BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑21 Sep 2018, 11:00 For me the compelling reason I would imagine that Mayweather would beat Chavez, is based on Whitaker's performance. Though I think Whitaker was better than Floyd, I think they both have what they need to win the fight. But I'm more curious, and perhaps intrigued to think that the fight might never happen due to Floyd's reluctance. That idea has some merit....but if the Money was there.....wouldn't Floyd follow?

Yes he would, and he'd have beaten Chavez handily indeed.

But as you say if Don King was the promoter, JCC would've gotten a draw just for the hell of it.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑20 Sep 2018, 23:46 Logically Marquez should have been as big a test as Pacquiao

Not at all. . At his best, Marquez wasn't quite as good as Pacquiao at his best. Marquez was not at his best against Mayweather.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Sep 2018, 20:25

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑21 Sep 2018, 11:00 For me the compelling reason I would imagine that Mayweather would beat Chavez, is based on Whitaker's performance. Though I think Whitaker was better than Floyd, I think they both have what they need to win the fight. But I'm more curious, and perhaps intrigued to think that the fight might never happen due to Floyd's reluctance. That idea has some merit....but if the Money was there.....wouldn't Floyd follow?

Yes he would, and he'd have beaten Chavez handily indeed.

But as you say if Don King was the promoter, JCC would've gotten a draw just for the hell of it.

Chavez was not at his best when he fought Whitaker. Had he been, Whiaker would still have (reall) won the fight, but it would have been closer.
Mayweather was not quite as good as Whitaker.
A Chavez-Mayweather fight could have gone either way; which is why Mayweather never would have taken the fight.

As for following the money, well look at what happened. Mayweather didn't take the risk, did he?
Fighting a prime Pacquiao would have been a serious risk. If loses, he is not as marketable in the futrue. He made a ton of money fighting no-risk fights.

As for judges, it's not like Mayweather didn't have help from judges.
Yes Chavez should have had a loss instead of a draw against Whitaker.
Mayweather should have lost by several points to Castillo and all the judges had him winning by at lest four.
The Maidana fight was as close as can be and two judges had him winning clearly.


My whole point with Mayweather is ultimatley, we really don't know what would have happened if he would have fought a great fighter like Pac (or Chavez for that matter) in his prime. He may have had to go to a plan B. He may have had to show some heart and gut out a win. We really don't know if he would have done these things because he never did.

Mayweather fought the best fighters of his own era which is all he can do. If you don't feel any of them were great there really is not much Mayweather can do about it.

No, he could have done more. He could have fought Pacquiao when Pacquiao was still in his prime. He didn't.

He could also could have fought Marquez at a catch weight instead of Marquez going up two weight classes. That would have been more of a challenge. He didn't do it.

Mayweather was older than Pacquiao so in this case the past prime argument doesn't really make sense. A delay wouldn't generally favor the older man.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑23 Sep 2018, 22:31 Mayweather was older than Pacquiao so in this case the past prime argument doesn't really make sense. A delay wouldn't generally favor the older man.

Depends on the man. Walcott, Lewis, etc got seemingly better as time went on. Pacquiao, also, fought with a effed up shoulder going into the contest. When the fight actually mattered, Mayweather wanted to play games... Either out of spite to Bob Arum or genuine fear of Manny, he pushed it as far back as possible.

Many fights didn't happen when they should have. Hagler Leonard should have happened in 1981 or 1982 Duran Hearns should have happened in 1980. Holyfield Lewis anytime from 1992 to 1996

Leonard was still a welterweight in. He was fighting Hearns in 1981 and had to quit because of his eye in 1982.
Duran was fighting Leonard twice in 1980.
Holyfield was fighting Bowe 3x in that period.

Sometimes there are several really good fighters and they can't all fight each other in a certain period of time. sometimes one guy just won't fight the best available. Roy Jones never fought DM when that was his best potential opponent for several years.
Mayweather did not fight anyone near the level of a prime Pacquiao.

If were going to make excuses for these other fights not happening we can also surely make excuses for Mayweather. These other fighters shouldn't get a pass either. Holyfield and Lewis had many years to fight and we cant blame Bowe for it not happening earlier.

If Pacquiao was as good as you seem to think he is I would have expected him to do far better against Juan Manuel Marquez.

Well Marquez was a great fighter himself. Pacquaio beat him twice. Would have beaten in their first fight which was scored a draw because an incompetent judge didn't realize that he was allowed to score a round 10-6, which he would have had he known.
Pacquaio started his career at barely 17 at flyweight and fought good competition all the way up to welterweight. He was in several punishing fights against top competition.

Was he the greatest fighter of all time? Of course not. However, he and Mayweather were considered the best two fighters in the world for several years and Mayweather wouldn't fight him until he knew he was well past it.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2018, 17:16 If were going to make excuses for these other fights not happening we can also surely make excuses for Mayweather. These other fighters shouldn't get a pass either. Holyfield and Lewis had many years to fight and we cant blame Bowe for it not happening earlier.

