Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy

[Beanflicker]

Comparing 1983 Hagler to 2013, obviously you have to give the edge to Hagler. He was a monster in his prime who was killing everyone, whereas there are big questions now as to whether or not Martinez is on the decline. So who was the bigger challenge? You'd be a fool not to pick 1983 Hagler. He was a beast. I have no doubts about Duran's courage. He probably would have fought Holmes or Tyson if they let him. And while it was an admirable attempt, he did come up short. I could speculate all day about how Hagler probably underestimated him, but I'll stick with the facts. In terms of taking up challenges, Duran blows Mayweather away. I'm not saying Floyd was tougher than Duran, I'm just saying he was a better fighter.

In terms of Floyd's defining wins, in chronological order I would have to go with...

1. Genaro Hernandez
2. Deigo Corrales
3. Jose Luis Castillo
4. Arturo Gatti
5. De La Hoya
6. Ricky Hatton

Now keep in mind, these aren't the ones I necessarily think were the hardest, or even necessarily his best performances, just his most defining/important wins. For instance, obviously I think beating Shane Mosley, Cotto, Guerrero, ect is more impressive than Gatti, but it has to be acknowledged that the Gatti fight was a huge win for him in terms of getting his name over with the general public.

[Beanflicker]

To clarify too, I'm not saying Floyd has fought better competition than anyone in the history of boxing. For instance, I think Leonard coming back after years absent and beating Hagler is more impressive than any of Floyd's wins.

What I'm saying is that Floyd's opposition has been solid enough to where you can't say he never fought anyone or took hard fights (arguments that have followed his fellow P4P great Roy Jones). He's faced enough adversity that we know he's tough, we know he can take a punch, and we know he can adapt to different opponents and styles, and we know he isn't one dimensional.

Watching his in-ring work, I've never seen a better fighter. It doesn't get any better than PBF. And it pains me to say, because I think he's a cocksucker.

[Julius Rain]

One of the G.O.A.T

[Rantcatrat]

To clarify too, I'm not saying Floyd has fought better competition than anyone in the history of boxing. For instance, I think Leonard coming back after years absent and beating Hagler is more impressive than any of Floyd's wins.

What I'm saying is that Floyd's opposition has been solid enough to where you can't say he never fought anyone or took hard fights (arguments that have followed his fellow P4P great Roy Jones). He's faced enough adversity that we know he's tough, we know he can take a punch, and we know he can adapt to different opponents and styles, and we know he isn't one dimensional.

Watching his in-ring work, I've never seen a better fighter. It doesn't get any better than PBF. And it pains me to say, because I think he's a cocksucker.

@Beanflicker - I believe we're getting to the same page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that you rank Mayweather Head-to-Head in a p4p sense, very highly. You're not saying that his body of work compares favorably to the top guys of all-time. In other words, you are not making the argument that Floyd's best wins are better than the top guys' best work. Rather, you're making the argument Floyd would beat many of the top guys Head-To-Head.

I have to think about where I come out on that statement, but my initial response is how do we know how good he is Head-To-Head if he never faced a top level of competition. For example, at welterweight, he never faced Leonard, like Duran did, which demonstrates how good Duran was head-to- head. At the same time, Mayweather has looked sublime against good competition.

I should also point out that I'm not saying that Floyd's body of work is poor by any stretch of the imagination; it's only when we compare it with the best of all-time that we it appears not quite as good. If we were discussing Martinez, and while I think he is very good, and a Hall of Famer, can never be compared to the best middleweights/ junior middleweights of all-time with regard to resume.

I think another point you make that I agree with is that Mayweather had had the chance to take the same risks that Duran did in going up to fight Iran Barkley and Marvin Hagler etc., but he hasn't done it. It's frustrating, and probably makes people underrate him. I think what a lot of people want from an all-time great is the willingness to take risks, and for some reason, that isn't there to the same extent as the best did, with Mayweather.

[Beanflicker]

Nooo, I'm not saying Floyd's body of work doesn't compare to other great fighters. I think the majority of boxing fans HIGHLY over rate the resumes of top guys from the past.

