I can't remember seeing a better fighter than prime Floyd Mayweather Jr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

There isn't one Roberto Duran-level fighter on Floyd's resume. Not one. In my humble opinion, the best win of Floyd's career might be semi-retired Oscar. Shane Mosley was old and not a great fighter to begin with. Ricky Hatton, Shane Mosley, Corrales, Castillo were GOOD fighters, just not great ones. You're misinterpreting me. I'm NOT anti-Floyd by any means. I'm a fan. Of all the guys we watch today, he has mastered the science that is boxing as much as anyone has. It's just we don't, and can't, know how he would compare because he hasn't faced any great fighter. When I mean great, I mean top 50-100 fighters. Same goes for Calzaghe, to a lesser extent. He was great, but to say he could beat Archie Moore is retarded. Moore just experienced so much more than Calzaghe, even if Calzaghe was slicker, faster than Moore. Do you follow what I'm saying? It's not a dig on Floyd. Think about it, all great fighters have at last ONE defining win; the best have a handful. What was Floyd's?

---

I understand completely what you're saying. I did since your first post. I just disagree 100% with it.

If you don't think Shane Mosley was a great fighter than I don't know what to tell you.

I'm putting aside who fought who, who ducked who, ect, because you don't carry that in the ring with you.

We'll never know who would win a prime Leonard vs prime Floyd fight, because obviously the only way to know for sure would be to invent a time machine, grab both in their respective primes, and make them fight.

What I'm saying to you is that we have different ways of coming up with our opinions. I say Floyd beats Leonard and Robinson p4p. You say he doesn't.

You came up with your opinion based simply because you percieve RL and RR fought better opposition, and SRR fought more. I came up with mine by analyzing the in-ring work of these 3 guys, how they handled certain styles, their pros, their cons, ect, and how I think they would match up stylistically.

I can fill this thread up with examples of guys who fought more and better opposition losing to guys who fought less and softer opposition. That "better opposition" and "more experienced" argument is one of the big fallacies that exists when discussing hypothetical fights. Just like the dreaded triangle theory (A beat B, B beat C, so A would beat C). It's all flawed and (IMO) lazy thinking.

Now is that to say my way is fool proof? Hell no. I've been wrong on a lot of fights in my time. But I'd rather form my opinion by seeing and observing, not reading newspaper headlines and Boxrec stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Leonard and Duran fought twice in 6 months.

---

Right, and in the first fight one of them got beat by a guy coming up from 2 weight divisions down who never really established himself at WW, and in the second fight one of them quit because he was getting dominated and his tummy hurt.

I love both guys but lets stop holding them up like they were perfect examples of the pugilist. They all had their flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zhubin

THANK YOU for admitting that the Floyd vs. Broner comparisons are ridiculous! While Broner is certainly talented...he is no where near Floyd's level at the respective stages of their careers. Mayweather is just a different class of fighter...no matter how much HBO and crew try to hype Broner.

---

I'll fully admit I was wrong, and I chaulk it up to Broner's virtuoso performance being fresh in my memory and Floyd's early fights a distant memory.

I made that assertion based on the fact that both had similar records and both were world champs at that age.

I'm not saying Broner isn't a fantastic prospect, but Floyd was just on another level than ANYONE at that age.

Floyd is very good and has exceptional talent but I know SRL, SRR and Hearn’s would probably have beaten him at welterweight. Pound for pound Roy Jones is the best I have ever seen. Whitaker is the second nearest fighter who was untouchable and fought better opposition.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and all views should be gathered but Floyd is so inactive and fights that could have been made which were not for me to consider him an ATG above the ones I have mentioned.

Mayweather is a great fighter but he would lose to Hearns or Leonard at welterweight not talking about pound for pound either. Reason i don't really like this whole pound for pound thing is because it bullshit only reason it talked about is to make everyone that is not a heavyweight fell better because with out it they would have to rate Ali higher then Robinson or have Mayweather ranked under one of the Klitschko brothers because in real life they would get smashed by a Heavyweight champ and not be the best fighter.

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

Was he better than the all time greats? We'll never really know. Even if he wasn't actually better than them in skills, strength and speed, you still wouldn't be surprised if he actually won the imaginary dream fights, the guy just wins fights, his adaptability is one of his biggest strengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Pound for pound Roy Jones is the best I have ever seen. Whitaker is the second nearest fighter who was untouchable and fought better opposition.

