This isn’t a Mayweather-Pacquiao discussion so mods don’t delete. It isn’t a thread about me nor any other poster either so try not to keep take it there.
The poster “Malcolm” made a really good point in another thread that got me thinking. I remember watching Floyd Mayweather fighting Louie Leija on what I believe was the Morales-Zaragoza undercard (wow…who could’ve imagined known what was to come for both of those guys? Shout out to Bob Arum). I also remember being extremely impressed with the number Mayweather did on Genaro Hernandez. I was still in my teens then. 17 years later, I'm a married man. And this dude is still undefeated.
Not a Marciano kind of undefeated either. Even if he had a loss or two, Mayweather’s resume would still trump Rocky’s resume handily. Some would point to fights that could have been made but you can say that about anyone. The fact that he’s remained undefeated in the fights that have been made is ridiculous. Hernandez, Manfredy, Corrales, Castillo, a prime Corley, Judah, Gatti, De La Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, Cotto, Alvarez, etc. etc. That is one hell of a resume. And if he faces and beat Pacquiao well then he can call himself whatever he wants. But in the meantime, looking at it objectively in 2015, where do you think Floyd Mayweather stands in the boxing annals? Top 25? Higher? Lower? What would he need to do in order to stamp himself as a top 10 fighter? Or is that out of the question?
i think years from now floyd will be looked at in a much better light probably ranked higher as well. Its hard for me to rank him because his career isnt finished yet. Say he beats pac as easily as most of his other opponents then says fucc it and jumps up and beats andre ward (never happen) then what? So i'll wait a while. Its funny to me that out of the rich history of boxing and so many fighters that if floyd wasnt that great how come even his most ardent haters put him in the 50 and below club? Surely if he was just a fraud then he shouldnt crack the top 200. I believe its because for all the things you dont like about him and all the things you claim you "wish" he'd do, its very very hard to look at a resume like his and not think about where you'd rate your fav fighter if he had the same one.
For those who keep using the "diva" thing and dont like his attitude, here's a interesting vid comparing him and the great Ray...if you decide to watch the whole thing you might learn something :
Mayweather is the best boxer I have ever seen. I started watching since 1986. I can't evaluate those that I didn't see. I only see highlights and there have been some awesome fighters but how can I truly judge. I can only listen to historians. The historians love the older guys and demean a new generation.
Floyd is the best that I have seen because.
1. Great Defense
2. Great Offense
3. Great Chin
4. Great IQ
5. Great Toughness
6. Adaptable
7. Undefeated
8. Never been on his ass
9. Never been dominated
10. If you're a boxing coach you would teach your fighters to mimic Floyd in the ring.
More dangerous like who?
Margarito...lol
Yes, Paul Williams Cotto after he beat Mosely. That is what you when you on top, you take on everyone. One fight does not bump in the top 50. His resume is lacking above 135.
If they truly know boxing they'll know he was a tough solid top contender. Not an easy fight at that time.
Suck that we even have to "argue" this. Corley fought Floyd, Zab, and Cotto in a short span of time. Lost to Zab by split, lost to Floyd, and lost to Cotto. Just saying that, it looks like the dude flat out sucks. But if you've watched THOSE fights, that isn't the case.
He stung Floyd pretty good in their fight. Floyd showed some grit and banged with Chop. Still an entertaining fight. Again, good win all things considered.
why doesn't it? every title isn't achieved by beating the top guy in the division. for example-you don't call Manny a 6 division champ and discount the title win at 135 because it was David Diaz or at 154 over Margarito (1-1-1 at 154, fight at 150).
It's awfully biased to discount title wins depending on who the fighter is.
Titles are credible when convenient to some people. You can't call fighter A a paper champ then give credit to your favorite fighter for winning titles in 8 different weight divisions. Pac is a 8 division title holder not a 8 division champion just like Adrien Broner is a 3 division title holder, not champion.
Ahhh. Nice answer. Now go ask 100 people who know boxing how good Chop Chop Corley was. Have a nice day.
