BoxRec

Just an aside, but those of you not too familiar with Hagler and assume he's just a slugger based on the Hearns fight etc, please take the time to at least watch the 10 seconds from the 2 mins 7 secs mark... it'll help many realise what a masterful boxer he was in his prime - he's so under-rated in that regard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyFUkIv6D2o

Tom Ford wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:

hurlock wrote:Best defensive fighter ever.

Who else is there pep, Benitez,Whittaker I'd say floyds the best

Pep. Bennie Leonard , Pernell Whittaker. I'd say those 3 off the top of my head were better defensively

As good as they were, they all were beaten and Floyd has not been in over 17 years.

Ricardo Lopez was unbeaten for 16 years and 52 fights, but you very rarely hear people claim he's the best ever.

Why do people say he has no friends?

Unless you follow him 24/7 you cannot say that. Plus, his family are worth more than many friends in my book. His family are nuts,but they are familly.]


Also, see how many 'true friends' you have when you are from a poor background and now worth over $200M.

ATG - one of the best!

J-C wrote: Ricardo Lopez was unbeaten for 16 years and 52 fights, but you very rarely hear people claim he's the best ever.

That's because he is not worthy of consideration. Floyd being unbeaten and so skillful is the reason why he is worthy. Floyd beats bigger good fighters all day. Lopez was a great fighter and used his heught etc very well, but he was no Floyd.

Tom Ford wrote:

J-C wrote: Ricardo Lopez was unbeaten for 16 years and 52 fights, but you very rarely hear people claim he's the best ever.

That's because he is not worthy of consideration. Floyd being unbeaten and so skillful is the reason why he is worthy. Floyd beats bigger good fighters all day. Lopez was a great fighter and used his heught etc very well, but he was no Floyd.

Exactly.

I understand where you are coming from, I'm just pointing you can't say Floyd is automatically better than Whittaker or Pep b/c he is unbeaten for x number of years.

Salvador Sanchez is the one fighter i would have loved to see live long enough to fulfill his potential as he ,s highly regarded despite dying only 24(or was it 22?)

From what i have seen though WOW

J-C wrote:

Tom Ford wrote:

J-C wrote: Ricardo Lopez was unbeaten for 16 years and 52 fights, but you very rarely hear people claim he's the best ever.

That's because he is not worthy of consideration. Floyd being unbeaten and so skillful is the reason why he is worthy. Floyd beats bigger good fighters all day. Lopez was a great fighter and used his heught etc very well, but he was no Floyd.

Exactly.

I understand where you are coming from, I'm just pointing you can't say Floyd is automatically better than Whittaker or Pep b/c he is unbeaten for x number of years.

Didn't mean to imply he was better, the 17 years was just an example added to his skill etc.

Final round wrote:Duran from Leonard 1 would have mauled Floyd.

Or he may have just quit for no reason.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Final round wrote:Duran from Leonard 1 would have mauled Floyd.

Or he may have just quit for no reason.

People forget dlh was out 3years & dropped a narrow split decision.dlh out for 3 years was abusing d&a & many felt unlucky & not for the first time in his career & to think mosely beat him more convincing but wasn't no way near the level he was then against floyd as he was beaten pretty easily.i think people forget floyds timing for picking opponents & cotto was pretty much damaged goods but gave floyd a tough fight which probably put the nail in pacmans coffin

hurlock wrote:People forget dlh was out 3years & dropped a narrow split decision.dlh out for 3 years was abusing d&a & many felt unlucky & not for the first time in his career & to think mosely beat him more convincing but wasn't no way near the level he was then against floyd as he was beaten pretty easily.i think people forget floyds timing for picking opponents & cotto was pretty much damaged goods but gave floyd a tough fight which probably put the nail in pacmans coffin

Cotto did not give Floyd a hard fight. Floyd was just hit a few times, and he never gets hit. He was sensational against Canelo - back to his best!

