Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Rantcatrat, imagine mayweathers opponents all being heavyweights.
What is your end goal here.?
Imagine hatton as a 6,3 heavyweight with desructive bodyshots and cotto a mini mike tyson weighing over 220lbs.
Lets talk about the title pound for pound and what that means.
If floyd was any weight at any era he would beat every opponent.
Thats what the majority of people say not just the average mayweather fan.
I thinks its the fact that there hasnt been enough castillo fights (when floyd was injured) that people judge that the opponents need to be compared to other great fighters who havent had it so easy.
@
imp - I have no beef with Mayweather. He's done incredible in boxing. He's had a tremendous career.
He's clearly an all-time great that should be ranked highly. @
Beanflicker and I don't disagree on that point. We disagree on how highly he should be ranked and we are just comparing Mayweather's body of work in his boxing career to other greats.
To your points, I'm not sure Mayweather would beat every top welterweight of yesteryear, but he beats some without a doubt, and I absolutely agree that he's in every fight.
What welterweights would you put in front of him and why?
I am aware other great boxers exist apart from mayweather but the great positive floyd gives his opponents is frustration.
He's like a fly you cant swat.
I'm only gonna use fighters I saw fight when they were active. Fighters I saw on tape or read about are not included..
I think Thomas Hearns, Donald Curry, Pernell Whitaker, Ike Quartey, Wilfred BenÃtez and Mark Breland would beat Mayweather at 147. Benitez and Whitaker were better defensively. Hearns, Quartey and Breland would beat him with the jab alone.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Nooo, I'm not saying Floyd's body of work doesn't compare to other great fighters. I think the majority of boxing fans HIGHLY over rate the resumes of top guys from the past.
As boxing fans, the minute we started SERIOUSLY following the sport, we had certain "truths" nailed into our heads. The fact that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest ever, that guys like Benny Leonard, Hank Armstrong, Willie Pep, Charley Burley, ect were these mythical legends beyond reproach, who would toy with our pathetic modern pugilists. That unless you weighed between 147-160lbs in the 80s, fought as a HW in the 70s, ect, you were in a "weak" era full of bums and have no business in the conversation on the "true" greats. I know, because I spent years regurgitating this nonsense like everyone else. It's bullshit. I know this is bullshit because whenever I ask someone regurgitating it, "hey, what made (insert legend here) so great", I get no response. People conveniently skip over my post or try to change the topic. He's great because... well, because he just is. Because I was told he is.
I've had people admit this to me on here, when I asked how they ranked a guy who they've NEVER seen fight and have never heard of 98% of his opponents over a guy like Mayweather, Sweet Pea or Leonard, who's greatness can be witnesses with a simple Youtube search. "Well people who knew, like old trainers and fighters said he was great." So basically we're ranking these guys on newspaper clippings and hearsay. People say Willie Pep is the greatest defensive guy because he won a round without throwing a punch apparently. All we have is the newspaper clippings. Imagine is Roy Jones fought in the early 1900's and all we had was newspaper clippings. "JONES DAZZLES, KO'S OPPONENT WITH HANDS BEHIND BACK". "JONES MOVES UP AND TAKES HW CROWN WITH EASE". He'd be considered the greatest of all time. If that was so, you guys would be clowning me here, saying "You think Floyd is the greatest?? Roy Jones won titles from Middleweight to HW, he was knocking guys out with his hands behind his back, you're insane."
Start challenging your own beliefs and look at the resumes of past fighters under the same criteria you guys use to slam guys like Floyd and Wladimir Klitschko.
As far as the 1 vs 1 comparison with Duran, Floyd never challenged for the MW title, but he also never quit because of a tummy ache during a title fight, he never got starched out in 2 rounds (and he fought plenty of guys that could starch guys quick), he never came to a fight out of shape and he never let his weight get out of control to the point where he had to fight guys in weight classes he had no business fighting at. I'll take Floyd over Duran any day of the week.
Good post. It's amazing how modern fans can't understand the difference between watching and reading about fights.
And its amazing to me how modern fans discount history holding onto the belief that boxing started in 1990.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
I'll take VD's lead for argument sake and present a list that imo causes problems for Floyd based on what I have seen. I'll keep it to the original 8 to narrow it down as 130 and 140 would only increase it.
I defend the man as much as anyone and I don't really like him but this myopic claim that he is the Goat is just to much. Roy Jones is the greatest fighter that I have ever seen not Floyd Mayweather.
