BoxRec

ignore cotto-pac winner, mosley, williams-pavlik winner, margarito.

i'd say casa-freitas and tszyu are the only notable names he missed out on.

i've ignored the above cos those guys are still out there to take on and haven't gone anywhere.

mosley went for the dollar and jumped 2 weights to take on oscar.

then turned it down a couple of yrs ago when floyd called him out.

cotto was with arum (same as floyd) at the time and coming thru in world terms.

i don't buy the cherry picking argument.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:i don't buy the cherry picking argument.

Then your clearly a fool and should be treated as such. I will skip over all of your posts from this day forward D

It might be a rediculous thread, for me the closeness of the DLH fight - and the reasons WHY it was close means Floyd will never be GOAT (I think the 2 years wasted in retirement will be his downfall - he'll never gain those years).

However, I think the back lash against this thread starter is equally rediculous. I've heard it all now... Mark Breland is better than Floyd Mayweather - Prime v Prime Breland would have beaten him. Complete and utter tosh!.

Mayweather might have missed some of his most natural rivals. But lets see. He fought DLH at 154... DLH was the #1 in the devision at the time. Winky Wright had finished at 154 - so who was it... Corey Spinks? Verno Phillips? DLH was also, faded - possibly, but still among the top 5 P4P at the time.

Ricky Hatton - might not have been at his best at 147. But he was good enough to win a world title, beating a guy who was shafted by Berto recently. But, yep - Floyd got condemmed... remember, people are saying Floyd is naturally bigger than Marquez - yep he is... but most people at the time were saying Hatton's "Superior" Strength MIGHT be a factor. No, but then when Floyd did a number - it was Hatton's just a 140 fight, Floyd is a 154 fighter.

Then he fights P4P ers in Castillo and Marquez and gets criticised.

Okay, he's had a frustrating career - but it resembles Leonard's in alot of it. Does Leonard get condemmed for squeezing past a faded Hagler - nope. Does Floyd for DLH (bigger guy, ATG, faded) yep .

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:He woud lose to Leonard, Duran, Pryor and Hearns IMO, but not by shut-out. No way.

i think he'd outbox duran.

hearns cos of size difference and long range style would have been tricky.

i think i would have tipped him against pryor.

and i'll sit on the fence with leonard. :>

- Poor devil didn't clean out anyone in his own welt division in the 4 yrs he 1st grabbed his career standard issue WBC belt, not even his WBC mandatory, Berto, so how on God's green acres are do you propose to get him to fight elite all time HOFers much less beat them?

That's mighty soft puddin' headed logic at work. Yup, Mr. Moneybags and his Money Band of Fans are back alright. He doesn't even have to lift a pinky to win, you point your pinkies at whomever, and BINGO, vanquished in a flash.

Whatever floats your skirt I guess......

stujones wrote:Okay, he's had a frustrating career - but it resembles Leonard's in alot of it. Does Leonard get condemmed for squeezing past a faded Hagler - nope. Does Floyd for DLH (bigger guy, ATG, faded) yep .

Sorry Stu, but it doesn't resemble Leonard's at all imo. The crucial difference between the two is that Leonard actively sought the biggest fights out there for him and in his peak years the names on his record are way superior to Floyd's - Wilfed Benitez, Roberto Duran, Ayub Kalule and, of course, Hearns.
The other crucial difference is that Leonard showed so many more dimensions to his game than Floyd - he could be just as slick and defensive (witness the Duran rematch), but with Hearns showed an ability to both get down in the trenches and mix it, and to be able to change a failing game plan to turn a fight around. Of course, he also stopped a lot of opponents at the highest level.
Finally I think your comparison is a flawed one. A more appropriate one would be:
Leonard comes back after years out and moves up to fight at a new weight against a fiercesome middleweight champion on what everyone thought was a suicide mission.
Floyd has a bit of time out and comes back to face a guy who's best weight is two divisions down.
I think that difference in mentality alone explains why Floyd will never be GOAT.

stujones wrote:It might be a rediculous thread, for me the closeness of the DLH fight - and the reasons WHY it was close means Floyd will never be GOAT (I think the 2 years wasted in retirement will be his downfall - he'll never gain those years).

