Floyd's competition vs Manny's competition

[walrus]

You seem like a good guy who is pretty smart, so don't take this as a personal attack or bashing you in any way. I feel like the majority of Floyd fans are hyper sensitive and act like the guy is untouchable or above critcism. I can say that Floyd is an ATG, phenomenal fighter, but disagree that he is the GOAT or fought better comp than his contemporaries and Floyd fans freak. It goes from what I said to me thinking he's a bum who ducks everyone and a coward with a glass jaw. That is what kills the discussions, people just try to completely distort what you say in an attempt to make your points invalid...

Well firstly, my post wasn't aimed at you in particular and was in no way a summarization of your personal views of Mayweather. I think you were one of the more reasonable Floyd haters and we probably only disagree on a few issues about it.

Secondly, it depends on what Floyd you're talking about. I'm not emotionally invested in Mayweather because I think Floyd the person is a piece of shit. He's a criminal, a degenerate, a woman-beater, an idiot (who was lucky enough to surround himself with smart guys), an ego-maniac, ect ect. He's an asshole, so I can understand why so many hate him.

But if you're talking Floyd the boxer, there really isn't a whole lot to criticize. He's a genius in the ring, his in-ring skills and knowledge are off the charts, and he hasn't lost a fight in 18 years. Too many boxing fans try to discredit his career, but at the end of the day you have to give the devil his due.

Haha. That is my point, my man. I really like Floyd and think he is brilliant in the ring. I constantly say he is an ATG n along with Hop n Ward the last of the truly skilled, elite fighters. Despite all of those statements of admiration, you classify me as a "reasonable Floyd hater"?!?!?! You see the disconnect there, right?

I think this conversation sums it up. Most of us who don't like Floyd still appreciate and admire his boxing. I have never been able to get over his jab, it's a thing of beauty. We don't like him cause he's a prick and a women beater.

[Beanflicker]

That's cool, I've never ever gone after anyone for thinking Floyd is a piece of shit, or thinking that his fights are boring.

I think too often people hold him up to unfair standards, both when compared to current greats like Pac and past greats.

When people say crazy shit like Pacquiao will go down as the superior fighter, I've just got to smh haha.

Floyd is a special talent, a top 5 of all time guy, and it'll probably be several decades after Floyd is gone that his in-ring talent is truly appreciated fully. Personally, I think it comes down to him and Sugar Ray Robinson. He really was that great.

[mikeeod]

That's cool, I've never ever gone after anyone for thinking Floyd is a piece of shit, or thinking that his fights are boring.

I think too often people hold him up to unfair standards, both when compared to current greats like Pac and past greats.

When people say crazy shit like Pacquiao will go down as the superior fighter, I've just got to smh haha.

Floyd is a special talent, a top 5 of all time guy, and it'll probably be several decades after Floyd is gone that his in-ring talent is truly appreciated fully. Personally, I think it comes down to him and Sugar Ray Robinson. He really was that great.

Wow. Top 5, huh? Him and SRR? Wow. You are definitely entitled to your opinion. I don't think you will have to wait decades for his in ring talent to be appreciated, I think most appreciate it now. I think it will take more than several decades for very many, if any, serious historians rank Floyd as high as you do. Guy just doesn't have the accomplishments. This is where Floyd fans lose credibility in their arguments. No way in Hell wins over Chico, Castillo, Hatton and Mosely put him that high. No way. Anyways, he's definitely lucky to have you as such a big fan...

[Beanflicker]

Guy just doesn't have the accomplishments. This is where Floyd fans lose credibility in their arguments. No way in Hell wins over Chico, Castillo, Hatton and Mosely put him that high.

Well here's where the discussion gets a bit more interesting and I find that the double standards start to pop up, and I'm more than happy to go down this road.

Let's take 5 greats from the past (long past, distant past) and we'll throw in Floyd. I'll go with 5 guys who usually end up in most top 10 ATG lists.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Hank Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Roberto Duran
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Floyd Mayweather

Six guys, six ATG's, all A+ quality.

