BoxRec

Borinken25 wrote:To answer the thread I think Leonard is the best since the 1980. I don't think Mayweather is in that category yet. I don't see Mayweather beating Leonard, Hearns, or Duran. Maywather vs Whitaker and Benitez are 50/50 for me. I might even give a slight edge to Whitaker vs Mayweather but very close. I only see Mayweather defeating Chavez out that group. How do you guys think that Mayweather would have done vs Hagler? I don't see him winning either.

As for Mayweather vs Chavez I pick Mayweather to beat Chavez. People always bringing JC Castillo as measuring stick. But what about Chavez vs Whitaker? Whitaker totally school Chavez in that fight.
Mayweather is smarter than Chavez in the ring and will not fall for Chavez traps. Just like Whitaker did. Chavez would have a hard time trying to make Mayweather stand there and fight. Mayweather would simply outbox Chavez.

That's a more legitimate question than people think. Hagler was a middle in the day of same day weigh ins which means he probably wasn't more than 165 at fight night, which today would make him an average sized junior middle, the same weight Floyd is fighting his next fight at. And Hagler would've killed him so SRL earned his spot over Floyd.

Part of me wonders...Mayweather needs to be a draw, a big earner... In the 1980s with the likes of Leonard and Hearns I just don't see Floyd being such a money maker, not with his style. he'd have to be more aggressive and therefore less effective.

Maybe he wouldn't change his game... Even so, I'm not sure he really pushes Leonard, Hearns, Pac, etc for this title.

Ezzard wrote:Part of me wonders...Mayweather needs to be a draw, a big earner... In the 1980s with the likes of Leonard and Hearns I just don't see Floyd being such a money maker, not with his style. he'd have to be more aggressive and therefore less effective.

Maybe he wouldn't change his game... Even so, I'm not sure he really pushes Leonard, Hearns, Pac, etc for this title.

He is a bigger draw than Pac, so I don't see how he can't push him in that area. He is also a better fighter imo, certainly in the ballpark. Pacquiao & Floyd both fall short of Leonard & Hearns.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Part of me wonders...Mayweather needs to be a draw, a big earner... In the 1980s with the likes of Leonard and Hearns I just don't see Floyd being such a money maker, not with his style. he'd have to be more aggressive and therefore less effective.

Maybe he wouldn't change his game... Even so, I'm not sure he really pushes Leonard, Hearns, Pac, etc for this title.

He is a bigger draw than Pac, so I don't see how he can't push him in that area. He is also a better fighter imo, certainly in the ballpark. Pacquiao & Floyd both fall short of Leonard & Hearns.

I can’t see Floyd, in the 1980s, being a bigger draw than Leonard or Hearns. The brash arrogance works because of the culture of today and because he hasn’t lost yet. He wouldn’t be unbeaten in that era. Who would/could prefer Floyd’s snooze-fest superfights to Leonard-Hearns, Duran-Leonard, Hagler-Hearns, Pryor-Arguello?

If he stayed in his safety first mode his mouth and act won’t be enough to make the kind of money Leonard was making.

In terms of Pac is it just the US where he is more popular, earns more? I’m surprised.

Mayweather isnt a bigger draw. Hes bigger in the US, thats his home country. Pacquiao is bigger in HIS country, too.

Internationally? Pacquiao, quite easily.

That’s what I thought but I think it’s how that translates into money that counts for Floyd.

Good for him.

Hes already foregone a good chunk of his legacy in pursuit of the green. I mean, really, the guys a boxer --- what are the chances he ends up permanently set, financially? Very slim, really.

I cant say I wish him well, but he better hope it works out how he envisions it, because like I said, absolutely no one will remember him as a legend of the sport, and he truly could have been.

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Part of me wonders...Mayweather needs to be a draw, a big earner... In the 1980s with the likes of Leonard and Hearns I just don't see Floyd being such a money maker, not with his style. he'd have to be more aggressive and therefore less effective.

Maybe he wouldn't change his game... Even so, I'm not sure he really pushes Leonard, Hearns, Pac, etc for this title.

He is a bigger draw than Pac, so I don't see how he can't push him in that area. He is also a better fighter imo, certainly in the ballpark. Pacquiao & Floyd both fall short of Leonard & Hearns.

