Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy

[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.

[Beanflicker]

Ehh, yeah I saw the post but you kinda just rattled off a bunch of names and stats without really telling me why they were great wins.

For instance, I don't understand why Floyd would get no credit for beating Arturo Gatti, who (thought obviously not an ATG fighter by any stretch), had won championships at multiple weight divisions, beat some highly credible guys, and was riding a career resurgance after pairing up with Buddy McGirt... but Ali gets credit for beating a guy like Earnie Shavers, who, despite having pure dynamite in his fists, never won a championship, lost (with rare exception) to pretty much every good fighter he ever faced, and had serious questions about his chin, stamina and heart.

What about Ken Norton? For the record, I like him a lot. But why is he great? He beat absolute nobodies before meeting Ali. Obviously he had a style and a great jab that was poison to slicksters like Ali, Holmes, but he got blown out by the big bangers he fought. Who did he beat besides Ali? He gave a sound thrashing to Bobick and Quarry (who was well past his best by then, and wasn't what you'd call a great fighter to begin with). But he's another one of these guys who are considered great because they fought a legendary fighter and did good. Why was Ali great? Oh because he beat great opposition like Ken Norton. Why was Ken Norton great opposition? Oh because he beat Ali. Kind of a "chicken or the egg" kind of thing IMO. I don't see how, p4p, he was any better of a fighter than a lot of the guys that Floyd beat who people would laugh at me if I brought up.

Also, the statistic of "well this old timer fought x amount of hall of famers" is not a great gauge, because in any sport, and pretty much by definition, it's easier to get into the Hall of Fame the earlier in the sport's history you participated. Why? A) With the passing of time, the "standard" is inevitably brought up as great names are added. B) The IBHOF didn't start inducting until 1990. By that time, the old timer's were viewed with the golden age, rose colored glasses. They were looked on more favorably.

Also, Fame is the key word. Obviously there are guys there for pugilistic excellence, and some guys there because they achieved some sort of notority. It stands to reason that the more attention boxing is recieving, the more attention that spills over to "bit" players. You can fit more people under a bigger/brighter spotlight.

This is a big reason why the old timer's resumes get blown up IMO. Boxing was huge in the 70s, there was BIG attention on it (due in large part to Ali), so it allowed guys like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, ect to get into public consciousness. How is Earnie Shavers any better than a Sam Peter? How is Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry any better than a Chris Arreola? I honestly don't know.

[Rantcatrat]

Ehh, yeah I saw the post but you kinda just rattled off a bunch of names and stats without really telling me why they were great wins.

For instance, I don't understand why Floyd would get no credit for beating Arturo Gatti, who (thought obviously not an ATG fighter by any stretch), had won championships at multiple weight divisions, beat some highly credible guys, and was riding a career resurgance after pairing up with Buddy McGirt... but Ali gets credit for beating a guy like Earnie Shavers, who, despite having pure dynamite in his fists, never won a championship, lost (with rare exception) to pretty much every good fighter he ever faced, and had serious questions about his chin, stamina and heart.

What about Ken Norton? For the record, I like him a lot. But why is he great? He beat absolute nobodies before meeting Ali. Obviously he had a style and a great jab that was poison to slicksters like Ali, Holmes, but he got blown out by the big bangers he fought. Who did he beat besides Ali? He gave a sound thrashing to Bobick and Quarry (who was well past his best by then, and wasn't what you'd call a great fighter to begin with). But he's another one of these guys who are considered great because they fought a legendary fighter and did good. Why was Ali great? Oh because he beat great opposition like Ken Norton. Why was Ken Norton great opposition? Oh because he beat Ali. Kind of a "chicken or the egg" kind of thing IMO. I don't see how, p4p, he was any better of a fighter than a lot of the guys that Floyd beat who people would laugh at me if I brought up.

Also, the statistic of "well this old timer fought x amount of hall of famers" is not a great gauge, because in any sport, and pretty much by definition, it's easier to get into the Hall of Fame the earlier in the sport's history you participated. Why? A) With the passing of time, the "standard" is inevitably brought up as great names are added. B) The IBHOF didn't start inducting until 1990. By that time, the old timer's were viewed with the golden age, rose colored glasses. They were looked on more favorably.