---

I may even put prime Roy Jones at #2 behind Money May. (braces for impact)

I don't get why there are people who don't give Floyd a chance against Hearns or Leonard. When I say "I think Floyd Mayweather is the greatest of all time", that doesn't mean I think nobody would beat him. Hearns/Mayweather is a tough fight to call IMO. But to say that Hearns and Leonard kill Mayweather is rediculous.

Hearns and Leonard never fought anybody with the combination of speed, boxing skill and reflexes that prime Floyd had. Benitez was a fine fighter indeed, but he was no Floyd Mayweather. He gave Leonard and Duran fits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

---

Nope, I'm going all in. I say Floyd Mayweather was a better overall boxing talent than Ray Robinson.

Do I think Floyd would have beaten Duran? Yes. Do I think he would have beaten Hearns or Leonard? No, but it is more complicated than a straight shootout.
Welterweight was already Floyd's fourth weight, and Hearns and Leonard started at that weight. I rate Leonard as the best I've ever seen in my lifetime, but I wouldn't pick him in a fight against Calzaghe at 168

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Its incredible to me that Chico is viewed as Floyds shining moment. A man that was about to do hard time for an assault charge and who came into the ring headless. Floyd could have least fought Freitas.
Him and Shane could have met at the 130/35 area and each blames each other but the fact remains it did not happen. Manny/Floyd folded for 50 mil a piece. Leonard and Duran fought twice in 6 months.

---

Personally I think it's as much the manner in which he absolutely battered Corrales as much as Diegos threat and obvious ability. Corrales had just had a run of solid smack downs over solid fighters in Garcia, Manfredy and Gainer (ugh). He didn't just beat them, he left them limp. Mayweather fought on all cylinders that night and knew Corrales was very live and jumped him and destroyed him. Fans like destruction and looking back Floyd rarely showed that form again. It stuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

---

Nope, I'm going all in. I say Floyd Mayweather was a better overall boxing talent than Ray Robinson.

---

You are more than entitled to your opinion. Robinson in my own humble opinion is in another league than Floyd as are many others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

---

Nope, I'm going all in. I say Floyd Mayweather was a better overall boxing talent than Ray Robinson.

---

You are more than entitled to your opinion. Robinson in my own humble opinion is in another league than Floyd as are many others.

---

That's cool. The last thing I wanted to do was crap on Ray Robinson, who was an incredible prizefighter.

If people want to give Robinson the nod because he fought more, that's up to them. But if someone is going to tell me they think Robinson was a more skilled prizefighter than Floyd, I have to disagree.

My main point was this; all sports fans look to the past with rose colored glasses and say "ohhh I wish I was around to watch that guy fight." Floyd is genuine boxing genius with skills AT LEAST on par with those guys we hold up as gods. I think we got to witness pure boxing genius with Floyd, Roy, and Whitaker. I'd put those three guys up with any of the past guys we only know from boxing headlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

There isn't one Roberto Duran-level fighter on Floyd's resume. Not one. In my humble opinion, the best win of Floyd's career might be semi-retired Oscar. Shane Mosley was old and not a great fighter to begin with. Ricky Hatton, Shane Mosley, Corrales, Castillo were GOOD fighters, just not great ones. You're misinterpreting me. I'm NOT anti-Floyd by any means. I'm a fan. Of all the guys we watch today, he has mastered the science that is boxing as much as anyone has. It's just we don't, and can't, know how he would compare because he hasn't faced any great fighter. When I mean great, I mean top 50-100 fighters. Same goes for Calzaghe, to a lesser extent. He was great, but to say he could beat Archie Moore is retarded. Moore just experienced so much more than Calzaghe, even if Calzaghe was slicker, faster than Moore. Do you follow what I'm saying? It's not a dig on Floyd. Think about it, all great fighters have at last ONE defining win; the best have a handful. What was Floyd's?

---

I understand completely what you're saying. I did since your first post. I just disagree 100% with it.

If you don't think Shane Mosley was a great fighter than I don't know what to tell you.

I'm putting aside who fought who, who ducked who, ect, because you don't carry that in the ring with you.