If they truly know boxing they'll know he was a tough solid top contender. Not an easy fight at that time.
depends who you beat and when you beat them. broner is a 3 weight champ, doesn't mean much tho.
why doesn't it? every title isn't achieved by beating the top guy in the division. for example-you don't call Manny a 6 division champ and discount the title win at 135 because it was David Diaz or at 154 over Margarito (1-1-1 at 154, fight at 150).
It's awfully biased to discount title wins depending on who the fighter is.
depends who you beat and when you beat them. broner is a 3 weight champ, doesn't mean much tho.
He's a 3 weight title holder and didn't beat all of the contenders in those 3 weight divisions. If he beat all of the top contenders at 130, 135 and 147 his resume would look something like this:
Uchiyama
Gamboa
Salgado
Miguel Vazquez
Richar Abril
Ricky Burns
Robert Guerrero
Tim Bradley
Devon Alexander
etc., etc.
That would be a great resume by just beating top contenders.
Doesn't beating all of the top contenders and title holders in multiple weight classes make your resume great? Every other ATG did the same thing.
depends who you beat and when you beat them. broner is a 3 weight champ, doesn't mean much tho.
Ahhh. Nice answer. Now go ask 100 people who know boxing how good Chop Chop Corley was. Have a nice day.
You didn't comprehend why I mentioned him, CLEARLY didn't comprehend my conversation with PBP yet wanna butt in sounding clueless as hell. Yeah, definitely have a nice day :lol1:
So, you start the thread by saying how great Floyds resume is. Then admit to your buddy how luke warm it is at the top. So you're saying he has a "great" resume against contenders and a average resume against elite? Are you standing by your initial comment of how great Floyds resume is? Or it just depends who asks you?:usa:
Doesn't beating all of the top contenders and title holders in multiple weight classes make your resume great? Every other ATG did the same thing.
So, you start the thread by saying how great Floyds resume is. Then admit to your buddy how luke warm it is at the top. So you're saying he has a "great" resume against contenders and a average resume against elite? Are you standing by your initial comment of how great Floyds resume is? Or it just depends who asks you?:usa:
Nah some people comprehend. Some don't.
Yeah I agree with that for sure. I'm just making a point to the clown who was whining because I put in a prime Corley, clearly missing my point and just butthurt about Floyd in general.
So, you start the thread by saying how great Floyds resume is. Then admit to your buddy how luke warm it is at the top. So you're saying he has a "great" resume against contenders and a average resume against elite? Are you standing by your initial comment of how great Floyds resume is? Or it just depends who asks you?:usa:
Top 20-25.
Longevity should also be considered. Being on top at the age of 37 is extremely hard. He is possibly the best 37 year old of all time. Also arguably the best superfeather of all time.
Best wins: Corrales, Hernandez, Castillo, Hatton, Cotto, Mosley
In some ways his legacy could be enhanced in time for example if Canelo went on to be a great (not saying he will but it's possible) then that may be looked at as an even better win.
I wouldn't at all be surprised in 20 years time if both Floyd and Pacquiao were widely considered top 10 all time. I feel like fighters are rated much higher once they are gone.
Yes. I definitely believe they will be rated higher once they are retired for a while.
Easily higher than roy jones? Come on man, who has he beat that's as good as James toney at the time? Jones beat guy that weighed 30 pounds heavier than him.
As good as toney win was i think an argument could be made that beating hopkins at the time was even better. I mean hopkins did GREAT things after that loss.
Top 20-25.
Longevity should also be considered. Being on top at the age of 37 is extremely hard. He is possibly the best 37 year old of all time. Also arguably the best superfeather of all time.
Best wins: Corrales, Hernandez, Castillo, Hatton, Cotto, Mosley
In some ways his legacy could be enhanced in time for example if Canelo went on to be a great (not saying he will but it's possible) then that may be looked at as an even better win.
I wouldn't at all be surprised in 20 years time if both Floyd and Pacquiao were widely considered top 10 all time. I feel like fighters are rated much higher once they are gone.
too much of a diva to be considered a genuinely great fighter. has to have everything his way or he doesn't fight these days. great fighters fight anybody, anywhere, any time. that isn't to say he isn't a top top fighter because he obviously is, but all his politics don't sit well with me.