However, I think the back lash against this thread starter is equally rediculous. I've heard it all now... Mark Breland is better than Floyd Mayweather - Prime v Prime Breland would have beaten him. Complete and utter tosh!.

Mayweather might have missed some of his most natural rivals. But lets see. He fought DLH at 154... DLH was the #1 in the devision at the time. Winky Wright had finished at 154 - so who was it... Corey Spinks? Verno Phillips? DLH was also, faded - possibly, but still among the top 5 P4P at the time.

Ricky Hatton - might not have been at his best at 147. But he was good enough to win a world title, beating a guy who was shafted by Berto recently. But, yep - Floyd got condemmed... remember, people are saying Floyd is naturally bigger than Marquez - yep he is... but most people at the time were saying Hatton's "Superior" Strength MIGHT be a factor. No, but then when Floyd did a number - it was Hatton's just a 140 fight, Floyd is a 154 fighter.

Then he fights P4P ers in Castillo and Marquez and gets criticised.

Okay, he's had a frustrating career - but it resembles Leonard's in alot of it. Does Leonard get condemmed for squeezing past a faded Hagler - nope. Does Floyd for DLH (bigger guy, ATG, faded) yep .

Hagler might have been faded, but prior the the bout, everyone though Leonard was going to get absolutely smashed to pieces, he'd been in retirement and was moving up to his opponent's weight as well. Hagler had lost a step, but he was still the undisputed champion.

Hagler had cleaned out 160 virtually, the same cannot be said of Oscar at 154, he was never the proven king of the division.

Quixall wrote:Great performance, but he has yet to fight

1. Pacquiao

2. Williams

3. Cotto

4. Mosley

At the moment, he is the best around and is a great fighter, who will go down in the annals of boxing history, but for me, to cement his position, he has to fight the opponents mentioned above. One fighter who he will struggle to eclipse is :

Sugar Ray Robinson

For me, the finest fighter to ever lace up a pair of gloves

Followed by Henry Armstrong in my view. IMO, numbers one & two P4P are on lockdown!

Mayweather is an all-time great & he will enahnce his legacy even more with wins over guys like Pacquiao, Cotto, Mosley, etc.

I just hope we get to see him in the ring with the above-mentioned guys!

Autobarn wrote:

WildWaylon wrote: Who would have thought PBF could have dominated Marquez the way he did. We know he had the size and weight advantage but even so his speed and skills made him the master anyway. Is he the best at any weight, in boxings history, and if not who would you put above him.

are you joking?

marquez had no business at welterweight other than getting a lot of money. mayweather dominated a smaller man, and never even made the contracted weight, which would have perhaps made it a fairer fight. the fight has no p4p relevance because it turned out not to even be a "catchweight."

PAYweather showed fine skills but beat a 36 yo, fat, smaller man who had been in some epic (read, gruelling, punishing) fights already.

I am amazed so many people bothered to sit up all night, never mind all those who spent good money going to the fight, if they knew Marquez didnt stand a chance. If I had known beforehand it was going to be a one sided shutout, I wouldnt have lost sleep. I thought Mayweather would win through size and weight advantage, but expected a much closer fight and many thousands of others must have thought so as well or they wouldnt have watched it on TV in the small hours, or gone to the fight. No Mayweather isnt the best ever but he has to be in the top 20 somewhere, and no matter who he fights in the future, he still wont satisfy everyone, how many fighters have.

On the whole a sensible post - Mayweather has to figure somewhere in the top 20 or so of all time. To break the top 10, he needs to beat some genuine welterweights and top level ones at that.

Nobody knew for certain Marquez would lose, how could they, but there are plenty on here who said he hadnt much chance, just look at the prediction thread, I think only Dooley said Marquez would win, and everyone knows he's a complete mentalist.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote:It might be a rediculous thread, for me the closeness of the DLH fight - and the reasons WHY it was close means Floyd will never be GOAT (I think the 2 years wasted in retirement will be his downfall - he'll never gain those years).