As boxing fans, the minute we started SERIOUSLY following the sport, we had certain "truths" nailed into our heads. The fact that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest ever, that guys like Benny Leonard, Hank Armstrong, Willie Pep, Charley Burley, ect were these mythical legends beyond reproach, who would toy with our pathetic modern pugilists. That unless you weighed between 147-160lbs in the 80s, fought as a HW in the 70s, ect, you were in a "weak" era full of bums and have no business in the conversation on the "true" greats. I know, because I spent years regurgitating this nonsense like everyone else. It's bullshit. I know this is bullshit because whenever I ask someone regurgitating it, "hey, what made (insert legend here) so great", I get no response. People conveniently skip over my post or try to change the topic. He's great because... well, because he just is. Because I was told he is.

I've had people admit this to me on here, when I asked how they ranked a guy who they've NEVER seen fight and have never heard of 98% of his opponents over a guy like Mayweather, Sweet Pea or Leonard, who's greatness can be witnesses with a simple Youtube search. "Well people who knew, like old trainers and fighters said he was great." So basically we're ranking these guys on newspaper clippings and hearsay. People say Willie Pep is the greatest defensive guy because he won a round without throwing a punch apparently. All we have is the newspaper clippings. Imagine is Roy Jones fought in the early 1900's and all we had was newspaper clippings. "JONES DAZZLES, KO'S OPPONENT WITH HANDS BEHIND BACK". "JONES MOVES UP AND TAKES HW CROWN WITH EASE". He'd be considered the greatest of all time. If that was so, you guys would be clowning me here, saying "You think Floyd is the greatest?? Roy Jones won titles from Middleweight to HW, he was knocking guys out with his hands behind his back, you're insane."

Start challenging your own beliefs and look at the resumes of past fighters under the same criteria you guys use to slam guys like Floyd and Wladimir Klitschko.

As far as the 1 vs 1 comparison with Duran, Floyd never challenged for the MW title, but he also never quit because of a tummy ache during a title fight, he never got starched out in 2 rounds (and he fought plenty of guys that could starch guys quick), he never came to a fight out of shape and he never let his weight get out of control to the point where he had to fight guys in weight classes he had no business fighting at. I'll take Floyd over Duran any day of the week.

[Mr140]

I just got up been waiting for your reply since yesterday since my list was already answered. Is there anyone else in my list that you would like to tear down that you would like to correct.

[Mr140]

As for Floydes best wins Hernandez wo did he beat that was so great a older Nelson already was destroyed by Oscar. Correlas was a one of his best wins but before floyde who fuck did he really fight. JLC most people thought he won the first fight was defeat by few nobody's before he fought floyde. Gatti not really atg level fighter ever alot of heart. Del la Hoya big fan but he did lose alot of his big fights and was not a full time fighter the man was so rich i not sure how up for traning he was anymore. Hatton never beat a elite will in prime was smashed by top elite guys he fought. I don't really fell all of that is true but you saying who Ali beat then Folyde has fought bums hes whole career compared to Ali not even close as for others kinda was already explained but if you like i could explain Tunny or Leonard for you.

[Beanflicker]

Folyde has fought bums hes whole career compared to Ali not even close as for others kinda was already explained but if you like i could explain Tunny or Leonard for you.

I'd love for you to explain Tunny and Benny Leonard to me.

And I never saw anyone explain to me why Ali was so great. I've never seen anyone explain to me why anyone was so great.

[Rantcatrat]

Nooo, I'm not saying Floyd's body of work doesn't compare to other great fighters. I think the majority of boxing fans HIGHLY over rate the resumes of top guys from the past.

As boxing fans, the minute we started SERIOUSLY following the sport, we had certain "truths" nailed into our heads. The fact that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest ever, that guys like Benny Leonard, Hank Armstrong, Willie Pep, Charley Burley, ect were these mythical legends beyond reproach, who would toy with our pathetic modern pugilists. That unless you weighed between 147-160lbs in the 80s, fought as a HW in the 70s, ect, you were in a "weak" era full of bums and have no business in the conversation on the "true" greats. I know, because I spent years regurgitating this nonsense like everyone else. It's bullshit. I know this is bullshit because whenever I ask someone regurgitating it, "hey, what made (insert legend here) so great", I get no response. People conveniently skip over my post or try to change the topic. He's great because... well, because he just is. Because I was told he is.

