Comments Thread For: R. Mayweather Explains Why Floyd Ranks Behind Robinson

[hillbilly]

I agree that "Sugar" Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter of all time(his record speaks for itself) but Roger needs to do some better research cause Robinson's record was 173-19-6-108KO's(not 127-1 like Roger claims) & back in those days the weigh in was on the same day of the fight & LaMotta did outweigh Robinson, but by 16lbs(Robinson weighed 144 1/2 & LaMotta 160 1/2), NOT 50lbs like Roger says & the 2nd time they fought which was on the same year they both weighed more or less the same & Robinson beat him & then beat him 4 more times after that..& it's true Floyd has won titles in more divisions than Robinson, but it's also a fact that in Robinson's days there weren't as many divisions as there are now(there was no in between division weights, no jr or super weights) & Floyd is a great fighter & has shown it & has basically fought everyone(except Pacquiao) but right now I wouldn't put Floyd in front of Hagler or Leonard just to name a few .. Maybe Roger doesn't know as much as he thinks..

If I remember correctly, Sugar Ray Robinson was 128-1-2 in his first 131 fights. I think that is what Mayweather was alluding to. But no, Floyd isn't no. 2 overall. He's top fifty but much closer to fifty than to 1. His problem is he refuses to take the difficult fights out there. You aren't the greatest because you have the potential to be the greatest because of your skill set, but you are the greatest because you proved it conclusively in the ring. Floyd hasn't done that. All-time greats are guys like Ray Leonard who took insanely tough fights at the bigger weights. Guys like Roberto Duran who did exactly the same. Muhammed Ali who fought everybody. Losing isn't fatal to being an all-time great. Failing to get in the ring against your contemporaries is and that is where Floyd Mayweather Jr. falls short. Could he have been one of the top 2 ever? Maybe. How can you tell when he didn't show us the goods by fighting everybody.

[Brother Jay]

I wish Roger Mayweather could string a sentence together without swearing. The man is a proper little rat. He should spend less time chatting rubbish and more time reflecting on the fact that were it not for FM Jnr he would most likely be in jail, or homeless.

What a BUM Roger Mayweather is.

The man is a two time former world champion and trainer of the P4P#1 best fighter of this era.

In just the years of his career, he's done more with his life than you have in ALL of your years.

He's probably seen more money and pusssy than every male in your entire family combined.

Think about it.

Not everyone will be articulate. That doesn't mean that they aren't accomplished in other ways.

[hillbilly]

There's a difference between "over the hill"/past prime completely and past prime-still good.

Sasakul, Ledwaba, Barrera I, Solis, and Bradley....Prime.

Morales II, Morales III, Larios, Barrera II, Marquez II, Diaz, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey....past prime-still good.

De La Hoya, Margarito, Mosley, and Marquez III....past their prime completely.

For Floyd.....

Manfredy, Corrales, C. Hernandez, Chavez, Castillo I, Castillo II, Judah, Hatton, Ortiz.....Prime.

G. Hernandez, Gerena, Gatti, Baldomir, Marquez, and Cotto...past prime-still good.

De La Hoya and Mosley.....past their prime completely.

I don't understand how you can say that Hatton was in his "prime" when Floyd fought him but not when Pacquiao did. Hatton was certainly never a "prime" welterweight at any time. The year before Mayweather fought Hatton, Hatton fought Luis Collazo at 147. Collazo lost a decision but won the fight. He had Hatton out on his feet in the 12th. Hatton's performance was so bad he said he'd never fight at 147 again. He then went straight back down to 140. He only came up to 147 again to fight Mayweather becuase Mayweather insisted. Indeed, when he fought Pacquiao afterwards, Hatton did so at 140.

In my book, Hatton was more "prime" fighting Pacquiao at 140 than he was fighting Mayweather at 147. That being said, I don't think he should be on either's "HOF" resume. He just wasn't all that great.

[Brother Jay]

Charley Burley.

Robinson priced himself out of the fight.

Burley was a PERCEIVED threat. That's it.

Robinson was the best because he proved it against the best.

Burley could have had all the talent of the world, but if you look at what he accomplished, it pales in comparison to Robinson.

How many men have a 93 fight winning streak? Most people didn't even have 93 fights, let alone a 93 fight winning streak.

If Burley wanted to be seen as good as Robinson, he could have created a resume that would have been weighed, measured and compared to the G.O.A.T.

He didn't. So he isn't.

Historians go through legacies with a fine-tooth comb. They don't play games like some fans who hail their favorite as best because he entertained or because he was popular.

Of course potential, skill and ability are taken into account, but they are not the sum total of how a fighter is measured.

[Alx.]

lol roger is funny

i rank floyd high but still behind greb, pep, duran, leonard, hearns, roy jones, ali and the list goes on

[sinaloakidd]

I disagree with you Grant. Robinson is the best ever. Floyd may not be right below him, but he is certainly way above Pacquiao. If Pac would've avoided the catchweights, then it be different!

[4Corners]

I don't understand how you can say that Hatton was in his "prime" when Floyd fought him but not when Pacquiao did. Hatton was certainly never a "prime" welterweight at any time. The year before Mayweather fought Hatton, Hatton fought Luis Collazo at 147. Collazo lost a decision but won the fight. He had Hatton out on his feet in the 12th. Hatton's performance was so bad he said he'd never fight at 147 again. He then went straight back down to 140. He only came up to 147 again to fight Mayweather becuase Mayweather insisted. Indeed, when he fought Pacquiao afterwards, Hatton did so at 140.

