Why are so many boxing fans in this thread being arrogant? Why not take the time to explain things instead of outright dismissing the opinions of those less familiar with the sport?
You can count the number of boxing matches I've watched on two hands but it's not difficult to appreciate that Mayweather dominated that fight because he was technically and tactically on another level. I might not appreciate the nuances of that but at an overall level it's very easy to see. I could see that in the Ali vs. Fraizer fight too. In fact I was completely entranced by that fight for that reason - I had no idea boxing tactics could be so absorbing.
I personally expected this fight to follow a similar pattern; Pacquiao/Fraizer the brawler vs. Ali/Mayweather the cunning technician. The same themes were there, it just didn't have the same appeal for obvious reasons. The intensity was much lower, the cunning technician landed a lot less significant blows and ultimately we saw a very safe fight from both fighters and that's where the fundamental difference lies. Yes, Pacquaio was out-thought and out-fought but it seems clear as day he wasn't anywhere near his best and didn't go all-out even when he was clearly losing, and because of that Mayweather never even got out of second gear. What's wrong with being disappointed about that?
We already knew going into this that the fight took place too late and that Pacquiao was past his best but even then I think it's not unfair at all to say he was below his best even by his current standards. Similarly Mayweather did enough but I can't believe that's him at his best. Calling that performance superb is just strange to me when he was barely even tested. You could say that Ali wasn't tested against Fraizer but the difference is very clear...Fraizer played his natural game, put everything into it and threw punches relentlessly but he just couldn't break that barrier, and Ali laid into him at key moments. Pacquiao on the other hand barely managed to string a few punches together and looked scared to really play his natural game while Mayweather just watched the clock tick away.
Ali could've won that fight on points easily too, he could've danced the night away while Fraizer tired himself out throwing useless punches, but he didn't because -
as he said - he wanted to prove a point. He wanted to show he was the greatest not because of his win ratio or his technical superiority but because of his domination of every aspect of the game. He could play the tactical game, he could play the technical game and he could play the physical game. He was a crowd pleaser too. Mayweather wasn't interested in the latter two aspects and that counts against him in terms of this fight and his career. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
You can say that you can't compare boxing in different weight classes but I'm not saying I expected them to have the same strength or style, I'm just saying I expected the same intensity, competitiveness and entertainment. It didn't come close to that and that's almost entirely down to Mayweather, firstly for delaying the fight until Pacquiao was no longer a worthy challenger and secondly for playing so defensively even when he was so clearly superior. That will always lead to resentment - particularly from the casual fans - and I think justifiably so. It wasn't a great spectacle. The most interesting part of it was seeing how superior Mayweather was and that's not enough on its own.