126
Sanchez
Arguello
Olivares
Gomez
Hamed
Mab
Lopez
Nelson
Pedrosa
135
Buchanon
Ramos
Duran
De Jesus
Shane
Whitaker
Comacho
147
Napoles
Benitez
Palomino
Hearns
Leonard
Wright
Breland
Duran
Quartey
Forrest
Shane
Whitaker
Curry
Haugen
Taylor
Vargas. The one that beat Ike and Winky.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
I'll take VD's lead for argument sake and present a list that imo causes problems for Floyd based on what I have seen. I'll keep it to the original 8 to narrow it down as 130 and 140 would only increase it.
I defend the man as much as anyone and I don't really like him but this myopic claim that he is the Goat is just to much. Roy Jones is the greatest fighter that I have ever seen not Floyd Mayweather.
126
Sanchez
Arguello
Olivares
Gomez
Hamed
Mab
Lopez
Nelson
Pedrosa
135
Buchanon
Ramos
Duran
De Jesus
Shane
Whitaker
Comacho
147
Napoles
Benitez
Palomino
Hearns
Leonard
Wright
Breland
Duran
Quartey
Forrest
Shane
Whitaker
Curry
Haugen
Taylor
Vargas. The one that beat Ike and Winky.
Floyd beats the ones in blue. He embarrasses the ones in red. The others I think either beat him or have a good chance of beating him
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
I'll take VD's lead for argument sake and present a list that imo causes problems for Floyd based on what I have seen. I'll keep it to the original 8 to narrow it down as 130 and 140 would only increase it.
I defend the man as much as anyone and I don't really like him but this myopic claim that he is the Goat is just to much. Roy Jones is the greatest fighter that I have ever seen not Floyd Mayweather.
126
Sanchez
Arguello
Olivares
Gomez
Hamed
Mab
Lopez
Nelson
Pedrosa
135
Buchanon
Ramos
Duran
De Jesus
Shane
Whitaker
Comacho
147
Napoles
Benitez
Palomino
Hearns
Leonard
Wright
Breland
Duran
Quartey
Forrest
Shane
Whitaker
Curry
Haugen
Taylor
Vargas. The one that beat Ike and Winky.
Floyd beats the ones in blue. He embarrasses the ones in red. The others I think either beat him or have a good chance of beating him
I think i will go with have a good chance of beating him.
We still havent seen how to beat floyd yet and there is a blueprint on how to beat those guys mentioned.
The blueprint to beat Hearns was an outstanding chin and power. Mayweather does not possess the power to beat Hearns. I might be unsure of Mayweather against some of the others. Hearns-Mayweather is the one fight where I have no doubt on the outcome.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Good post. It's amazing how modern fans can't understand the difference between watching and reading about fights.
And its amazing to me how modern fans discount history holding onto the belief that boxing started in 1990.
Really? There can't be many fans like that around, surely?
In this day and age we see every aspect of a fighters career - beginning to end, through the good, bad and ugly. We can form our own opinion without relying on the tales of others. It's arguable that old fighters put under the same scrutiny wouldn't look so great... Or maybe look greater.
There are dozens and dozens of modern fans that rubbish the best fighters of this era, yet wax lyrical about men they've never seen. If the fighters from the past were viewed from a blank slate, would these fans be so quick to label them "great?" I highly doubt it.
It's a valid point.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
My biggest problem with Floyd has always been his inactivity. He's been fighting once a year since 2009, and had no fights in 2008. How is anyone supposed to like or applaud that? Back when the "p4p" crown was being argued back and forth between Floyd and Pac, I was squarely on Pac's side simply because Pac was busier. Not to mention that he was being wildly successful in the higher weights.
Now Pac's been "planked" out of p4p discussions, and Floyd's back in the driver's seat. One can only hope that this latest contract with Showtime doesn't have any fine print, or that Floyd doesn't just decide to trash it.
Yes, he's one of the purest boxing talents ever born. But it's also true that many fights were not made when they should have been made, and many times because of Floyd himself.
Some people don't like constant comparisons with fighters of past eras, but...
