Chavez & Mayweather

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess I should clarify something. Corrales making weight is different that De La Hoya's situation. Corrales had been at that weight class. He should have been able to make the weight.
De La Hoya was moving back to a weight class that he not been in a long time. That is quite different. That is much more difficult to do. I don't think anyone would think that De La Hoya was close to his best when he fought Pacquiao.

Not sure what you mean by "accurate rating is even worse for Chavez". I think he is borderline Top 20 all-time; either just inside it or just outside it.

[Cojimar 1946]

I could see a case for keeping Chavez out of the top 20 but I think its difficult to make a case for keeping Mayweather out of the top 20. He had tremendous consistency and showed great longevity. I don't see a reasonable case for putting 20 guys ahead of him. He also enjoyed success from 130 up to 154 and its rare for someone to be successful in so many weight classes.

Also, most of the complaints regarding Floyd seem to concern the matches he took when he was fighting far above his original weightclass. At 130 and 135 people seem to have few issues with who he chose to fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

It would not be difficult at all top come up with 20 guys who can make a decent argument as being deserving to be rated higher. There are at least a dozen that are no-brainers.
Being consistent and having longevity is not much of a case.

So what if he moved up in weight class. Almost every who starts out at these lower weight classes moves up. It's the rule, not the exception.

[Cojimar 1946]

On what criteria? People can only fight the best of their own eras and aside from taking too long to fight Pacquiao, Mayweather did a fairly good job of facing the best competition available and he did it all the way from 130 to 154.

It's virtually unheard of for someone to show Mayweather's level of consistency against elite opposition.

[Ambling Alp II]

Based on a fighters best wins weighted against losses/subpar performances. The stage of a fighter's career as well as his opponent's count. To a much lesser extent the competitiveness of wins and losses count.

The Pacquiao one is a big deal. It was by the biggest challenge of his career, he had several years to put it all on the line it when it would have mattered and he didn't do it. If you want to get picky, he could have fought De La Hoya sooner as well.
And no, being as consistent as Mayweather is not unheard of. And his elite competition is weak compared to many other great fighters.

[Cojimar 1946]

If your so caught up with Pacquiao why isn't the win over Marquez a huge deal given how successful Marquez was against Pacquiao? Why is this not Floyd's defining fight given Marquez arguably got the better of Pacquiao even up to welterweight?

[Ambling Alp II]

Marquez fought Mayweather at welterweight. Not only had Marquez never fought at welterweight before, he had not even fought at Jr. Welterweight before. That is a significant advantage for Mayweather.
Mayweather doesn't have a "defining fight".

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think spending more time at welterweight prior to fighting Mayweather is necessarily going to help Marquez, in any case Mayweather totally dominated the fight winning every round easily. I think it's ridiculous to try to downgrade such a dominant win because Marquez hadn't fought at welterweight prior.

Manny Pacquiao had never fought at welterweight prior to facing DeLaHoya and looked great, I think that version was probably as good as any later version of Manny we saw at welterweight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course it would have helped Marquez; he would have been much more comfortable at the weight. Doesn't mean he would won. The fact is that we simply don't know.
So no it's not ridiculous.
Is it a disadvantage that has never been overcome? Of course not.
Having an experience advantage has been overcome. However, more often than not important disadvantages are not overcome.
Notice that Mayweather never made a big leap like that himself in a major fight.

Yes Pacquiao moved up to beat De La Hoya. (Of course a past it De La Hoya looked terrible in that fight which helped make Pacquiao look so good.) You can come with other cases like this. You can come up with many more when they were not.

[Cojimar 1946]

One thing I find especially impressive about Mayweather is his consistency combined with the depth of his resume.

Over his career Mayweather appears to have beaten 17 opponents ranked in the top 10 on their respective weight division-(Angel Manfredy, Genaro Hernandez, Diego Corrales, Jesus Chavez, Jose Luis Castillo, DeMarcus Corley, Arturo Gatti,Zab Judah, Carlos Baldomir, Oscar DeLaHoya, Shane Mosley, Victor Ortiz, Miguel Cotto, Robert Guerrero, Saul Alvarez, Marcos Maidana, and Manny Pacquiao).

There are guys with comparable resumes but they tend to have wins interspersed with numerous losses. To achieve such a resume without defeat is pretty exceptional.

[Ambling Alp II]

He did have several wins over good to very good fighters. I would say that he was pretty consistent.
The the judges kept him from having a loss.
There were times when he was not impressive. He was terrible in the first Castillo and there is no way he should have got that decision. How much does that figure into how he should be rated? It's not the be all end all, but it matters. He probably would not be overrated today if he had that in the right handed column on his win/loss record.

