Floyd's competition vs Manny's competition

[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.

[mikeeod]

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

I have to respectfully disagree with Hearns and Roy Jones. For me Roy is behind Floyd, Manny, Hop, Tito, Evander, Hagler and the others you named.

[Master]

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

I have to respectfully disagree with Hearns and Roy Jones. For me Roy is behind Floyd, Manny, Hop, Tito, Evander, Hagler and the others you named.

Hearns won titles at multiple weights and entertained.

Roy Jones dominated 3 weights (beating Hopkins and Toney) and won a title at heavy.

[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...

[Fenster]

Exactly. It wont be long before these Floyd fans will be rolling their eyes at kids claiming the new current "star" is the best ever.

[imp]

The money in this game now limits the output for fighters.

Theres no way of measuring if inactivity in todays era would go against yesterdays legends.

Floyd and pac fight a maximum of twice a year and I do accept it has to be that way now.

Leonard beat duran, hearns and hagler and is used to 15round fights and Im sure in his heyday he was fighting alot more than todays elite.

Leonard would give floyd problems in every way but floyd is a great adapter to any style..who knows what the hell would happen!

[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.

[ruthless rocco]

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.

I can find someone close to prime Leonard on Mayweather's resume. It's Floyd Mayweather. He's the most agile, dexterous, skilled fighter of his weight classes and era. He doesn't have a Leonard to fight.

If Floyd were allowed to hold titles in three weight divisions at once he probably would but that's prohibited now. He has held titles in two weight divisions at the same time but has always been forced to give one up.

Floyd has beat ATG/HOFers and future HOFers as well... Oscar, Arturo, Shane? Canelo?, JMM?.

[mikeeod]

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.

I can find someone close to prime Leonard on Mayweather's resume. It's Floyd Mayweather. He's the most agile, dexterous, skilled fighter of his weight classes and era. He doesn't have a Leonard to fight.

If Floyd were allowed to hold titles in three weight divisions at once he probably would but that's prohibited now. He has held titles in two weight divisions at the same time but has always been forced to give one up.

Floyd has beat ATG/HOFers and future HOFers as well... Oscar, Arturo, Shane? Canelo?, JMM?.

Alright shortbus, here is boxing lesson #100 for you.
Oscar: Yes, he is a HOFer. He was also well past his best/prime when he fought Floyd. You don't get full credit for squeaking out a win vs. a guy who is over the hill.
Gatti: ? Bwahahahahahaa. You're a good troll. This was a very clever guy to include. Considered a "C" fighter by Floyd. Not an impressive win at all, and Gatti was on the tail end of a career that saw him take numerous beatings.
Canelo: Hahaha. How do you figure he is a HOFer? You are an effective troll because you have zero qualms making completely asinine comments. Canelo has disputed wins over Lara and Trout, and those are his best wins!!! Definite HOF material.
JMM: You don't get full credit for beating a guy jumping two weights and completely refusing to make the agreed upon weight.

You're welcome

[Beanflicker]

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.

Again, you gave me one name (Leonard) and then you reverted right back to quantity over quality. How good was this division that Duran cleaned out? Can someone tell me?

On the ATG/HOF argument... it's disingenuous and inaccurate to present a HOF induction as a standard of quality that automatically puts a boxer above non-HOFers. Like anything, HOFs by nature are political and look more favorably on old timers and pioneers.

Example of some HOFers:

Sixto Escobar: 39-23
Battling Battalino: 57-26
Cinderella Man James Braddock: 46-24, famous upset of Baer
Young Corbett: 68-22
George Dixon: 50-26
Mysterious Billy Smith: 30-24
Pipino Cuevas: 35-15
Joey Maxim: 82-29 (of course, most famous for being dominated by SRR for 13 rounds before SRR collapsed from heat exhaustion)
Lew Jenkins: 70-39

Ect ect ect

Now all these guys were champs at some point and all were very capable fighters. But am I really to believe Mysterious Billy Smith was a more impressive win than, let's say, Ricky Hatton, simply because Smith is in the HOF and Hatton isn't? Or that James Braddock, a dirt poor club fighter who managed to pull off a huge upset and win the world title (only to lose it brutally in his next fight) is a higher quality opponent than, let's say, a David Haye?