Tweet
By this I mean, adjusting for size of course. I'm not comparing 175 lbs Lemieux to 150 lbs Robert Guerrero. I'm saying if Lemieux was the same general size as Floyd's best opponents, but Floyd fought him in his prime and completely undrained like GGG fought him, would prime, undrained Lemieux be a better opponent on the night than all the drained, or blown up, or old opponents Floyd fought?
I'm going to make this long so we can go through Floyd's career opponent by opponent, and get the full story for once. If you're a Floyd fan, or someone who didn't watch boxing during the early part of Floyd's career and only know the second hand story of it that his fans have told you, then this question might will seem ridiculous at first. But take the time to read the full story of Floyd's "best wins," which I've typed up here, and I don't think it will. Then after we really go through his career here, I want to hear everyone's opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree with me! That's what this is for, to give everyone a voice to add their input. Boxing history is nothing if not a great debate!
Now, there is another thread asking if Floyd ever fought anyone as good as Danny Jacobs. To me that answer is even easier: no. And the same goes for Lemieux, with maybe one or two ties, but no one clearly better anyway.
However, other people disagreed. Some believe Floyd not only beat better prime opponents than Lemieux, but better than Jacobs too. They brought up the names you usually hear, like these:
To get to the bottom of this debate once and for all, let me first go through each name to show why these wins do not even compare to GGG beating David Lemieux, let alone Jacobs, and then I want everyone elses opinion. I just personally believe there is a huge double-standard in boxing by some fans against offensive fighters like GGG and Kovalev, and I don't know why.
Sure, GGG might not have that many big NAMES on his resumé because so many guys ducked him, but we're supposed to be hardcore boxing fans. We're not supposed to care that Canelo beat Khan just because Khan is a "big name," we're supposed to know the actual circumstances around the fights that happen, like how Khan wasn't a natural junior middleweight, and how Khan is chinny and has been knocked out multiple times before. We're supposed to care about the quality of the opponent in each specific fight, not just the name.
Now shouldn't that same standard also to Floyd Mayweather's career, not just Canelo's? Let's go through the list.
For example, according to most Floyd fans, by far the best win of Floyd's career is his six knockdown performance against Diego Corrales. However, anyone who still believes that was an impression showing needs to watch the ESNews interview with Alex Ariza, who was Corrales strength and conditioning coach. Corrales had the fever all week, couldn't make weight, so Ariza said he just went **** it, and decided to try a crazy plan based on some blog he read or some random ****, which was to "starve the fever" out of Corrales.
Of course, it backfired horribly, and Ariza calls it the worst mistake of his career. He said Corrales was dead man walking. That win is always hyped by Floyd fans but Ariza confirmed it's actually the most overrated win ever. Corraes was dead man walking before Floyd even put a glove on him.
As for Judah? "4 round fighter" as Angel Garcia said. Coming off being beat up by Baldomir. Had Jacobs reach but not his size, power, or stamina. Or chin, actually, at least the chin Jacobs at 180lbs. Yes he had a nice uppercut but that was it power wise. He was faster than Jacobs but that's because he was a welterweight. That's really his only advantage over Jacobs. The Jacobs GGG fought is way better. As for Lemieux, Lemieux only lost when he was young because he had stamina issues. Since then he's fixed his training and it hasn't been an issue. Judah being KO'd then beat up right before fighting Floyd is not at all the same as Lemieux gassing against Rubio when he was 21 years old. Judah had not 1 loss like Jacobs, but three losses including a KO before Floyd fought him. He now has 9 losses and most came shortly before or after Floyd fought him, not when he was old. Lost to Baldomir and Clottey. The David Lemieux of the last few years is above the level of those guys.
As for Victor Ortiz, he is not in the same league as Jacobs or Lemieux lol. Jacobs has been KO'd once 8 years ago the week his grandmother died by an elite fighter. Lemieux gassed out when he was a kid. But Ortiz has been KO'd many times by fighters much less talented than Pirog.