Sugar Ray Leonard, who many of us use as a comparison because he was also an awesome boxing talent, never went on hiatus to go "dancing with the stars" (or whatever) at the peak of his career. So to me... SRL will always be placed before Floyd on any all-time lists.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Sugar Ray Leonard retired after every other fight and had 40 fights in his entire career. I'm not sure he's the best example to use when talking about inactivity.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
My biggest problem with Floyd has always been his inactivity. He's been fighting once a year since 2009, and had no fights in 2008. How is anyone supposed to like or applaud that? Back when the "p4p" crown was being argued back and forth between Floyd and Pac, I was squarely on Pac's side simply because Pac was busier. Not to mention that he was being wildly successful in the higher weights.
Now Pac's been "planked" out of p4p discussions, and Floyd's back in the driver's seat. One can only hope that this latest contract with Showtime doesn't have any fine print, or that Floyd doesn't just decide to trash it.
Yes, he's one of the purest boxing talents ever born. But it's also true that many fights were not made when they should have been made, and many times because of Floyd himself.
Some people don't like constant comparisons with fighters of past eras, but...
Sugar Ray Leonard, who many of us use as a comparison because he was also an awesome boxing talent, never went on hiatus to go "dancing with the stars" (or whatever) at the peak of his career. So to me... SRL will always be placed before Floyd on any all-time lists.
And that's precisely what historians will remember and the failed fight of the era which will follow both him and Manny to their grave regardless of who's at fault or if they even fight. What also bothers me about Floyd is this ubiquitous hands off approach. Questioning him or his legacy is simply not allowed by some. Having said that I am on record of defending the guy on numerous occasions and yet find it almost impossible to look at some of his short comings be it his legacy or even who he matches up with when in reality its a testimony to how good he is that many of us have to go back in time and in some cases before film to find a suitable opponent. Yes he's the greatest fighter of this generation but don't expect me to simply agree that he beats everyone since 1865 when I don't think he does. I think plenty of fighters throughout boxing's rich history would beat him. Not because I don't like him but because I think certain people beat him and even some less skilled then he is. Every time a discussion of Floyd comes about its as if the tin foil hats are passed around.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
My biggest problem with Floyd has always been his inactivity. He's been fighting once a year since 2009, and had no fights in 2008. How is anyone supposed to like or applaud that? Back when the "p4p" crown was being argued back and forth between Floyd and Pac, I was squarely on Pac's side simply because Pac was busier. Not to mention that he was being wildly successful in the higher weights.
Now Pac's been "planked" out of p4p discussions, and Floyd's back in the driver's seat. One can only hope that this latest contract with Showtime doesn't have any fine print, or that Floyd doesn't just decide to trash it.
Yes, he's one of the purest boxing talents ever born. But it's also true that many fights were not made when they should have been made, and many times because of Floyd himself.
Some people don't like constant comparisons with fighters of past eras, but...
Sugar Ray Leonard, who many of us use as a comparison because he was also an awesome boxing talent, never went on hiatus to go "dancing with the stars" (or whatever) at the peak of his career. So to me... SRL will always be placed before Floyd on any all-time lists.
And that's precisely what historians will remember and the failed fight of the era which will follow both him and Manny to their grave regardless of who's at fault or if they even fight. What also bothers me about Floyd is this ubiquitous hands off approach.
Questioning him or his legacy is simply not allowed by some. Having said that I am on record of defending the guy on numerous occasions and yet find it almost impossible to look at some of his short comings be it his legacy or even who he matches up with when in reality its a testimony to how good he is that many of us have to go back in time and in some cases before film to find a suitable opponent. Yes he's the greatest fighter of this generation but don't expect me to simply agree that he beats everyone since 1865 when I don't think he does. I think plenty of fighters throughout boxing's rich history would beat him. Not because I don't like him but because I think certain people beat him and even some less skilled then he is. Every time a discussion of Floyd comes about its as if the tin foil hats are passed around.
You made some excellent points. I've never considered myself a Floyd hater, and in fact have rooted for him in most (not all) of his more notable fights. Fact is, no matter who you compare him with, Floyd did himself no favors when he willingly took himself out of the mix on these self-imposed breaks. The heated argument for p4p between Floyd and Pac fans is still vivid in my mind. I always sided with Pac. Not because I necessarily thought Pac would beat him head to head, but because I liked Pac's fight frequency as opposed to Floyd's inactivity. It should be ok to question some aspects of a great fighter's career. It's done routinely with some of the past's best, like Ali, SRR, etc.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
I'm very, very disappointed to come back to this thread to find that NOBODY has engaged me :( I'm gonna check out of this thread and make a new one, removing Mayweather from the equation.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
I'm very, very disappointed to come back to this thread to find that NOBODY has engaged me :( I'm gonna check out of this thread and make a new one, removing Mayweather from the equation.