I've had people admit this to me on here, when I asked how they ranked a guy who they've NEVER seen fight and have never heard of 98% of his opponents over a guy like Mayweather, Sweet Pea or Leonard, who's greatness can be witnesses with a simple Youtube search. "Well people who knew, like old trainers and fighters said he was great." So basically we're ranking these guys on newspaper clippings and hearsay. People say Willie Pep is the greatest defensive guy because he won a round without throwing a punch apparently. All we have is the newspaper clippings. Imagine is Roy Jones fought in the early 1900's and all we had was newspaper clippings. "JONES DAZZLES, KO'S OPPONENT WITH HANDS BEHIND BACK". "JONES MOVES UP AND TAKES HW CROWN WITH EASE". He'd be considered the greatest of all time. If that was so, you guys would be clowning me here, saying "You think Floyd is the greatest?? Roy Jones won titles from Middleweight to HW, he was knocking guys out with his hands behind his back, you're insane."

Start challenging your own beliefs and look at the resumes of past fighters under the same criteria you guys use to slam guys like Floyd and Wladimir Klitschko.

As far as the 1 vs 1 comparison with Duran, Floyd never challenged for the MW title, but he also never quit because of a tummy ache during a title fight, he never got starched out in 2 rounds (and he fought plenty of guys that could starch guys quick), he never came to a fight out of shape and he never let his weight get out of control to the point where he had to fight guys in weight classes he had no business fighting at. I'll take Floyd over Duran any day of the week.

It's a different discussion though who would win H2H between Duran and Floyd.

It's also a different discussion in how we rate historical fighters compared with fighters from the current era. There's so much that goes into that discussion, and we can have it, but for the purposes of this thread, I was wondering how Mayweather's CV stacks up with other all-time greats. Whether fighters from the current era or the former era are better is a great debate by the way.

However, for the purposes of this thread, you saying that Mayweather has a better CV than Duran? Do you rate Mayweather's wins higher than Duran's? If Corrales is Mayweather's best win, do you rank that higher than Duran's over Leonard? And how about Mayweather's wins compared to other top twenty five guys?

[Rantcatrat]

Also, a lot of the best fighters have a signature win. Duran has Leonard etc. Who do you think is Floyd's signature win?

[Rantcatrat]

@Beanflicker - will you do me a favor and demonstrate how Mayweather's body of work is better than the other great fighters we admire. If you would prefer, feel free to limit that to fighters considered great by many that we have film of. I would prefer to save the argument about older fighters versus contemporary fighters to a different thread.

[Fenster]

Nooo, I'm not saying Floyd's body of work doesn't compare to other great fighters. I think the majority of boxing fans HIGHLY over rate the resumes of top guys from the past.

As boxing fans, the minute we started SERIOUSLY following the sport, we had certain "truths" nailed into our heads. The fact that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest ever, that guys like Benny Leonard, Hank Armstrong, Willie Pep, Charley Burley, ect were these mythical legends beyond reproach, who would toy with our pathetic modern pugilists. That unless you weighed between 147-160lbs in the 80s, fought as a HW in the 70s, ect, you were in a "weak" era full of bums and have no business in the conversation on the "true" greats. I know, because I spent years regurgitating this nonsense like everyone else. It's bullshit. I know this is bullshit because whenever I ask someone regurgitating it, "hey, what made (insert legend here) so great", I get no response. People conveniently skip over my post or try to change the topic. He's great because... well, because he just is. Because I was told he is.

I've had people admit this to me on here, when I asked how they ranked a guy who they've NEVER seen fight and have never heard of 98% of his opponents over a guy like Mayweather, Sweet Pea or Leonard, who's greatness can be witnesses with a simple Youtube search. "Well people who knew, like old trainers and fighters said he was great." So basically we're ranking these guys on newspaper clippings and hearsay. People say Willie Pep is the greatest defensive guy because he won a round without throwing a punch apparently. All we have is the newspaper clippings. Imagine is Roy Jones fought in the early 1900's and all we had was newspaper clippings. "JONES DAZZLES, KO'S OPPONENT WITH HANDS BEHIND BACK". "JONES MOVES UP AND TAKES HW CROWN WITH EASE". He'd be considered the greatest of all time. If that was so, you guys would be clowning me here, saying "You think Floyd is the greatest?? Roy Jones won titles from Middleweight to HW, he was knocking guys out with his hands behind his back, you're insane."

Start challenging your own beliefs and look at the resumes of past fighters under the same criteria you guys use to slam guys like Floyd and Wladimir Klitschko.

