BoxRec

Great article here by Lee Groves that assesses the claims by Floyd that he is the greatest of all time.....

http://www.maxboxing.com/Groves/Groves112106.asp

Good article,but to me Floyd's claims are so far fetched,they ain't even worth writing about.

It's a nice little article, and one for the most part that I agree with.

Mayweather is without doubt a great fighter. I'd go so far as to say that he has the most talent of anyone I've seen, maybe by a distance. But chasing after yesterday's men is not the way to prove you're the greatest ever. He could legitimise his claims somewhat by sticking around and beating the next generation of great fighters. As Groves says, Margarito, Cotto and Hatton would all present 'real challenges'. Not so sure about Mosley though, Floyd would box rings round Sugar Shane now.

My one criticism is his assertion that Pacquiao has been taking high risk fights recently. I just don't understand this way of thinking, because, in the main, he hasn't. Barrera, and especially Morales were far past their primes, and the fact that Morales still managed to beat Pacquiao I see as rather damning. A draw from a fight that should have been impossible not to win after the first round, and a victory over the brave, but ultimately over-matched Larios is not the material of a pound for pound king. To be fair to Pacquiao, he is an excellent fighter, but the next phase of his career will establish whether or not he deserves to be mentioned alongside Mayweather. Pound for pound is, to me, taken over the length of a fighter's career, not over a smaller time frame taken to suit a fighter who excites you.

Mayweather greatest of all time? At what? He maybe the best 130lber of all time - but Nelson and Chavez both have good arguments for that accolade.

Mayweather has become a big hype job and this is coming from a fan (see my other posts). He isn't in Whitakers league for instance. His defense is very good but very overated (Castillo found him with the jab, even Baldomir landed straight rights), his hand speed is good but wasnt as fast as Zab, his workrate is good but not top P4, his power at 130 was good enough above that it is woefull.

Hes also seriously lacking in intelligence if you listen to his interviews - this has nothing to do with his attributes as a fighter but everyone who hypes him as been intelligent - its not so.

In fairness to him Hatton/Cotto/DLH/Mosley fight couldnt be made. Margarito/Harris/Witter fights could - but LOSE-LOSE scenarios those fights they are. Margarito may or may not beat him but how many 130lbers in history would beat Margarito?

Also for Mayweather to claim hes P4P greatest of all time may give him more media attention and sell more tickets. Its clearly untrue but the more headlines the better. Emmanuel Stewart and Brendan Ingle have both claimed their fighters to be the greatest of all time in 1 sense or another.

glittermonkey wrote:It's a nice little article, and one for the most part that I agree with.

Mayweather is without doubt a great fighter. I'd go so far as to say that he has the most talent of anyone I've seen, maybe by a distance. But chasing after yesterday's men is not the way to prove you're the greatest ever. He could legitimise his claims somewhat by sticking around and beating the next generation of great fighters. As Groves says, Margarito, Cotto and Hatton would all present 'real challenges'. Not so sure about Mosley though, Floyd would box rings round Sugar Shane now.

My one criticism is his assertion that Pacquiao has been taking high risk fights recently. I just don't understand this way of thinking, because, in the main, he hasn't. Barrera, and especially Morales were far past their primes, and the fact that Morales still managed to beat Pacquiao I see as rather damning. A draw from a fight that should have been impossible not to win after the first round, and a victory over the brave, but ultimately over-matched Larios is not the material of a pound for pound king. To be fair to Pacquiao, he is an excellent fighter, but the next phase of his career will establish whether or not he deserves to be mentioned alongside Mayweather. Pound for pound is, to me, taken over the length of a fighter's career, not over a smaller time frame taken to suit a fighter who excites you.

How exactly was Barrera past his prime when he fought Pacquiao?

Taki... wrote:

glittermonkey wrote:It's a nice little article, and one for the most part that I agree with.

Mayweather is without doubt a great fighter. I'd go so far as to say that he has the most talent of anyone I've seen, maybe by a distance. But chasing after yesterday's men is not the way to prove you're the greatest ever. He could legitimise his claims somewhat by sticking around and beating the next generation of great fighters. As Groves says, Margarito, Cotto and Hatton would all present 'real challenges'. Not so sure about Mosley though, Floyd would box rings round Sugar Shane now.

My one criticism is his assertion that Pacquiao has been taking high risk fights recently. I just don't understand this way of thinking, because, in the main, he hasn't. Barrera, and especially Morales were far past their primes, and the fact that Morales still managed to beat Pacquiao I see as rather damning. A draw from a fight that should have been impossible not to win after the first round, and a victory over the brave, but ultimately over-matched Larios is not the material of a pound for pound king. To be fair to Pacquiao, he is an excellent fighter, but the next phase of his career will establish whether or not he deserves to be mentioned alongside Mayweather. Pound for pound is, to me, taken over the length of a fighter's career, not over a smaller time frame taken to suit a fighter who excites you.