Tom Ford wrote:

hurlock wrote:People forget dlh was out 3years & dropped a narrow split decision.dlh out for 3 years was abusing d&a & many felt unlucky & not for the first time in his career & to think mosely beat him more convincing but wasn't no way near the level he was then against floyd as he was beaten pretty easily.i think people forget floyds timing for picking opponents & cotto was pretty much damaged goods but gave floyd a tough fight which probably put the nail in pacmans coffin

Cotto did not give Floyd a hard fight. Floyd was just hit a few times, and he never gets hit. He was sensational against Canelo - back to his best!

I agree, but the haters are gonna say Canelo is crap boxer, despite being top of his division.

Tom Ford wrote:

hurlock wrote:People forget dlh was out 3years & dropped a narrow split decision.dlh out for 3 years was abusing d&a & many felt unlucky & not for the first time in his career & to think mosely beat him more convincing but wasn't no way near the level he was then against floyd as he was beaten pretty easily.i think people forget floyds timing for picking opponents & cotto was pretty much damaged goods but gave floyd a tough fight which probably put the nail in pacmans coffin

Cotto did not give Floyd a hard fight. Floyd was just hit a few times, and he never gets hit. He was sensational against Canelo - back to his best!

Floyd mixed it up with him & showed his toughness floyd is extremely tough & it was a great fight

hurlock wrote:People forget dlh was out 3years & dropped a narrow split decision.dlh out for 3 years was abusing d&a & many felt unlucky & not for the first time in his career & to think mosely beat him more convincing but wasn't no way near the level he was then against floyd as he was beaten pretty easily.i think people forget floyds timing for picking opponents & cotto was pretty much damaged goods but gave floyd a tough fight which probably put the nail in pacmans coffin

What do you mean DLH was out for 3 years? Are you suggesting he hadnt fought for 3 years before the Floyd fight?

Great thread. For me Mayweather is obviously in the conversation for being the best ever and it astonishes me that is questioned. Loaded Gloves always has plenty to say on this topic but I have to object to the idea people who agree with me are fringe lunatics with no ability to judge boxers - some may recall LG tipping Guerrero to defeat Mayweather! Here's my take on some of the key themes:

The Record

He doesn't have the names Leonard has no doubt about it. He cant say he defeated three of the best ever. Nevertheless Mayweather's record is one of the best in boxing history and to suggest otherwise is churlish. Since 1997 he has consistently and consecutively fought world class opponent after world class opponent. That's 16 years fighting the best and winning. There are no shit, spurious mandatories or tune-ups and not even Robinson could say that. Yes there are some names missing, but they are small in number and almost always closely related to his hatred for Bob Arum e.g. he fought Cotto instantly when he left Arum.

More important is the manner of the victories. Aside from Castillo 1 and De La Hoya (both not as close as is often portrayed and both special fighters) he has systematically destroyed every single one of these world class fighters barely dropping a round in the process. I have watched many great fights and fighters but I have never seen a fighter consistently and completely remove all sense of purpose from world class opponents to the point where they look utterly bewildered, confused and wander around the ring with an air of total hopelessness. It may well be the case that the big 3 or 4 from the 1980s would also go undefeated with the same opponents but there is no chance any of them would make Marquez or Canelo or Corrales look like they had never been in a boxing ring in their entire life. I thought Canelo was going to burst into tears! He doesn't just win, he outclasses the best every single time.

Another important factor is the longevity. Yes on any given night Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran could beat the same guys. Could they do it consecutively, never missing a step, for 16 years? Could they have delivered one sided dominations every time out? We know they couldn't because they didn't. Were any of them still arguably improving at 36? As a matter of record most of these guys struggled with dedication to the life at one time or another. Mayweather hasn't and that is a factor in considering greatness - "oh but Duran was out of shape in that fight". Mayweather is never out of shape.

Mayweather in the '80s

For me he beats all the main guys. We always focus on how Mayweather would deal with the legends. Someone tell me how on earth they deal with him? How can anyone say a particular type of guy or style beats Mayweather when we've seen him thrash every every style? Its just not credible to say e.g. Hearns would smash him. No-one else has managed it! A frequently cited example is that Mosley chinned him. Sorry but does that not prove how great he is? The best you can come up with is that one fighter, Sugar Shane Mosley no less, landed a solid dig! Fairly sure every other guy in the history of the sport has also been punched very hard square in the face.