However, I think the back lash against this thread starter is equally rediculous. I've heard it all now... Mark Breland is better than Floyd Mayweather - Prime v Prime Breland would have beaten him. Complete and utter tosh!.

Mayweather might have missed some of his most natural rivals. But lets see. He fought DLH at 154... DLH was the #1 in the devision at the time. Winky Wright had finished at 154 - so who was it... Corey Spinks? Verno Phillips? DLH was also, faded - possibly, but still among the top 5 P4P at the time.

Ricky Hatton - might not have been at his best at 147. But he was good enough to win a world title, beating a guy who was shafted by Berto recently. But, yep - Floyd got condemmed... remember, people are saying Floyd is naturally bigger than Marquez - yep he is... but most people at the time were saying Hatton's "Superior" Strength MIGHT be a factor. No, but then when Floyd did a number - it was Hatton's just a 140 fight, Floyd is a 154 fighter.

Then he fights P4P ers in Castillo and Marquez and gets criticised.

Okay, he's had a frustrating career - but it resembles Leonard's in alot of it. Does Leonard get condemmed for squeezing past a faded Hagler - nope. Does Floyd for DLH (bigger guy, ATG, faded) yep .

Hagler might have been faded, but prior the the bout, everyone though Leonard was going to get absolutely smashed to pieces, he'd been in retirement and was moving up to his opponent's weight as well. Hagler had lost a step, but he was still the undisputed champion.

Hagler had cleaned out 160 virtually, the same cannot be said of Oscar at 154, he was never the proven king of the division.

There was no-one out there really for Oscar to fight to clean out the devision. Wright was fighting at Light Heavy. I aint saying Oscar ever had the intention... but would fights Spinks etc enhanced his legacy at Light Middle.

The inactivity of Leonard and the drab display in his comeback played a massive part in why he was such an underdog.

Deserter - for whatever reason, Leonard missed out on some key fights in his career. There was a certain P4P fighter by the name of Don Curry who leonard didn't fight. Arron Pyror, Arguello, McCory, McCallum - all tremendous fighters (to name a few).

Leonard jumped weights as much as Floyd. It was alot easier to clean up. Leonard longest reign consisted of just 8 title fights (7 wins 1 defeat). Remember there was only the WBA and WBC to consider for the most part. Its like if Floyd fought the Pacquiao vs Cotto winner, there would always be calls that Mosley is really the man, or maybe Berto, or Williams, etc. There is much more chances in this era to have the "there is always another one" - that Lewis/Calzaghe mentioned at the end of their careers.

But as bad as the ommision of Tszyu is for Mayweather, Curry is for Leonard.

"The Greatest?" The GReatest wank-er, I reckon. He's definitely brilliant but he needs to take on lads his own size so we can agree with his great description of himself

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote:It might be a rediculous thread, for me the closeness of the DLH fight - and the reasons WHY it was close means Floyd will never be GOAT (I think the 2 years wasted in retirement will be his downfall - he'll never gain those years).

However, I think the back lash against this thread starter is equally rediculous. I've heard it all now... Mark Breland is better than Floyd Mayweather - Prime v Prime Breland would have beaten him. Complete and utter tosh!.

Mayweather might have missed some of his most natural rivals. But lets see. He fought DLH at 154... DLH was the #1 in the devision at the time. Winky Wright had finished at 154 - so who was it... Corey Spinks? Verno Phillips? DLH was also, faded - possibly, but still among the top 5 P4P at the time.

Ricky Hatton - might not have been at his best at 147. But he was good enough to win a world title, beating a guy who was shafted by Berto recently. But, yep - Floyd got condemmed... remember, people are saying Floyd is naturally bigger than Marquez - yep he is... but most people at the time were saying Hatton's "Superior" Strength MIGHT be a factor. No, but then when Floyd did a number - it was Hatton's just a 140 fight, Floyd is a 154 fighter.

Then he fights P4P ers in Castillo and Marquez and gets criticised.

