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

[Gandalf]

Well there was 5 posts before the nonsense started. About par for the course ratio

And Fenster must be sense? My post was perfect. We had an even fight until the stupid point deduction. It was stupid and clearly enough to upset anyone.

Don't be a prick, Fenster. Honesty should be respected and not insulted.

[Fenster]

Well there was 5 posts before the nonsense started. About par for the course ratio

And Fenster must be sense? My post was perfect. We had an even fight until the stupid point deduction. It was stupid and clearly enough to upset anyone.

Don't be a prick, Fenster. Honesty should be respected and not insulted.

You can say whatever you like it means nothing to me. You don't know shit about boxing (That's a quote from your favourite fighter).

Beanflicker, the guy that made the thread, predicted in his first line it would quickly stir up shit, it took 5 posts. That's all i'm saying.

[TitoFan]

Sugar Ray Leonard, back in his time, combined power, boxing skills, and ring generalship to the extent that it made him an ATG. He also had the "who's who" of boxing opponents that would rival any other fighter before or since. I guess if you were to draw a parallel with Floyd, you'd have to go back to SRL and let the comparisons begin.

[Beanflicker]

Sugar Ray Leonard, back in his time, combined power, boxing skills, and ring generalship to the extent that it made him an ATG. He also had the "who's who" of boxing opponents that would rival any other fighter before or since. I guess if you were to draw a parallel with Floyd, you'd have to go back to SRL and let the comparisons begin.

SRL was a monster for sure and a good example of all of those, but I've just never seen the kind of skill and ring generalship from him that Floyd showed in fights like Corrales.

[TitoFan]

Sugar Ray Leonard, back in his time, combined power, boxing skills, and ring generalship to the extent that it made him an ATG. He also had the "who's who" of boxing opponents that would rival any other fighter before or since. I guess if you were to draw a parallel with Floyd, you'd have to go back to SRL and let the comparisons begin.

SRL was a monster for sure and a good example of all of those, but I've just never seen the kind of skill and ring generalship from him that Floyd showed in fights like Corrales.

Floyd-Corrales was arguably one of Floyd's best all-around fights to be sure. Diego was an awesome fighter with power and good boxing skills. It's hard to argue against that. But Sugar Ray's fights against Tommy Hearns, particularly the first fight, was a true classic. Add to that his victories over such ATG's as Roberto Duran, Wilfredo Benitez, and Marvin Hagler... and you can make a case for SRL as well. One thing I favor in SRL over Floyd, even if by a small margin, is SRL's style of mostly going on the offensive. Whereas in some of Floyd's fights, he tends to be mostly a defensive counterpuncher. But both are ATG's, and probably in the top 5 all time. It's a privilege to be able to say you've seen boxing mastery at its best.

[Beanflicker]

Floyd-Corrales was arguably one of Floyd's best all-around fights to be sure. Diego was an awesome fighter with power and good boxing skills. It's hard to argue against that. But Sugar Ray's fights against Tommy Hearns, particularly the first fight, was a true classic. Add to that his victories over such ATG's as Roberto Duran, Wilfredo Benitez, and Marvin Hagler... and you can make a case for SRL as well. One thing I favor in SRL over Floyd, even if by a small margin, is SRL's style of mostly going on the offensive. Whereas in some of Floyd's fights, he tends to be mostly a defensive counterpuncher. But both are ATG's, and probably in the top 5 all time. It's a privilege to be able to say you've seen boxing mastery at its best.

I think there was a big skill advantage for Floyd over guys like Ray Leonard and Roy Jones, who relied heavily on their freakish reflexes. Floyd had the reflexes and the defensive skill. One thing that stood out was that Floyd's offense was so calculated. He got aggressive against Corrales at times but still managed to slip and roll with the punches coming back at him. Not to diminish what Leonard and RJJ did though, I still believe they were geniuses in the ring as well.

I've never seen a guy able to navigate his back off the ropes like Floyd did in that fight either, which is no small feat given the size and reach Corrales had on him (comparable to the advantage Hearns had on RL I guess). Never seen anything like it. Even Harold Lederman said he hadn't seen anything like it since Willy Pep.

[Rantcatrat]

There were many, but it's impossible to measure Mayweather Jr. against the greats. Take away the arguments of whom Mayweather should have fought and when, and just look at who he actually fought and when he fought them. What has been Mayweather's defining fight? Do you think his win over Corrales was his best performance? Or, perhaps his split decision over De La Hoya? Compare his opponents to the opponents of Roberto Duran, Mohammad Ali, Benny Leonard, and the greatest of them all, Sugar Ray Robinson. Against guys like that, there is just no comparison. That's why it's impossible to measure Mayweather. The only thing we can do is be somewhat critical of the opposition he didn't face, but that's a different thread. Moreover, even if you are a someone who thinks Mayweather has faced everyone he should have faced, and didn't miss anyone, he still has faced limited opposition to be compared to the greatest of boxers. It's much easier to look fabulous when you aren't up against a great fighter.