We'll never know who would win a prime Leonard vs prime Floyd fight, because obviously the only way to know for sure would be to invent a time machine, grab both in their respective primes, and make them fight.

What I'm saying to you is that we have different ways of coming up with our opinions. I say Floyd beats Leonard and Robinson p4p. You say he doesn't.

You came up with your opinion based simply because you percieve RL and RR fought better opposition, and SRR fought more. I came up with mine by analyzing the in-ring work of these 3 guys, how they handled certain styles, their pros, their cons, ect, and how I think they would match up stylistically.

I can fill this thread up with examples of guys who fought more and better opposition losing to guys who fought less and softer opposition. That "better opposition" and "more experienced" argument is one of the big fallacies that exists when discussing hypothetical fights. Just like the dreaded triangle theory (A beat B, B beat C, so A would beat C). It's all flawed and (IMO) lazy thinking.

Now is that to say my way is fool proof? Hell no. I've been wrong on a lot of fights in my time. But I'd rather form my opinion by seeing and observing, not reading newspaper headlines and Boxrec stats.

---

And I can fill up this thread with guys that looked astonishing against meager opposition, who were exposed when they stepped up.

Here is my point, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to properly evaluate how great Floyd is when we haven't seen him exercise the talents he has demonstrated in the ring against lesser opposition, against great opposition. It's easier to say how Duran would have fared against someone because we've seen his boxing against other great fighters.

What I do like about Mayweather is that he has an appreciation for the science of the game, you can see that in his style. His footwork is great. He can parry punches, slip/roll punches, use a jab effectively etc. Think about this though. Those things were standard during the golden age of boxing. Every 40-fight boxer had developed those skills.

You're correct in one other respect though I don't think the Shane Mosley that fought Mayweather was great. I don't think the Hatton that Mayweather fought, or the Corrales that Mayweather fought, or the Cotto that Mayweather fought, were great either. They were good. To Mayweather's credit, he has looked great against good fighters, which is a big accomplishment, an accomplishment that merits Hall of Fame induction. But, so has Pacquiao. So, has Calzaghe. So, has Roy Jones. So, has Hopkins.

Setting aside our discussion, of which, by the way, I think you're doing a fantastic job of, what frustrates me most about Mayweather is that there are tests out there for him which would better help me guage how good he really is. If Mayweather beat Sergio Martinez at 160 and if he beat Austin Trout at 154, maybe Bradley too, we could at least better gauge how he would do against above-average competition. The competition isn't too deep at that weight now, unfortunately.

What do you think is Floyd Mayweather's defining fight? Or top-two defining fights? Who do you think is the most athletic fighter Mayweather has fought since he has been a welterweight/junior middleweight? Who do you think is the best technical boxer Mayweather has fought recently? Fastest hands?

Look at your opinion from the opposite point of view, how can you say Floyd Mayweather is better than Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson when you haven't seen footage on Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson? It's impossible.

Based on resume, it is no comparison, Leonard and Robinson win hands down. Based on people who saw both, Leonard and Tunny win too.

Lets hope floyd has alot more fights left in him and retires 50-0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

---

dont know what you mean

---

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

---

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs (:rolleyes:).

---

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Lets hope floyd has alot more fights left in him and retires 50-0.

---

Absolutely. I hope Floyd takes on the best competition from the welterweight, junior middleweight and middleweight divisions. It would be great to witness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I know saying this will stir up the shit and I'll get a lot of "BUT HE DUCKED (INSERT FIGHTER HERE)" and "WHAT ABOUT RAY ROBINSON, ECT" but I have to be honest.

I realize that there's no footage of a lot of the greats, and we're missing footage of guys like Sugar Ray Robinson's prime years. I can only go by what's available, and I'm not going to rate a guy based on newspaper clippings.

Putting aside how stupid/obnoxious he is outside the ring and any percieved "duckings" he might have done, taking only in-ring ability and accomplishment, I say nobody in the history of boxing has done it better than Floyd at his best.

The combination of athleticism, ring generalship, boxing knowledge and technique that he had is unprecendented IMO. How he handled a world class guy like Corrales is just incredible.

Maybe someone can give me an example where someone showed better boxing prowless. I hate Mayweather personally but I think in the ring he was better than anyone.