As far as the 1 vs 1 comparison with Duran, Floyd never challenged for the MW title, but he also never quit because of a tummy ache during a title fight, he never got starched out in 2 rounds (and he fought plenty of guys that could starch guys quick), he never came to a fight out of shape and he never let his weight get out of control to the point where he had to fight guys in weight classes he had no business fighting at. I'll take Floyd over Duran any day of the week.

Good post. It's amazing how modern fans can't understand the difference between watching and reading about fights.

[IamInuit]

Nooo, I'm not saying Floyd's body of work doesn't compare to other great fighters. I think the majority of boxing fans HIGHLY over rate the resumes of top guys from the past.

As boxing fans, the minute we started SERIOUSLY following the sport, we had certain "truths" nailed into our heads. The fact that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest ever, that guys like Benny Leonard, Hank Armstrong, Willie Pep, Charley Burley, ect were these mythical legends beyond reproach, who would toy with our pathetic modern pugilists. That unless you weighed between 147-160lbs in the 80s, fought as a HW in the 70s, ect, you were in a "weak" era full of bums and have no business in the conversation on the "true" greats. I know, because I spent years regurgitating this nonsense like everyone else. It's bullshit. I know this is bullshit because whenever I ask someone regurgitating it, "hey, what made (insert legend here) so great", I get no response. People conveniently skip over my post or try to change the topic. He's great because... well, because he just is. Because I was told he is.

I've had people admit this to me on here, when I asked how they ranked a guy who they've NEVER seen fight and have never heard of 98% of his opponents over a guy like Mayweather, Sweet Pea or Leonard, who's greatness can be witnesses with a simple Youtube search. "Well people who knew, like old trainers and fighters said he was great." So basically we're ranking these guys on newspaper clippings and hearsay. People say Willie Pep is the greatest defensive guy because he won a round without throwing a punch apparently. All we have is the newspaper clippings. Imagine is Roy Jones fought in the early 1900's and all we had was newspaper clippings. "JONES DAZZLES, KO'S OPPONENT WITH HANDS BEHIND BACK". "JONES MOVES UP AND TAKES HW CROWN WITH EASE". He'd be considered the greatest of all time. If that was so, you guys would be clowning me here, saying "You think Floyd is the greatest?? Roy Jones won titles from Middleweight to HW, he was knocking guys out with his hands behind his back, you're insane."

Start challenging your own beliefs and look at the resumes of past fighters under the same criteria you guys use to slam guys like Floyd and Wladimir Klitschko.

As far as the 1 vs 1 comparison with Duran, Floyd never challenged for the MW title, but he also never quit because of a tummy ache during a title fight, he never got starched out in 2 rounds (and he fought plenty of guys that could starch guys quick), he never came to a fight out of shape and he never let his weight get out of control to the point where he had to fight guys in weight classes he had no business fighting at. I'll take Floyd over Duran any day of the week.

Good post. It's amazing how modern fans can't understand the difference between watching and reading about fights.

And its amazing to me how modern fans discount history holding onto the belief that boxing started in 1990.

[IamInuit]

I'll take VD's lead for argument sake and present a list that imo causes problems for Floyd based on what I have seen. I'll keep it to the original 8 to narrow it down as 130 and 140 would only increase it.
I defend the man as much as anyone and I don't really like him but this myopic claim that he is the Goat is just to much. Roy Jones is the greatest fighter that I have ever seen not Floyd Mayweather.

126
Sanchez
Arguello
Olivares
Gomez
Hamed
Mab
Lopez
Nelson
Pedrosa

135
Buchanon
Ramos
Duran
De Jesus
Shane
Whitaker
Comacho


147
Napoles
Benitez
Palomino
Hearns
Leonard
Wright
Breland
Duran
Quartey
Forrest
Shane
Whitaker
Curry
Haugen
Taylor
Vargas. The one that beat Ike and Winky.

[Fenster]

Good post. It's amazing how modern fans can't understand the difference between watching and reading about fights.

And its amazing to me how modern fans discount history holding onto the belief that boxing started in 1990.

Really? There can't be many fans like that around, surely?

In this day and age we see every aspect of a fighters career - beginning to end, through the good, bad and ugly. We can form our own opinion without relying on the tales of others. It's arguable that old fighters put under the same scrutiny wouldn't look so great... Or maybe look greater.

There are dozens and dozens of modern fans that rubbish the best fighters of this era, yet wax lyrical about men they've never seen. If the fighters from the past were viewed from a blank slate, would these fans be so quick to label them "great?" I highly doubt it.

It's a valid point.