Check out post # 76. @Beanflicker
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Okie doke.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Ehh, yeah I saw the post but you kinda just rattled off a bunch of names and stats without really telling me why they were great wins.
For instance, I don't understand why Floyd would get no credit for beating Arturo Gatti, who (thought obviously not an ATG fighter by any stretch), had won championships at multiple weight divisions, beat some highly credible guys, and was riding a career resurgance after pairing up with Buddy McGirt... but Ali gets credit for beating a guy like Earnie Shavers, who, despite having pure dynamite in his fists, never won a championship, lost (with rare exception) to pretty much every good fighter he ever faced, and had serious questions about his chin, stamina and heart.
What about Ken Norton? For the record, I like him a lot. But why is he great? He beat absolute nobodies before meeting Ali. Obviously he had a style and a great jab that was poison to slicksters like Ali, Holmes, but he got blown out by the big bangers he fought. Who did he beat besides Ali? He gave a sound thrashing to Bobick and Quarry (who was well past his best by then, and wasn't what you'd call a great fighter to begin with). But he's another one of these guys who are considered great because they fought a legendary fighter and did good. Why was Ali great? Oh because he beat great opposition like Ken Norton. Why was Ken Norton great opposition? Oh because he beat Ali. Kind of a "chicken or the egg" kind of thing IMO. I don't see how, p4p, he was any better of a fighter than a lot of the guys that Floyd beat who people would laugh at me if I brought up.
Also, the statistic of "well this old timer fought x amount of hall of famers" is not a great gauge, because in any sport, and pretty much by definition, it's easier to get into the Hall of Fame the earlier in the sport's history you participated. Why? A) With the passing of time, the "standard" is inevitably brought up as great names are added. B) The IBHOF didn't start inducting until 1990. By that time, the old timer's were viewed with the golden age, rose colored glasses. They were looked on more favorably.
Also, Fame is the key word. Obviously there are guys there for pugilistic excellence, and some guys there because they achieved some sort of notority. It stands to reason that the more attention boxing is recieving, the more attention that spills over to "bit" players. You can fit more people under a bigger/brighter spotlight.
This is a big reason why the old timer's resumes get blown up IMO. Boxing was huge in the 70s, there was BIG attention on it (due in large part to Ali), so it allowed guys like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, ect to get into public consciousness. How is Earnie Shavers any better than a Sam Peter? How is Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry any better than a Chris Arreola? I honestly don't know.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Ehh, yeah I saw the post but you kinda just rattled off a bunch of names and stats without really telling me why they were great wins.
For instance, I don't understand why Floyd would get no credit for beating Arturo Gatti, who (thought obviously not an ATG fighter by any stretch), had won championships at multiple weight divisions, beat some highly credible guys, and was riding a career resurgance after pairing up with Buddy McGirt... but Ali gets credit for beating a guy like Earnie Shavers, who, despite having pure dynamite in his fists, never won a championship, lost (with rare exception) to pretty much every good fighter he ever faced, and had serious questions about his chin, stamina and heart.
What about Ken Norton? For the record, I like him a lot. But why is he great? He beat absolute nobodies before meeting Ali. Obviously he had a style and a great jab that was poison to slicksters like Ali, Holmes, but he got blown out by the big bangers he fought. Who did he beat besides Ali? He gave a sound thrashing to Bobick and Quarry (who was well past his best by then, and wasn't what you'd call a great fighter to begin with). But he's another one of these guys who are considered great because they fought a legendary fighter and did good. Why was Ali great? Oh because he beat great opposition like Ken Norton. Why was Ken Norton great opposition? Oh because he beat Ali. Kind of a "chicken or the egg" kind of thing IMO. I don't see how, p4p, he was any better of a fighter than a lot of the guys that Floyd beat who people would laugh at me if I brought up.
Also, the statistic of "well this old timer fought x amount of hall of famers" is not a great gauge, because in any sport, and pretty much by definition, it's easier to get into the Hall of Fame the earlier in the sport's history you participated. Why? A) With the passing of time, the "standard" is inevitably brought up as great names are added. B) The IBHOF didn't start inducting until 1990. By that time, the old timer's were viewed with the golden age, rose colored glasses. They were looked on more favorably.
