Mayweather question!

[Tomato Can]

Meh haters gonna hate.

[fan johnny]

Are you freak'n kidding me? Of course they will say Pacquiao was too small and just say why didn't he man up and fight Martinez.

[BIG H]

Pac and Floyd need to fight. The winner is all time top 10 for me.

[CFH]

Pac and Floyd need to fight. The winner is all time top 10 for me.

Pac might be in the top 10 already.

[marbleheadmaui]

In my view the following are true about Floyd (in no order)

1. He is a great fighter
2. He is perhaps a top 50 all-time in terms of accomplishment.
3. He had top ten all-time native talents
4. The gap between what he COULD have accomplished, given his talent, and what he ACTUALLY accomplished is as wide as any fighter I can think of who didn't die prematurley (Sal Sanchez, Stanley Ketchell etc.)
5. It is likely too late to meaningfully close the gap I talk about above.

[JazMerkin]

In my view the following are true about Floyd (in no order)

1. He is a great fighter
2. He is perhaps a top 50 all-time in terms of accomplishment.
3. He had top ten all-time native talents
4. The gap between what he COULD have accomplished, given his talent, and what he ACTUALLY accomplished is as wide as any fighter I can think of who didn't die prematurley (Sal Sanchez, Stanley Ketchell etc.)
5. It is likely too late to meaningfully close the gap I talk about above.

This I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit , but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.

I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.

[marbleheadmaui]

In my view the following are true about Floyd (in no order)

1. He is a great fighter
2. He is perhaps a top 50 all-time in terms of accomplishment.
3. He had top ten all-time native talents
4. The gap between what he COULD have accomplished, given his talent, and what he ACTUALLY accomplished is as wide as any fighter I can think of who didn't die prematurley (Sal Sanchez, Stanley Ketchell etc.)
5. It is likely too late to meaningfully close the gap I talk about above.

This I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit , but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.

I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.

How in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?

You're killing me Jazz!

[JazMerkin]

In my view the following are true about Floyd (in no order)

1. He is a great fighter
2. He is perhaps a top 50 all-time in terms of accomplishment.
3. He had top ten all-time native talents
4. The gap between what he COULD have accomplished, given his talent, and what he ACTUALLY accomplished is as wide as any fighter I can think of who didn't die prematurley (Sal Sanchez, Stanley Ketchell etc.)
5. It is likely too late to meaningfully close the gap I talk about above.

This I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit , but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.

I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.

How in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?

You're killing me Jazz!

I was due a well-thought out post, so now I've done that I'll get back to reporting what boxers are saying to each other on facebook

[captainanddew]

In my view the following are true about Floyd (in no order)

1. He is a great fighter
2. He is perhaps a top 50 all-time in terms of accomplishment.
3. He had top ten all-time native talents
4. The gap between what he COULD have accomplished, given his talent, and what he ACTUALLY accomplished is as wide as any fighter I can think of who didn't die prematurley (Sal Sanchez, Stanley Ketchell etc.)
5. It is likely too late to meaningfully close the gap I talk about above.

This I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit , but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.

I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.

How in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?

You're killing me Jazz!

I was due a well-thought out post, so now I've done that I'll get back to reporting what boxers are saying to each other on facebook

as I have said for years, I was once running around saying Floyd was going to go down as a top 5 all-time fighter(I should have been the head of the Pretty Boy Floyd fanclub). But I gave up. When he moved up in weight, 140 and then 147, he didn't clean out divisions. Why didn't he fight Kostya at 140? Why didn't he face PW, Margarito, Cintron, Clottey, Berto, etc.... He could have beaten a hall of famer at 140 and become the man there. He could have rid us of all the stupid PW is the most avoided fighter crap. He could have given us some weird ending against Cintron. He would have put Clottey into the turtle shell. He would have beaten up Berto and rid us of all the bullshit HBO gimmes for Berto. And he would have proven he was an amazing fighter.

I am very pissed off with Floyd.

[marbleheadmaui]

In my view the following are true about Floyd (in no order)

1. He is a great fighter
2. He is perhaps a top 50 all-time in terms of accomplishment.
3. He had top ten all-time native talents
4. The gap between what he COULD have accomplished, given his talent, and what he ACTUALLY accomplished is as wide as any fighter I can think of who didn't die prematurley (Sal Sanchez, Stanley Ketchell etc.)
5. It is likely too late to meaningfully close the gap I talk about above.

This I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit , but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.

I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.

How in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?

You're killing me Jazz!

I was due a well-thought out post, so now I've done that I'll get back to reporting what boxers are saying to each other on facebook

as I have said for years, I was once running around saying Floyd was going to go down as a top 5 all-time fighter(I should have been the head of the Pretty Boy Floyd fanclub). But I gave up. When he moved up in weight, 140 and then 147, he didn't clean out divisions. Why didn't he fight Kostya at 140? Why didn't he face PW, Margarito, Cintron, Clottey, Berto, etc.... He could have beaten a hall of famer at 140 and become the man there. He could have rid us of all the stupid PW is the most avoided fighter crap. He could have given us some weird ending against Cintron. He would have put Clottey into the turtle shell. He would have beaten up Berto and rid us of all the bullshit HBO gimmes for Berto. And he would have proven he was an amazing fighter.

I am very pissed off with Floyd.

I guess that's my problem. How much better is his resume if he'd fought Stevie Johnston and Paul Spadafora and Popo and Casamyor and Kostya and Shane earlier and Hatton at 140 and Cotto, Margarito, Williams. Isn't he the favorite against all those guys?

Can you imagine if he was 41-0 including THAT crew? HOLY CRAP!

Heck, if he's 39-2 it's still more impressive to me that where he is now.

I don't disagree with the folks who think he'd have beaten all those guys. I just don't confuse me THINKING that with him DOING it.