Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post Reply
bnovelist
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 987
Joined: 23 Nov 2009, 02:37

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by bnovelist »

George Foreman is ahead of him as well. Even though he lost he tried to take Ali's head off! Floyd? Pitty Patt RUN! Pitty Patt RUN RUN! He earned

200 Million for one night he bored us to death with pitty patter running.
Top
TheGingerBomber
Lightweight
Posts: 1233
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 13:18

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by TheGingerBomber »

bnovelist wrote:George Foreman is ahead of him as well. Even though he lost he tried to take Ali's head off! Floyd? Pitty Patt RUN! Pitty Patt RUN RUN! He earned

200 Million for one night he bored us to death with pitty patter running.
:brick:
Top
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Kalan »

bnovelist wrote:George Foreman is ahead of him as well. Even though he lost he tried to take Ali's head off! Floyd? Pitty Patt RUN! Pitty Patt RUN RUN! He earned

200 Million for one night he bored us to death with pitty patter running.
He made 300 million against Pac... Pac make 200MM... And they got paid whether you were bored or not.. Pac made it boring by not attacking.. He said he tore his right rotator cuff 4 weeks before the fight.. He essentially stopped training or sparring altogether.. Instead of divulging the injury the dick signed all his sparring partners to non-disclosure agreements and essentially shut down his camp to any fans or press..

Then immediately after the fight he had Rotator cuff surgery... Nice!
Top
world ranked
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2199
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by world ranked »

Any fighter who was the best in there era should be considered an all time. He did what he did in his era. If you comparing era than your putting your personal opinions on a fighter legacy that why he should be considered all time great. People seem to forget that Floyd WASN'T IN HIS PRIME EITHER when he beat PACQUAIO. It goes both ways.
Top
ClivePatrickLyons
Super Welterweight
Posts: 2811
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 22:10

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by ClivePatrickLyons »

Jaywheel wrote::shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: .
:lol:
Top
Evander
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13979
Joined: 07 May 2005, 16:49

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Evander »

Stuarty30 wrote:
bnovelist wrote:The only 2 fighters he fought in their peak was Castillo 2002' and Marcos Maidana
Chico Corrales?
Gatti?
Hatton?
Judah?
Marquez?
Not sure about Gatti and maybe Judah at the time.

Other 3 were live ones agreed, Corales was a landmark fight for Floyd and took him up big.
Top
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Kalan »

"So Mayweather beats Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler, etc.. OMG"

Yup... Duran looked like sh!t in De Jesus 1... Leonard looked like sh!t versus Norris... Hearns looked like sh!t versus Barkley... Hagler was crappy vs SRL
Top
Evander
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13979
Joined: 07 May 2005, 16:49

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Evander »

Kalan wrote:"So Mayweather beats Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler, etc.. OMG"

Yup... Duran looked like sh!t in De Jesus 1... Leonard looked like sh!t versus Norris... Hearns looked like sh!t versus Barkley... Hagler was crappy vs SRL
Ha really you're seriously comparing Ray Leonard in the fight with Terry Norris as an example ?
You're way behind.
Top
Stuarty
Super Welterweight
Posts: 27293
Joined: 20 Aug 2014, 10:28

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Stuarty »

Evander wrote:
Stuarty30 wrote:
bnovelist wrote:The only 2 fighters he fought in their peak was Castillo 2002' and Marcos Maidana
Chico Corrales?
Gatti?
Hatton?
Judah?
Marquez?
Not sure about Gatti and maybe Judah at the time.

Other 3 were live ones agreed, Corales was a landmark fight for Floyd and took him up big.
Judah certainly caused Floyd some problems. Gatti was an old favourite of mine as a boy and Floyd took him apart. Gatti was made for Floyd though.
Top
Evander
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13979
Joined: 07 May 2005, 16:49

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Evander »

No case with Gatti forget that straight away.

Judah played dirty remember and still beat.
Top
Ricky_
Middleweight
Posts: 8896
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:03

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Ricky_ »

Mayweather is an all time great without question.

He lacked that 1 definitive win though against a prime and great opponent, and had a couple of close fights/potential losses that went in his favour.
Top
Ricky_
Middleweight
Posts: 8896
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:03

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Ricky_ »

Stuarty30 wrote:
Evander wrote:
Stuarty30 wrote:
Chico Corrales?
Gatti?
Hatton?
Judah?
Marquez?
Not sure about Gatti and maybe Judah at the time.