---

The keyword here is "fighter", Floyd is the best at what he does, but there's hundreds of pugs i'd rather see fight besides him. From a boxing purist's point of view, Floyd is certainly one of the best ever, but from my perspective as a boxing fan, most of Floyd's fights simply aren't all that entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Look at your opinion from the opposite point of view, how can you say Floyd Mayweather is better than Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson when you haven't seen footage on Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson? It's impossible.

---

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

The keyword here is "fighter", Floyd is the best at what he does, but there's hundreds of pugs i'd rather see fight besides him. From a boxing purist's point of view, Floyd is certainly one of the best ever, but from my perspective as a boxing fan, most of Floyd's fights simply aren't all that entertaining.

---

Believe me, I don't like Floyd personally and I can list 100 boxers I'd rather watch than Floyd, past and present.

But being the best doesn't necessarily = excitement. Muhammad Ali had a boring-ass style too for the most part. People remember Muhammad KOing Liston and Foreman, but they forget him stinking out areas by dancing around and excessively holding opponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Look at your opinion from the opposite point of view, how can you say Floyd Mayweather is better than Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson when you haven't seen footage on Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson? It's impossible.

---

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

---

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

---

dont know what you mean

---

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

---

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs (:rolleyes:).

---

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

---

Dempsey's "amateur" career consisted of fighting for food or money in barrooms as a teenager. One thing Dempsey learned was how to actually 'fight' and survive, he perfected this instinctive skill when he became a Pro. This was never more apparent then when Dempsey defended his HW title against Luis Firpo, (The wild bull of the Pampas) from Argentina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

The keyword here is "fighter", Floyd is the best at what he does, but there's hundreds of pugs i'd rather see fight besides him. From a boxing purist's point of view, Floyd is certainly one of the best ever, but from my perspective as a boxing fan, most of Floyd's fights simply aren't all that entertaining.

---

Believe me, I don't like Floyd personally and I can list 100 boxers I'd rather watch than Floyd, past and present.

But being the best doesn't necessarily = excitement. Muhammad Ali had a boring-ass style too for the most part. People remember Muhammad KOing Liston and Foreman, but they forget him stinking out areas by dancing around and excessively holding opponents.

---

Exactly, the thing is, I watch boxing for entertainment, if it's not entertaining, I do something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

---

dont know what you mean

---

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

---

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs (:rolleyes:).

---

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

---

I think that's a bit of an American-centric view that shows a decline in popularity in America and a viable way of earning quick money. With greater and safer opportunities to earn money I guess being punched in the head became less desirable. It doesn't mean the overall standard of boxing declined.

I know the argument is - more people were doing it so it had to be better. But the majority of those fighters would have been crap by any generations standard - separate the wheat from the chaff - unless we believe the old duffers that claim modern men lost the ability to fight.

The Jack Dempsey manual is a prime example. We are expected to believe that people stopped being able to emulate what Dempsey was teaching. His manual is so advanced that thousands and thousands of fighters and trainers just couldn't grasp it. Really?

We now get fight cards from every continent on a daily basis. In December last year, in Britain, there were 58 fights in one night, the highest amount in 60 years. There are still thousands of boxers, trainers and gyms all over the world.

I'm not saying the fighters from the past weren't great. I just don't buy that they were so advanced compared to modern ones. Floyd Mayweather could easily pad his record out by fighting ten "bums" this year. What would it mean in this day and age? Nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

---

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Look at your opinion from the opposite point of view, how can you say Floyd Mayweather is better than Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson when you haven't seen footage on Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson? It's impossible.

---

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

---

Now that is very true. I actually think if he was around back then, he would have cleaned up most of it.

The "old timers vs. current fighters" debate will continue to rage on forever, which in itself is a great thing about boxing discussions. I have to admit I am guilty of favoring fighters from a certain era forward. I, like everyone else, have no scientific facts on which to base my opinions. Like someone else already said, short of having a time machine and yanking these fighters together in their primes, all the rest is assumption.

That "certain era" for me is the 1980's. We were spoiled in those days, with ATG's such as SRL, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, Gomez, Arguello, Pryor, etc. I watch those fights and I see everything I see today. Speed, boxing prowess, beautiful defensive moves, power, etc. I watch fights from the 50's, and I see robotic movement, plodding, but plenty of power. I'm not putting everybody in those baskets. SRR undoubtedly was ahead of his time, and exhibited the movement, skills and speed to dominate as he did in his era. And he was so damn busy, it's difficult not to consider him among the ATG's. Rocky Marciano was tough as nails. Had he been 20 pounds heavier, I would make a case for him against any HW in history. But again, HW's were smaller back then. Now we have 6'-5", 240-lb behemoths like the Klitschkos, and it's almost unfair to try and compare these fighters.