Leonard outboxed Hearns, Hagler and Duran - therefore they could be outboxed. Much lesser fighters outboxed all 3 too. Mayweather's chin is solid, he's one of the greatest strategists of all time, he significantly reduces the punch output of his opponents, avoids 80% plus and lands 50% irrespective of opponent or style. If Leonard could outbox those guys then so could Mayweather.

That leaves Leonard, the greatest of the 4. Leonard, in comparison with Mayweather, is mentally weak. He had troubles with dedication, he liked to party, he could be provoked into fighting the other guy's fight. Critically he also sometimes struggled with fighters he couldn't catch, Dick Ecklund anyone? On the flip side Leonard is clearly easier to catch than Mayweather. Is it really so difficult to imagine Mayweather frustrating the life out him with his elusiveness and popping him with single right hands? I can imagine it and that's what I think would've happened.

The Athletes are Better Now Argument

This is so obviously true its staggering people deny it. Only in boxing do fans still seriously believe that competitors from decades ago could compete with today's guys. All the more ridiculous since boxing requires intense conditioning. No baseball fan thinks Babe Ruth would compete today, no tennis fan thinks Boris Becker never mind Fred Perry could compete today, no football fan thinks Stanley Matthews would have Ronaldo on the bench. Most obviously in athletics where records from decades ago are often unlikely to get you in a final. Yet boxing fans want to tell us that Robinson or Lammotta or Greb would dominate in any era. Sorry but that is clearly refuted by a mass of evidence to the contrary. Today's guys as a totality are extremely likely to be better athletes and therefore better fighters than their predecessors.

Last thing is why do all the Mayweather naysayers even follow boxing? What joy can you possibly take from this sport if you're not loving watching one of the greatest talents we've ever seen do his stuff?

Trojans44 wrote:Great thread. For me Mayweather is obviously in the conversation for being the best ever and it astonishes me that is questioned. Loaded Gloves always has plenty to say on this topic but I have to object to the idea people who agree with me are fringe lunatics with no ability to judge boxers - some may recall LG tipping Guerrero to defeat Mayweather! Here's my take on some of the key themes:

The Record

He doesn't have the names Leonard has no doubt about it. He cant say he defeated three of the best ever. Nevertheless Mayweather's record is one of the best in boxing history and to suggest otherwise is churlish. Since 1997 he has consistently and consecutively fought world class opponent after world class opponent. That's 16 years fighting the best and winning. There are no poo, spurious mandatories or tune-ups and not even Robinson could say that. Yes there are some names missing, but they are small in number and almost always closely related to his hatred for Bob Arum e.g. he fought Cotto instantly when he left Arum.

More important is the manner of the victories. Aside from Castillo 1 and De La Hoya (both not as close as is often portrayed and both special fighters) he has systematically destroyed every single one of these world class fighters barely dropping a round in the process. I have watched many great fights and fighters but I have never seen a fighter consistently and completely remove all sense of purpose from world class opponents to the point where they look utterly bewildered, confused and wander around the ring with an air of total hopelessness. It may well be the case that the big 3 or 4 from the 1980s would also go undefeated with the same opponents but there is no chance any of them would make Marquez or Canelo or Corrales look like they had never been in a boxing ring in their entire life. I thought Canelo was going to burst into tears! He doesn't just win, he outclasses the best every single time.

Another important factor is the longevity. Yes on any given night Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran could beat the same guys. Could they do it consecutively, never missing a step, for 16 years? Could they have delivered one sided dominations every time out? We know they couldn't because they didn't. Were any of them still arguably improving at 36? As a matter of record most of these guys struggled with dedication to the life at one time or another. Mayweather hasn't and that is a factor in considering greatness - "oh but Duran was out of shape in that fight". Mayweather is never out of shape.

Mayweather in the '80s

For me he beats all the main guys. We always focus on how Mayweather would deal with the legends. Someone tell me how on earth they deal with him? How can anyone say a particular type of guy or style beats Mayweather when we've seen him thrash every every style? Its just not credible to say e.g. Hearns would smash him. No-one else has managed it! A frequently cited example is that Mosley chinned him. Sorry but does that not prove how great he is? The best you can come up with is that one fighter, Sugar Shane Mosley no less, landed a solid dig! Fairly sure every other guy in the history of the sport has also been punched very hard square in the face.