Okay, he's had a frustrating career - but it resembles Leonard's in alot of it. Does Leonard get condemmed for squeezing past a faded Hagler - nope. Does Floyd for DLH (bigger guy, ATG, faded) yep .

Hagler might have been faded, but prior the the bout, everyone though Leonard was going to get absolutely smashed to pieces, he'd been in retirement and was moving up to his opponent's weight as well. Hagler had lost a step, but he was still the undisputed champion.

Hagler had cleaned out 160 virtually, the same cannot be said of Oscar at 154, he was never the proven king of the division.

There was no-one out there really for Oscar to fight to clean out the devision. Wright was fighting at Light Heavy. I aint saying Oscar ever had the intention... but would fights Spinks etc enhanced his legacy at Light Middle.

The inactivity of Leonard and the drab display in his comeback played a massive part in why he was such an underdog.

Deserter - for whatever reason, Leonard missed out on some key fights in his career. There was a certain P4P fighter by the name of Don Curry who leonard didn't fight. Arron Pyror, Arguello, McCory, McCallum - all tremendous fighters (to name a few).

Leonard jumped weights as much as Floyd. It was alot easier to clean up. Leonard longest reign consisted of just 8 title fights (7 wins 1 defeat). Remember there was only the WBA and WBC to consider for the most part. Its like if Floyd fought the Pacquiao vs Cotto winner, there would always be calls that Mosley is really the man, or maybe Berto, or Williams, etc. There is much more chances in this era to have the "there is always another one" - that Lewis/Calzaghe mentioned at the end of their careers.

But as bad as the ommision of Tszyu is for Mayweather, Curry is for Leonard.

You really think Don Curry had anything that would have troubled leonard, come on Stu.

Don Curry in his pomp, yes. He was P4P #1 after Leonards day. Even if you don't think he would have - to "ignore" him from Leonards resume and say Leonard fought EVERYONE is rediculous. He dominated Starling and destroyed McCory. He had a 400-4 amateur record.

Drugs and weight problems KO'd his longevity, but for 2-3 years. He could have hung with anyone. The man had a dynamite punch. Milton McCory had a hell of a chin.

I would tip Leonard to find away based on hindsight - but at the time of Leonard's exile. I think Curry would have started as a slight favourite.

Much more intriguing fight than Kostya vs Floyd.

PBF's legacy will suffer because he didn't have genuine ATG's to compete against, but he can hardly be accused of ducking folk, and has proved himself to be the best fighter of his generation.

This thread is going in circles, can we just agree to disagree?

Some think Mayweather has done more than enough to be regarded as an ATG, some think he has not done anything like enough.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: You really think Don Curry had anything that would have troubled leonard, come on Stu.

- Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, pity you have me on ignore to skip your proper education, you're a troubled lad you are.

Don't really get the Mr. Moneybags/Leonard comparison, but as far as Curry goes, a Leonard/Curry fight was being proposed. Curry like many Leonard peers seems to have a great resentment against him for making him jump through hoops as it were, wanting him to defend his welt belt one more time before supposedly granting him a crack at 154. That was the infamous Honeyghan bout where he's comprehensively outboxed and upset, claiming to be too tight at the weight.

Leonard in his pomp was pretty much the real deal, with some favorable judges and refs thrown in, the Benitez scoring and stoppage for example. After his eye injury he cherry picked legacy bouts to fluff his career. He never truly "beat" Hagler and wouldn't face a prime champ in their weight class until Norris, an embarrassment for him. Then Camacho who was hardly prime and way over his best weight.

Curry was one of the best peak welts in history, more than a match against anyone. Had he moved up to 154 one bout earlier, perhaps his story would be different. I know that even in his damaged state he probably could've take Leonard at that point. That's where the Mr. Money comparison comes in I guess. Leonard simpley wouldn't fight prime contenders and champs in his comeback, and why should he? Networks were showering him with gold for the Hearns and Duran matches as they creamed their shorts over him. Easy Money as Mr. Money said post JMM, though Hearns surprised Leonard with a great performance in spite of being battleworn.

stujones wrote: Deserter - for whatever reason, Leonard missed out on some key fights in his career. There was a certain P4P fighter by the name of Don Curry who leonard didn't fight. Arron Pyror, Arguello, McCory, McCallum - all tremendous fighters (to name a few).