Floyd:

Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and I'm maybe missing someone there.

Duran:

Camacho, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Ken Buchanon, Iran Barkley, Marvin Hagler, Wilfredo Benitez, De Jesus, and I'm forgetting a good amount.

Ali -

Holmes, Norton, Spinks, Lyle, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Quarry, Chuvalo etc.

You get my drift.

The truth is that we'll never know how Mayweather would look against great competition. Is it possible he would have beat great fighters? Yes, but it is equally possible he would have lost too. Bottom line: Mayweather is a future hall of famer and is great, but he hasn't been tested enough to be compared to any of the top guys of all-time.

Whitey Bimtein said it best: "Show me an undefeated fighter and I’ll show a guy who’s never fought anybody."

[Beanflicker]

There were many, but it's impossible to measure Mayweather Jr. against the greats. Take away the arguments of whom Mayweather should have fought and when, and just look at who he actually fought and when he fought them. What has been Mayweather's defining fight? Do you think his win over Corrales was his best performance? Or, perhaps his split decision over De La Hoya? Compare his opponents to the opponents of Roberto Duran, Mohammad Ali, Benny Leonard, and the greatest of them all, Sugar Ray Robinson. Against guys like that, there is just no comparison. That's why it's impossible to measure Mayweather. The only thing we can do is be somewhat critical of the opposition he didn't face, but that's a different thread. Moreover, even if you are a someone who thinks Mayweather has faced everyone he should have faced, and didn't miss anyone, he still has faced limited opposition to be compared to the greatest of boxers. It's much easier to look fabulous when you aren't up against a great fighter.

Floyd:

Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and I'm maybe missing someone there.

Duran:

Camacho, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Ken Buchanon, Iran Barkley, Marvin Hagler, Wilfredo Benitez, De Jesus, and I'm forgetting a good amount.

Ali -

Holmes, Norton, Spinks, Lyle, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Quarry, Chuvalo etc.

You get my drift.

The truth is that we'll never know how Mayweather would look against great competition. Is it possible he would have beat great fighters? Yes, but it is equally possible he would have lost too. Bottom line: Mayweather is a future hall of famer and is great, but he hasn't been tested enough to be compared to any of the top guys of all-time.

Whitey Bimtein said it best: "Show me an undefeated fighter and I’ll show a guy who’s never fought anybody."

I think we can deduce a certain amount from what a fighter displays in the ring. The sad thing is a lot of great fighters (like Roy Jones) don't get brought up because people dog them for their opposition, even though just watching in the ring would tell you he's a special talent.

I'm looking at pure in-ring ability, and I don't think a lot of these greats hold a candle to him. I'm sure there are guys who do certain things better than he did, but I don't think any of those guys had the overall package that he did.

And personally I think the past greats get a pass for a lot of their competition. A lot of guys are considered amazing just because they fought a great and did well, and we don't know much else about them.

Personally I don't see how guys like Ken Buchannon, Iran Barkley, De Jesus, Leon Spinks, Jerry Quarry, george Chuvalo, ect were any better than the guys Floyd has fought.

I think it's kinda hypocritical too that a lot of people will rate guys like Stanley Ketchel and Harry Greb over a modern great when we've never seen them fight and by and large know NOTHING about their opponents. All we have is newsclippings.

[Rantcatrat]

There were many, but it's impossible to measure Mayweather Jr. against the greats. Take away the arguments of whom Mayweather should have fought and when, and just look at who he actually fought and when he fought them. What has been Mayweather's defining fight? Do you think his win over Corrales was his best performance? Or, perhaps his split decision over De La Hoya? Compare his opponents to the opponents of Roberto Duran, Mohammad Ali, Benny Leonard, and the greatest of them all, Sugar Ray Robinson. Against guys like that, there is just no comparison. That's why it's impossible to measure Mayweather. The only thing we can do is be somewhat critical of the opposition he didn't face, but that's a different thread. Moreover, even if you are a someone who thinks Mayweather has faced everyone he should have faced, and didn't miss anyone, he still has faced limited opposition to be compared to the greatest of boxers. It's much easier to look fabulous when you aren't up against a great fighter.

Floyd:

Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and I'm maybe missing someone there.

Duran:

Camacho, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Ken Buchanon, Iran Barkley, Marvin Hagler, Wilfredo Benitez, De Jesus, and I'm forgetting a good amount.

Ali -

Holmes, Norton, Spinks, Lyle, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Quarry, Chuvalo etc.

You get my drift.

The truth is that we'll never know how Mayweather would look against great competition. Is it possible he would have beat great fighters? Yes, but it is equally possible he would have lost too. Bottom line: Mayweather is a future hall of famer and is great, but he hasn't been tested enough to be compared to any of the top guys of all-time.

Whitey Bimtein said it best: "Show me an undefeated fighter and I’ll show a guy who’s never fought anybody."

I think we can deduce a certain amount from what a fighter displays in the ring. The sad thing is a lot of great fighters (like Roy Jones) don't get brought up because people dog them for their opposition, even though just watching in the ring would tell you he's a special talent.