Leonard outboxed Hearns, Hagler and Duran - therefore they could be outboxed. Much lesser fighters outboxed all 3 too. Mayweather's chin is solid, he's one of the greatest strategists of all time, he significantly reduces the punch output of his opponents, avoids 80% plus and lands 50% irrespective of opponent or style. If Leonard could outbox those guys then so could Mayweather.

That leaves Leonard, the greatest of the 4. Leonard, in comparison with Mayweather, is mentally weak. He had troubles with dedication, he liked to party, he could be provoked into fighting the other guy's fight. Critically he also sometimes struggled with fighters he couldn't catch, Dick Ecklund anyone? On the flip side Leonard is clearly easier to catch than Mayweather. Is it really so difficult to imagine Mayweather frustrating the life out him with his elusiveness and popping him with single right hands? I can imagine it and that's what I think would've happened.

The Athletes are Better Now Argument

This is so obviously true its staggering people deny it. Only in boxing do fans still seriously believe that competitors from decades ago could compete with today's guys. All the more ridiculous since boxing requires intense conditioning. No baseball fan thinks Babe Ruth would compete today, no tennis fan thinks Boris Becker never mind Fred Perry could compete today, no football fan thinks Stanley Matthews would have Ronaldo on the bench. Most obviously in athletics where records from decades ago are often unlikely to get you in a final. Yet boxing fans want to tell us that Robinson or Lammotta or Greb would dominate in any era. Sorry but that is clearly refuted by a mass of evidence to the contrary. Today's guys as a totality are extremely likely to be better athletes and therefore better fighters than their predecessors.

Last thing is why do all the Mayweather naysayers even follow boxing? What joy can you possibly take from this sport if you're not loving watching one of the greatest talents we've ever seen do his stuff?

Trojans44 wrote:Great thread. For me Mayweather is obviously in the conversation for being the best ever and it astonishes me that is questioned. Loaded Gloves always has plenty to say on this topic but I have to object to the idea people who agree with me are fringe lunatics with no ability to judge boxers - some may recall LG tipping Guerrero to defeat Mayweather! Here's my take on some of the key themes:

The Record

He doesn't have the names Leonard has no doubt about it. He cant say he defeated three of the best ever. Nevertheless Mayweather's record is one of the best in boxing history and to suggest otherwise is churlish. Since 1997 he has consistently and consecutively fought world class opponent after world class opponent. That's 16 years fighting the best and winning. There are no poo, spurious mandatories or tune-ups and not even Robinson could say that. Yes there are some names missing, but they are small in number and almost always closely related to his hatred for Bob Arum e.g. he fought Cotto instantly when he left Arum.

More important is the manner of the victories. Aside from Castillo 1 and De La Hoya (both not as close as is often portrayed and both special fighters) he has systematically destroyed every single one of these world class fighters barely dropping a round in the process. I have watched many great fights and fighters but I have never seen a fighter consistently and completely remove all sense of purpose from world class opponents to the point where they look utterly bewildered, confused and wander around the ring with an air of total hopelessness. It may well be the case that the big 3 or 4 from the 1980s would also go undefeated with the same opponents but there is no chance any of them would make Marquez or Canelo or Corrales look like they had never been in a boxing ring in their entire life. I thought Canelo was going to burst into tears! He doesn't just win, he outclasses the best every single time.

Another important factor is the longevity. Yes on any given night Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran could beat the same guys. Could they do it consecutively, never missing a step, for 16 years? Could they have delivered one sided dominations every time out? We know they couldn't because they didn't. Were any of them still arguably improving at 36? As a matter of record most of these guys struggled with dedication to the life at one time or another. Mayweather hasn't and that is a factor in considering greatness - "oh but Duran was out of shape in that fight". Mayweather is never out of shape.

