Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
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.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
I just got up been waiting for your reply since yesterday since my list was already answered. Is there anyone else in my list that you would like to tear down that you would like to correct.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
As for Floydes best wins Hernandez wo did he beat that was so great a older Nelson already was destroyed by Oscar. Correlas was a one of his best wins but before floyde who fuck did he really fight. JLC most people thought he won the first fight was defeat by few nobody's before he fought floyde. Gatti not really atg level fighter ever alot of heart. Del la Hoya big fan but he did lose alot of his big fights and was not a full time fighter the man was so rich i not sure how up for traning he was anymore. Hatton never beat a elite will in prime was smashed by top elite guys he fought. I don't really fell all of that is true but you saying who Ali beat then Folyde has fought bums hes whole career compared to Ali not even close as for others kinda was already explained but if you like i could explain Tunny or Leonard for you.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Here's the deal with Floyd: he's most likely the greatest in-ring talent of all time. When you take into account all the factors: boxing skill, physical gifts, boxing IQ, discipline, ring generalship, ect, there's no name you can give me that had more of an abundance of these things than Floyd Mayweather. That's a fact.
People won't acknowledge this, because as people we really don't appreciate shit until it's gone. People have rose colored glasses when viewing past era's and legendary fighters: according to these people, nobody pre-1990 ducked anyone, nobody fought bums, everyone was a man's man who fought who they thought was their toughest test, regardless of what the public thought. And the REAL old timers fought every couple of week because they were all super-tough manly men who wanted to learn their craft. It had nothing to do with the fact that the pay was SHIT compared to today, and corrupt mobster managers took most of their money. No, they were all tough guys who ate cement and shit bricks.
When Muhammad Ali was in his prime, when he was head and shoulders above everyone and visibly the most gifted heavyweight fighter ever seen in a ring, all people could talk about was how he was a sissy, how past champs like Marciano, Joe Louis, Dempsey, ect would have wiped the floor with him. Now he's considered the #1 of all time.
Floyd will go down as, if not #1, a solid #2 behind SRR. I gaurentee it. We can't see it now because everyone hates him and tries to discredit him, but you can't fuck with his resume and accomplishments. I've personally never seen a better boxer, and I've seen them all.
You saw Pep and Saddler? How fucking old are you?
I like Floyds ring skills over Peps and Saddlers. Ive seen them all on film as well they were made for each other styles.
Pep had good feet and was fast enough to work both sides of a man and in and out but in boxing hand skill he was given as good as he got at times.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
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.
It's a different discussion though who would win H2H between Duran and Floyd.
It's also a different discussion in how we rate historical fighters compared with fighters from the current era. There's so much that goes into that discussion, and we can have it, but for the purposes of this thread, I was wondering how Mayweather's CV stacks up with other all-time greats. Whether fighters from the current era or the former era are better is a great debate by the way.
However, for the purposes of this thread, you saying that Mayweather has a better CV than Duran? Do you rate Mayweather's wins higher than Duran's? If Corrales is Mayweather's best win, do you rank that higher than Duran's over Leonard? And how about Mayweather's wins compared to other top twenty five guys?
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Also, a lot of the best fighters have a signature win. Duran has Leonard etc. Who do you think is Floyd's signature win?
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
@Beanflicker - will you do me a favor and demonstrate how Mayweather's body of work is better than the other great fighters we admire. If you would prefer, feel free to limit that to fighters considered great by many that we have film of. I would prefer to save the argument about older fighters versus contemporary fighters to a different thread.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Folyde has fought bums hes whole career compared to Ali not even close as for others kinda was already explained but if you like i could explain Tunny or Leonard for you.
I'd love for you to explain Tunny and Benny Leonard to me.
And I never saw anyone explain to me why Ali was so great. I've never seen anyone explain to me why anyone was so great.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
If you want to put Floyd in the top 25 so be it but calling him the GOAT is a different story. In your world the fact that no footage exits for Robinson at 147 makes him ineligible for the list.