How exactly was Barrera past his prime when he fought Pacquiao?

Because he wasn't as good then as he was earlier in his career. You tell me. Has he been as good over the last three years as he was for the first fight against Morales? Or was he the same fighter that I remember battering McKinney?

Of course Barrera was still in his prime when he fought Pacquiao. He may have been underprepared for that fight, but he was certainly in his prime. IMO, Barrera only came into his prime around 2000/01 at age 26/27. From 2001 until 2003 up until he fought Pacman he beat Naz, Sanchez, Morales, Tapia and Kelly. And since the Pacquiao defeat he has looked anything but a fighter past his prime, beating Ayala, Morales and Juarez twice. Since the Morales loss six years ago, Barrera is 14-1 with 6 KOs. I think it's harsh to say he was past it three years ago.

When Barrera fought Pac was it seen as a gimme? Barrera was prime or very near prime, HOWEVER if its true his training camp was severely hampered by forrest fires and he wasn't at his best then that wasn't his best. ALSO Barrera does better in rematches.

Barrera is very good at fighting scared (defensive boxing) see - Hamed, Juarez 2. And this may be enough to beat Pacquaio but physically Pacmans hitting his prime and Barrera is a few notches below his.

Pacquiao may be all wrong for any Barrera having siad that I don't think Pacquaios greater than Barrera as I think Hamed would have taken Pacman out.

johnswan1 wrote:Of course Barrera was still in his prime when he fought Pacquiao. He may have been underprepared for that fight, but he was certainly in his prime. IMO, Barrera only came into his prime around 2000/01 at age 26/27. From 2001 until 2003 up until he fought Pacman he beat Naz, Sanchez, Morales, Tapia and Kelly. And since the Pacquiao defeat he has looked anything but a fighter past his prime, beating Ayala, Morales and Juarez twice. Since the Morales loss six years ago, Barrera is 14-1 with 6 KOs. I think it's harsh to say he was past it three years ago.

Yes, looking at his achievements he is still getting the business done, and it's one of the reasons that I respect him more than probably any currently active fighter (aside from Holyfield, but I'm not sure that he qualifies as active). But look at the manner in which he's getting it done. He is relying heavily on his experience and effectively 'old manning' his opposition out of the fights.

At his peak he could fight for most of a round at a hellish pace, throwing tons of punches, and battering opponents. Since the second Morales fight he has been unable to do this. Not just unwilling. Unable. It's not just that one thing either. Watch his fights from the mid nineties to maybe 2000/2001, and tell me that the fighter in those contests is the fighter that we've seen over the last five years.

As I've said in the past, Pacquiao is a favourite of mine. It's my firm belief that he'd have fought Barrera on even terms at any stage of Marco's career, but he caught Barrera at the right time and the fight happened when Barrera was past his best. Not anyone's fault, but that's the way it is.

I think Barrera adopted a new style back in 2001 which enabled him to surprise and beat Naseem. He then went on to continue this style. I don't think it's necessarily an indication of him being past it, but more of a realisation on his part that he could enjoy a longer career with less risk of injury by maintaining this new style. In the second fight against Juarez, Barrera just boxed because that's all he needed to do. Why risk his career and health when he didn't need to? It reminded me in a way of the third fight Hopkins had with Robert Allen (on the build up to the DLH fight) where he took no risks throughout the fight because he didn't have to.

johnswan1 wrote:I think Barrera adopted a new style back in 2001 which enabled him to surprise and beat Naseem. He then went on to continue this style. I don't think it's necessarily an indication of him being past it, but more of a realisation on his part that he could enjoy a longer career with less risk of injury by maintaining this new style. In the second fight against Juarez, Barrera just boxed because that's all he needed to do. Why risk his career and health when he didn't need to? It reminded me in a way of the third fight Hopkins had with Robert Allen (on the build up to the DLH fight) where he took no risks throughout the fight because he didn't have to.

I argee that he decided to stick to his new style after it proved to be a success for him against Hamed. The indications of him being past it come not from the fact that his style changed, but more from the fact that when he needed something extra against a talented, hungry fighter in Pacquiao it wasn't there for him anymore. In the past there was always that little bit more that he could call on to get himself through tough fights, it's why he was so good. But for the Pacquiao fight there just wasn't enough left in the tank.

Well I don't know about you, but Mia St John does it more for me.