I can’t see Floyd, in the 1980s, being a bigger draw than Leonard or Hearns. The brash arrogance works because of the culture of today and because he hasn’t lost yet. He wouldn’t be unbeaten in that era. Who would/could prefer Floyd’s snooze-fest superfights to Leonard-Hearns, Duran-Leonard, Hagler-Hearns, Pryor-Arguello?

If he stayed in his safety first mode his mouth and act won’t be enough to make the kind of money Leonard was making.

In terms of Pac is it just the US where he is more popular, earns more? I’m surprised.

I didn't say he would be bigger than Leonard or Hearns, you threw Pacquiao in there. The brash arrogance wouldn't be an issue, look at Ali.

They both fight in the US Ezz, and Floyd makes more money.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Good for him.

Hes already foregone a good chunk of his legacy in pursuit of the green. I mean, really, the guys a boxer --- what are the chances he ends up permanently set, financially? Very slim, really.

I cant say I wish him well, but he better hope it works out how he envisions it, because like I said, absolutely no one will remember him as a legend of the sport, and he truly could have been.

You think Pacquiao will have a dime in twenty years?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Good for him.

Hes already foregone a good chunk of his legacy in pursuit of the green. I mean, really, the guys a boxer --- what are the chances he ends up permanently set, financially? Very slim, really.

I cant say I wish him well, but he better hope it works out how he envisions it, because like I said, absolutely no one will remember him as a legend of the sport, and he truly could have been.

You think Pacquiao will have a dime in twenty years?

No
and neither will Floyd. Neither would've made money in the 80s. I don't think I have to explain that Pacquiao wouldn't made it as a welter in the 80s. Floyd wouldn't because his fame is based on him and his fans believing he's the GOAT or top 10 because of his undefeated record and that's only because of the era he's in. Ali isn't comparable because his greatness wasn't based off skills alone, it was based off fighting fighters like Foreman, Frazier, Liston, and Lyle who tested his greatness. Floyd only has two options:

1. Fight Pryor, Hearns, Benitez, Leonard and Duran and win all of those and prove he's that good while they all call him out.
2. Duck them and he would not have a claim and be reduced to being a Prince Naseem or Camacho.

C'mon, do you really believed Floyd would've been a money maker or be noticeable enough that people would call him an ATG in the era of Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Pryor and Arguello?

IKSRTFO wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Good for him.

Hes already foregone a good chunk of his legacy in pursuit of the green. I mean, really, the guys a boxer --- what are the chances he ends up permanently set, financially? Very slim, really.

I cant say I wish him well, but he better hope it works out how he envisions it, because like I said, absolutely no one will remember him as a legend of the sport, and he truly could have been.

You think Pacquiao will have a dime in twenty years?

No
and neither will Floyd. Neither would've made money in the 80s. I don't think I have to explain that Pacquiao wouldn't made it as a welter in the 80s. Floyd wouldn't because his fame is based on him and his fans believing he's the GOAT or top 10 because of his undefeated record and that's only because of the era he's in. Ali isn't comparable because his greatness wasn't based off skills alone, it was based off fighting fighters like Foreman, Frazier, Liston, and Lyle who tested his greatness. Floyd only has two options:

1. Fight Pryor, Hearns, Benitez, Leonard and Duran and win all of those and prove he's that good while they all call him out.
2. Duck them and he would not have a claim and be reduced to being a Prince Naseem or Camacho.

C'mon, do you really believed Floyd would've been a money maker or be noticeable enough that people would call him an ATG in the era of Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Pryor and Arguello?

Floyd's fame is based far more on people that don't like him than the fans he has. And absolutely he would be an ATG in any era. He would have some losses and he wouldn't be as big of a draw, but you can stick Floyd Mayweather or Pacquiao in any era and they would be remembered. Floyd would have boxed the ears off of Arguello.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: You think Pacquiao will have a dime in twenty years?