Castillo? Well Castillo beat Floyd the first time in a much more decisive way than some claim Jacobs beat GGG, so that's #1, and #2, he had already been KO'd 4 times before fighting Floyd. FOUR TIMES. And he didn't have the speed, reach, or one punch power of Jacobs.
So how can ANYONE say Floyd ever fought a top prime opponent? Are you kidding me? Floyd fans have to list a fevered dead man walking, and a guy who had been KO'd FOUR TIMES before hand, and a guy who had just lost to Carlos Baldomir, as his best wins, because there's literally nothing better to list?
That's exactly my point. The truth is Floyd ducked and cherry picked his whole career, then bragged about it, but some people still buy a FANTASY he created because he's an enthusiastic, convincing liar. Maybe he believes his own lies, or maybe he's just that good. But when we look at all the supposed best wins of his that people bring, they are all illusions. Like "Oh how amazing he was against Corrales. That was the young Floyd! The Pretty Boy Floyd! We all know Money May was a joke, but that guy, that was a real fighter! That guy really dominated!" but just like always with Floyd, it turns out to be bull****. He just relies on people not having good enough memories, or the fact many of his current fans did not even watch boxing back then.
It's a total illusion, a lie, a double standard relying on people's ignorance. I mean just stop and think for a minute how many I assume Floyd and Ward fans tried to discredit Jacobs as a GGG opponent because he was KO'd once against an elite fighter 8 years ago, but then they bring up Floyd's wins over Castillo as some sort of accomplishment, even though Castillo had been KO'd four times and Floyd still lost (unofficially) to him the first time. How is that consistent? How is that logical at all lol?
This is why boxing is a joke. It reflects a large segment of the sport's fans. We reap what we sow. You have these ignorant fans on one hand saying GGG was "exposed" against Jacobs, but on the other hand, Floyd Mayweather (officially almost, in reality definitely) lost a fight to someone who has been KO'd four times already, yet they hold Floyd as this pinnacle of greatness, this unsolvable puzzle who was never "exposed." Yet in reality he has at least two performances where he performed worse, against worse opposition, than GGG did against Jacobs: Castillo I and Maidana I. Sure Floyd did better the second time but those guys aren't half as talented as Jacobs, so it shouldn't have ever come to that.
So it's crazy to me to see people criticize GGG's resumé when he now has the two best wins of either his or Floyd's entire career, in Lemieux and Jacobs. Obviously Floyd has bigger names like Canelo (drained at 152), Cotto (already beaten to a pulp by two separate guys, still gave Floyd a tough fight), Pacquiao (old and Floyd still barely stunk out a low activity decision), but those two wins by GGG when they happened, against opponents in their prime at their very best, are better than anything Floyd has ever done.
I mean, you can argue 37 year old Pacquiao would still beat a fighter like David Lemieux in the same weight class, but are you sure? It's been ages since Pacquiao took out a fast power combination bombthrower like that. He hasn't even fought anyone like that since Cotto lol. And as for Canelo, there are plenty of people who think Lemieux beats a fully hydrated Canelo at 160, so Lemieux against the drained Canelo that Floyd fought would not even be a contest.
The only other guy is Cotto at 154 after he lost badly to Pacquiao and Margarito, but before Roach trained him, so basically the low point of his career. He might have beaten a Lemieux, or he might have gotten knocked the **** out by a Margarito-style fighter with better hand speed and more power, but worse reach, chin, and stamina. So like I said, it could have gone either way. It would have been a hell of a fight if they were both the same size. But Cotto definitely wouldn't have beaten Jacobs. We already saw him lose wide to a lesser version of Jacobs in certain respects named Austin Trout, who is a bit craftier than Jacobs but far less big, athletic, and powerful.
