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

[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?

[Beanflicker]

So you'd rank a guy because a trainer said he was good? The late, great Emmanuel Steward claimed that Sharmba Mitchell would beat Floyd Mayweather. Trainers, fighters, and other experts are wrong ALL the time, dude.

I think Floyd's last 5 were very respectable. Prime Ricky Hatton that Floyd beat was a GREAT fighter. Shane Mosley was a great fighter who was ranked top 2 at the time. I know you're going to get into how beating Ricky at 147 instead of 140 makes the win null and void for some crazy reason and I'm sure you'll dump on his win over Marquez for the same reason.

Who did Duran beat at 147 (besides SRL) to make that such a great win for Ray Leonard? He was a LW champ who moved up two weight classes and never really carried his power truely at that weight. If you're going to insinuate that beating Hatton at 147 is no big deal, you should be consistent and adknowledge that Duran was at his best as a LW.

[bzkfn]

Some good points in this thread. I have fast realised that I agree with Beanflicker on alot of things. Floyd is my #1 P4P of all time. I genuinely don't think anyone would have beaten the guy. I think when people look at the past and rank the greats they discount how much better you have to be physically than you did back in the day.

People will always criticize Floyd for his opposition but I think some of the arguments are completely invalid. The Hatton fight is one that people will always moan about. People complain about Hatton having to step up to 147 for the fight but if Hatton wanted to be the best guy in the sport, he'd have had to prove himself at more than one weightclass. Cortez was a dick in the fight but even if Cortez had not been a factor it wouldn't have made a difference. Up close Hatton couldn't make a dent in Floyd and after the 6th round Hatton started to take a beating. Hatton is my favourite fighter of all time and I'd have loved him to have won but Floyd's class told.

[Rantcatrat]

So you'd rank a guy because a trainer said he was good? The late, great Emmanuel Steward claimed that Sharmba Mitchell would beat Floyd Mayweather. Trainers, fighters, and other experts are wrong ALL the time, dude.

I think Floyd's last 5 were very respectable. Prime Ricky Hatton that Floyd beat was a GREAT fighter. Shane Mosley was a great fighter who was ranked top 2 at the time. I know you're going to get into how beating Ricky at 147 instead of 140 makes the win null and void for some crazy reason and I'm sure you'll dump on his win over Marquez for the same reason.

Who did Duran beat at 147 (besides SRL) to make that such a great win for Ray Leonard? He was a LW champ who moved up two weight classes and never really carried his power truely at that weight. If you're going to insinuate that beating Hatton at 147 is no big deal, you should be consistent and adknowledge that Duran was at his best as a LW.

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?

[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.

[Spicoli]

No sane man can deny Mayweathers in the ring talent. His cup runneth over! Some call it preserving..he may take knocks for the backfoot being his default setting and he makes no bones about doing it his way and his way only, fans be damned. I can respect the skill level but equally dislike the approach and overall execution and-or mindset for the most part. I honestly do think he will look back and wish he had pushed the throttle harder in career, fully maximized that depth and yes..yes crossed off names of seemingly viable threats. After Hatton...I just will never ever understand how a ring master simply goes home and is content to kick up his feet for two years and literally watch his peaked momentum run dry?! He is one of the best I've ever seen but he gets a lead and rides it and he almost struck me as playing catch up when he came back chasing the p4p sausage fest.

[zhubin]

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.

There is no way to know how much Chico's impending jail time had an effect on his performance. But the fact is Diego was one of the very best and most feared fighters in the business at the time...and Floyd put on a masterclass against him. He deserves mad props for that.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Spicoli]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[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.