Stu, you say for whatever reason yet everyone, including you, knows the reason - Leonard had a detached retina that forced his retirement in 82. The fact he came back to beat Hagler was astonishing, but doesn't change the fact that he was nothing like the boxer he was prior to that injury. If you ignore the abortive Kevin Howard return he didn't fight for nearly five years.
Pre-injury he didn't miss out on a single key fight - all those namechecks you make are post that particular period. Curry, for example, only claimed a portion of the world title for the first time AFTER Leonard's enforced retirement and had lost to Honeyghan by the time Leonard re-emerged to fight Hagler, so I really don't understand your point?

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: You really think Don Curry had anything that would have troubled leonard, come on Stu.

- Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, pity you have me on ignore to skip your proper education, you're a troubled lad you are.

Don't really get the Mr. Moneybags/Leonard comparison, but as far as Curry goes, a Leonard/Curry fight was being proposed. Curry like many Leonard peers seems to have a great resentment against him for making him jump through hoops as it were, wanting him to defend his welt belt one more time before supposedly granting him a crack at 154. That was the infamous Honeyghan bout where he's comprehensively outboxed and upset, claiming to be too tight at the weight.

Leonard in his pomp was pretty much the real deal, with some favorable judges and refs thrown in, the Benitez scoring and stoppage for example. After his eye injury he cherry picked legacy bouts to fluff his career. He never truly "beat" Hagler and wouldn't face a prime champ in their weight class until Norris, an embarrassment for him. Then Camacho who was hardly prime and way over his best weight.

Curry was one of the best peak welts in history, more than a match against anyone. Had he moved up to 154 one bout earlier, perhaps his story would be different. I know that even in his damaged state he probably could've take Leonard at that point. That's where the Mr. Money comparison comes in I guess. Leonard simpley wouldn't fight prime contenders and champs in his comeback, and why should he? Networks were showering him with gold for the Hearns and Duran matches as they creamed their shorts over him. Easy Money as Mr. Money said post JMM, though Hearns surprised Leonard with a great performance in spite of being battleworn.

Rubbish - I'm sorry, but Leonard beat Hagler comprehensively, I've watched the fight many many times, there's nothing controversal about it.

Agreed, Leonard did cherry pick during his comeback, but I have no doubt that he would have beaten Curry. Curry had nothing that Hearns didn't, and we all know how that turned out.

For 3 years Curry was brilliant, shone very brightly and then sadly burned out. Far more compact and crisp than the gangling, powerful but physically weak Hearns. I would say more correct technically than Leonard also. I don't want to agree with Broughton, and don't want to make a case for Curry over the more proven Hearns and Leonard; I just want to bring up how effing good Curry was until it went wrong for him. The man who outworked slick Marlon Starling, blew out Milton McCrory and slashed up Colin Jones was a remarkable fighter who would box, punch, break guys down and also work for 15 rounds. If there was a prime Don Curry at welter today, Mayweather would not be a welter, that is for sure.

stujones wrote:Don Curry in his pomp, yes. He was P4P #1 after Leonards day. Even if you don't think he would have - to "ignore" him from Leonards resume and say Leonard fought EVERYONE is rediculous. He dominated Starling and destroyed McCory. He had a 400-4 amateur record.

Drugs and weight problems KO'd his longevity, but for 2-3 years. He could have hung with anyone. The man had a dynamite punch. Milton McCory had a hell of a chin.

I would tip Leonard to find away based on hindsight - but at the time of Leonard's exile. I think Curry would have started as a slight favourite.

Much more intriguing fight than Kostya vs Floyd.

agreed, mostly. Curry was exceptional and he proved it in very tough company - McCrory, Jones, Starling.

