BoxRec

Three slick, very skilled American fighters. Right now Mayweather is approaching the kind of legacy that these two greats have. How does he compare with these guys in terms of perfecting the sweet science? Who has the better resume? Best win?

For me Roy Jones could have dominated at Super Middleweight for years and years. It's a shame he didn't stay there and fight Hopkins again...or that he never fought the likes of Benn or Eubank, but he would have been favoured to do so if he had. Nevertheless, his brilliant display to conquer a prime James Toney coupled with his winning the Heavyweight Title give him the better legacy in my opinion. His only losses came over twenty years into his career, by which time he'd gone from middleweight, to heavyweight and back down to light-heavyweight and in my opinion should not count too much against him.

Many will point to Sweet Pea, who was a master boxer...how do he and Jones Jr compare to Flody Mayweather? Where would Floyd stand if he were to beat Mosley, Pacquiao and then retire undefeated?

Whitaker is probably looked upon as the greatest right now, but that's standard for a fighter who hasn't fought in a longer time, & has history to colour their career. However, I think in this instance, it'll stay that way.

He took the chances & risks neither of the other men would take. Jones will also be remembered partially as a cheat, & rightly so.

The great Pernell Whitaker is the greatest fighter of his generation...Period.

Floyd is better than both, In 20 years he will be looked back on as one of the top 10 best of all time.

I know all you fellas on the BOTP won't want to hear it, But at the age of 33 Pernell was a drug addict.
Floyd is every bit as good as Pernall except has more power on his punches.

Mayweather's performance last night has definitely elevated his status, mainly because of the aggressive nature of the victory. He went toe to toe with a strong welterweight and showed a lot of things which people have criticised him for in the past. It's hard to find a weakness in Floyd's game.

ben k wrote:Floyd is better than both, In 20 years he will be looked back on as one of the top 10 best of all time.

I know all you fellas on the BOTP won't want to hear it, But at the age of 33 Pernell was a drug addict.
Floyd is every bit as good as Pernall except has more power on his punches.

What a joke. Way to illustrate your historical knowledge. Top-10 of all-time? LMAO!

Top-10 of the 2000's, more like it...

BarryWashington wrote:

ben k wrote:Floyd is better than both, In 20 years he will be looked back on as one of the top 10 best of all time.

I know all you fellas on the BOTP won't want to hear it, But at the age of 33 Pernell was a drug addict.
Floyd is every bit as good as Pernall except has more power on his punches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xH0xorgUoI

LOL!

I knew that would get you guys going, And i couldn't be fucked argueing or debating it either. Obviously i need to get some Rose Coloured Glasses like you fellas have.

Maybe i should have said top 20, But if Coke head Whittaker is around 25 All time on a lot of lists then Floyd will easily surpass that.

ben k wrote:I knew that would get you guys going, And i couldn't be fucked argueing or debating it either. Obviously i need to get some Rose Coloured Glasses like you fellas have.

Maybe i should have said top 20, But if Coke head Whittaker is around 25 All time on a lot of lists then Floyd will easily surpass that.

Ben, just honestly curious. Do you hold is drug habit or his fighting style against him? I'm a Kostya Tzyu Joe Louis sort of fan. So you know where I stand. However lordy could Pernell put on a great show when at the top of his game, I'm not sure I've ever seen better defensive skills in my life.

But yes, if Floyd can even pull a draw with Pac....he becomes his equal in my mind. If he wins, then he may eclipse him.

Right now Floyd is behind Pernell but if he beats Pac I'd put him on equal footing. Floyd has no victory yet equalling Whitaker's fistic schoolings of Nelson or Chavez.

Neither are in my top 25 P4P though.

I have Pernell in the top 15-20, Floyd and Roy somewhere in the 30-40 range. I don't find anything out of line with someone suggesting mayweather can surpass Pea. The man is an incredible talent, I don't see Pac fighting him but if he went up to Middleweight and were to beat martinez there it would become even more subjective than it already is.

