You have to bet your life on one fighter to beat Floyd Mayweather

[TheReadyTimeBoy]

Guys naming pre 1920s era fighters are delusional. Floyd would turn battling Nelson's face into a hunk of raw meat

[QueensburyRules]

Guys naming pre 1920s era fighters are delusional. Floyd would turn battling Nelson's face into a hunk of raw meat

--- Sorry Junior, yer late to the table.

Joe Gans already cleared that table when it counted the most... Next!!!

[them_apples]

People who think that no one would beat Floyd have to understand that every great fighter in history would be undefeated if They didn't take the fights They lost...

If Hearns moved up to 154 without fighting Leonard, didn't fight Hagler or Barkley at 160, got a decision against Ray in a rematch that many thought He deserved - and retired before fighting Uriah Grant - He could retire 60-0, while holding titles at 147, 154 and 175... and on paper his career would look better.
If He played that right - People would be saying that He was unbeatable, that Leonard, Hagler ducked him... After all He destroyed Duran and outboxed Virgil Hill at 175... so how could anyone beat him at 147, 154 or 160? IMPOSSIBLE!

Tito Trinidad could've retired undefeated - and with better resume than Floyd - if He didn't fight Hopkins... There's many other fighters like that. All about career management.

Floyd was great fighter, but what separates him from other great fighters is that He was carefully managed, fought in an era where it was easier to avoid fights...
He didn't fight Freitas or Casamayor at 130 or 135...
Didn't fight Stevie Johnston, or Spadafora at 135..
Didn't fight anyone who was any good at 140.
Didn't fight Margarito, Cotto, Williams, prime Pacquiao, Clottey at 147 - or any of the highly regarded young guns from next genaration.
At 154 He fought old ODLH, past-prime Cotto(Not a real 154 pounder), Canelo (Still young and at a catch-weight)...

..right now, it's easy to say "Oh, Floyd would beat them ANYWAY", because He had better career at the end, but there's a reason You fight a fight.

Think of any upset You ever seen, with undefeated champion losing. Roy Jones didn't have to fight Tarver to be considered better than him. If He retired undefeated, naive fans would believe He was unbeatable.
Shane Mosley didn't have to fight Vernon Forrest or Winky.


If Your best win over prime fighter is probably Jose Luis Castillo - and once You went life and death, then beat him in a rematch but still were pushed to competitive fight... then it's safe to say You were very beatable, since there's hundrets of fighters in the great history of boxing that were levels above Castillo.

It's also funny that Floyd's undefeated record is such a big pillar supporting his greatness, when first fight with Castillo could clearly go either way. Put different trio of judges and He's not undefeated anymore and no one can argue that result... How meaningful is that then?

definitely. To some it up he came in the A side in every fight outside of ODLH. Floyd never took risks.

Pacquiao got Koed by Marquez yes. But Pacquiao also fought him 4 times. He didn't have to.

Floyd has had a great career, but he himself was protected. It's obvious he is talented and certainly a good boxer, but hi claim as the GOAT has massive holes in it.

In Robinsons era you fought the very best 4 or 5 times. you picked up losses. but you proved you were great.

[them_apples]

Guys naming pre 1920s era fighters are delusional. Floyd would turn battling Nelson's face into a hunk of raw meat

nah they had different skills back then. really clever skills they don't look pretty. **** like uppercutting the bottom of a jab and crushing the tricep over 12 rounds, grabbing the shoulder and pinning your head inside his other should protected by the side of his opponents head. etc etc

"fighting skills".

It was a different game back then. Floyd may be able to win but i wouldn't right him them 20's boys off.

[IronDanHamza]

Floyd fought a long list of B level fighters.. That's exactly what They realisticaly were - which is why those type of guys, like Genaro, Jesus Chavez, Baldomir - would come up short against best They fought...
A level fighters Floyd fought were mostly past prime or with weight benefiting him (JMM, Canelo).

I probably give him more credit than others for beating Jose Luis Castillo twice. That's his biggets scalp in my book... and not by accident his toughest rival also.

