Tweet
I don’t consider Mayweather to be the best ever or even the best in any weight class he’s fought in, but your undefeated record argument is skewed. Who you beat needs to be taken into consideration more than the undefeated record or streak. For all of Chavez wins, he was literally still facing novice level boxers on a consistent basis when he was a world champion with 50, 60, and 70 plus wins. He only beat 2 fighters who became hall of famers. Quite different than mayweathers quality of opposition in 50 fights.
-
-
TBE.. It’s going to be hard to duplicate a resume like this.
Mosley, Pacquiao, De La Hoya, Alvarez, Corrales, Hatton, Judah, Cotto, Hernandez, Gatti,
10-0Comment
-
The problem with saying you fought x number of champions these days is that there are 4 belts, which wasn't the case prior to the 80s. Half those guys Floyd faced wouldn't have had belts prior to the 80s. Not picking on Floyd, but the term "champion" is watered down when you consider guys like Victor Ortiz and Robert Guerrero were belt holders. Also, Castillo and Corrales, two of his significant victories.....these guys aren't in the HOF. Good victories at the time, but historically? Anyway, Floyd was the top guy at his time, but I would have liked to see him challenge himself more. Cassamayor, Tszyu, Pac 5 years earlier, Cory Spinks, even a guy like Tim Bradley would have been better than Victor Ortiz or Robert Guerrero.Comment
-
Mayweather is arguably the best technical boxer ever. That is fair and legit. With that said, In his last 15 fights, he has only 3 KO's: 1 against an 0-0 fighter in Conor MacGregor; a controversial KO over Victor Ortiz, and a legitimate KO over Ricky Hatton. Also two wins were majority decisions and one split decision. My point is that when you look at other fighters in contention for "the greatest fighter of all time," you see fighters who have losses on their records, but have far more decisive victories. I think that is precisely the line where boxing fans are reluctant to bestow the title of "the greatest" to Floyd despite the 50-0. I think boxing aficionados want to declare that kind of "greatness" RESOUNDINGLY, not reluctantly or at least without any hesitation. It is the way Floyd reached 50-0 that fans have difficulty with. Floyd was a great strategic fighter with tremendous speed and very respectable (and underrated) strength. I think the word that nails what Floyd was in the ring is "prudent." Prudent to not put himself in vulnerable situations. Prudent to settle for a decision. Prudent to just control the distance. And more power to him for protecting his health and achieving so much at the same time... in boxing of all sports. God bless him. The problem for "blood thirsty" fans is that it is not the "warrior" mentality. Sweet science, yes. Gladiator, less so.Comment
-
Definitely NOT the best ever, truthfully he couldn't carry Ali's gym bag for him and had the audacity to put Ali down publicly, techincally very smart, tremendous skills but Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, and a Duran from Montreal would have figured him out and night night...Comment
-
Man, this punk didn't even do as good as Khan at the Olympics. Not wonder he ducked Khan his whole career.
Having said that, he was pretty good. He triumphed in his greatest performance against the most feared combat martial artist in sports with his great triumph over Connor McGregor, although is it lucky the fight took place in a boxing ring and not McGregor's favoured turf of the local pub cos it woulda been different then *****.
Also people criticize Mayweather's powder puff *****-ass punching power, but his KO percentage increases favourably if you include his ex gf's and partners.
GOAT.
Comment
-
I think Mayweather is great. That said, he wasn’t my favorite to watch. I’ll ask this to people who say he isn’t that great. If you compare his entire professional career to anyone. Count all the rounds he lost and compare it to ANYONE, then tell me your results.Comment
Comment