We can accept excuse for other fighters if they are legitimate. Some times they are and sometimes they aren't.
Holyfield fought Bowe 3x and Tyson during that period. It's not like he was fighting stiffs.
If Bowe and Tyson did not exist, Holyfield and Lewis would have fought much sooner.

Hearns just won the WBA title in 1980 from Cuevas. Duran was fighting Leonard twice in 1980. It makes total sense that they didn't fight each other in 1980. If Leonard and Cuevas didn't exist, then Duran and Hearns would have fought sooner.

It makes total sense for Leonard not to fight Hagler in 1981 or 1982. He was still a welterweight.

During the period in question Holyfield also fought Mercer, Moorer, Stewart, and Czyz. I don't see any reasonable argument that could be made that those guys were more deserving than Lewis. Czyz and Stewart were not even ranked in the top 10 and Moorer hadnt beaten any ranked opponents going into the fight with Holyfield while Lewis had wins over at least 3 ranked opponents. Mercer had lost to Holmes and Jesse Ferguson and hadn't scored a meaningful win since 1991.

Of course they weren't more deserving than Lewis. But a guy isn't going to fight Bowe and Lewis in the same year or Tyson and Lewis in the same year. The top fighter almost never fights the next two top fighters in the same year.
You also have to remember that Lewis loss to McCall set him back; his reputation took a hit and Holyfield was not going to have a mega fight with him right after that.

Ali fought Frazier and Foreman in the same year and Foreman faced Ali immediately after facing Norton so it clearly does happen in at least some eras.

It happens very rarely. Actually the Norton example doesn't apply since he was not one of the top 3. It happened with Ali because Ali was Ali. You can find other rare examples. It's the rare exception not the rule. Stop making this out to be more difficult than it is.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2018, 17:25 If Pacquiao was as good as you seem to think he is I would have expected him to do far better against Juan Manuel Marquez.

Marquez was a wonderful fighter and styles make fights. Some guys just have your number. They fought in their physical primes between 2004 and 2008 (when both were at their best) and Marquez being as intelligent as he is definitely benefited from that by fight III more than he would vs. other welterweights.

I think Marquez won all four fights but I tend not to use that to knock Pacquaio more of an indication of how good Marquez was.

Mayweather would simply never have taken the fight when Chavez was dangerous. He may have waited till he was 35 or 40 and then cuffed his way to a dreary decision, whereupon his fanatics would say "he would have always done that to Chavez!" It's so strange that Floyd got away with such a cynical career, and that his fans are so satisfied with how he conned them.

Chavez could certainly improve on Castillo and Maidana's winning performances over Floyd.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2018, 22:02 During the period in question Holyfield also fought Mercer, Moorer, Stewart, and Czyz. I don't see any reasonable argument that could be made that those guys were more deserving than Lewis. Czyz and Stewart were not even ranked in the top 10 and Moorer hadnt beaten any ranked opponents going into the fight with Holyfield while Lewis had wins over at least 3 ranked opponents. Mercer had lost to Holmes and Jesse Ferguson and hadn't scored a meaningful win since 1991.

Stewart he fought after coming off a loss to Riddick Bowe in an epic thriller. To expect him to magically secure a Lewis fight, who already had plans with Bruno and Morrison arranged, illustrates your ignorance and naivety.

Moorer was his mandatory contender and Holyfield had to fight him or be stripped; Holyfield then retired after the fight.

Mercer was his comeback fight after a year out and a health scare--people don't jump in with Lennox Lewis in such circumstances.

Czyz was a comeback fight after losing by knockout to Riddick Bowe. Lewis was fighting Mercer the same night. Both men were angling for the Tyson mega payday and to fight each other then, and risk elimination, for chump change, is so stupid an idea that only you would think of it.

You really don't have a clue, do you. I've never read a single line from you that would indicate that you understand the reality of boxing.

It sounds like your making excuses. If we can excuse Lewis and Holyfield not fighting than we can do the same for Mayweather.

As far as maandatory contenders go, Lewis gave up belts rather than face a mandatory when he felt there were bigger fights to be made. Holyfield could have done the same. So what if they strip him of some meaningless belt?

It's not unreasonable to expect the best fighters of an era to actually face each other. Otherwise what is the point of them being boxers in the first place. Can you imagine if the best NBA teams never played each other? If the best football teams refused to play against each other?

As far as Holyfield and Lewis risking elimination for chump change...why should that factor into it? If they don't want to face the best the public should boycott their fights. That would change their minds pretty quickly I imagine.

Also, if making fights materialize with other contenders is so difficult why has Joshua been so successful in fighting his top contenders? Why didn't boxing politics prevent the Klitschko fight? The Parker fight? The Povetkin fight? etc.