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

[0james0]

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

Was he better than the all time greats? We'll never really know. Even if he wasn't actually better than them in skills, strength and speed, you still wouldn't be surprised if he actually won the imaginary dream fights, the guy just wins fights, his adaptability is one of his biggest strengths.

[Beanflicker]

Pound for pound Roy Jones is the best I have ever seen. Whitaker is the second nearest fighter who was untouchable and fought better opposition.

I may even put prime Roy Jones at #2 behind Money May. (braces for impact)

I don't get why there are people who don't give Floyd a chance against Hearns or Leonard. When I say "I think Floyd Mayweather is the greatest of all time", that doesn't mean I think nobody would beat him. Hearns/Mayweather is a tough fight to call IMO. But to say that Hearns and Leonard kill Mayweather is rediculous.

Hearns and Leonard never fought anybody with the combination of speed, boxing skill and reflexes that prime Floyd had. Benitez was a fine fighter indeed, but he was no Floyd Mayweather. He gave Leonard and Duran fits.

[Beanflicker]

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

Nope, I'm going all in. I say Floyd Mayweather was a better overall boxing talent than Ray Robinson.

[Bobthepen]

Do I think Floyd would have beaten Duran? Yes. Do I think he would have beaten Hearns or Leonard? No, but it is more complicated than a straight shootout.
Welterweight was already Floyd's fourth weight, and Hearns and Leonard started at that weight. I rate Leonard as the best I've ever seen in my lifetime, but I wouldn't pick him in a fight against Calzaghe at 168

[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.

[Beanz]

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

Nope, I'm going all in. I say Floyd Mayweather was a better overall boxing talent than Ray Robinson.

You are more than entitled to your opinion. Robinson in my own humble opinion is in another league than Floyd as are many others.

[Beanflicker]

When I said Floyd was possibly the best I've seen, I meant from my era of boxing, not all time. I think that us what the OP meant too.

Nope, I'm going all in. I say Floyd Mayweather was a better overall boxing talent than Ray Robinson.

You are more than entitled to your opinion. Robinson in my own humble opinion is in another league than Floyd as are many others.

That's cool. The last thing I wanted to do was crap on Ray Robinson, who was an incredible prizefighter.

If people want to give Robinson the nod because he fought more, that's up to them. But if someone is going to tell me they think Robinson was a more skilled prizefighter than Floyd, I have to disagree.

My main point was this; all sports fans look to the past with rose colored glasses and say "ohhh I wish I was around to watch that guy fight." Floyd is genuine boxing genius with skills AT LEAST on par with those guys we hold up as gods. I think we got to witness pure boxing genius with Floyd, Roy, and Whitaker. I'd put those three guys up with any of the past guys we only know from boxing headlines.

[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.

[imp]

Lets hope floyd has alot more fights left in him and retires 50-0.

[Rantcatrat]

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.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs ().

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

[Rantcatrat]

Lets hope floyd has alot more fights left in him and retires 50-0.

Absolutely. I hope Floyd takes on the best competition from the welterweight, junior middleweight and middleweight divisions. It would be great to witness.

[Mars_ax]

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.

The keyword here is "fighter", Floyd is the best at what he does, but there's hundreds of pugs i'd rather see fight besides him. From a boxing purist's point of view, Floyd is certainly one of the best ever, but from my perspective as a boxing fan, most of Floyd's fights simply aren't all that entertaining.

[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.

[Beanflicker]

The keyword here is "fighter", Floyd is the best at what he does, but there's hundreds of pugs i'd rather see fight besides him. From a boxing purist's point of view, Floyd is certainly one of the best ever, but from my perspective as a boxing fan, most of Floyd's fights simply aren't all that entertaining.

Believe me, I don't like Floyd personally and I can list 100 boxers I'd rather watch than Floyd, past and present.

But being the best doesn't necessarily = excitement. Muhammad Ali had a boring-ass style too for the most part. People remember Muhammad KOing Liston and Foreman, but they forget him stinking out areas by dancing around and excessively holding opponents.

[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.