But by and large you watch fights from the 50's and before... and you see the same thing. Human beings have evolved. I would draw a parallel with another sport I'm very familiar with, American football. Players are bigger, faster, and more athletic now than they were back in the 40's and 50's. It's just a fact. The games themselves back then were great, don't get me wrong. Because it was an even playing field. Everybody was smaller and slower. So the degree of competitiveness was the same. So as evolution is true for sports like football, same thing I think holds true for boxing.

This is not meant to diminish in any way the greatness of the old fighters in their own eras. But once you start to compare fighters from different eras, it becomes a guessing game.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 times. That speaks volumes. He put his reputation on the line and EARNED the reputation, as one of, if not the ,Greatest boxers ever to lace up a pair of gloves. Since Floyd fought Hatton in 2008 he has fought a further 4 times. In SRR last year as an active fighter he fought 14 times. Floyd has won by KO 26 times the other 17 fights he had to rely on a points win. SRR won by KO 108 times and only had to rely on a points win 38 times. Offensively Sugar had not just the killer instinct but the intelligence to get that KO even when faced with the most negative and defensive fighters. He had great power in both hands and immaculate footwork that would have given Floyd nightmares. Personally having not seen Floyd fight live I can honestly say that Sugar in the fights I have seen on record beats him aesthetically, technically and by any other criteria with which one could wish to judge him. Who has Floyd rematched ? It's easy to pick out Jake LaMotta and think well Floyd would have handled him as easily as Hatton but Floyd would never had fought him 5 times and would not have had the luxury of Cortez. I am a huge Hatton fan but you must be wearing Rose colour specs if you really think Kostya was one of the all time greats on his division while saying of Sugar "He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place". Sugar beat legendary fighters like Henry Armstrong,Kid Gavilan, and Carmen Basilio all of whom rank equally if not higher in the all time great lists for their weight class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

---

dont know what you mean

---

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

---

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs (:rolleyes:).

---

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

---

I think that's a bit of an American-centric view that shows a decline in popularity in America and a viable way of earning quick money. With greater and safer opportunities to earn money I guess being punched in the head became less desirable. It doesn't mean the overall standard of boxing declined.

I know the argument is - more people were doing it so it had to be better. But the majority of those fighters would have been crap by any generations standard - separate the wheat from the chaff - unless we believe the old duffers that claim modern men lost the ability to fight.

The Jack Dempsey manual is a prime example. We are expected to believe that people stopped being able to emulate what Dempsey was teaching. His manual is so advanced that thousands and thousands of fighters and trainers just couldn't grasp it. Really?

We now get fight cards from every continent on a daily basis. In December last year, in Britain, there were 58 fights in one night, the highest amount in 60 years. There are still thousands of boxers, trainers and gyms all over the world.

I'm not saying the fighters from the past weren't great. I just don't buy that they were so advanced compared to modern ones. Floyd Mayweather could easily pad his record out by fighting ten "bums" this year. What would it mean in this day and age? Nothing.

---

I don't mean it to be American-centric at all. And @Fenster, I hope you don't think of me as some American centric guy. I love my country, but when it comes to boxing, I appreciate a good scientist from anywhere. You know that, I hope.

Quite frankly though, your point is is a solid counter argument. Where were the Russians and Germans between 1900-1960? I'm not sure its absolutely correct, but there is merit to it. Some of the best fighters at the time were NOT American. Ted "Kid" Lewis was a Brit who is in the Hall of Fame. Dai Dollings, arguably the best trainer in New York at that time was a Welshman. Pancho Villa was a Hall of Fame Filipino boxer from that era. Jimmy Wilde was another great fighter from your side of the pond. Max Schmelling was a German. These are just off the top. The list goes on.

