Page 3 of 13
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 16:20
by Tom Ford
Jeff Thomas wrote:Wow is this boxrec or some daft forum for boxing newbies?
Absolutely mental that anyone is even considering this- you need to educate yourself if you truly believe he's the best based on his very name heavy résume and performances against good but hardly any great opposition.
To stay unbeaten for 17 years and do the things he has = atg.
Greatest ever? No, but he is up there.....somewhere.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 16:20
by Chris W 1982
Mayweather the best ever because he beat Canelo?
Jesus Christ, Ray Leonard stopped Roberto Duran and Tommy Hearns in the space of twelve months.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 16:23
by Deserter
Just a couple of things I'll throw into the debate:
1) Is there anyone out there who believes that the likes of SRR, SRL, Hearns, Duran etc would have been unable to stay unbeaten if they were facing the same opponents Floyd has fought? If so, who would they have lost to.
2) Relating to the above, the one thing we all know is that boxing is about levels - we've seen guys who looked a million dollars at a certain level (e.g. British and European) only to come apart or struggle as soon as they move up to the next level. Floyd looks amazing against the calibre of opponents he's been facing, but I don't understand why people are assuming that based on that he'll be able to do exactly the same against fighters of the calibre i've listed above. Particularly as he struggled a bit against a past-his-best De La Hoya, who was in no way, shape or form, up there with the aforementioned guys. The idea of him being able to do cute shoulder rolls and just pot-shot on the jab against SRL, for example, is madness. Canelo wouldn't have made it past 6 with so many of those legends.
Floyd's the greatest of our era, but I just can't subscribe to the GOAT theory as he's never faced the level of opponent to really allow him to justify that claim.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 16:23
by ALI
Talent wise he may just be the best ever, but the final judgement must rest on career ahcievements and in Mayweather's case the list of fighters he should have faced in their prime that for one reason or another he did not is too long. It would therefore be very nieve to rate him as the best ever.
He went a long way to paying of debts last night by fighting the very dangerous Alvarez, its just a shame he handicapped him with the weight. .
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 16:30
by Deserter
ALI wrote:] the very dangerous Alvarez.
Really?
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 16:48
by WildWaylon
The Greatest ever is as subjective as scoring rounds. Its opinion and not an exact science. I think Bohemian Rhapsody is the best rock recording ever made but many would disagree. I am certain however most would agree its one of the best songs ever and the same goes for Mayweather, he is without doubt one of the best. Is it even right to compare fighters from different eras?
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:01
by Tom Ford
Mayweather is one of the best ever, no doubt about it.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:27
by ajwesty13
There is no award for being the best ever its all speculation...not being a damp squib but MW does belong in the hall of fame .. But its good to see people questioning whoever they think is the best... IMHO there is the best for that era .... however as people have already pointed out today is more about the conditioning of the body, the psychology of the mind, and the food we eat .. we are better machines today so its impossible to say who was the best there are so many variables to digest .. an example i can use it the sprinters in athletics the 100 and 200m the world record is being broken every few years ...
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:34
by keithmoonhangover
The question for me is what would he need to do to become the best ever.
Now, if someone posts saying there is nothing he can do, then that, as far as I'm concerned is a brainless comment. It's not impossible.
What if he beat Bradley, Khan, Pac, GGG, Martinez, Chavez Jnr, Ward, Froch, Hopkins and Stevenson? Would that make him the best ever?
Still think that's a no?
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:48
by Bard of Boxrec
Jeff Thomas wrote:Wow is this boxrec or some daft forum for boxing newbies?
Absolutely mental that anyone is even considering this- you need to educate yourself if you truly believe he's the best based on his very name heavy résume and performances against good but hardly any great opposition.
He's picked and chosen his way to 45-0. Yes there are some brilliant wins in there Manfreddy, Genaro Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Hatton but other then that its all a little bit smoke and Mirrors. Great names sure but a long way removed from their primes. Even the lower tier guys like Judah and Shamba Mitchell had ran into moderate form before he decided to take them on.
He downright ducked an unbeaten Cotto, Paul Williams, Margarito, Tszyu, Freitas, prime Mosley and of course Pacquiao. For the record I think he'd have beaten them but not without hiccup. It's ok that now - at this advanced stage in his career that he is suddenly saying 'you choose and I'll fight anybody'. But the divisions around him are laden with mediocre (world class) fighters. It's like Man Utd saying they'll play anybody once Arsenal, Chelsea and City have retired from the league.