No
and neither will Floyd. Neither would've made money in the 80s. I don't think I have to explain that Pacquiao wouldn't made it as a welter in the 80s. Floyd wouldn't because his fame is based on him and his fans believing he's the GOAT or top 10 because of his undefeated record and that's only because of the era he's in. Ali isn't comparable because his greatness wasn't based off skills alone, it was based off fighting fighters like Foreman, Frazier, Liston, and Lyle who tested his greatness. Floyd only has two options:

1. Fight Pryor, Hearns, Benitez, Leonard and Duran and win all of those and prove he's that good while they all call him out.
2. Duck them and he would not have a claim and be reduced to being a Prince Naseem or Camacho.

C'mon, do you really believed Floyd would've been a money maker or be noticeable enough that people would call him an ATG in the era of Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Pryor and Arguello?

Floyd's fame is based far more on people that don't like him than the fans he has. And absolutely he would be an ATG in any era. He would have some losses and he wouldn't be as big of a draw, but you can stick Floyd Mayweather or Pacquiao in any era and they would be remembered. Floyd would have boxed the ears off of Arguello.

People only not like him because he is undefeated and claims his greatness off that. Without that 0 in the 80s era, he means nothing. He beats Arguello yes, maybe Pryor, may even classic fights with Duran, but surely beaten by Leonard and KO'd without a doubt by Hearns. So why would anyone dislike a guy beaten by Leonard KO'd by Hearns enough for him to be a draw? Duran wasn't even a huge draw and he was the real deal for people to hate, not an act.

IKSRTFO wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote: No
and neither will Floyd. Neither would've made money in the 80s. I don't think I have to explain that Pacquiao wouldn't made it as a welter in the 80s. Floyd wouldn't because his fame is based on him and his fans believing he's the GOAT or top 10 because of his undefeated record and that's only because of the era he's in. Ali isn't comparable because his greatness wasn't based off skills alone, it was based off fighting fighters like Foreman, Frazier, Liston, and Lyle who tested his greatness. Floyd only has two options:

1. Fight Pryor, Hearns, Benitez, Leonard and Duran and win all of those and prove he's that good while they all call him out.
2. Duck them and he would not have a claim and be reduced to being a Prince Naseem or Camacho.

C'mon, do you really believed Floyd would've been a money maker or be noticeable enough that people would call him an ATG in the era of Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Pryor and Arguello?

Floyd's fame is based far more on people that don't like him than the fans he has. And absolutely he would be an ATG in any era. He would have some losses and he wouldn't be as big of a draw, but you can stick Floyd Mayweather or Pacquiao in any era and they would be remembered. Floyd would have boxed the ears off of Arguello.

People only not like him because he is undefeated and claims his greatness off that. Without that 0 in the 80s era, he means nothing. He beats Arguello yes, maybe Pryor, may even classic fights with Duran, but surely beaten by Leonard and KO'd without a doubt by Hearns. So why would anyone dislike a guy beaten by Leonard KO'd by Hearns enough for him to be a draw? Duran wasn't even a huge draw and he was the real deal for people to hate, not an act.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Good for him.

Hes already foregone a good chunk of his legacy in pursuit of the green. I mean, really, the guys a boxer --- what are the chances he ends up permanently set, financially? Very slim, really.

I cant say I wish him well, but he better hope it works out how he envisions it, because like I said, absolutely no one will remember him as a legend of the sport, and he truly could have been.

You think Pacquiao will have a dime in twenty years?

No, I dont, but history is at least going to remember him fondly.

It wont be the case for Mayweather.

dempseyfire wrote:He would be my top lb for lb since 1980. Mayweather? Puhleeeze . .he's not even in my top 5 post 1980 (I'd have Leonard, Hearns, Whitaker, Jones Jr, and Pacquao ahead of him)

Pretty much how I see it, personally.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Good for him.

Hes already foregone a good chunk of his legacy in pursuit of the green. I mean, really, the guys a boxer --- what are the chances he ends up permanently set, financially? Very slim, really.

I cant say I wish him well, but he better hope it works out how he envisions it, because like I said, absolutely no one will remember him as a legend of the sport, and he truly could have been.

You think Pacquiao will have a dime in twenty years?

No, I dont, but history is at least going to remember him fondly.

It wont be the case for Mayweather.

History will remember both of them fondly. Look at the intellect of the average boxing fan. As the years go by the names on his resume will far outweigh who he didn't fight.