Mayweather in the '80s

For me he beats all the main guys. We always focus on how Mayweather would deal with the legends. Someone tell me how on earth they deal with him? How can anyone say a particular type of guy or style beats Mayweather when we've seen him thrash every every style? Its just not credible to say e.g. Hearns would smash him. No-one else has managed it! A frequently cited example is that Mosley chinned him. Sorry but does that not prove how great he is? The best you can come up with is that one fighter, Sugar Shane Mosley no less, landed a solid dig! Fairly sure every other guy in the history of the sport has also been punched very hard square in the face.

Leonard outboxed Hearns, Hagler and Duran - therefore they could be outboxed. Much lesser fighters outboxed all 3 too. Mayweather's chin is solid, he's one of the greatest strategists of all time, he significantly reduces the punch output of his opponents, avoids 80% plus and lands 50% irrespective of opponent or style. If Leonard could outbox those guys then so could Mayweather.

That leaves Leonard, the greatest of the 4. Leonard, in comparison with Mayweather, is mentally weak. He had troubles with dedication, he liked to party, he could be provoked into fighting the other guy's fight. Critically he also sometimes struggled with fighters he couldn't catch, Dick Ecklund anyone? On the flip side Leonard is clearly easier to catch than Mayweather. Is it really so difficult to imagine Mayweather frustrating the life out him with his elusiveness and popping him with single right hands? I can imagine it and that's what I think would've happened.

The Athletes are Better Now Argument

This is so obviously true its staggering people deny it. Only in boxing do fans still seriously believe that competitors from decades ago could compete with today's guys. All the more ridiculous since boxing requires intense conditioning. No baseball fan thinks Babe Ruth would compete today, no tennis fan thinks Boris Becker never mind Fred Perry could compete today, no football fan thinks Stanley Matthews would have Ronaldo on the bench. Most obviously in athletics where records from decades ago are often unlikely to get you in a final. Yet boxing fans want to tell us that Robinson or Lammotta or Greb would dominate in any era. Sorry but that is clearly refuted by a mass of evidence to the contrary. Today's guys as a totality are extremely likely to be better athletes and therefore better fighters than their predecessors.

Last thing is why do all the Mayweather naysayers even follow boxing? What joy can you possibly take from this sport if you're not loving watching one of the greatest talents we've ever seen do his stuff?

Quality post and agree with most of it although still think SRL would beat him

Trojans44 wrote:Great thread. For me Mayweather is obviously in the conversation for being the best ever and it astonishes me that is questioned. Loaded Gloves always has plenty to say on this topic but I have to object to the idea people who agree with me are fringe lunatics with no ability to judge boxers - some may recall LG tipping Guerrero to defeat Mayweather! Here's my take on some of the key themes:

The Record

He doesn't have the names Leonard has no doubt about it. He cant say he defeated three of the best ever. Nevertheless Mayweather's record is one of the best in boxing history and to suggest otherwise is churlish. Since 1997 he has consistently and consecutively fought world class opponent after world class opponent. That's 16 years fighting the best and winning. There are no poo, spurious mandatories or tune-ups and not even Robinson could say that. Yes there are some names missing, but they are small in number and almost always closely related to his hatred for Bob Arum e.g. he fought Cotto instantly when he left Arum.

More important is the manner of the victories. Aside from Castillo 1 and De La Hoya (both not as close as is often portrayed and both special fighters) he has systematically destroyed every single one of these world class fighters barely dropping a round in the process. I have watched many great fights and fighters but I have never seen a fighter consistently and completely remove all sense of purpose from world class opponents to the point where they look utterly bewildered, confused and wander around the ring with an air of total hopelessness. It may well be the case that the big 3 or 4 from the 1980s would also go undefeated with the same opponents but there is no chance any of them would make Marquez or Canelo or Corrales look like they had never been in a boxing ring in their entire life. I thought Canelo was going to burst into tears! He doesn't just win, he outclasses the best every single time.

Another important factor is the longevity. Yes on any given night Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran could beat the same guys. Could they do it consecutively, never missing a step, for 16 years? Could they have delivered one sided dominations every time out? We know they couldn't because they didn't. Were any of them still arguably improving at 36? As a matter of record most of these guys struggled with dedication to the life at one time or another. Mayweather hasn't and that is a factor in considering greatness - "oh but Duran was out of shape in that fight". Mayweather is never out of shape.