It's like anything, baseball and basketball have got considerably better in the last 50 years because there are more people playing baseball and basketball. There is more to talent to choose from. Whereas the good pros from the 50's in basketball would have been good in any era, they might not have been professionals these days because there are so many more kids playing basketball. At least we can agree that in the United States at least, there were more people boxing between 1900 and 1950. There is no debate. It's not even remotely close. How many world-level boxing gyms are there in Chicago now? I'm not sure there is even one. It was harder to rise to the top because there were so many people gunning for it.

It's not just that either. There was more money in boxing for the average guy. The top guys from the era made more money than any other sports figure by far. Dempsey's salary during his prime dwarfed Babe Ruth's. But, even smaller figures in boxing could earn a living doing it. People didn't treat boxing as a second job. More time was spent in the gym as a result.

I'll give you an example. Back in the day, a boxer coming up through the ranks would ply his trade year round. They would fight every two or three weeks, with training in between. That was their only job. Typically, as I understand, a boxer would face certain styles over and over again in attempt to master it. So, Joe Schmo would start as a 4 round boxer, facing only swarmers, then when he mastered that style, he would move to counter punchers at four rounds, then to boxer-punchers etc. When he felt comfortable, he would move on to 6 rounds to do the same thing. If he lost, it wasn't a big deal. It was usually viewed as a learning experience. Fritzie Zivic, one of the craftiest/dirtiest fighters of all-time, didn't win a title until he had 100 fights.

Here's what I mean about the Dempsey manual. It's not like that knowledge completely evaporated. You are correct. It didn't. The same sort of methods I explained in the paragraph before are done today. For example, Golovkin has brought in Philly fighters to train for Rosado. But, there aren't the same number of people doing it. Fighters learn and develop by fighting other good fighters. If you've never fought a great defensive fighter, how can you do it well? It takes time. Today there just aren't as many other good fighters to show other good fighters lessons.

I'm rambling. Apologize for that. We can agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

---

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

---

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Look at your opinion from the opposite point of view, how can you say Floyd Mayweather is better than Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson when you haven't seen footage on Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson? It's impossible.

---

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

---

Now that is very true. I actually think if he was around back then, he would have cleaned up most of it.

---

But based on what exactly. The assumption that they would be 'easier'? Jones didn't even clean up his own era in fairness. I hardly expect he'd see fit enough to do it then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

---

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

---

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

---

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Addicted to_boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

---

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

---

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

---

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

---

Not me at all if that is what you are implying. I'm one of the few that thinks very highly of both Floyd and Pac. They are two of the best boxers of the last twenty years easy.

To prove it, just take out Floyd's name in all of my posts, and replace it with Pac's. I would make the same point about experience/competition and him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Addicted to_boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

---

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

---

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

---

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

---

Not me at all if that is what you are implying. I'm one of the few that thinks very highly of both Floyd and Pac. They are two of the best boxers of the last twenty years easy.

To prove it, just take out Floyd's name in all of my posts, and replace it with Pac's. I would make the same point about experience/competition and him.

---

Why will no Pac fan debate the detailed cherry picked resume facts layed out in fine print above, funny how you avoid the facts? Mayweather has not nearly cherry picked as Pac as he has beaten the same boxers before Pac .

Floyd is untested over 135

He became totally content after the Oscar fight and is just living off his name ... cashing out for low risk, high reward, lucrative fights.

Nothing wrong with that though but I've personally witnessed better boxers than Floyd.

I was young for the tail end of Tyson's career but I still remember it. His physical gifts and attributes trump Floyd's ... his skill wasn't quite the same in the 90s as it was in the late 80s but he still showed flashes of excellent footwork, head movement, punching technique and combination punching. Of course I didn't really notice these things as a kid ... was more impressed with his explosiveness :D

Roy Jones Jr. is another guy I rank above Floyd ... as a boxer I personally watched. Floyd's defense is supposed to be what makes him special, right? Well RJJ is the ONLY guy to have never been hit for a single round in the CompuBox era. Vinnie Paz didn't land a single shot in Roy in the 6th round of their bout. So much for Floyd bragging about his CompuBox stats. Roy arguably didn't lose a single round in his prime. He was the most dominant champion I've ever seen, along with Tyson.

Two guys that I've personally seen who were leagues above Floyd IMO. He's nothing special compared to Tyson or Roy. Elbowing people in the throat isn't great defense IMO.

