Mayweather question!

[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!