Mayweather in the '80s

For me he beats all the main guys. We always focus on how Mayweather would deal with the legends. Someone tell me how on earth they deal with him? How can anyone say a particular type of guy or style beats Mayweather when we've seen him thrash every every style? Its just not credible to say e.g. Hearns would smash him. No-one else has managed it! A frequently cited example is that Mosley chinned him. Sorry but does that not prove how great he is? The best you can come up with is that one fighter, Sugar Shane Mosley no less, landed a solid dig! Fairly sure every other guy in the history of the sport has also been punched very hard square in the face.

Leonard outboxed Hearns, Hagler and Duran - therefore they could be outboxed. Much lesser fighters outboxed all 3 too. Mayweather's chin is solid, he's one of the greatest strategists of all time, he significantly reduces the punch output of his opponents, avoids 80% plus and lands 50% irrespective of opponent or style. If Leonard could outbox those guys then so could Mayweather.

That leaves Leonard, the greatest of the 4. Leonard, in comparison with Mayweather, is mentally weak. He had troubles with dedication, he liked to party, he could be provoked into fighting the other guy's fight. Critically he also sometimes struggled with fighters he couldn't catch, Dick Ecklund anyone? On the flip side Leonard is clearly easier to catch than Mayweather. Is it really so difficult to imagine Mayweather frustrating the life out him with his elusiveness and popping him with single right hands? I can imagine it and that's what I think would've happened.

The Athletes are Better Now Argument

This is so obviously true its staggering people deny it. Only in boxing do fans still seriously believe that competitors from decades ago could compete with today's guys. All the more ridiculous since boxing requires intense conditioning. No baseball fan thinks Babe Ruth would compete today, no tennis fan thinks Boris Becker never mind Fred Perry could compete today, no football fan thinks Stanley Matthews would have Ronaldo on the bench. Most obviously in athletics where records from decades ago are often unlikely to get you in a final. Yet boxing fans want to tell us that Robinson or Lammotta or Greb would dominate in any era. Sorry but that is clearly refuted by a mass of evidence to the contrary. Today's guys as a totality are extremely likely to be better athletes and therefore better fighters than their predecessors.

Last thing is why do all the Mayweather naysayers even follow boxing? What joy can you possibly take from this sport if you're not loving watching one of the greatest talents we've ever seen do his stuff?

Good post

jessi wrote:

Deserter wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Yes but you two probably think Ali would of beaten lennox Lewis too, ha ha

You believe human evolution takes place in as short a space as a couple of decades.

I'm not going to ask about your schooling.

Trojans44 wrote:Great thread. For me Mayweather is obviously in the conversation for being the best ever and it astonishes me that is questioned. Loaded Gloves always has plenty to say on this topic but I have to object to the idea people who agree with me are fringe lunatics with no ability to judge boxers - some may recall LG tipping Guerrero to defeat Mayweather! Here's my take on some of the key themes:

The Record

He doesn't have the names Leonard has no doubt about it. He cant say he defeated three of the best ever. Nevertheless Mayweather's record is one of the best in boxing history and to suggest otherwise is churlish. Since 1997 he has consistently and consecutively fought world class opponent after world class opponent. That's 16 years fighting the best and winning. There are no poo, spurious mandatories or tune-ups and not even Robinson could say that. Yes there are some names missing, but they are small in number and almost always closely related to his hatred for Bob Arum e.g. he fought Cotto instantly when he left Arum.

More important is the manner of the victories. Aside from Castillo 1 and De La Hoya (both not as close as is often portrayed and both special fighters) he has systematically destroyed every single one of these world class fighters barely dropping a round in the process. I have watched many great fights and fighters but I have never seen a fighter consistently and completely remove all sense of purpose from world class opponents to the point where they look utterly bewildered, confused and wander around the ring with an air of total hopelessness. It may well be the case that the big 3 or 4 from the 1980s would also go undefeated with the same opponents but there is no chance any of them would make Marquez or Canelo or Corrales look like they had never been in a boxing ring in their entire life. I thought Canelo was going to burst into tears! He doesn't just win, he outclasses the best every single time.

