Tweet
There is no way that Floyd Mayweather can ever become the G.O.AT, nor even really get close to it.
First of all, Floyd does not possess the skills to be ranked as such. He actually does have I think one of the best defensive games that has ever been seen, but nobody gets ranked G.O.A.T based on being elusive alone. Offensively, Floyd is fast and skillful, but others throughout history have been even more so, and in a wider range of areas. Take the fighter he is most often compared to, Sugar Ray Leonard. Not only was Leonard slightly faster, and slightly more skilful as a boxer, he also had the fighting heart of a lion, choosing to take on Roberto Duran at his own game the first time they fought, and coming very close to succeeding. A similar thing happened when Leonard fought Hearns, as the two switched roles from elusive boxer to aggressive puncher several times during the fight, and got the better of it at different points. There is absolutely no way that Floyd could do what either of those two could do in terms of all round fighting skill, and importantly, he wouldn't even try.
A discussion of Leonard's and Hearn's skill leads naturally on to a discussion of the quality of opponents that Floyd could fight in comparison to the greats of the past, which is important, because a win or good performance over a true great is much better than just the standard W you get from most fights. Simply put, the opposition you list for Floyd to face is not good enough to make Floyd the best of the last 20 years, let alone G.O.A.T. Of them Miguel Cotto is the best, and in truth he has not even proved himself to be HOF welterweight yet, let alone a great. Beating those guys, no matter how impressively, will not tell us anything new about Floyd, he's beaten better guys at his lower weights already. He's the best of a decent, but not great era.
This point about opposition is important, because even if Floyd were the most skilful boxer ever to walk the face of the earth, he would still have to prove it in the face of challenges not only of technique but heart. Against Hearns, Ray Leonard was basically outboxed and outbrawled for twelve or thirteen rounds to the point of looking exhausted and beaten going into the closing stage. Told by Angelo Dundee he was blowing it, Leonard somehow dragged one final effort out of himself and in a cross between boxing and brawling proceeded to lay waste to the bigger, harder punching Hearns and against the odds, stopping him. Floyd Mayweather will NEVER have a fight like this, the opposition isn't there for him, and even if it was, Floyd could not produce that kind of performance, because he isn't as good.
Now, consider, I've used Ray Leonard as a comparison here, but he himself is pretty far from being G.O.A.T. He said himself that there was no comparison between himself and Sugar Ray Robinson, and if Ray Leonard isn't close, Floyd Mayweather certainly isn't.
First of all, Floyd does not possess the skills to be ranked as such. He actually does have I think one of the best defensive games that has ever been seen, but nobody gets ranked G.O.A.T based on being elusive alone. Offensively, Floyd is fast and skillful, but others throughout history have been even more so, and in a wider range of areas. Take the fighter he is most often compared to, Sugar Ray Leonard. Not only was Leonard slightly faster, and slightly more skilful as a boxer, he also had the fighting heart of a lion, choosing to take on Roberto Duran at his own game the first time they fought, and coming very close to succeeding. A similar thing happened when Leonard fought Hearns, as the two switched roles from elusive boxer to aggressive puncher several times during the fight, and got the better of it at different points. There is absolutely no way that Floyd could do what either of those two could do in terms of all round fighting skill, and importantly, he wouldn't even try.
A discussion of Leonard's and Hearn's skill leads naturally on to a discussion of the quality of opponents that Floyd could fight in comparison to the greats of the past, which is important, because a win or good performance over a true great is much better than just the standard W you get from most fights. Simply put, the opposition you list for Floyd to face is not good enough to make Floyd the best of the last 20 years, let alone G.O.A.T. Of them Miguel Cotto is the best, and in truth he has not even proved himself to be HOF welterweight yet, let alone a great. Beating those guys, no matter how impressively, will not tell us anything new about Floyd, he's beaten better guys at his lower weights already. He's the best of a decent, but not great era.
This point about opposition is important, because even if Floyd were the most skilful boxer ever to walk the face of the earth, he would still have to prove it in the face of challenges not only of technique but heart. Against Hearns, Ray Leonard was basically outboxed and outbrawled for twelve or thirteen rounds to the point of looking exhausted and beaten going into the closing stage. Told by Angelo Dundee he was blowing it, Leonard somehow dragged one final effort out of himself and in a cross between boxing and brawling proceeded to lay waste to the bigger, harder punching Hearns and against the odds, stopping him. Floyd Mayweather will NEVER have a fight like this, the opposition isn't there for him, and even if it was, Floyd could not produce that kind of performance, because he isn't as good.
Now, consider, I've used Ray Leonard as a comparison here, but he himself is pretty far from being G.O.A.T. He said himself that there was no comparison between himself and Sugar Ray Robinson, and if Ray Leonard isn't close, Floyd Mayweather certainly isn't.
Comment