Good to see a reasoned debate on here and the sign of a really good post is that it really made me think – the longevity argument in particular is a very compelling one. Inevitably, I’d like to add some counter-points in the interests of balance:
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.
A couple of things here. Firstly, there seems to be unanimity about the fact that ‘world-class’ is a relative term and Floyd, through no fault of his own, is operating in an era where the strength of opposition is significantly weaker.
Secondly, you can’t really talk about not fighting tune-ups as it’s completely out of context. What I mean by that is that is SRR fought just twice a year as well, he wouldn’t have been going through the spurious mandatories. Equally, if Floyd had been more active, he undoubtedly would have. Therefore it’s really a moot point.
Trojans44 wrote: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.
Sorry, but Castillo 1 was definitely close (though Floyd definitely won it) and Castillo is not a “special fighter” by any means in historical terms. I’d also point out that someone like Leonard or Hearns not only could have dominated the fighters you’ve named, they’d also have been strongly favoured to have stopped them.
Trojans44 wrote: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.
I think this is a great point and it’s the one ‘USP’ that puts Floyd into the list of ATGs (albeit scraping into Top 10 max for me). Again, in the interests of balance, I just have to point out though that it only stands to reason that it’s a lot easier to maintain that longevity when you’re fighting so infrequently. Doesn’t mean it’s still not an amazing achievement, I just want to place it in the correct context.
Trojans44 wrote:
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.
It’s perfectly credible to say Hearns could have beaten him. Floyd did struggle at times with Oscar’s jab, particularly when it was doubled up, and Hearns’ jab was superior to Oscar’s. Add in a missile of a right hand that had power that Floyd has never come close to tasting before and his huge reach, and based on the old adge of styles making fights, you have the worst possible scenario for Floyd. If De La Hoya could push him close, it’s perfectly plausible to think that Hearns could have beaten him.
You talk about Floyd thrashing every style, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it’s about levels – the idea that beating fighters below Hearns’ stature somehow proves he could therefore beat Hearns is illogical.
Trojans44 wrote: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.
Only time where you’re factually incorrect. Hearns actually outboxed Leonard in that classic fight (which again demonstrates why he would have been a nightmare opponent for Floyd) and Leonard had to switch tactics during the fight to pull it out of the bag (another sign of a truly great fighter).
Who were the much lesser fighters who outboxed Hagler by the way?
Trojans44 wrote: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.
Good point about Leonard’s mental weakness – it’s a fair point I hadn’t considered. However, as Leonard proved in the second Duran fight, he could be just as elusive as Floyd when he wanted to be, but he was far more offensive by nature. It’s because of this latter point that I absolutely can imagine him catching Floyd – Floyd has never faced anyone with the speed, accuracy, ringcraft and dig of Leonard – like I said earlier in the thread, you can face the Alvarez’s of this world and pop them with single right hands, but to extrapolate from that that he could do the same to SRL is optimistic to say the least – akin to saying that because Man Utd look a million dollars against a Championship side, they could definitely do the same against a Real Madrid. I’d see a scenario where Floyd would undoubtedly be competitive, but ultimately Leonard’s assets that I’ve mentioned above would prevail, as he can match Floyd in virtually all departments, but punch harder, fight at a higher pace and is a better combination puncher (an essential quality if you're going to prevent Floyd getting into his 'pot-shotting' groove).
Trojans44 wrote:
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.
This point has already had an excellent riposte, so I’ll simply add that you fall into the pitfall of believing that better athletes automatically equal better fighters. I’ve actually studied strength and conditioning, so please don’t discount me as some ‘old school’ stick-in-the-mud, but as has been pointed out, the need for ‘purposeful practice’ is key. There’s a strong body of evidence that a lot of modern day fighters have sacrificed technique, hence references to the ‘lost art of body punching’ and renowned trainers such as Eddie Futch ruing the loss of skills and knowledge. Two other elements to factor in are the declining participation levels, which obviously impact on the levels of talent as the laws of probability dictate that the more participants, the higher the standard will be at the top. Take Alvarez, for example, I think it’s fair to say that in a different era he’d have been a top 10 fighter at best in his division.
Secondly, there’s a strong argument to be made, ironically given Floyd’s skills, that defence has been increasingly neglected due to TV/commercial pressures for ‘fan-friendly’ fighters, which has led to a decline in that skill-set. Floyd’s a complete anomaly in terms of being able to monetize his style and is very much the exception to the rule. Indeed, one could play devil’s advocate and say that it’s because Floyd has been more ‘old school’ in terms of his focus on technique over S&C that has allowed him to achieve such dominance.
Trojans44 wrote: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?
Yep, completely true that we should appreciate his ringcraft and you shouldn't mistake people who feel he's not the GOAT as having a complete downer on him. Being rated as a Top 20 ATG and the best fighter of his era is still an amazing achievement. Just feel that fighting the guys he’s been fighting means we’ll never get to see how he could have coped against a fellow great. Someone who was capable of taking him into deeper waters would have either proved those of us who believe it would have shown up his limitations to be correct, or he’d have raised his game to a new level and proved us wrong.
Sad thing is that we’ll never actually know, as there’s clearly no-one on the horizon to provide that test.
