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.