Personally to me records mean very little these days. It's easy to pick and choose your way to virtually any record you like if your talented. He's got a fabulous system of fighting. It's very clever and means he has an answer for almost anything his opponent does, but you've got to remember who he is fighting. These aren't Durans, Benitez's or Hearns' they are a series of mostly good not great fighters. I always try and imagine the fighters your comparing the subject with and how they would have got on in the same matches.
Are we in any doubt that Leonard, Duran and co would have barely lost a round on route to 45-0 against the same men.
He is a great but for me he sits somewhere around the same place as the earlier mentioned Felix Trinidad. Probably above Don Curry head to head and certainly legacy wise. Before you come back and say oh well it's different eras ask yourself this. Would he have beaten Winky Wright who was a tremendous fighter not generally considered an ATG? I have my doubts.
Deserter wrote:Just a couple of things I'll throw into the debate:
1) Is there anyone out there who believes that the likes of SRR, SRL, Hearns, Duran etc would have been unable to stay unbeaten if they were facing the same opponents Floyd has fought? If so, who would they have lost to.
2) Relating to the above, the one thing we all know is that boxing is about levels - we've seen guys who looked a million dollars at a certain level (e.g. British and European) only to come apart or struggle as soon as they move up to the next level. Floyd looks amazing against the calibre of opponents he's been facing, but I don't understand why people are assuming that based on that he'll be able to do exactly the same against fighters of the calibre i've listed above. Particularly as he struggled a bit against a past-his-best De La Hoya, who was in no way, shape or form, up there with the aforementioned guys. The idea of him being able to do cute shoulder rolls and just pot-shot on the jab against SRL, for example, is madness. Canelo wouldn't have made it past 6 with so many of those legends.
Floyd's the greatest of our era, but I just can't subscribe to the GOAT theory as he's never faced the level of opponent to really allow him to justify that claim.
These posts are bang on the money.
For me, for him to be in the running for even top 20 of all time, in addition to his existing achievements he would have had to:
beat Tszyu when they were both at 140 and the fight could/should have happened.
beat Pacquaio at any of the points it should have happened.
Actually beat Castillo rather than get a gift decision, OR beat him more convincingly in the rematch.
beat a better version of Cotto (ie, when it should have happened).
Probably beat someone bigger and considered a threat when he had a chance (EG, Margarito/Williams)
Finish his career beating a recognised top middleweight (If Floyd sticks around for a couple of years this might turn out to be GGG).
In the absence of an era in which the competition was as brutal as SRL/Hearns/Duran/Hagler etc, these would have been the standards required. If Floyd had had some actual peers on his level and fought all of them he'd be forgiven some losses in the same way as all the greats have been. I can definitely imagine Aaron Pryor beating Floyd at 140.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:52
by intelguy
Do you guys think he'd have a strong case for best ever if he beat Garcia, GGG, and Kovalev?
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:56
by Bricks
Mensa07 wrote:Smashed by Mosley? You mean he got hit? In a fight? Jeez, maybe he is a fraud after all. He got hit in a boxing match! I can't believe it!!
Let's get real. An aged inactive slowed down Shane no as key hit him with an almighty smash and lesser punchers like canelo have also managed it. Mayweather has a great chin but none of those guys are in the league as a puncher as hearns,tito or curry those guys that one shot was all they needed. The mosley of 2000 would take him
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:56
by fasteddie
id of loved to av seen floyd vs a prime de la hoya at 140 or a prime mosley at 135 mosley was the dogs bollocks at 135-140 and de la hoya was the best of the lighter weights in the late 90's early 00's imo.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 17:58
by fasteddie
if i was garcia i would stay away from floyd and just stick to his comfortable 140 weight class,garcia is a good fighter and needs to make his own legacy
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 18:03
by Tom Ford
Remember, Floyd started off at 9st 4lbs and gives up over 14lbs each time.
There are lightweights who outweigh Floyd on fight night.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 18:04
by Mensa07
fasteddie wrote:if i was garcia i would stay away from floyd and just stick to his comfortable 140 weight class,garcia is a good fighter and needs to make his own legacy
Floyd brings the big bucks though!