He also had unimpressive performances in the 2nd Castillo fight and the De La Hoya fight.

When you weigh the pluses aagainst minus of his career, he is not too far out of the top 20.

[Cojimar 1946]

The only widely disputed win on his resume is Castillo, given how many top contenders he fought that's not really enough to hurt him much. Other guys like Robinson and Duran also have wins that are disputed by many. For example, Robinson easily could have lost the decision to Marty Servo.

[BoxBuzz]

If they fought in their primes, Mayweather wins the fight, Chavez is awarded a draw for showing up.

[Ambling Alp II]

Mayweather never would have fought Chavez in Chavez's prime.

[BoxBuzz]

Mayweather never would have fought Chavez in Chavez's prime.

I'm just curious here, Do You think that IF these guys were in their primes at the same time, and they were the same weight that Mayweather would have side stepped Chavez?

[Cojimar 1946]

Why not? He fought a prime Alvarez who was a naturally much bigger man than Mayweather and a prime Corrales. For most of these guys he allegedly fought post prime it would have been difficult to fight earlier given they were competing in different weight classes.

[Ambling Alp II]

Because Corrales and Alvarez aren't nearly as good as Chavez was. Therefore Mayweather would not have fought him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Mayweather never would have fought Chavez in Chavez's prime.

I'm just curious here, Do You think that IF these guys were in their primes at the same time, and they were the same weight that Mayweather would have side stepped Chavez?

Absolutely.

[Cojimar 1946]

Alvarez is a much bigger test head to head than Chavez due to his huge size advantage

[BoxBuzz]

Mayweather never would have fought Chavez in Chavez's prime.

I'm just curious here, Do You think that IF these guys were in their primes at the same time, and they were the same weight that Mayweather would have side stepped Chavez?

Absolutely.

You base this on his behavior regarding Pac? Or are there other Mayweather examples of malfeasance? He seemed to step up in other cases....and he did ultimately beat Pac. You think that was all about the waiting game?

[Ambling Alp II]

Alvarez is a much bigger test head to head than Chavez due to his huge size advantage

Not at all. Alvarez was bigger. Chavez was a muc, much better fighter. Nobody thought it was a big test. Lets not pretend it was.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm just curious here, Do You think that IF these guys were in their primes at the same time, and they were the same weight that Mayweather would have side stepped Chavez?

Absolutely.

You base this on his behavior regarding Pac? Or are there other Mayweather examples of malfeasance? He seemed to step up in other cases....and he did ultimately beat Pac. You think that was all about the waiting game?

By far the biggest test he could have had in his career was against a prime Pac. He had several years to do it. Did you really think he there was much chance at all that he could lose any of his fights that he won? I sure didn't. I don't think he did either.

[Cojimar 1946]

Logically Marquez should have been as big a test as Pacquiao

[HomicideHenry]

Mayweather may be the best boxer of the last two decades, but he's not necessarily the best fighter of the last two decades. There's a difference between a stylist and a warrior, and Floyd wasn't about that life no matter how much his supporters try to make him greater than he was.

Mind you, Floyd won me over after years and years of hating the man, but he is not "The Best Ever" or the "Greatest of All Time", and I dare say not the best of the last 50 years. I can name many ahead of him in that regard.

Me and Alp butt heads alot, but he's right on this one. What "significant victory" was there in the career of Floyd Mayweather? Who really was all in their primes, or wasn't green as gourds? I can't really think of anyone who was exceptional who wasn't old, not ready, or was essentially all hype that he beat.

Hatton is arguably the only real solid victory where Ricky was the Junior Welterweight champ, no losses, and had a solid resume. But I retrospect, it's plain to see that Hitman was rather one dimensional and a guy like that isn't going to ever really beat the creme da le creme, unless you're a "one off" like Rocky Marciano who didn't get tired no matter how many punches he threw.

With Chavez, he's something of an enigma but he was "great" virtually from the start. His one-sided beatdown of Greg Haugen inside of three rounds was absolutely incredible considering Haugen was no pansy. It's difficult to assess him but I still say he's arguably Mexico's greatest fighter and if he's not he's right at number two.

[BoxBuzz]

For me the compelling reason I would imagine that Mayweather would beat Chavez, is based on Whitaker's performance. Though I think Whitaker was better than Floyd, I think they both have what they need to win the fight. But I'm more curious, and perhaps intrigued to think that the fight might never happen due to Floyd's reluctance. That idea has some merit....but if the Money was there.....wouldn't Floyd follow?