I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain to me what these guys did that puts them above Mayweather in the two categories that matter: 1) In-ring ability and 2) Accomplishment (quality of opposition beat, title's won/defended, ect).

All of those guys, with the exception of Willie Pep obviously, probably hit harder than Floyd. SRR carried his power up to higher weights like nobody else in the history of boxing. Armstrong didn't have big one-punch power from what I've seen but he was a fantastic volume puncher. Duran was Hands of Stone, Leonard could punch respectfully with both hands, ect. All guys were obviously not as effective in terms of power punching at the higher weights. Floyd was a good puncher at 130-135 (31-0 with 21 KOs, 13-0 in title fights with 7 KOs), but not on the level of those guys for certain.

So besides power, which we will give the advantage to all of those guys except Pep, what did they do that puts them out of reach of Floyd? Let's break it down and try to quantify it.

[mikeeod]

Guy just doesn't have the accomplishments. This is where Floyd fans lose credibility in their arguments. No way in Hell wins over Chico, Castillo, Hatton and Mosely put him that high.

Well here's where the discussion gets a bit more interesting and I find that the double standards start to pop up, and I'm more than happy to go down this road.

Let's take 5 greats from the past (long past, distant past) and we'll throw in Floyd. I'll go with 5 guys who usually end up in most top 10 ATG lists.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Hank Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Roberto Duran
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Floyd Mayweather

Six guys, six ATG's, all A+ quality.

I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain to me what these guys did that puts them above Mayweather in the two categories that matter: 1) In-ring ability and 2) Accomplishment (quality of opposition beat, title's won/defended, ect).

All of those guys, with the exception of Willie Pep obviously, probably hit harder than Floyd. SRR carried his power up to higher weights like nobody else in the history of boxing. Armstrong didn't have big one-punch power from what I've seen but he was a fantastic volume puncher. Duran was Hands of Stone, Leonard could punch respectfully with both hands, ect. All guys were obviously not as effective in terms of power punching at the higher weights. Floyd was a good puncher at 130-135 (31-0 with 21 KOs, 13-0 in title fights with 7 KOs), but not on the level of those guys for certain.

So besides power, which we will give the advantage to all of those guys except Pep, what did they do that puts them out of reach of Floyd? Let's break it down and try to quantify it.

That's two different discussions you are having. Accomplishments and historical standing is separate from head to head match ups and who people "think" was the better overall fighter. Those discussions of "who is better r completely subjective, and they rarely account for style match ups...etc. I will explain how I think those guys you named break out from Floyd in each way though.
1) Accomplishments: This is where it isn't even debatable for me. Floyd never ducked anyone, I know, bathe hasn't beaten the ATGs, HOFers...etc., that those top 5 did. Maybe Pep is debatable, but I don't have Willie in my top 5, I have Ali instead. Floyd has NEVER "slain the dragon". Think Duran jumping to WW n beating the prime Leonard. Think Leonard beating Duran, Hearns n then the complete monster in Hagler. Floyd never beat the sheer number of ATG/HOFers that SRR, and rarely in such spectacular fashion. As impressive as retiring undefeated is (Ricardo Lopez, Joe C n Marciano), Henry Armstrong simultaneously holding 3 of 8 (should've been 4 of 8 but he was robbed vs Garcia) world titles available, defending the WW title over 20 times in a year with most of those being stoppages and beating a good number of ATG/HOF fighters along the way is more impressive. While Floyd is popular and transcends boxing, he is nowhere near the icon Ali was and has NEVER produced historical fights or comebacks like Ali and Leonard did. So, for accomplishments and historical ranking, I can't see a valid case to even have Floyd in the conversation.
2) Overall abilities: Tough to beat Floyd but for me he never showed the ability to hammer out a tough, brutal fight. He's never had to, so he very well may be able to, but I've never seen him beat an elite fighter by gutting it out. Maidana and Castillo were solid, but not JCC, Duran, Armstrong...etc., elite and they gave him fits. Jesus Chavez roughed Floyd up as did Hatton. So, in summary: I feel those guys have power, toughness and killer instinct that Floyd does not. Those guys all closed the show against elite opposition.