Another important factor is the longevity. Yes on any given night Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran could beat the same guys. Could they do it consecutively, never missing a step, for 16 years? Could they have delivered one sided dominations every time out? We know they couldn't because they didn't. Were any of them still arguably improving at 36? As a matter of record most of these guys struggled with dedication to the life at one time or another. Mayweather hasn't and that is a factor in considering greatness - "oh but Duran was out of shape in that fight". Mayweather is never out of shape.

Mayweather in the '80s

For me he beats all the main guys. We always focus on how Mayweather would deal with the legends. Someone tell me how on earth they deal with him? How can anyone say a particular type of guy or style beats Mayweather when we've seen him thrash every every style? Its just not credible to say e.g. Hearns would smash him. No-one else has managed it! A frequently cited example is that Mosley chinned him. Sorry but does that not prove how great he is? The best you can come up with is that one fighter, Sugar Shane Mosley no less, landed a solid dig! Fairly sure every other guy in the history of the sport has also been punched very hard square in the face.

Leonard outboxed Hearns, Hagler and Duran - therefore they could be outboxed. Much lesser fighters outboxed all 3 too. Mayweather's chin is solid, he's one of the greatest strategists of all time, he significantly reduces the punch output of his opponents, avoids 80% plus and lands 50% irrespective of opponent or style. If Leonard could outbox those guys then so could Mayweather.

That leaves Leonard, the greatest of the 4. Leonard, in comparison with Mayweather, is mentally weak. He had troubles with dedication, he liked to party, he could be provoked into fighting the other guy's fight. Critically he also sometimes struggled with fighters he couldn't catch, Dick Ecklund anyone? On the flip side Leonard is clearly easier to catch than Mayweather. Is it really so difficult to imagine Mayweather frustrating the life out him with his elusiveness and popping him with single right hands? I can imagine it and that's what I think would've happened.

The Athletes are Better Now Argument

This is so obviously true its staggering people deny it. Only in boxing do fans still seriously believe that competitors from decades ago could compete with today's guys. All the more ridiculous since boxing requires intense conditioning. No baseball fan thinks Babe Ruth would compete today, no tennis fan thinks Boris Becker never mind Fred Perry could compete today, no football fan thinks Stanley Matthews would have Ronaldo on the bench. Most obviously in athletics where records from decades ago are often unlikely to get you in a final. Yet boxing fans want to tell us that Robinson or Lammotta or Greb would dominate in any era. Sorry but that is clearly refuted by a mass of evidence to the contrary. Today's guys as a totality are extremely likely to be better athletes and therefore better fighters than their predecessors.

Last thing is why do all the Mayweather naysayers even follow boxing? What joy can you possibly take from this sport if you're not loving watching one of the greatest talents we've ever seen do his stuff?

Mayweather hasn't consistently fought the best.

He has consistently avoided the most dangerous men throughout the weight classes he has journeyed up.

You discredit everything you write by starting this lengthy post with an outright lie.

He can't fight everybody, if he'd boxed all the guys he's supposedly avoided instead of all the the top guys he's faced then things would be no different IMO, just different names on the record and different names for the naysayers to say he should have boxed.

As Lennox said " you can't fight everybody".

Floyd fought
Corralles
Castillo
Goyo Vargas
Manfredy
Sharmba Mitchell
Philip Ndou
DLH
Mosley
Ortiz
Canelo
Guerrero
Gatti
Hatton
JMM

And others. How many World Champs in the list?

There are a few HOFs'

loaded_gloves wrote: He has consistently avoided the most dangerous men throughout the weight classes he has journeyed up.

Yeah, that's why he's just fought the top fighter in a weight division that is four divisions up from where Floyd started out. A guy that was the #1 in the division. A guy that was unbeaten in 43 fights.

Canelo's padded record and victories over Hatton and Rhodes doth not make him the killer you want/need him to be, Keith.

loaded_gloves wrote:Canelo's padded record and victories over Hatton and Rhodes doth not make him the killer you want/need him to be, Keith.

I don't want/need him to be anything. I'm not a Mayweather fan particularly, but he's just beaten the best fighter in the division.

Let me ask you a question. What would Floyd need to do for you to consider him the best ever?