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

[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."

[0james0]

I agree, I don't ever really remember anyone being as untouchable as he is. I cannot see anyone beating him.

A prime Roy Jones or Tyson had me in the same awe at the time though. I thought they were incredible.

I think I also thought Naz would be the best ever and that ended in tears.

[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]

Oh yeah you guys call it football. Sorry about that eric.

"boxing progresses more then team sports" is a statement and not a fact. Boxers have been training in similar fashion for about a hundred years. Many boxers still use all kinds of old school methods as a major part of training. Which progresses more is certainly up for debate. With all of this improvement in science, nutrition and sports medicine, there sure seems to be a lot of fighters across the spectrum of weight that gas out.

That Wlad would ko Ali is just an opinion also and does not speak the the issue here. Nor is it evidence for your desired conclusion See now I think Wlad would resemble Carnera if he fought Ali.

I'm not sure Floyd beats any of the fab 4 from the eighties 5 if you add Benitez let alone everyone in history from 135 to 147. He's brilliant and in real time but that's a huge leap.

Peace

fighters at the top level "Gas Out" the same as they have always done but dont forget their opposition is also "relatively" fitter and stronger

the fab four is overrated because of the situation they were in, im not saying they werent deserved of their stature im just saying as there were 4 fighters with as big a following and interest around at the same time is why they are so fondly remembered

ill give you a shining example of how fighters can be remembered for more than they were - Eubank and Benn will always be remembered most fondly by the british public, a fantastic rivalry at world level, the best we have ever had, when in reality they may not have even been the best 2 SMW from britain at the time

and yep Wlad KOing Ali is an opinion

if Ali was around today and the klits werent, because of ali's personality and what he did outside the ring, in 40 years we would be talking about the golden era of heavyweights, remember them 3 fights between ali and adamek, then the ali v eddie chambers fight, imagine having so many great hws around all at the same time, Ali, Adamek, Chambers, Areolla, Haye, Tony Thompson

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

[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.

[Themantonio]

I know saying this will stir up the shit and I'll get a lot of "BUT HE DUCKED (INSERT FIGHTER HERE)" and "WHAT ABOUT RAY ROBINSON, ECT" but I have to be honest.

I realize that there's no footage of a lot of the greats, and we're missing footage of guys like Sugar Ray Robinson's prime years. I can only go by what's available, and I'm not going to rate a guy based on newspaper clippings.

Putting aside how stupid/obnoxious he is outside the ring and any percieved "duckings" he might have done, taking only in-ring ability and accomplishment, I say nobody in the history of boxing has done it better than Floyd at his best.

The combination of athleticism, ring generalship, boxing knowledge and technique that he had is unprecendented IMO. How he handled a world class guy like Corrales is just incredible.

Maybe someone can give me an example where someone showed better boxing prowless. I hate Mayweather personally but I think in the ring he was better than anyone.

Putting it that way I do have to agree with u mate! Initially after looking at the title thread I wasn't too sure but yeah...

The word "better" or best etc. always can create a stir though as it is open for opinion, interpretation and subjectiveness... And immediately after reading the thread title I thought a prime RJJ or Pac were the two that first popped into my mind. Watching RJJ in his prime, I thought I would never see a better boxer ever. Don't get me wrong, Floyd coming through was also a phenomenal boxer. I enjoyed Floyd v Judah, I thought aside from Floyd v Corrales which really showed how great Floyd could amount to, Floyd v Judah showcased all his skills as a matured boxer-speed, defesne, ring generalship and over all boxing skillset.

For sheer excitement however and a fighter who just brought it every night with whatever skill, grit, determination and heart he had, I can't go past the Pacman. IMO he was a "better fighter" coz as a fighter, the kid fought.

But again I repeat, in the context of your thread, I am not saying Pac is a better figher than Floyd at all! In fact I agree 100% with your analysis!

[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.

[CutMeMick]

Here are some fighters whom I think were better in their prime than Floyd...

Ali
Hagler
Jofre
Pernell
Lopez


I think if Floyd can add a few of these names to his resume before he retires with time he will receive the recognition he yearns for: Martinez, Bradley, Alvarez & Guerrero.
I would like to see him give 160 a go it would be great.

I think in the futur Floyd will settle in amongst the greats. Where exactly still remains to be seen.