[ruthless rocco]

Armstrong's run of 20 WW defenses in one year has him fighting 8 guys with over 20 losses, 4 of them had over 38 loses.
He fought Lou Ambers twice in that time and KO'd him both times.
Lou Feldman(95-38-15) gets two fights in that same time frame losing by KO5 and KO1.
He fought Bobby Pacho(75-48-15) twice in that time and KO'd him in round 4 both times; Pacho had won only 1 of his last 7 fights.
Howard Scott(61-38-10) had won only 1 of his previous 10 fights!

Today's fighters aren't allowed to hold titles in more than one weight division. Mayweather is a prime example of a contemporary fighter who fights in multiple weight classes at once. He moves up and down depending on the fights and paydays he can secure himself. If he were allowed to hold belts at multiple weights he would be doing so.

[Master]

Floyd Mayweather is not greater than Leonard, Duran, Whitaker, Hearns, Roy Jones from the modern era.

[Beanflicker]

That's two different discussions you are having. Accomplishments and historical standing is separate from head to head match ups and who people "think" was the better overall fighter. Those discussions of "who is better r completely subjective, and they rarely account for style match ups...etc. I will explain how I think those guys you named break out from Floyd in each way though.
1) Accomplishments: This is where it isn't even debatable for me. Floyd never ducked anyone, I know, bathe hasn't beaten the ATGs, HOFers...etc., that those top 5 did. Maybe Pep is debatable, but I don't have Willie in my top 5, I have Ali instead. Floyd has NEVER "slain the dragon". Think Duran jumping to WW n beating the prime Leonard. Think Leonard beating Duran, Hearns n then the complete monster in Hagler. Floyd never beat the sheer number of ATG/HOFers that SRR, and rarely in such spectacular fashion. As impressive as retiring undefeated is (Ricardo Lopez, Joe C n Marciano), Henry Armstrong simultaneously holding 3 of 8 (should've been 4 of 8 but he was robbed vs Garcia) world titles available, defending the WW title over 20 times in a year with most of those being stoppages and beating a good number of ATG/HOF fighters along the way is more impressive. While Floyd is popular and transcends boxing, he is nowhere near the icon Ali was and has NEVER produced historical fights or comebacks like Ali and Leonard did. So, for accomplishments and historical ranking, I can't see a valid case to even have Floyd in the conversation.
2) Overall abilities: Tough to beat Floyd but for me he never showed the ability to hammer out a tough, brutal fight. He's never had to, so he very well may be able to, but I've never seen him beat an elite fighter by gutting it out. Maidana and Castillo were solid, but not JCC, Duran, Armstrong...etc., elite and they gave him fits. Jesus Chavez roughed Floyd up as did Hatton. So, in summary: I feel those guys have power, toughness and killer instinct that Floyd does not. Those guys all closed the show against elite opposition.

I find it strange the criteria changes so often in front of my face, like I'm the mark in a three card monte game.

I'll say "well Floyd has gone 18 years undefeated", people will say "well he ducked this guy, fought this guy at a different weight, this guy was no good... to summarize, his opponents were shitty."

I'll ask, "well why was Hank Armstrong so much better than Floyd", people will say "oh well he beat 20 guys in a month." (or whatever the fuck he did).

I'll say "well, were his opponents any good? I thought it was quality, not quantity, that mattered", people say "yeah, they were good."

I'll say "well, a lot of them had losing records or were very inexperienced", people say "yeah but there's no way Floyd could beat 20 guys in a month."

I'll say this too: I like how, when speaking of these guys, we bring up all the positives they did, but nobody ever brings up the shortcomings.

Take Duran: I'm supposed to believe that Duran was the superior fighter to Floyd. Duran went from lightweight to super middleweight and won a bunch of titles. Cool. Good for him. He also quit in the middle of a world championship fight because he had a stomach cramp. He also dropped decisions to several unheralded fighters like Laing and Robbie Sims. He also, after beating SRL in the first fight, came up short against all his best peers. How come these blaring shortcomings aren't considered when evaluating him?

I've heard "well, Duran's run at lightweight makes him the greatest alone"... yet how many people could name a guy he beat at LW other than Dejesus and Buchanan?