Also, Fame is the key word. Obviously there are guys there for pugilistic excellence, and some guys there because they achieved some sort of notority. It stands to reason that the more attention boxing is recieving, the more attention that spills over to "bit" players. You can fit more people under a bigger/brighter spotlight.

This is a big reason why the old timer's resumes get blown up IMO. Boxing was huge in the 70s, there was BIG attention on it (due in large part to Ali), so it allowed guys like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, ect to get into public consciousness. How is Earnie Shavers any better than a Sam Peter? How is Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry any better than a Chris Arreola? I honestly don't know.

I thought we were comparing bodies of work. I provided names because that is the most elemental way to start the comparison. The first point in the definition of body of work must be who did the person fight, right? Therefore, let's begin there: please list Floyd's best 22 wins.

Please realize I was simply trying to have a constructive debate about Mayweather's body of work compared with other top ten boxers. You criticized my suggestions for criteria we use to compare bodies of work. Please provide criteria that you think captures how high a body of work should be rated.

One suggestion I have to be fair to us is that we use both of our criteria. In other words, once we have your criteria, let's combine them and see where the two fall.

Thanks again for the discussion.

[Mr140]

Also bean he put Shavers down as his 15th best win which is not that bad lower in his list i not sure what mayweather 15th best win is but i don't think it be much better. I don't think Mayweather has beaten anyone that was better then Foreman or Fraiser maybe even Liston i cant think of anyone.

[Mr140]

Also not sure how you rate fighters but when you are the best heavyweight fighter in the strongest era of heavyweight and the top dog think its better then doing anything at other weights. Reason why Ali is so great because no one in the world could beat him and don't have to go into pound for pound stuff.

[Violent Demise]

Ehh, yeah I saw the post but you kinda just rattled off a bunch of names and stats without really telling me why they were great wins.

For instance, I don't understand why Floyd would get no credit for beating Arturo Gatti, who (thought obviously not an ATG fighter by any stretch), had won championships at multiple weight divisions, beat some highly credible guys, and was riding a career resurgance after pairing up with Buddy McGirt... but Ali gets credit for beating a guy like Earnie Shavers, who, despite having pure dynamite in his fists, never won a championship, lost (with rare exception) to pretty much every good fighter he ever faced, and had serious questions about his chin, stamina and heart.

What about Ken Norton? For the record, I like him a lot. But why is he great? He beat absolute nobodies before meeting Ali. Obviously he had a style and a great jab that was poison to slicksters like Ali, Holmes, but he got blown out by the big bangers he fought. Who did he beat besides Ali? He gave a sound thrashing to Bobick and Quarry (who was well past his best by then, and wasn't what you'd call a great fighter to begin with). But he's another one of these guys who are considered great because they fought a legendary fighter and did good. Why was Ali great? Oh because he beat great opposition like Ken Norton. Why was Ken Norton great opposition? Oh because he beat Ali. Kind of a "chicken or the egg" kind of thing IMO. I don't see how, p4p, he was any better of a fighter than a lot of the guys that Floyd beat who people would laugh at me if I brought up.

Also, the statistic of "well this old timer fought x amount of hall of famers" is not a great gauge, because in any sport, and pretty much by definition, it's easier to get into the Hall of Fame the earlier in the sport's history you participated. Why? A) With the passing of time, the "standard" is inevitably brought up as great names are added. B) The IBHOF didn't start inducting until 1990. By that time, the old timer's were viewed with the golden age, rose colored glasses. They were looked on more favorably.

Also, Fame is the key word. Obviously there are guys there for pugilistic excellence, and some guys there because they achieved some sort of notority. It stands to reason that the more attention boxing is recieving, the more attention that spills over to "bit" players. You can fit more people under a bigger/brighter spotlight.

This is a big reason why the old timer's resumes get blown up IMO. Boxing was huge in the 70s, there was BIG attention on it (due in large part to Ali), so it allowed guys like Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, ect to get into public consciousness. How is Earnie Shavers any better than a Sam Peter? How is Ron Lyle or Jerry Quarry any better than a Chris Arreola? I honestly don't know.

He's not great. Far from it. Has no buisness being in the Hall of Fame