he fought him? And beat him?

Yes he was but Langford was pretty green at the time and had not had many fights against heavyweights. He improved greatly over the next couple of years and did appear to work out how to fight heavies. Think the timing would have been key in this one. Post Jeffries Johnson seems to have lost a lot of ambition and his personal life was a bit of a soap opera with the personal issues and persecution. Possible had the fight happened then Sam could have been catching him at the right time.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:114 Floyd..............115 Castillo ..................Soldier according to your card

Math not a strong point??

It's obviously not yours either!

I'll concede you that point..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:114 Floyd..............115 Castillo ..................Soldier according to your card

Math not a strong point??

It's Maths Truss not Math, got so excited when you spelt colour correctly the other day, looks like there is still some work to be done.

Had Castillo winning by 4 rounds

This fight is the reason I am putting £50 on Guerrero to beat Floyd.

Rowley wrote:

Yes he was but Langford was pretty green at the time

He was only 150lbs as well, I think. There is merit in the argument that he wasn't ready for the premier big boys, but if they fought in the immediate aftermath of the Jeffries fight, I would still fancy Johnson to take a decision. His natural size and defensive genius would trump Langford's murderous punching, for me. Maybe once Johnson lost his way then the fight becomes closer, but who knows.

I think I had Mayweather nicking the Castillo fight but it was 2002 and I have had a sleep since then.

I'm coming round slowly........Still not eating cucumber sandwiches yet though.......

cheese is still my "favorite"...

Damn, pocket money has inflated since I was a kid. I think that fight could have had a range of scores but I think a draw or a tight win for Castillo would have been the fairest

Still think the general dislike Of Floyd will see close rounds going to the other guy...

I tried to give Tucker five rounds against Tyson in realtime......but on reflection it was probably 11-1...................

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Just watched the fight:

· 1) 10 - 9 Floyd

· 2) 10 - 9 Floyd

· 3) 10 - 9 Castillo

· 4) 10 - 10 EVEN

· 5) 10 - 9 Castillo

· 6) 10 - 9 Castillo

· 7) 10 - 9 Castillo

· 8) 10 - 8 Floyd

· 9) 10 - 9 Castillo

· 10) 9 - 9 EVEN

· 11) 10 - 9 Floyd

· 12) 10 - 9 Castillo

Result Castillo 114 – 113

Nice one. Wow, tight card.

Mayweather is getting closer all the time..Soldier.

Watch it again!!

victorgarco wrote:Had Castillo winning by 4 rounds

This fight is the reason I am putting £50 on Guerrero to beat Floyd.

Give that 50 quid to me and I'll give you 3 grand if Guerrero beats him.

Haha it was actually quite good watching some one having a some success against Mayweather. To be fair it could have went either way.

Aye, I think because of Mayweather's subsequent career, and the fact that he's become more and more unbearable with every title he's lifted and every test he's passed, a few myths have grown around this fight as a result. It's as if people want to believe that Castillo was shamefully robbed and that Mayweather was clearly beaten when, in fact, that wasn't the case.

I think the fact that HBO, who televised it, had it to Castillo by four or five points doesn't help matters, either. People see Lederman's (if memory serves me) 115-110 / 115-111 card and take it as gospel, ignoring the fact that dear old Harold is a dreadful judge on many occasions!

88Chris05 wrote:Aye, I think because of Mayweather's subsequent career, and the fact that he's become more and more unbearable with every title he's lifted and every test he's passed, a few myths have grown around this fight as a result. It's as if people want to believe that Castillo was shamefully robbed and that Mayweather was clearly beaten when, in fact, that wasn't the case.

I think the fact that HBO, who televised it, had it to Castillo by four or five points doesn't help matters, either. People see Lederman's (if memory serves me) 115-110 / 115-111 card and take it as gospel, ignoring the fact that dear old Harold is a dreadful judge on many occasions!

I would be very interested to see your card, Chris. I will get round to rewatching it myself.

There are a few fights that are similar Chris normally for fighters who are unbeaten and who have never had many close calls. Tend to find over time the close calls they have had become either closer or downright robberies with every passing days. Am thinking specifically of Calzaghe Reid, remember at the time it was considered a close fight where Joe had underperformed but deserved the nod. Also remember most of the press reported it as such at the time. However have seen it portrayed many a time since as a stonewall robbery the like of which has rarely been seen. Like the Castillo fight is nothing of the sort, both close fights without a shadow of a doubt but don’t recall either as outrageous affairs, but will rewatch this one now as I am curious to see how I remember it.

As an aside always found it interesting when folk were calling Floyd a ducker that the only guy who pushed him close was given an immediate rematch.

Am fairly sure that at one point D4 claimed it was a shut-out but it was more than likely that he was just winding up coxy - so it was funny.

Seanusarrilius wrote:I would be very interested to see your card, Chris. I will get round to rewatching it myself.

Rounds one, two, three, four and five to Floyd, rounds six, seven, nine, eleven and twelve to Castillo. I had rounds eight and ten all square at 9-9; eight would have been Castillo's but for the point deduction, and ten would have been Floyd's but for the same thing. So 113-113 in the end for me.

As I say, very tight and you can certainly make a case for a narrow (no more than two points at the most, I think) win for either man, as well as the draw. But not a robbery, for me.

Interesting that most of us have quite close scores. Think we should do it for more past controversial fights. That should expell some robbery myths that snowball over the years.

Let's do Fury v McDermott I next

i had castillo by 2 points, but ive not seen it in a long time.

hopkins calzaghe would be the most interesting one to see how people scored it.

88Chris05 wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:I would be very interested to see your card, Chris. I will get round to rewatching it myself.

Rounds one, two, three, four and five to Floyd, rounds six, seven, nine, eleven and twelve to Castillo. I had rounds eight and ten all square at 9-9; eight would have been Castillo's but for the point deduction, and ten would have been Floyd's but for the same thing. So 113-113 in the end for me.

As I say, very tight and you can certainly make a case for a narrow (no more than two points at the most, I think) win for either man, as well as the draw. But not a robbery, for me.

Glad to see most people have this within 2 points to either man. Hard to say Floyd was gifted the win

Calzaghe v Hopkins was horrible to watch and to score.

Seanusarrilius wrote:Calzaghe v Hopkins was horrible to watch and to score.

I watched that again recently and it wasn't as bad as I remembered first time around. From round four or five onwards Calzaghe measures distance better and stops Hopkins throwing a single punch and holding as easily as he was in the first couple of rounds. Scored it to Calzaghe by 3 or 4 I think and had his fight with Kessler as a closer result.

I think Floyd gets more flak for supposedly being the beneficiary of a robbery than for losing. If he'd lost, then rematched him and clearly won as he did in real life, people would probably commend his desire to set the record straight and feel less like looking for reason to bring him down.

Don't think you can overlook Mayweather wanting to curtail any controversy immediately, I had Castillo winning by 2ish rounds but it is one instance where you have to commend Floyd for putting the issue to bed. So the story goes he tore his rotator cuff in the third round I believe and that limited his offence somewhat, don't think it made a huge difference but could have affected his timing a little bit.

Using a fight 11 years ago against him for his upcoming fight is slightly absurd, many have tried and failed to pressure him since then.

Cripes that fight was boring. Castillo won by a couple imo.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

victorgarco wrote:Had Castillo winning by 4 rounds

This fight is the reason I am putting £50 on Guerrero to beat Floyd.

Give that 50 quid to me and I'll give you 3 grand if Guerrero beats him.

Save your money, this fight is nothing like Castillo , Castillo was huge for the weight on that night. Mayweather is going to convincingly beat Guerrero, too big and too fast.