I'm always amused when people get up in arms about 10 or 15 slots on a completely mythical list encompassing the history of Boxing. I'm more of an old time fan myself, but Bob fitzsimmons can't compare to mayweather imo on skills or accomplishments. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people would disagree. Doesn't make anybody wrong.

Floyd is most certainly an alltime great. it's not like he is talking about Zab Judah

BoxBuzz wrote:

ben k wrote:I knew that would get you guys going, And i couldn't be fucked argueing or debating it either. Obviously i need to get some Rose Coloured Glasses like you fellas have.

Maybe i should have said top 20, But if Coke head Whittaker is around 25 All time on a lot of lists then Floyd will easily surpass that.

Ben, just honestly curious. Do you hold is drug habit or his fighting style against him? I'm a Kostya Tzyu Joe Louis sort of fan. So you know where I stand. However lordy could Pernell put on a great show when at the top of his game, I'm not sure I've ever seen better defensive skills in my life.

But yes, if Floyd can even pull a draw with Pac....he becomes his equal in my mind. If he wins, then he may eclipse him.

True, Pacquiao is Floyd's Chavez. He's the key to getting equal or over Whitaker. Then if he beats him, and he follows up with taking out a Williams or Martinez, then the top 10 All-Time comparisons could come.

ben k wrote:I knew that would get you guys going, And i couldn't be fucked argueing or debating it either. Obviously i need to get some Rose Coloured Glasses like you fellas have.

Maybe i should have said top 20, But if Coke head Whittaker is around 25 All time on a lot of lists then Floyd will easily surpass that.

No one is interested in such a ridiculous debate anyway

Right now I'd have Whitaker as the best of the bunch, but I find Jones and Mayweather hard to separate as they both have the flaw of not fighting the best opposition they could have. If anything, Mayweather's better chin gives him a small edge and I think Floyd will definitely end up in higher regard than Jones. Whether he surpasses Whitaker, I think depends almost entirely on a certain Manny Pacquiao who for me is top 15 of all-time. If Mayweather beats Pacquiao (who I consider superior to Chavez) I think he becomes the best of the three here, slightly ahead of Whitaker.

I agree, a Pacquiao win is important for Mayweather's career and legacy. The manner in which he beat Mosley has helped his legacy because it creates an argument against idiots who say he's just a defensive boxer. A Pacquiao win would give an argument against those who say he ducked the top fighters.

After that, there'd be nothing left to prove. Personally I believe Mayweather would be the favourite against Pac and I'm sure he believes that too. I don't think for one minute he'd be scared of Pacquiao or vice verca. He knows people will always question his legacy if the Pacquiao fight doesn't happen. And then there's the small sum of $40 million. So it's very much in his interest to do everything to make it happen. Actually more so than it is in Pacquiao's interest (legacy wise).

Shazam! wrote:I agree, a Pacquiao win is important for Mayweather's career and legacy. The manner in which he beat Mosley has helped his legacy because it creates an argument against idiots who say he's just a defensive boxer. A Pacquiao win would give an argument against those who say he ducked the top fighters.

After that, there'd be nothing left to prove. Personally I believe Mayweather would be the favourite against Pac and I'm sure he believes that too. I don't think for one minute he'd be scared of Pacquiao or vice verca. He knows people will always question his legacy if the Pacquiao fight doesn't happen. And then there's the small sum of $40 million. So it's very much in his interest to do everything to make it happen. Actually more so than it is in Pacquiao's interest (legacy wise).

Of course there'd be, "nothing left to prove." We all know why, too --- Margarito, Cotto & Williams are no longer relevant (though Williams could become once more, though the point is surely moot). All unticked boxes.

Why isn't Williams relevant? Do you mean as a Welterweight?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Why isn't Williams relevant? Do you mean as a Welterweight?

Yes. I mean in the context Williams has since moved from the division. Of course, he could become relevant again, but for the moment, he's moved on, whereas in the past, he was high on Mayweather's, "Should-Fight" (as opposed to, "Must-Fight") list.