Other 3 were live ones agreed, Corales was a landmark fight for Floyd and took him up big.
Judah certainly caused Floyd some problems. Gatti was an old favourite of mine as a boy and Floyd took him apart. Gatti was made for Floyd though.
Judah knocked Floyd down when he stuck his face first into a counter while reaching for the jab to the solar plexes. There's also the case that FMj should have been DQ'd in that fight when his seconds entered the ring.
Top
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Kalan »

Evander wrote:
Kalan wrote:"So Mayweather beats Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler, etc.. OMG"

Yup... Duran looked like sh!t in De Jesus 1... Leonard looked like sh!t versus Norris... Hearns looked like sh!t versus Barkley... Hagler was crappy vs SRL
Ha really you're seriously comparing Ray Leonard in the fight with Terry Norris as an example ?
You're way behind.
You're 6 feet under with dirt dropping in... Leonard was 34 when he fought Norris... If Mayweather lost at age 38 his critics would never stop.
Top
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Kalan »

Ricky_ wrote:
Stuarty30 wrote:
Evander wrote:
Not sure about Gatti and maybe Judah at the time.

Other 3 were live ones agreed, Corales was a landmark fight for Floyd and took him up big.
Judah certainly caused Floyd some problems. Gatti was an old favourite of mine as a boy and Floyd took him apart. Gatti was made for Floyd though.
Judah knocked Floyd down when he stuck his face first into a counter while reaching for the jab to the solar plexes. There's also the case that FMj should have been DQ'd in that fight when his seconds entered the ring.
Off setting penalties... Both teams had to be penalized.

IF Judah's corner and hangers on would have been smart---they WOULDN'T have jumped into the ring a split-second after Floyd's... Floyd WOULD have been disqualified... NO doubt about that---and the commissioners even pointed that fact out.. They had no choice because combatant Zab Judah took part in the brawl and Floyd Mayweather DIDN'T.. The only decision that could be reached was to restore order and continue the fight, because neither boxer was badly injured ... and both teams piled into the ring and brawled.
Top
Ricky_
Middleweight
Posts: 8896
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:03

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Ricky_ »

Kalan wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:
Stuarty30 wrote:
Judah certainly caused Floyd some problems. Gatti was an old favourite of mine as a boy and Floyd took him apart. Gatti was made for Floyd though.
Judah knocked Floyd down when he stuck his face first into a counter while reaching for the jab to the solar plexes. There's also the case that FMj should have been DQ'd in that fight when his seconds entered the ring.
Off setting penalties... Both teams had to be penalized.

IF Judah's corner and hangers on would have been smart---they WOULDN'T have jumped into the ring a split-second after Floyd's... Floyd WOULD have been disqualified... NO doubt about that---and the commissioners even pointed that fact out.. They had no choice because combatant Zab Judah took part in the brawl and Floyd Mayweather DIDN'T.. The only decision that could be reached was to restore order and continue the fight, because neither boxer was badly injured ... and both teams piled into the ring and brawled.
You need to reread the rules. Nowhere does it state penalties "offset". The very second a cornerman sets foot in the ring a DQ is issued. Happened in a fight between (going from memory here) james kirkland vs carlos molina.

The only explanation i can think of Floyd not getting DQ was if the ref called time due to the foul (so the fight was on a timeout).
Top
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Kalan »

I'd love to see ANY referee DQ somebody the split-second their corner jumps into the ring -- when he sees the other corner and team is also piling into the ring.. A brawl occurs which necessitates law enforcement and security personnel piling into the ring, and it's a good while before order is restored -- And all this happened because Zab Judah committed deliberate egregious fouls he could easily be DQ'd for. You can't let him get away with that.

You weigh everything and make a decision that doesn't favor either side... You especially don't want to reward a flagrant fouler for causing the brawl.
Top
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9426
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by tiny_acres »

While watching that live I thought for syre Floyd would be disqualified
Top
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Kalan »

I knew he wouldn't be... Both sides went nuts -- and Floyd was the only guy on either team who didn't commit a violation he could be DQ'd for.
Top
amwsnw
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1911
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 03:24

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by amwsnw »

Ricky_ wrote:Mayweather is an all time great without question.