[SlimTrae]

That's two different discussions you are having. Accomplishments and historical standing is separate from head to head match ups and who people "think" was the better overall fighter. Those discussions of "who is better r completely subjective, and they rarely account for style match ups...etc. I will explain how I think those guys you named break out from Floyd in each way though.
1) Accomplishments: This is where it isn't even debatable for me. Floyd never ducked anyone, I know, bathe hasn't beaten the ATGs, HOFers...etc., that those top 5 did. Maybe Pep is debatable, but I don't have Willie in my top 5, I have Ali instead. Floyd has NEVER "slain the dragon". Think Duran jumping to WW n beating the prime Leonard. Think Leonard beating Duran, Hearns n then the complete monster in Hagler. Floyd never beat the sheer number of ATG/HOFers that SRR, and rarely in such spectacular fashion. As impressive as retiring undefeated is (Ricardo Lopez, Joe C n Marciano), Henry Armstrong simultaneously holding 3 of 8 (should've been 4 of 8 but he was robbed vs Garcia) world titles available, defending the WW title over 20 times in a year with most of those being stoppages and beating a good number of ATG/HOF fighters along the way is more impressive. While Floyd is popular and transcends boxing, he is nowhere near the icon Ali was and has NEVER produced historical fights or comebacks like Ali and Leonard did. So, for accomplishments and historical ranking, I can't see a valid case to even have Floyd in the conversation.
2) Overall abilities: Tough to beat Floyd but for me he never showed the ability to hammer out a tough, brutal fight. He's never had to, so he very well may be able to, but I've never seen him beat an elite fighter by gutting it out. Maidana and Castillo were solid, but not JCC, Duran, Armstrong...etc., elite and they gave him fits. Jesus Chavez roughed Floyd up as did Hatton. So, in summary: I feel those guys have power, toughness and killer instinct that Floyd does not. Those guys all closed the show against elite opposition.

I find it strange the criteria changes so often in front of my face, like I'm the mark in a three card monte game.

I'll say "well Floyd has gone 18 years undefeated", people will say "well he ducked this guy, fought this guy at a different weight, this guy was no good... to summarize, his opponents were shitty."

I'll ask, "well why was Hank Armstrong so much better than Floyd", people will say "oh well he beat 20 guys in a month." (or whatever the fuck he did).

I'll say "well, were his opponents any good? I thought it was quality, not quantity, that mattered", people say "yeah, they were good."

I'll say "well, a lot of them had losing records or were very inexperienced", people say "yeah but there's no way Floyd could beat 20 guys in a month."

I'll say this too: I like how, when speaking of these guys, we bring up all the positives they did, but nobody ever brings up the shortcomings.

Take Duran: I'm supposed to believe that Duran was the superior fighter to Floyd. Duran went from lightweight to super middleweight and won a bunch of titles. Cool. Good for him. He also quit in the middle of a world championship fight because he had a stomach cramp. He also dropped decisions to several unheralded fighters like Laing and Robbie Sims. He also, after beating SRL in the first fight, came up short against all his best peers. How come these blaring shortcomings aren't considered when evaluating him?

I've heard "well, Duran's run at lightweight makes him the greatest alone"... yet how many people could name a guy he beat at LW other than Dejesus and Buchanan?

I adore the 70s fighters- but I can play devils advocate.

That's why I questioned Ali's comp as well as SRL:Frazier,Norton,Forman for example. The dragon they slayed was Ali? excluding Forman who beat the guys who beat Ali:convincingly. And Ali never slayed Frazier or Norton let alone beat them convincingly...more like he beat them off of him...barely.

Same with SRL:Hearns, Haglar, Duran.

Yet defenders of Ray never say he (ducked) Pryor. Or why he chose Duran (who turned pro in 68!) for 1st title defense.

Hearns slayed what dragon? 27-6 Cuevas? a 16yr vet in Duran? Barkley whooped his ass everytime.

What slick boxers compare to PBF that those guys fight?