Same with Greb,Langford, Gans,Leonard and host of others. And how can you right off guys people fought when there is no tape to support it?
You can call Floyd the goat but it is not a fact.It's an opinion. I can think of several people that could have beaten him in every weight class he has fought in. As far as those you mentioned;
Robinson was undefeated as an amateur and went 85/0 with 40 first round knockouts. He beat 18 world champions and 11 hall of famers and reached a peak of 128-1-2. I don't even think Floyd could carry his activity pace.
Ali fought in the toughest most competitive heavyweight division in history so if he does not qualify then no heavyweight does. Do I think he's the Goat? No.
Louis was undefeated for close to 12 years and destroyed the field.
THANK YOU for proving my point.
Floyd has been undefeated for 17 years of pro boxing. 17 fucking years. Do you realize how hard that is? Even if you only fought guys ranked between top 20 and 30 in the world, that's INCREDIBLE to be that consistent for so long.
But listen to yourself: when you're talking about Floyd, that doesn't get brought up. It's strictly "well who did he beat", but when talking about the old timers, it's all "he went undefeated for (insert time here), won this many in a row, won this many championships". You're even using his AMATEUR background to rank him all time. There's absolutely NO mention of the quality of opponents in your justification.
I know you mentioned Sugar Ray fought a lot more... well, so what? Tell me who he fought? Tell me why Jake Lamotta was a better fighter than Shane Mosley, Ricky Hatton, Miguel Cotto, ect?
You're quick to give Robinson credit for beating a bunch of "champs"... well, Carlos Baldomir was the Welterweight world champ when Floyd fought him. How come he gets no credit for that? Ohh, because Baldomir is a bum, right? Well how come the champs that Robinson beat don't get the same level of thought as to whether or not they were great?
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
@
Beanflicker - will you do me a favor and demonstrate how Mayweather's body of work is better than the other great fighters we admire. If you would prefer, feel free to limit that to fighters considered great by many that we have film of. I would prefer to save the argument about older fighters versus contemporary fighters to a different thread.
You're not getting it. I'm not saying his body of work is better. I'm saying it's on par with anyone elses' and his level of skill is better.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your top 10 fighters have a more impressive body of work than Mayweather. I've thrown down the challenge to you, or anyone else who wants to take it up. Don't try to wiggle out of it. I'm challenging your boxing knowledge. Take your top 5 to 10 guys (or even your top 25 guys, if you feel adventurous) and tell me why their resumes are so much better than Mayweather's.
Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Hank Armstrong, Willie Pep, I wanna know what these guys did that makes them uncomparable to Floyd Mayweather. I wanna know why opponents like Jake Lamotta, Bobo Olson, Joey Maxim, ect are more impressive than guys like Ricky Hatton, JLC, Diego Corrales, De La Hoya, ect. I really want to know. Educate me, I'm an open minded guy. I don't want to think Floyd Mayweather is the GOAT. I think he's an asshole.
Just keep in mind that when doing it, you have to use the same criteria as you use to smash PBF. Don't get lazy like Inuit and say "well he beat a bunch of HOFers". Tell me what their best fights were, what it meant, and what they showed the world.
I await your reply, good sirs
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pastor John
Mayweather could cement his legacy as an all-time great by ending his Showtime contract fighting Pacquiao, Alvarez, Martinez, Bradley, and Broner at the end of the contract. Most likely we will see this to end out his career: Khan, Alexander, Berto, Lamont Peterson, and Keith Thurman.
I'm hoping he man's up and takes the challenge of these other guys, but his history of choosing opponents says otherwise.
Mayweather is capped out at 147. That is to say when he ventures north of that weight it shows. It even showed way back in the Oscar fight and he was just 150 and it has showed since. This is unlike many welters of the past like Robinson who went to 160 seamlessly. I think its a mistake to base his legacy at this time in his career with fights against men that weigh close to 175 at fight time. If he's going to fight one it might as well be Martinez and that's a year away at least.Thurman and Berto are most likely not in the plans nor Broner.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pastor John
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pastor John
Mayweather could cement his legacy as an all-time great by ending his Showtime contract fighting Pacquiao, Alvarez, Martinez, Bradley, and Broner at the end of the contract. Most likely we will see this to end out his career: Khan, Alexander, Berto, Lamont Peterson, and Keith Thurman.
