Quote Originally Posted by Rantcatrat View Post
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.