In my book, Hatton was more "prime" fighting Pacquiao at 140 than he was fighting Mayweather at 147. That being said, I don't think he should be on either's "HOF" resume. He just wasn't all that great.

So....was Genaro Hernandez prime when Floyd fought him in 1998??? Because Floyd fought him at 130, where he was unbeaten, but he lost 3-4 years earlier to Oscar at 135. So.....your saying that Floyd beat the prime Genaro and Oscar didn't???? Going by your logic of course.

Hatton was widely regarded as prime and Top 10 P4P when Floyd fought him. And Yes, Hatton struggled at 147 against Collazo, but Collazo is no crappy fighter at all. He's a hell of a lot better than Luis Abregu, Bradly's only fight at 147, which was a decent win for Bradley. Hatton was unbeaten and Top 10 P4P in 2007 when Floyd fought him. Everybody wanted to see Mayweather-Hatton. I consider Hatton still good 2 years later when Manny fought him, but not absolute prime after being KO'd by Mayweather. It's like Cotto. I don't consider Cotto prime since anything after the Margarito loss. He's been past his prime-still good since 2009-present day.

I rate Mayweather over Hatton the same as Pacquiao over Bradley, or the same as Oscar over Genaro in 1995. I rate Pacquiao over Hatton about the same as Mayweather over Genaro. Good wins, but Oscar still gets more credit for beating Genaro first, and Floyd still gets more credit for beating Hatton first. And Manny will get more credit for beating Cotto before Mayweather.

That being said.....my Top 10 GOAT, no order:

Ali, Robinson, Leonard, Louis, Johnson, Tunney, Pep, Greb, Armstrong, and than the 10th is tough. Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Roberto Duran, and Ezzard Charles are close for me as well.

[Sugar Q]

If I remember correctly, Sugar Ray Robinson was 128-1-2 in his first 131 fights. I think that is what Mayweather was alluding to. But no, Floyd isn't no. 2 overall. He's top fifty but much closer to fifty than to 1. His problem is he refuses to take the difficult fights out there. You aren't the greatest because you have the potential to be the greatest because of your skill set, but you are the greatest because you proved it conclusively in the ring. Floyd hasn't done that. All-time greats are guys like Ray Leonard who took insanely tough fights at the bigger weights. Guys like Roberto Duran who did exactly the same. Muhammed Ali who fought everybody. Losing isn't fatal to being an all-time great. Failing to get in the ring against your contemporaries is and that is where Floyd Mayweather Jr. falls short. Could he have been one of the top 2 ever? Maybe. How can you tell when he didn't show us the goods by fighting everybody.

Really? So Floyd challenges Manny BEFORE Marquez 3, he booked the venue and called him out in the press. He then went much further and called Manny personally to challenge him. Manny had cut issues, was supposedly wanting a 4th Marquez fight so bad he couldn't fight Floyd, then when news broke that Floyd was going to jail Manny was ready to fight on May 5th until the judge flipped it all of a sudden Manny's cut got worst and the BS about the new stadium. If it's public knowledge that Manny doesn't take home 10 million per fight it is an absolute insult to even have a discussion about parity when it comes to Floyd (a man that's been taking home 50 million a fight as of late. Many great fighters from the pass wish they had Floyd's business savvy cause unfortunately many of them are broke as hell.
I wouldn't put Floyd at #2 because he simply doesn't have the kind of competitors to take him to that level but if he goes on to beat Martinez and retires undefeated he has to be in the top 5 at least. Manny is the hype but a win over Martinez would be a great feat giving Floyd legit titles from 130-160 from beating all the top champions in each division.

[Brother Jay]

If I remember correctly, Sugar Ray Robinson was 128-1-2 in his first 131 fights. I think that is what Mayweather was alluding to. But no, Floyd isn't no. 2 overall. He's top fifty but much closer to fifty than to 1. His problem is he refuses to take the difficult fights out there. You aren't the greatest because you have the potential to be the greatest because of your skill set, but you are the greatest because you proved it conclusively in the ring. Floyd hasn't done that. All-time greats are guys like Ray Leonard who took insanely tough fights at the bigger weights. Guys like Roberto Duran who did exactly the same. Muhammed Ali who fought everybody. Losing isn't fatal to being an all-time great. Failing to get in the ring against your contemporaries is and that is where Floyd Mayweather Jr. falls short. Could he have been one of the top 2 ever? Maybe. How can you tell when he didn't show us the goods by fighting everybody.

This ^^^ post is flawed. You used much too much emotion and not enough evidence to back up your opinions.

You need to learn how to judge who the best are.

Its seems like you just want to see Floyd beaten. The fact that he's fought the #1s and #2s throughout EVERY division speaks volumes about Mayweather .. who has come up from SFW to jrMW doing exactly that.

Nobody fought everybody. You'd do well to learn more about boxing before making statements like that.

[DominiBox]

And the question will always be:

How many PRIME HoF'ers has Floyd face (beated) ?

Plzzz WESS, LeadUppercut, Flint.....etc!! Answer this one!