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

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

[Rantcatrat]

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.

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

[Beanflicker]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

[Rantcatrat]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

[Addicted to_boxing]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

[Rantcatrat]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

Not me at all if that is what you are implying. I'm one of the few that thinks very highly of both Floyd and Pac. They are two of the best boxers of the last twenty years easy.

To prove it, just take out Floyd's name in all of my posts, and replace it with Pac's. I would make the same point about experience/competition and him.

[Beanz]

Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 times. That speaks volumes. He put his reputation on the line and EARNED the reputation, as one of, if not the ,Greatest boxers ever to lace up a pair of gloves. Since Floyd fought Hatton in 2008 he has fought a further 4 times. In SRR last year as an active fighter he fought 14 times. Floyd has won by KO 26 times the other 17 fights he had to rely on a points win. SRR won by KO 108 times and only had to rely on a points win 38 times. Offensively Sugar had not just the killer instinct but the intelligence to get that KO even when faced with the most negative and defensive fighters. He had great power in both hands and immaculate footwork that would have given Floyd nightmares. Personally having not seen Floyd fight live I can honestly say that Sugar in the fights I have seen on record beats him aesthetically, technically and by any other criteria with which one could wish to judge him. Who has Floyd rematched ? It's easy to pick out Jake LaMotta and think well Floyd would have handled him as easily as Hatton but Floyd would never had fought him 5 times and would not have had the luxury of Cortez. I am a huge Hatton fan but you must be wearing Rose colour specs if you really think Kostya was one of the all time greats on his division while saying of Sugar "He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place". Sugar beat legendary fighters like Henry Armstrong,Kid Gavilan, and Carmen Basilio all of whom rank equally if not higher in the all time great lists for their weight class.

[0james0]

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.

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

Now that is very true. I actually think if he was around back then, he would have cleaned up most of it.

[TitoFan]

The "old timers vs. current fighters" debate will continue to rage on forever, which in itself is a great thing about boxing discussions. I have to admit I am guilty of favoring fighters from a certain era forward. I, like everyone else, have no scientific facts on which to base my opinions. Like someone else already said, short of having a time machine and yanking these fighters together in their primes, all the rest is assumption.

That "certain era" for me is the 1980's. We were spoiled in those days, with ATG's such as SRL, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, Gomez, Arguello, Pryor, etc. I watch those fights and I see everything I see today. Speed, boxing prowess, beautiful defensive moves, power, etc. I watch fights from the 50's, and I see robotic movement, plodding, but plenty of power. I'm not putting everybody in those baskets. SRR undoubtedly was ahead of his time, and exhibited the movement, skills and speed to dominate as he did in his era. And he was so damn busy, it's difficult not to consider him among the ATG's. Rocky Marciano was tough as nails. Had he been 20 pounds heavier, I would make a case for him against any HW in history. But again, HW's were smaller back then. Now we have 6'-5", 240-lb behemoths like the Klitschkos, and it's almost unfair to try and compare these fighters.

But by and large you watch fights from the 50's and before... and you see the same thing. Human beings have evolved. I would draw a parallel with another sport I'm very familiar with, American football. Players are bigger, faster, and more athletic now than they were back in the 40's and 50's. It's just a fact. The games themselves back then were great, don't get me wrong. Because it was an even playing field. Everybody was smaller and slower. So the degree of competitiveness was the same. So as evolution is true for sports like football, same thing I think holds true for boxing.

This is not meant to diminish in any way the greatness of the old fighters in their own eras. But once you start to compare fighters from different eras, it becomes a guessing game.

[Spicoli]

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.

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

Now that is very true. I actually think if he was around back then, he would have cleaned up most of it.

But based on what exactly. The assumption that they would be 'easier'? Jones didn't even clean up his own era in fairness. I hardly expect he'd see fit enough to do it then.