I'm looking at pure in-ring ability, and I don't think a lot of these greats hold a candle to him. I'm sure there are guys who do certain things better than he did, but I don't think any of those guys had the overall package that he did.

And personally I think the past greats get a pass for a lot of their competition. A lot of guys are considered amazing just because they fought a great and did well, and we don't know much else about them.

Personally I don't see how guys like Ken Buchannon, Iran Barkley, De Jesus, Leon Spinks, Jerry Quarry, george Chuvalo, ect were any better than the guys Floyd has fought.

I think it's kinda hypocritical too that a lot of people will rate guys like Stanley Ketchel and Harry Greb over a modern great when we've never seen them fight and by and large know NOTHING about their opponents. All we have is newsclippings.

The bold is true to an extent. But, you just never know, whereas with other guys, it's known. How many prospects that you've seen look super special, only to see him step up in competition and get flattened by a gatekeeper. There is NO debate that Floyd is a HOF, and he might be the best of our generation, but his competition was weak, not Klitschko-weak mind you, but weak when we are comparing him to all-time level guys.

One other thing that doesn't weigh in Floyd's favor is the number of times he has fought. The guys back in the day fought twice, three times as often as Floyd. If you are a cello player, how do you get better? Experience. Those guys had much more experience than Floyd.

With regard to the newsclippings bit, I posted in another post that there were boxers and trainers who lived to see the guys of yesteryear and the guys of today. They had the perspective to compare. They see Floyd as good, but not great when compared to the guys of yesteryear. Now take the bias toward older fighters etc., but even with that, it makes you think twice of Floyd's real placement in the upper echelons of history. That is why Dempsey is rated so highly. If you read Dempsey's book on boxing, you'll realize how advanced the technique was back then. To a large extent, boxing today has been dumbed down.

[Rantcatrat]

There were many, but it's impossible to measure Mayweather Jr. against the greats. Take away the arguments of whom Mayweather should have fought and when, and just look at who he actually fought and when he fought them. What has been Mayweather's defining fight? Do you think his win over Corrales was his best performance? Or, perhaps his split decision over De La Hoya? Compare his opponents to the opponents of Roberto Duran, Mohammad Ali, Benny Leonard, and the greatest of them all, Sugar Ray Robinson. Against guys like that, there is just no comparison. That's why it's impossible to measure Mayweather. The only thing we can do is be somewhat critical of the opposition he didn't face, but that's a different thread. Moreover, even if you are a someone who thinks Mayweather has faced everyone he should have faced, and didn't miss anyone, he still has faced limited opposition to be compared to the greatest of boxers. It's much easier to look fabulous when you aren't up against a great fighter.

Floyd:

Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and I'm maybe missing someone there.

Duran:

Camacho, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Ken Buchanon, Iran Barkley, Marvin Hagler, Wilfredo Benitez, De Jesus, and I'm forgetting a good amount.

Ali -

Holmes, Norton, Spinks, Lyle, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Quarry, Chuvalo etc.

You get my drift.

The truth is that we'll never know how Mayweather would look against great competition. Is it possible he would have beat great fighters? Yes, but it is equally possible he would have lost too. Bottom line: Mayweather is a future hall of famer and is great, but he hasn't been tested enough to be compared to any of the top guys of all-time.

Whitey Bimtein said it best: "Show me an undefeated fighter and I’ll show a guy who’s never fought anybody."

I think we can deduce a certain amount from what a fighter displays in the ring. The sad thing is a lot of great fighters (like Roy Jones) don't get brought up because people dog them for their opposition, even though just watching in the ring would tell you he's a special talent.

I'm looking at pure in-ring ability, and I don't think a lot of these greats hold a candle to him. I'm sure there are guys who do certain things better than he did, but I don't think any of those guys had the overall package that he did.

And personally I think the past greats get a pass for a lot of their competition. A lot of guys are considered amazing just because they fought a great and did well, and we don't know much else about them.

Personally I don't see how guys like Ken Buchannon, Iran Barkley, De Jesus, Leon Spinks, Jerry Quarry, george Chuvalo, ect were any better than the guys Floyd has fought.

I think it's kinda hypocritical too that a lot of people will rate guys like Stanley Ketchel and Harry Greb over a modern great when we've never seen them fight and by and large know NOTHING about their opponents. All we have is newsclippings.

@Beanflicker - one more question for you. Where would you place Floyd's last five fights in terms of difficulty level of current, active boxers? Where would you rank Ortiz at 47, Cotto at 54, Marquez at 42, Mosley at age 39, and Hatton at 47, in terms of quality of opponents with other current boxers? I'm not saying guys who are undefeated or won their last five outings, but top guys who faced the toughest around them. I'm not even sure Floyd's difficulty of schedule level merits mention in the top 10? I don't want to hijack the thread, but you get my point. How do we really know Floyd is great if he hasn't faced many great fighters?