I'm hoping he man's up and takes the challenge of these other guys, but his history of choosing opponents says otherwise.
Mayweather is capped out at 147. That is to say when he ventures north of that weight it shows. It even showed way back in the Oscar fight and he was just 150 and it has showed since. This is unlike many welters of the past like Robinson who went to 160 seamlessly. I think its a mistake to base his legacy at this time in his career with fights against men that weigh close to 175 at fight time. If he's going to fight one it might as well be Martinez and that's a year away at least.Thurman and Berto are most likely not in the plans nor Broner.
I agree Mayweather isn't as effective above 147, but Martinez is there for the taking right now. Now is the time to fight him. Berto was in the plan until his loss to Guerrero. I could see Mayweather fighting him if Berto puts together a few wins over decent competition. Thurman is extremely limited and his promoter will continue to put him in fights he should win. I definitely could see that fight happening towards the end of next year if Thurman is active. Mayweather will easily defeat him. Broner is going to continue to move up in weight. I think that could be a huge fight next year, but Mayweather won't risk fighting a guy as young, quick, and athletic as Broner.
Yup I'd say Martinez is a little ripe but then again he may have completed overlooked Murray. I mean last minute training in the hotel room? You could be right but Floyd may look at that as a step down since the man he just waxed, waxed him. I'm hoping Broner gets his piece and then goes back to 140. Trouble is I think most 140 pounders at the top will be moving to 147 so Broners timing may work to his benefit. Perhaps he will fight a guy like Aydin. Should prove interesting over the coming year. September is not that far away so we should hear in a month or so.
Re: Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
@
Beanflicker - will you do me a favor and demonstrate how Mayweather's body of work is better than the other great fighters we admire. If you would prefer, feel free to limit that to fighters considered great by many that we have film of. I would prefer to save the argument about older fighters versus contemporary fighters to a different thread.
You're not getting it. I'm not saying his body of work is better. I'm saying it's on par with anyone elses' and his level of skill is better.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your top 10 fighters have a more impressive body of work than Mayweather. I've thrown down the challenge to you, or anyone else who wants to take it up. Don't try to wiggle out of it. I'm challenging your boxing knowledge. Take your top 5 to 10 guys (or even your top 25 guys, if you feel adventurous) and tell me why their resumes are so much better than Mayweather's.
Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Hank Armstrong, Willie Pep, I wanna know what these guys did that makes them uncomparable to Floyd Mayweather. I wanna know why opponents like Jake Lamotta, Bobo Olson, Joey Maxim, ect are more impressive than guys like Ricky Hatton, JLC, Diego Corrales, De La Hoya, ect. I really want to know. Educate me, I'm an open minded guy. I don't want to think Floyd Mayweather is the GOAT. I think he's an asshole.
Just keep in mind that when doing it, you have to use the same criteria as you use to smash PBF. Don't get lazy like Inuit and say "well he beat a bunch of HOFers". Tell me what their best fights were, what it meant, and what they showed the world.
I await your reply, good sirs
I think we're both being lazy. I asked you to show how he compared favorably to the top twenty five guys and you asked the opposite of me. ;D Neither of us has done it.
I also asked you which of Floyd's wins was on par with Duran's over Leonard? Did you answer that? I might have missed it; I'll recheck the thread after this post.
I want to make clear though that I never smashed PBF, unless smashing PBF is saying that he's in the top 50 of all-time, which to me is quite the compliment. We just rank him differently. I mean consider right now there are 17 weight classes in boxing and originally there were 8. I just don't think he's top 25. I think the reason is that I don't think too highly of his wins since lightweight. I think that's the bottom line for me. They weren't bad wins. I just don't think they're good enough to merit top twenty-five status.