Also, Fame is the key word. Obviously there are guys there for pugilistic excellence, and some guys there because they achieved some sort of notority. It stands to reason that the more attention boxing is recieving, the more attention that spills over to "bit" players. You can fit more people under a bigger/brighter spotlight.
This is a big reason why the old timer's resumes get blown up IMO. Boxing was huge in the 70s, there was BIG attention on it (due in large part to Ali), so it allowed guys like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, ect to get into public consciousness. How is Earnie Shavers any better than a Sam Peter? How is Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry any better than a Chris Arreola? I honestly don't know.
I thought we were comparing bodies of work. I provided names because that is the most elemental way to start the comparison. The first point in the definition of body of work must be who did the person fight, right? Therefore, let's begin there: please list Floyd's best 22 wins.
Please realize I was simply trying to have a constructive debate about Mayweather's body of work compared with other top ten boxers. You criticized my suggestions for criteria we use to compare bodies of work. Please provide criteria that you think captures how high a body of work should be rated.
One suggestion I have to be fair to us is that we use both of our criteria. In other words, once we have your criteria, let's combine them and see where the two fall.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Also bean he put Shavers down as his 15th best win which is not that bad lower in his list i not sure what mayweather 15th best win is but i don't think it be much better. I don't think Mayweather has beaten anyone that was better then Foreman or Fraiser maybe even Liston i cant think of anyone.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Ehh, yeah I saw the post but you kinda just rattled off a bunch of names and stats without really telling me why they were great wins.
For instance, I don't understand why Floyd would get no credit for beating Arturo Gatti, who (thought obviously not an ATG fighter by any stretch), had won championships at multiple weight divisions, beat some highly credible guys, and was riding a career resurgance after pairing up with Buddy McGirt... but Ali gets credit for beating a guy like Earnie Shavers, who, despite having pure dynamite in his fists, never won a championship, lost (with rare exception) to pretty much every good fighter he ever faced, and had serious questions about his chin, stamina and heart.
What about Ken Norton? For the record, I like him a lot. But why is he great? He beat absolute nobodies before meeting Ali. Obviously he had a style and a great jab that was poison to slicksters like Ali, Holmes, but he got blown out by the big bangers he fought. Who did he beat besides Ali? He gave a sound thrashing to Bobick and Quarry (who was well past his best by then, and wasn't what you'd call a great fighter to begin with). But he's another one of these guys who are considered great because they fought a legendary fighter and did good. Why was Ali great? Oh because he beat great opposition like Ken Norton. Why was Ken Norton great opposition? Oh because he beat Ali. Kind of a "chicken or the egg" kind of thing IMO. I don't see how, p4p, he was any better of a fighter than a lot of the guys that Floyd beat who people would laugh at me if I brought up.
Also, the statistic of "well this old timer fought x amount of hall of famers" is not a great gauge, because in any sport, and pretty much by definition, it's easier to get into the Hall of Fame the earlier in the sport's history you participated. Why? A) With the passing of time, the "standard" is inevitably brought up as great names are added. B) The IBHOF didn't start inducting until 1990. By that time, the old timer's were viewed with the golden age, rose colored glasses. They were looked on more favorably.
Also, Fame is the key word. Obviously there are guys there for pugilistic excellence, and some guys there because they achieved some sort of notority. It stands to reason that the more attention boxing is recieving, the more attention that spills over to "bit" players. You can fit more people under a bigger/brighter spotlight.
This is a big reason why the old timer's resumes get blown up IMO. Boxing was huge in the 70s, there was BIG attention on it (due in large part to Ali), so it allowed guys like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, ect to get into public consciousness. How is Earnie Shavers any better than a Sam Peter? How is Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry any better than a Chris Arreola? I honestly don't know.
He's not great. Far from it. Has no buisness being in the Hall of Fame
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Also not sure how you rate fighters but when you are the best heavyweight fighter in the strongest era of heavyweight and the top dog think its better then doing anything at other weights. Reason why Ali is so great because no one in the world could beat him and don't have to go into pound for pound stuff.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Doesnt need outstanding power.
Just outbox him.
At 154 i favour the hitman, but 147 anything is possible.
There's no blueprint that shows Hearns can be outboxed. It's never happened.