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 18:05
by Tom Ford
fasteddie wrote:if i was garcia i would stay away from floyd and just stick to his comfortable 140 weight class,garcia is a good fighter and needs to make his own legacy
With the exception of Canelo, they all expect to lose but just want the payday.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 15 Sep 2013, 19:12
by Coco
PBF has fought everyone and won with ease, but this era hasn't provided any nemisis's for him. The reason Ali is regarded as the greatest is that he was able to fight a Foreman and a Frazier so we are in a better position to judge him. Canelo may well be the best out there and a couple of weights above Floyd but he was never another Duran.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 00:35
by jessi
Deserter. I think DLH would of beat Duran hearns and haggler, and gave Leonard a close fight. I think cotto would of beat Duran too. Floyd always has another gear, started at 130lb and just beat a man (with ease) who was supposedly the new real deal and weighed in on fight night as a super middle. We will obviously never know what would of happened if Floyd had met Leonard so. Until proven otherwise Floyd is up there with the best ever
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 00:57
by Deserter
jessi wrote:Deserter. I think DLH would of beat Duran hearns and haggler, and gave Leonard a close fight. I think cotto would of beat Duran too.
Mate, you have just destroyed your credibility on this board in one fell swoop if you are seriously posting this. Please tell me you are on a wind-up?!
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 01:14
by jessi
Deserter wrote:jessi wrote:Deserter. I think DLH would of beat Duran hearns and haggler, and gave Leonard a close fight. I think cotto would of beat Duran too.
Mate, you have just destroyed your credibility on this board in one fell swoop if you are seriously posting this. Please tell me you are on a wind-up?!
Deserter I don't care about your opinion of my credibility, your stuck in the 80's ! All these guys lost, you talk like they were invincible, yes it was a great era, but that was there era, amongst each other they looked great. but the levels have moved on. Sportsman get better, it's proven in every sport, boxing is no different. No one at the moment (or for the past 17 yesrs) can beat Floyd, think for one minute who has a chance from 140 to 154 ? No one ! And this is a guy who's nearly 37 years old and still p4p best, in 20/25 years there will be someone even better still. He like Leonard and hearns will remain a legend in his era. I know it hurts you to admit it but go on just do it. The 80's are long gone and Floyd is the king at present. As said before, until proven otherwise.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 01:58
by jackukmma
mugabi wrote:Mensa07 wrote:Smashed by Mosley? You mean he got hit? In a fight? Jeez, maybe he is a fraud after all. He got hit in a boxing match! I can't believe it!!
Let's get real. An aged inactive slowed down Shane no as key hit him with an almighty smash and lesser punchers like canelo have also managed it. Mayweather has a great chin but none of those guys are in the league as a puncher as hearns,tito or curry those guys that one shot was all they needed. The mosley of 2000 would take him
At the time he fought Mosely he wasn't considered aged and inactive. He was P4P #3 and coming off a stunning win over margarito. Floyd made him look slow and old despite being hit with a huge shot early on
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 02:21
by loaded_gloves
Mosley hadn't boxed in over a year when Floyd finally fought him!
When you read the reasoning that the men who want to believe Floyd is an all-time great employ, it's like listening to the reasoning of a drunken vagrant explaining to you why satellites in outer space are stealing his thoughts. There is no foundation in reality, there seems to be a total lack of grasp of the facts, or a willful blindness to them. It is utter drivel.
The more patient-than-me posters Jeff Thomas, Deserter, and Riddick Blowe have already explained succinctly and precisely in this thread why Floyd doesn't qualify and hasn't proven himself.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 02:24
by ArtOfWar
dbflex wrote:Here's a good rationale to apply when considering a fighter's historical value:
How many top 10 pound-for-pound fighters did they beat when the opponents were in their prime?
Canelo
Castillo
Hatton (arguably)
Corrales (arguably)
It's not a good rationale at all, because p4p is nonsensical. Its a complete myth based on no logic what so ever.
That's the same reason its pointless arguing who is better than who historically. I long ago gave up arguing this crap.
All I expect from boxing these days is to see as many good fights as possible.
Re: The case for FLOYD as the best ever!
Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 05:13
by stujones
I think both sides of the arguments can be made.... resume wise, rivallary wise yes I don't think Floyd is in the greatest era - BUT, do I think we need to look at the performance levels also.
Would Canelo been able to beat Duran, Hagler, Leonard etc? Nope.... would Leonard, Duran and Hagler been able to shut out (practically) in the same manner Floyd did.... No way.
Lets not forget a "prime(ish)" Duran lost to Laing, Leonard had a tough fight against Kalule and Hagler didn't exactly have it all his own way Mugabi.... Now I would certainly say Alvarez is on the level of these three fighters.
Hagler's dominant Middleweight era wasn't exactly a whose who of boxing in the 12 or so defences.
Infact there is no comparison in the resume of Floyd and Hagler. Hagler smashed everybody but Hearns aside, who did he beat who was top draw and in their prime? Roldan, Mugabi? Rose tinted glasses.