He lacked that 1 definitive win though against a prime and great opponent, and had a couple of close fights/potential losses that went in his favour.
I agree with this but he did dominate pacquiao and canelo.
Top
Jip
Super Lightweight
Posts: 2518
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 03:30

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Jip »

amwsnw wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:Mayweather is an all time great without question.

He lacked that 1 definitive win though against a prime and great opponent, and had a couple of close fights/potential losses that went in his favour.
I agree with this but he did dominate pacquiao and canelo.

he did dominate prime canelo, which is his best win against the best opponent in his prime

but to say he dominated pacquiao is nuts. first pac was old and totaly past prime. second both didnt do anything. nobody landed anything significant and both faces after the fight looked the same like before the fight untouched. basicly most of the rounds are just 10:10 rds, were both landed air or did running and moving.
Top
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

PAC is no more past prime than Floyd. And that fight wasn't close at all. Your expertise slips by the hour.
Top
Jip
Super Lightweight
Posts: 2518
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 03:30

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Jip »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:PAC is no more past prime than Floyd. And that fight wasn't close at all. Your expertise slips by the hour.

yeah both were past prime. maybe i jduge fight in a different way than yo do. for me the aggressor wins rounds when rounds are close. for me a round is 10:10 when i see both punching rare and when they do punch it is on the guard or air. floyd won some clear rounds, pac won some clear rounds, but overall most rounds were 10:10. i rewatched the boring fight and ckear winner my ass, there was just one clear loser that night, the fans.
Top
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Kalan »

Canelo was 22 when the Mayweather fight was signed. Now he's 26. He didn't have prime skills and he was fried at 152. He had no energy whatever and it was a terrible fight. Lara also beat Canelo and Saul was just starting to come into his own technically with the Cotto fight.

Pacquiao also had nothing to offer Floyd. He couldn't throw a smooth right jab or sharp right hook because of the rotator cuff tear was really bad. Not a thing happened until Pac landed a hard straight left in the 4th. Floyd was stunned and Pacquiao drove him against the ropes with a weak and brief flurry -- and backed off for no reason other than shoulder pain. Pac was done for the night. That was the only round won by a big punch. Every other round was won by the numbers. Floyd dominated a nothing fight vs Pacquiao.

Floyd's best fights were De La Hoya--not real exciting, but a good job of boxing by Floyd ... Mosley--Floyd turned the fight around in the 3rd ... Judah--Floyd lost the first 4 rounds and went to town after that ... Castillo II--Floyd won every round ... Hatton--Floyd won every round ... I actually don't consider Corrales a major effort because Chico was a flaccid flower stem for that fight. He didn't take a round and couldn't stand up without falling over -- much weaker than Pac and Canelo in fact. Floyd grabbed so much v Maidana that I wasn't impressed -- getting hit with junk he should never catch. I still rank him one of the 6 best boxers ever with Tunney, Pep, Sanchez, Jofre, and Lomachenko.
Top
Emmseegee
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1400
Joined: 10 Sep 2010, 10:29

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Emmseegee »

People just love to criticise. There aint many fighters out there whos records couldnt be picked apart if there was enough hate towards them for people to bother taking the time to do so.

Canelo was too young, Pacquiao was too old.
Hatton was too small but Floyd should fight Golovkin? Canelo was drained in weight but Pacquiao was a legend for draining De La Hoya into a skeleton. He apprently lost to Castillo yet everyone forgets he had a rematch and won convincingly.

It gets boring, Mayweathers resume has its flaws but if people wanna be realistic then whos hasnt. People get old, people change weight, people get injured. Sh1t happens.
Top
Ricky_
Middleweight
Posts: 8896
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:03

Re: Why Mayweather Shouldn't Be Considered An Alltime Great

Post by Ricky_ »

amwsnw wrote:
Ricky_ wrote:Mayweather is an all time great without question.

He lacked that 1 definitive win though against a prime and great opponent, and had a couple of close fights/potential losses that went in his favour.
I agree with this but he did dominate pacquiao and canelo.
He didn't dominate Pacquiao, he landed less punches and ran away all night vs a faded, 1-armed Pacquaio. As for Canelo, i'm not sure Canelo qualifies as being "great" yet, i'm not even convinced Canelo is a better fighter than Cotto. And Floyd drained Canelo.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Current Scene”