In any case - I concur Floyd's resume is better(Not by much though, to me - He just beat more B level guys than Tito...). Trinidad probably not the best example of what I tried to prove, but point still stands.
A lot of great fighters would retire undefeated - with better resume than Floyd - if They didn't take fights that They ended up losing. In other era's, it wasn't as easy to do, though.

Floyd's about as unbeatable as any undefeated champion We see in boxing every year. If They don't step-up, They can keep their 0.

If it's so easy then why hasn't anyone else managed to do it?

If its so easy to beat 10 guys ranked #1 at the weight class and 7 P4P Top 10 guys across 5 weight classes then how come no one else has?

[IronDanHamza]

No one says it's easy to do and no one argues He's great. It's not easy to win any title in boxing.
There are levels of achievements, accomplishments and when You try to put yourself as TBE, or if You want to argue He can't be beated because He wasn't beaten(Very poor argument imo) - I think any boxing fans should understand how incredible standards You're going to be held to then.

Is it easy to win title at 50 years old like Hopkins? No. Does it mean You can't argue other fighters were greater?
Is it easy to move up from 175 to HW, win a belt - and move back down to 175 to defend championship then, like Roy? No. does it mean You can't argue others were greater?
..and so on, so on. Many fighters did things Floyd didn't.

I'm not sure what's Your point, Iron. Floyd was great fighter, all I say is that in great history of boxing, other fighters achieved more impressive feats, proved themselves against higher level of talent - and all things considered, undefeated record is not a great support to have to say that You are THE Greatest.
Otherwise, We probably have to put Calzaghe in that argument also.

My point is what Floyd did in his career was great. But seemingly you agree? It felt as if you were playing down his accomplishments earlier and implying that it's not a difficult task to do what he's done.

Rankings are far from the be all and end all, but there are no fighters in modern history and possibly in history in general who have beaten more #1 ranked fighters than Floyd has. So, to downplay that is silly IMO. Like I said, if it was so easy to do then endless fighters would have.

As for Calzaghe, the difference between him and Floyd is Calzaghe barely beat any ranked fighters at all much less highly ranked guys. So it's night and day difference.

[QueensburyRules]

--- Hell, the sweet thing shat himself over prime Pak, Marg, Oscar rematch, and after calling out Winky Wright, team Wright showed up at Top Rank contract in hand.

Nobody could find him because he fled out the rear exit for the hills for a month!

[IronDanHamza]

Right.
I kind of downplay his accomplishment in terms of TBE status. He's great, but that's such a high standards with the history of the sport being so long and great.
He did great, difficult things. There were fighters who challanged themselves more, beat better fighter and achieved more difficult things.
So the point isn't whether He's great. Point is whether there are even Great-er fighters.


Mostly - since the topic is about who'd beat Floyd - I try to show how naive it is to think that no one would beat him (like some seem to believe), just because He never lost.
There's another level that He never stepped up to. Everyone would agree that he never fought guy on the level of prime Duran, prime Ray Leonard, prime Hearns - right?
Other great fighters lost. He'd lose too. Doesn't mean He's not amazing talent, that's just boxing.

Oh of course. I would never suggest Mayweather is unbeatable. No fighter is.

Nor would I suggest Mayweather is the greatest fighter ever.

I do think he'd be very hard to beat, though. Especially at 130 lbs.

[QueensburyRules]

--- Jesus Chavez was blasting him pretty good until Ronny Sheilds pulled the plug for illicit reasons boxing is known for.

Pretty much cowered on the ropes against Oscar who let his hands and landed the best punches. Even his daddy said Oscar whooped him.

Take him out of MGM and Nevada and he melts like the wicked witch of Oz...

[Anthony342]

Oh of course. I would never suggest Mayweather is unbeatable. No fighter is.

Nor would I suggest Mayweather is the greatest fighter ever.

I do think he'd be very hard to beat, though. Especially at 130 lbs.

So is the consensus that Floyd moved up in weight when there were tougher challenges to be had at the weight classes he was already at during those times or did he move up and face the better challenges at the time?

I know you were saying Mosley and Pacquiao were their faults as well, in terms of one pricing himself out and the other not agreeing to drug testing conditions, so what's the story on the rest of Floyd's career here?