@Rantcatrat

I wasn't calling you "American-centric," I respect your opinion, I was merely refering to the decline in boxing from the golden period, where all the titles and championships were in America. We now have "champions" from all over the world plying their trade in their own countries. (I'm not explaining this very well :rolleyes:)

My only argument in this debate is - modern fighters are not worse than those from the past. Obviously I am not a boxing expert but, to my eye, I don't watch old footage of great fighters and believe they are doing things far superior to modern ones. And with the limited footage of great fighters available, I don't believe the fighters just below that level could have been so superior either.

So getting back to Floyd

I believe all the "world-class" opponents he has beaten would have been "top-class" in other eras too. Obviously some periods are much stronger than others, so not all would have been champion, but they still would have been top fighters. (And I'm definitely NOT saying Floyd is the best fighter ever)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

Floyd is untested over 135

He became totally content after the Oscar fight and is just living off his name ... cashing out for low risk, high reward, lucrative fights.

Nothing wrong with that though but I've personally witnessed better boxers than Floyd.

I was young for the tail end of Tyson's career but I still remember it. His physical gifts and attributes trump Floyd's ... his skill wasn't quite the same in the 90s as it was in the late 80s but he still showed flashes of excellent footwork, head movement, punching technique and combination punching. Of course I didn't really notice these things as a kid ... was more impressed with his explosiveness :D

Roy Jones Jr. is another guy I rank above Floyd ... as a boxer I personally watched. Floyd's defense is supposed to be what makes him special, right? Well RJJ is the ONLY guy to have never been hit for a single round in the CompuBox era. Vinnie Paz didn't land a single shot in Roy in the 6th round of their bout. So much for Floyd bragging about his CompuBox stats. Roy arguably didn't lose a single round in his prime. He was the most dominant champion I've ever seen, along with Tyson.

Two guys that I've personally seen who were leagues above Floyd IMO. He's nothing special compared to Tyson or Roy. Elbowing people in the throat isn't great defense IMO.

---

I don't know how the hell you can criticise Floyd's resume and then hail Tyson and Roy. Roy fought nobody of note above 168lbs, and Tyson lost to the first elite level fighter he faced. Vitali as had rounds where his opponent hasn't landed a single punch.

As far as tecnique goes I really can't find a realistic flaw that opponents managed to take advantage of consistently, yes the De La Hoya jab was winning him rounds but he never stuck to it and to be fair a good jab makes any hard fight easier. That being said and me agreeing with you that in this generation I believe Floyd to be the very best. I'd have to say though I still take prime RJJ and Sweet Pea over him.

I think its merely a matter of personal taste for me but out of the 100+ fighter collection I have on dvd. RJJ is the only one that ever puts in awe. Sweet pea just had you on a string following him while being battered. It was so damn beautiful to watch.

So for the last three generations I'd have to say Sweet Pete, The Invincible Roy Jones, and finally pretty boy Floyd Mayweather for me.

As for the future? Toss up between Andre Ward, (winner of Rigo, Mares, Donaire though I like Donaire's 24/7 365 testing and his ring activity)

Floyd is a great fighter but I believe, just like Pernell Whitaker, that his peak weight is not Welterweight. As I said earlier SRL would beat him and I believe Hearn’s and Tito would beat him too.

What is Floyd’s prime, in terms of money it is now but his best weight would be super featherweight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Floyd is a great fighter but I believe, just like Pernell Whitaker, that his peak weight is not Welterweight. As I said earlier SRL would beat him and I believe Hearn’s and Tito would beat him too.

What is Floyd’s prime, in terms of money it is now but his best weight would be super featherweight?

---

Tito? Are you kidding me? Tito looked great against come forward fighters. When he fought anybody who actually boxed (Hopkins, Wright, Oscar) he looked clueless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobthepen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Floyd is a great fighter but I believe, just like Pernell Whitaker, that his peak weight is not Welterweight. As I said earlier SRL would beat him and I believe Hearn’s and Tito would beat him too.

What is Floyd’s prime, in terms of money it is now but his best weight would be super featherweight?

---

Tito? Are you kidding me? Tito looked great against come forward fighters. When he fought anybody who actually boxed (Hopkins, Wright, Oscar) he looked clueless.

---

Hopkins and Wright were at the higher weights. Oscar did give him trouble but Tito had power ad Floyd could not afford to make one mistake otherwise he would have got starched.