Granted, boxing was desperate to find another great welter, post Leonard. And Curry fit the bill, looked the part. And he proved himself a brilliant fighter for a good 3 years. He was so sharp, had such an array of punches, always pushed the opponent back, could bang, could box. And - unlike Hearns - was a strong 15 round fighter as well.

The prime Curry would have been high risk, low reward for Hearns and Leonard. Leonard could be outboxed - for about 10 rounds vs Hearns - and outfught - in that first hugfest v Duran. Hearns was deadly, but he was as brittle as he was powerful.

Mayweather would never have gone to 147 if there was anything like Curry, Hearns or Leonard at the weight in recent years.

Kostya v Floyd is a great fight, because Kostya was so calm, precise, scientific and accurate.

bengulnaci1 wrote:This thread is going in circles, can we just agree to disagree?

Some think Mayweather has done more than enough to be regarded as an ATG, some think he has not done anything like enough.

yeah it is going round and it is maddening.

Floyd is in a very fortunate position. He can command serious paydays for pretty easy fights - as was proven last weekend - vs someone considerably smaller and more battle worn. He seems pretty much in control of his career, the big money comes his way. He probably wished he was comfortably retired right now, probably can do without the discomfort, and so if he can get paid for fighting smaller guys then he is a happy man, and he is doing well. Nowadays there is an increasing gap between what makes the fighter happy and what makes the fan happy. Boxing is a wide open Wild West where ppl do what the heck they want, if they have the clout. But then, this means his achievements mean less in the "p4p" debates, arguably.

Autobarn wrote:For 3 years Curry was brilliant, shone very brightly and then sadly burned out. Far more compact and crisp than the gangling, powerful but physically weak Hearns. I would say more correct technically than Leonard also. I don't want to agree with Broughton, and don't want to make a case for Curry over the more proven Hearns and Leonard; I just want to bring up how effing good Curry was until it went wrong for him. The man who outworked slick Marlon Starling, blew out Milton McCrory and slashed up Colin Jones was a remarkable fighter who would box, punch, break guys down and also work for 15 rounds. If there was a prime Don Curry at welter today, Mayweather would not be a welter, that is for sure.

Agree with all of that, though a bit harsh on Hearns IMO. Curry's economy of movement and shot selection during his prime were just immaculate - absolute efficiency of the type that I've rarely seen in a ring.

Curry, as brilliant as he was, doesn't come close to Ray Leonard.
The brutal truth is, when the going got tough, he quit on his stool. Leonard didn't know the meaning of the word.

The punch that a rampaging Duran rocked and shocked Leonard with in the 2nd round in Montreal, would have likely been the begining of the end for Curry. Leonard, on the other hand, fought back like a demon for 15 rounds.

Curry sadly had trouble making welterweight, was unbelievably sluggish vs Lloyd Honeyghan and got an absolute battering, from which he never fully recovered.

He appeared to be on his way back vs Mike McCallum, whom he was beating to the punch, but obviously left himself open and was almost decapitated, in an excellent little fight.

Curry, at his best, would definitely trouble Hearns and Leonard. The sad thing is that his prime did not last very long. I almost wish Curry had kept his form and beaten Honeyghan. Imagine Curry vs Simon Brown, another guy who was brilliant for just a couple of years before weight (and other things) messed him up. Obviously, props to Honeyghan for going there and doing it.

I'll say it again, if Don Curry was of this era, there would not be a Floyd Payweather up at welterweight. Floyd Payweather would not take that kind of risk. Floyd Payweather is a phenominally successful modern fighter who is able to weight up risk and reward and take the most lucrative/easy fights. I'm sure most fighters would want to be in his position, but unfortunately this creates a bridge between the all time greats, and the Floyd Payweathers who get what they want.

Mayweather is not even in the top ten all-time. The key factor for me is whether or not he remains undefeated for the rest of his career. If he does his fans will always argue about his greatness. If he loses though all this greatest of all-time talk will go out the window and we'll get a more realistic view of his all-time status, because the aura of invincibility will be gone.

p.s Shitman, you've lost it mate. Bigging up Floyd will not make the arse kicking he gave Hatton look any better for fatboy.