I can't remember seeing a better fighter than prime Floyd Mayweather Jr

[zhubin]

Its incredible to me that Chico is viewed as Floyds shining moment. A man that was about to do hard time for an assault charge and who came into the ring headless. Floyd could have least fought Freitas.
Him and Shane could have met at the 130/35 area and each blames each other but the fact remains it did not happen. Manny/Floyd folded for 50 mil a piece. Leonard and Duran fought twice in 6 months.

There is no way to know how much Chico's impending jail time had an effect on his performance. But the fact is Diego was one of the very best and most feared fighters in the business at the time...and Floyd put on a masterclass against him. He deserves mad props for that.

[zhubin]

^True. And I'm not even talking about Floyd now, I think he's been on the decline for the last few years.

But watching Floyd vs Corrales again, I forgot about all the little nuances that he had back then.

Recently I said I thought Broner had rougly the same skills that Floyd had at his age. BOY was I wrong on that one. Floyd was a ring genius by that age.

I can't get over the ring generalship Floyd had back then, it really is unbelievable. Utilizing the jab to the head and body, with the speed to land lead right hands and left hooks almost at will. Unreal. I've seen every SRR fight available to the public over the years and I've never seen anything like that.

THANK YOU for admitting that the Floyd vs. Broner comparisons are ridiculous! While Broner is certainly talented...he is no where near Floyd's level at the respective stages of their careers. Mayweather is just a different class of fighter...no matter how much HBO and crew try to hype Broner.

[AdamGB]

He's not the best fighter i've ever seen because i'm more influenced by people from when I was younger. However, I don't know of a single style in history that would have beat him. His mental strength, in the ring, is just as impressive as his awesome physical skill.

In virtually every fight he's in, there comes a point where his opponent might as well have "I can't do shit" tattooed on his nut.

No way, he has loopy referees for a start. Hatton at the time was the man and was on top until that mental obese intrusion. That was Hattons time, he was robbed.

Between this and wanting to see Toney pummeled into an even softer blob of meat, you're really losing the plot aren't you?

[erics44]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

[bzkfn]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

[Fenster]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs ().

[erics44]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

yeah he's spot on with that, Ray would have all the answers

anyone got his number?

[bzkfn]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

yeah he's spot on with that, Ray would have all the answers

anyone got his number?

eric being a dick as usual I see.

Asking someone who was there is just better than asking someone who is witnessing a grainy black and white picture, or what they've read from a newspaper cutting. That goes without saying. Nobody is sat there saying that guy has all the answers, just that they would have a more informed opinion having seen things first hand.

[erics44]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

yeah he's spot on with that, Ray would have all the answers

anyone got his number?

eric being a dick as usual I see.

Asking someone who was there is just better than asking someone who is witnessing a grainy black and white picture, or what they've read from a newspaper cutting. That goes without saying. Nobody is sat there saying that guy has all the answers, just that they would have a more informed opinion having seen things first hand.

oi, what do you mean as usual

thing is, im not really interested if ray is the man or not, if he isnt a member of saddo and cant contribute to the thread then how is he gonna help?

[TitoFan]

Its incredible to me that Chico is viewed as Floyds shining moment. A man that was about to do hard time for an assault charge and who came into the ring headless. Floyd could have least fought Freitas.
Him and Shane could have met at the 130/35 area and each blames each other but the fact remains it did not happen. Manny/Floyd folded for 50 mil a piece. Leonard and Duran fought twice in 6 months.

There is no way to know how much Chico's impending jail time had an effect on his performance. But the fact is Diego was one of the very best and most feared fighters in the business at the time...and Floyd put on a masterclass against him. He deserves mad props for that.

I'd have to agree with this. Think hard enough, and you can find a chink in any boxer's armor. Corrales was an awesome fighter and extremely tough opponent. I saw his fight with Floyd and it was a masterful performance by PBF.

