Is Mayweather A Divisional Goat?

[Coverdale]

Yeah, Bilbo was one of the better posters. I don't know how the admin even knew that a few people died, like Zaroku.

Bill died? I noticed that he hadn't logged in since May, is that the reason?

[Mr Mitts]

Not really.

If that was true then why was Wilfred Benitez finished before age 30? Whitaker on the slide in his early 30’s. Etc etc.

Pacquaio seemed way less on the slide than Mayweather did at that point. When you heavily rely on reflexes and foot movement like Mayweather did being in your 18th year as a pro is not good.

Yeah, it is a debatable point all right. And of course I don't have an explanation for every exception. Benitez was taking serious punches pretty early or he could not have been a pro champion at 17. But the best overall guess is that physiology differs as does experience for all individuals.

Good point about the reflexes. But Pacquiao depended on them too. Were his semi-shot too? Did his style have anything to do with his wear and tear rate?

Watching Duran/Monroe Brooks again last night, I was amazed how Duran's reflexes allowed him to find opportunities to hit Brooks from angles that almost literally any other fighter wouldn't have even tried. Duran took all the orthodox means of hitting him and some quite unorthodox ones. All this relied on reflex because Brooks was a pretty fast fighter whom I once predicted to do big things. But he ran into an ATG and that was that.

[Coverdale]

Wasn't Whitaker a white powder abuser?

[Coverdale]

Neither were in their prime but they were the #1 and #2 P4P fighters in the world at the time.

I think Mayweather had shown to be much more on the slide than Pacquaio who was still competing at the top level winning world titles for the following 4 years. Hell, even RIGHT NOW he’s competing at the top level and could very easily be world champion at WW 10 years on.

Do you think "prime" is a bit of an overused word in boxing? It certainly seems to be poorly defined. Much like when people talk about "versions" of fighter, e.g. the "version" of Fury who beat Wilder would have beaten Usyk, etc.

2010 was certainly the optimal time for Mayweather and Pacquiao to meet but both were arguably past their "prime" even then.

[Mr Mitts]

He doesn't exactly have to work his way up anymore though. I don't keep track enough to know if he is really competing at world level now. I don't think he could ever have beaten Crawford though, or any great welterweight champions (not to say Crawford is one), whereas I can envision MW beating some ATG WWs.

[Coverdale]

I’d say Mayweather’s prime was 2007.

Paxqauio’s 2009-2010.

Those are pretty short windows.

[Coverdale]

Usually tends to be.

The elite fighters tend to still be at the top of the sport even passed their best days.

Is "prime" something we are able to ascertain in real time or only in retrospect? If the latter then is it fair to insist that fighters face "prime" fighters (e.g. Gervonta)?

[Mr Mitts]

Is "prime" something we are able to ascertain in real time or only in retrospect? If the latter then is it fair to insist that fighters face "prime" fighters (e.g. Gervonta)?

In retrospect probably, but not a long one. Decline can be seen earlier than the career's full length. That is all the retrospecting we need. It becomes obvious to the fan during the career itself that a man is now past prime, coupled with faith in Old Father Time, with a few exceptions.

[Coverdale]

IronDanHamza - whilst I am feeling sufficiently motivated can you recommend another Mayweather fight for me please?

[DeeMoney]

Is "prime" something we are able to ascertain in real time or only in retrospect? If the latter then is it fair to insist that fighters face "prime" fighters (e.g. Gervonta)?

For the most part, you can usually put a good guess as to when a fighter is in their prime while they are in it. And though you may not be able to tell exactly when a fighter's prime is exactly, in real time, that doesn't absolve fighters from avoiding a given opponent until they begin to show signs of aging (and presume their prime has passed).