In 10 years or so, Floyd's generation of fans will hollar the same stuff. The champ in the year 2025 will not be on par with that old legend named Floyd Mayweather jr.

It'll be some receded bald head ass old fart of a fan who will say... please this whooper-snapper couldn't handle the fighters back in my day... Mayweather fought Cotto, Canelo, Maidana ..yada yada...

[mikeeod]

That's two different discussions you are having. Accomplishments and historical standing is separate from head to head match ups and who people "think" was the better overall fighter. Those discussions of "who is better r completely subjective, and they rarely account for style match ups...etc. I will explain how I think those guys you named break out from Floyd in each way though.
1) Accomplishments: This is where it isn't even debatable for me. Floyd never ducked anyone, I know, bathe hasn't beaten the ATGs, HOFers...etc., that those top 5 did. Maybe Pep is debatable, but I don't have Willie in my top 5, I have Ali instead. Floyd has NEVER "slain the dragon". Think Duran jumping to WW n beating the prime Leonard. Think Leonard beating Duran, Hearns n then the complete monster in Hagler. Floyd never beat the sheer number of ATG/HOFers that SRR, and rarely in such spectacular fashion. As impressive as retiring undefeated is (Ricardo Lopez, Joe C n Marciano), Henry Armstrong simultaneously holding 3 of 8 (should've been 4 of 8 but he was robbed vs Garcia) world titles available, defending the WW title over 20 times in a year with most of those being stoppages and beating a good number of ATG/HOF fighters along the way is more impressive. While Floyd is popular and transcends boxing, he is nowhere near the icon Ali was and has NEVER produced historical fights or comebacks like Ali and Leonard did. So, for accomplishments and historical ranking, I can't see a valid case to even have Floyd in the conversation.
2) Overall abilities: Tough to beat Floyd but for me he never showed the ability to hammer out a tough, brutal fight. He's never had to, so he very well may be able to, but I've never seen him beat an elite fighter by gutting it out. Maidana and Castillo were solid, but not JCC, Duran, Armstrong...etc., elite and they gave him fits. Jesus Chavez roughed Floyd up as did Hatton. So, in summary: I feel those guys have power, toughness and killer instinct that Floyd does not. Those guys all closed the show against elite opposition.

I find it strange the criteria changes so often in front of my face, like I'm the mark in a three card monte game.

I'll say "well Floyd has gone 18 years undefeated", people will say "well he ducked this guy, fought this guy at a different weight, this guy was no good... to summarize, his opponents were shitty."

I'll ask, "well why was Hank Armstrong so much better than Floyd", people will say "oh well he beat 20 guys in a month." (or whatever the fuck he did).

I'll say "well, were his opponents any good? I thought it was quality, not quantity, that mattered", people say "yeah, they were good."

I'll say "well, a lot of them had losing records or were very inexperienced", people say "yeah but there's no way Floyd could beat 20 guys in a month."

I'll say this too: I like how, when speaking of these guys, we bring up all the positives they did, but nobody ever brings up the shortcomings.

Take Duran: I'm supposed to believe that Duran was the superior fighter to Floyd. Duran went from lightweight to super middleweight and won a bunch of titles. Cool. Good for him. He also quit in the middle of a world championship fight because he had a stomach cramp. He also dropped decisions to several unheralded fighters like Laing and Robbie Sims. He also, after beating SRL in the first fight, came up short against all his best peers. How come these blaring shortcomings aren't considered when evaluating him?

I've heard "well, Duran's run at lightweight makes him the greatest alone"... yet how many people could name a guy he beat at LW other than Dejesus and Buchanan?

Duran beat Leonard. You can't find anyone on Floyd's record/resume close to prime Leonard. Not even close. Duran also completely cleaned out lightweight. Completely cleaned it out and had only suffered one avenged loss prior to beating Leonard. Again, just off of that I rank him higher than Floyd.

My two main points for Armstrong are his beating ATG/HOFers and holding 3 of 8 available titles simultaneously. The defenses in one year was thrown in to show how busy he was. To ur point on quality of opposition: if Floyd averaged two fights a month he would get the benefit of the doubt, as long as he still fought the top guys along the way.