Questions re: Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s Legacy

[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.

[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.

[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..

[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.

[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

[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]

Doesnt need outstanding power.
Just outbox him.

At 154 i favour the hitman, but 147 anything is possible.

There's no blueprint that shows Hearns can be outboxed. It's never happened.