Tweet
I believe, without any doubt, that Mayweather is the best fighter pound for pound in the world today. He is head and shoulders above his contemporaries. Mayweather is clearly the most talented all-around practitioner since Pernell Whitaker. He is better than the incredibly explosive and gifted athlete, albeit technically and defensively flawed, Shane Mosley. Floyd is a superior and more complete fighter than Oscar De La Hoya, Joe Calzaghe, Felix Trinidad, Bernard Hopkins, Naseem Hamed or Marco Antonio Barrera.
Barring stylistic vulnerabilities, I believe, he would be competitive with almost any fighter that fought between junior lightweight and junior welterweight in history.
HOWEVER, I think Mayweather's career thus far can be best summarized by one simple question.
WHAT EXTREMELY TALENTED FIGHTERS HAS HE FOUGHT?
When that question is asked about Sugar Ray Leonard you can almost clearly remember his epic battles with Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns. When someone ask why Ezzard Charles was perhaps the greatest light heavyweight of all-time you can tell them that he thrashed Archie Moore three times, trounced the great Charley Burley twice and decisively avenged his losses to outstanding contenders Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshell several times.
Despite his bravado and obvious talent when that question is asked about Mayweather you must sadly reply that he has NEVER FOUGHT A SINGE FIGHTER as talented as the aforementioned fighters. Again, I believe, he would be competitive with almost any fighter that fought between junior lightweight and junior welterweight in history. But that is my opinion. How great Mayweather truly is or is not cannot be determined until he faces another extremely talented fighter. Unfortunately, he may never get the opportunity. If such a day ever occurred and Mayweather proved his greatness then and only then would I prostrate myself and perform fellatio on him as some already do.
Many today for whatever reason appear overly impressed when any fighter wins multiple meaningless alphabet belts in multiple weightclasses. I will leave them with this. ARTURO GATTI has won TWO alphabet belts in TWO different weightclasses. If that does not diminish the significance of winning one of those belts then there is not anything that will.
Barring stylistic vulnerabilities, I believe, he would be competitive with almost any fighter that fought between junior lightweight and junior welterweight in history.
HOWEVER, I think Mayweather's career thus far can be best summarized by one simple question.
WHAT EXTREMELY TALENTED FIGHTERS HAS HE FOUGHT?
When that question is asked about Sugar Ray Leonard you can almost clearly remember his epic battles with Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns. When someone ask why Ezzard Charles was perhaps the greatest light heavyweight of all-time you can tell them that he thrashed Archie Moore three times, trounced the great Charley Burley twice and decisively avenged his losses to outstanding contenders Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshell several times.
Despite his bravado and obvious talent when that question is asked about Mayweather you must sadly reply that he has NEVER FOUGHT A SINGE FIGHTER as talented as the aforementioned fighters. Again, I believe, he would be competitive with almost any fighter that fought between junior lightweight and junior welterweight in history. But that is my opinion. How great Mayweather truly is or is not cannot be determined until he faces another extremely talented fighter. Unfortunately, he may never get the opportunity. If such a day ever occurred and Mayweather proved his greatness then and only then would I prostrate myself and perform fellatio on him as some already do.
Many today for whatever reason appear overly impressed when any fighter wins multiple meaningless alphabet belts in multiple weightclasses. I will leave them with this. ARTURO GATTI has won TWO alphabet belts in TWO different weightclasses. If that does not diminish the significance of winning one of those belts then there is not anything that will.
Comment