[Beanflicker]

There isn't one Roberto Duran-level fighter on Floyd's resume. Not one. In my humble opinion, the best win of Floyd's career might be semi-retired Oscar. Shane Mosley was old and not a great fighter to begin with. Ricky Hatton, Shane Mosley, Corrales, Castillo were GOOD fighters, just not great ones. You're misinterpreting me. I'm NOT anti-Floyd by any means. I'm a fan. Of all the guys we watch today, he has mastered the science that is boxing as much as anyone has. It's just we don't, and can't, know how he would compare because he hasn't faced any great fighter. When I mean great, I mean top 50-100 fighters. Same goes for Calzaghe, to a lesser extent. He was great, but to say he could beat Archie Moore is retarded. Moore just experienced so much more than Calzaghe, even if Calzaghe was slicker, faster than Moore. Do you follow what I'm saying? It's not a dig on Floyd. Think about it, all great fighters have at last ONE defining win; the best have a handful. What was Floyd's?

I understand completely what you're saying. I did since your first post. I just disagree 100% with it.

If you don't think Shane Mosley was a great fighter than I don't know what to tell you.

I'm putting aside who fought who, who ducked who, ect, because you don't carry that in the ring with you.

We'll never know who would win a prime Leonard vs prime Floyd fight, because obviously the only way to know for sure would be to invent a time machine, grab both in their respective primes, and make them fight.

What I'm saying to you is that we have different ways of coming up with our opinions. I say Floyd beats Leonard and Robinson p4p. You say he doesn't.

You came up with your opinion based simply because you percieve RL and RR fought better opposition, and SRR fought more. I came up with mine by analyzing the in-ring work of these 3 guys, how they handled certain styles, their pros, their cons, ect, and how I think they would match up stylistically.

I can fill this thread up with examples of guys who fought more and better opposition losing to guys who fought less and softer opposition. That "better opposition" and "more experienced" argument is one of the big fallacies that exists when discussing hypothetical fights. Just like the dreaded triangle theory (A beat B, B beat C, so A would beat C). It's all flawed and (IMO) lazy thinking.

Now is that to say my way is fool proof? Hell no. I've been wrong on a lot of fights in my time. But I'd rather form my opinion by seeing and observing, not reading newspaper headlines and Boxrec stats.

[Beanflicker]

Leonard and Duran fought twice in 6 months.

Right, and in the first fight one of them got beat by a guy coming up from 2 weight divisions down who never really established himself at WW, and in the second fight one of them quit because he was getting dominated and his tummy hurt.

I love both guys but lets stop holding them up like they were perfect examples of the pugilist. They all had their flaws.

[Beanflicker]

THANK YOU for admitting that the Floyd vs. Broner comparisons are ridiculous! While Broner is certainly talented...he is no where near Floyd's level at the respective stages of their careers. Mayweather is just a different class of fighter...no matter how much HBO and crew try to hype Broner.

I'll fully admit I was wrong, and I chaulk it up to Broner's virtuoso performance being fresh in my memory and Floyd's early fights a distant memory.

I made that assertion based on the fact that both had similar records and both were world champs at that age.

I'm not saying Broner isn't a fantastic prospect, but Floyd was just on another level than ANYONE at that age.

[Master]

Floyd is very good and has exceptional talent but I know SRL, SRR and Hearn’s would probably have beaten him at welterweight. Pound for pound Roy Jones is the best I have ever seen. Whitaker is the second nearest fighter who was untouchable and fought better opposition.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and all views should be gathered but Floyd is so inactive and fights that could have been made which were not for me to consider him an ATG above the ones I have mentioned.

[Mr140]

Mayweather is a great fighter but he would lose to Hearns or Leonard at welterweight not talking about pound for pound either. Reason i don't really like this whole pound for pound thing is because it bullshit only reason it talked about is to make everyone that is not a heavyweight fell better because with out it they would have to rate Ali higher then Robinson or have Mayweather ranked under one of the Klitschko brothers because in real life they would get smashed by a Heavyweight champ and not be the best fighter.