Best post ive read in a long timejamesmcdonnell wrote:If they are better athletes now than they were then, how do you explain that back in the 1970's, Ali and Frazier fought gruelling intense 15 round fights, whilst todays crop, including Wlad and Vitali, both highly conditioned, cannot come close to matching that pace.Manchester Massive wrote:Quality post and agree with most of it although still think SRL would beat himTrojans44 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?
You cannot compare boxing to athletics, it's just ridiculous, entirely different disciplines. For all the advances in nutrition, training etc, the margins of improvement are still tiny - Even Usain Bolt has only managed to get the 100 m down to 9.58, just .42 of a second off the 10 second mark which was set in 1960 - 5 decades before. That's a 4% increase is 50 years.
In boxing where fitness only accounts for part of the story, and mental capacity relfexes (which are not increasing with time but have inherent limits) - do you really think that a 4% increase in supposed fitness is enough to say that someone like Robinson, who fought at a pace modern fighters very rarely display, could not have dominated - total nonsense. The fighters of yesteryear were rarely out of the gym, and fought so often they never had a chance to lose their fitness - whilst modern fighters may have every advantage in their setup - they have long breaks in between fights, which whilst this aids recuperation, undoubtedly takes the edge off their ring readiness.
In addition, how much have boxing training methods really changed? Watch Floyd train, what do you see, push up's, situps, medicine ball work, shadow boxing, padwork, floor-to-ceiling bag, skipping, roadwork, weight training - are these supposed to be modern innovations, with the exception of the focus pads, these have been around since before the turn of the century - boxing probably has the least innovative training regimens of any sport - in essence it has remained largely unchanged for well over 50 years, aside from a few small tweaks, and the odd boxer who deviates from the norm.
The assertion that modern fighters are better, simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, there are plenty of films of old timers, and the skill sets of the fighters 50 years ago were on average far better at the top level - Floyd is so exceptional because he is a throwback, utilising defensive techniques that the likes of Archie Moore were using 50 years ago.
Like Johnny Nelson(rather ironically) used to say "if you can fight, you can fight". As you rightly say FM isn't doing anything in a ring that fighters from Moore to Buckley have been doin across the era's. As a side would like to add what a fine example FM is ,reguarding his work ethic in the gym to young fighters everywhere. 