Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy

[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.

[TitoFan]

My biggest problem with Floyd has always been his inactivity. He's been fighting once a year since 2009, and had no fights in 2008. How is anyone supposed to like or applaud that? Back when the "p4p" crown was being argued back and forth between Floyd and Pac, I was squarely on Pac's side simply because Pac was busier. Not to mention that he was being wildly successful in the higher weights.

Now Pac's been "planked" out of p4p discussions, and Floyd's back in the driver's seat. One can only hope that this latest contract with Showtime doesn't have any fine print, or that Floyd doesn't just decide to trash it.

Yes, he's one of the purest boxing talents ever born. But it's also true that many fights were not made when they should have been made, and many times because of Floyd himself.

Some people don't like constant comparisons with fighters of past eras, but...
Sugar Ray Leonard, who many of us use as a comparison because he was also an awesome boxing talent, never went on hiatus to go "dancing with the stars" (or whatever) at the peak of his career. So to me... SRL will always be placed before Floyd on any all-time lists.

[Fenster]

Sugar Ray Leonard retired after every other fight and had 40 fights in his entire career. I'm not sure he's the best example to use when talking about inactivity.

[IamInuit]

My biggest problem with Floyd has always been his inactivity. He's been fighting once a year since 2009, and had no fights in 2008. How is anyone supposed to like or applaud that? Back when the "p4p" crown was being argued back and forth between Floyd and Pac, I was squarely on Pac's side simply because Pac was busier. Not to mention that he was being wildly successful in the higher weights.

Now Pac's been "planked" out of p4p discussions, and Floyd's back in the driver's seat. One can only hope that this latest contract with Showtime doesn't have any fine print, or that Floyd doesn't just decide to trash it.

Yes, he's one of the purest boxing talents ever born. But it's also true that many fights were not made when they should have been made, and many times because of Floyd himself.

Some people don't like constant comparisons with fighters of past eras, but...
Sugar Ray Leonard, who many of us use as a comparison because he was also an awesome boxing talent, never went on hiatus to go "dancing with the stars" (or whatever) at the peak of his career. So to me... SRL will always be placed before Floyd on any all-time lists.

And that's precisely what historians will remember and the failed fight of the era which will follow both him and Manny to their grave regardless of who's at fault or if they even fight. What also bothers me about Floyd is this ubiquitous hands off approach. Questioning him or his legacy is simply not allowed by some. Having said that I am on record of defending the guy on numerous occasions and yet find it almost impossible to look at some of his short comings be it his legacy or even who he matches up with when in reality its a testimony to how good he is that many of us have to go back in time and in some cases before film to find a suitable opponent. Yes he's the greatest fighter of this generation but don't expect me to simply agree that he beats everyone since 1865 when I don't think he does. I think plenty of fighters throughout boxing's rich history would beat him. Not because I don't like him but because I think certain people beat him and even some less skilled then he is. Every time a discussion of Floyd comes about its as if the tin foil hats are passed around.

[TitoFan]

My biggest problem with Floyd has always been his inactivity. He's been fighting once a year since 2009, and had no fights in 2008. How is anyone supposed to like or applaud that? Back when the "p4p" crown was being argued back and forth between Floyd and Pac, I was squarely on Pac's side simply because Pac was busier. Not to mention that he was being wildly successful in the higher weights.

Now Pac's been "planked" out of p4p discussions, and Floyd's back in the driver's seat. One can only hope that this latest contract with Showtime doesn't have any fine print, or that Floyd doesn't just decide to trash it.

Yes, he's one of the purest boxing talents ever born. But it's also true that many fights were not made when they should have been made, and many times because of Floyd himself.

Some people don't like constant comparisons with fighters of past eras, but...
Sugar Ray Leonard, who many of us use as a comparison because he was also an awesome boxing talent, never went on hiatus to go "dancing with the stars" (or whatever) at the peak of his career. So to me... SRL will always be placed before Floyd on any all-time lists.

And that's precisely what historians will remember and the failed fight of the era which will follow both him and Manny to their grave regardless of who's at fault or if they even fight. What also bothers me about Floyd is this ubiquitous hands off approach. Questioning him or his legacy is simply not allowed by some. Having said that I am on record of defending the guy on numerous occasions and yet find it almost impossible to look at some of his short comings be it his legacy or even who he matches up with when in reality its a testimony to how good he is that many of us have to go back in time and in some cases before film to find a suitable opponent. Yes he's the greatest fighter of this generation but don't expect me to simply agree that he beats everyone since 1865 when I don't think he does. I think plenty of fighters throughout boxing's rich history would beat him. Not because I don't like him but because I think certain people beat him and even some less skilled then he is. Every time a discussion of Floyd comes about its as if the tin foil hats are passed around.

You made some excellent points. I've never considered myself a Floyd hater, and in fact have rooted for him in most (not all) of his more notable fights. Fact is, no matter who you compare him with, Floyd did himself no favors when he willingly took himself out of the mix on these self-imposed breaks. The heated argument for p4p between Floyd and Pac fans is still vivid in my mind. I always sided with Pac. Not because I necessarily thought Pac would beat him head to head, but because I liked Pac's fight frequency as opposed to Floyd's inactivity. It should be ok to question some aspects of a great fighter's career. It's done routinely with some of the past's best, like Ali, SRR, etc.

[Beanflicker]

I'm very, very disappointed to come back to this thread to find that NOBODY has engaged me I'm gonna check out of this thread and make a new one, removing Mayweather from the equation.

[Rantcatrat]

I'm very, very disappointed to come back to this thread to find that NOBODY has engaged me I'm gonna check out of this thread and make a new one, removing Mayweather from the equation.

Check out post # 76. @Beanflicker

[Beanflicker]

Check out post # 76. @Beanflicker

Okie doke.

[imp]

The other thing that could be seen as a positve and a negative for floyd is that he has no boss.

Imagine the opposition fighters would face if it was all out of their hands..