This is why in my opinion, Floyd's entire resumé is smoke and mirrors, illusion, and GGG, just by virtue of being willing to fight the best, already has the best wins between the two, despite the fact GGG was ducked by the top names for most of his career, which is the exact opposite of Floyd's situation. Everyone wanted a fight with Floyd. He had what GGG could only dream of: choice of any top opponents he wanted. But he always chose the easiest one, at the right time. GGG isn't like that, so when the top opponents finally came calling, he was willing to fight them right away, at their best, unlike Floyd was ever willing to do. So once the opportunity finally came and GGG won, he already had the best win of either of their careers.
Because he was actually willing to fight in those circumstances. Floyd never, ever was. Beating Canelo at 152, and pulling Marquez up 11 pounds might look like good wins to casuals, just like Canelo beating Khan did, or hell you may as well give GGG credit for beating the name Kell Brook then too, if weight doesn't matter anymore. But in reality we as hardcore fans are supposed to know better. And that's why when you really look into it, Floyd's career is smoke and mirrors. He avoided Pacquiao for a reason. He is talking that he could dominate GGG but only fighting a UFC fighter Connor Mcgregor for a reason. He's used his big talk, and gullible fans, to avoid threatening his opponents his entire career.
It's how he always got credit for beating guys without ever having to beat them. To the hardcore fans out there who were there, remember when that always used to happen lol? We'd want to fight a top challenge for once, like Paul Spaddy or Williams or so many others, but his fans, parroting him, would always go, "Oh no he doesn't have to fight that guy. We all know he'd win anyway! I mean did you see what he did to Diego Corrales???? Corrales is way better than that guy, so that guy wouldn't stand a chance anyway!"
Of course, just like with all the other supposed great wins in his career, we now know the real story. Beating a fevered corpse Diego Corrales is not a top win. Beating old Oscar DLH with a bum shoulder is not a top win. Pulling up Ricky Hatton from 140 with a seven inch reach disadvantage is not a top win. No **** he got caught with a check hook, that's what happens when you give up over a half foot in reach to a naturally heavier man lol. Pulling Marquez up from 135 against Diaz to 146 pounds the next fight is not a top win. Barely beating old Pacquiao is not a top win. Beating drained Canelo is not a top win, or at least it's impossible to know. Beating twice KO'd Miguel Cotto at the low point of his career is not a top win, although it's still basically the closest Floyd has to one, along with Canelo maybe or maybe not, we will never know. He certainly looked slow and weak all fight. How much of that was the weight, how much was Floyd?
We'll never know for sure, so the best we can do is ask Floyd himself, and Floyd went on record many times that Pacquiao was a fraud, a "catchweight king," because he didn't fight Margarito or Cotto at his comfortable weight, and that it's impossible for fighters to have energy or be anywhere near their best when they have to drain themselves to make the weight. So it's not just my own subjective eye test that tells me Canelo was drained and that that wasn't a great win in practice. All I'm doing is applying Floyd's own words, and his own standards, to that fight. He's the fighter, not me. He's the one who would know. And he was very, very clear about this. If anyone wants to find the full quote, it was in lead up to the Cotto fight, when someone asked him why he was fighting Cotto at 154.
So I truly believe Floyd's career is smoke and mirrors, and that the nickname "haters" have given him, Fraud IVIayweather, is actually more accurate than most realize. I really do think, adjusting for size, that Jacobs and Lemieux would give any of Floyd's opponents trouble at the time Floyd fought them. Personally I believe the only thing left to debate is, does this mean GGG's resumé is underrated, or is it just as simple as Floyd's being totally overrated? In my opinion it's both, but I want to hear your thoughts!
I'm going to make this long so we can go through Floyd's career opponent by opponent, and get the full story for once. If you're a Floyd fan, or someone who didn't watch boxing during the early part of Floyd's career and only know the second hand story of it that his fans have told you, then this question might will seem ridiculous at first. But take the time to read the full story of Floyd's "best wins," which I've typed up here, and I don't think it will. Then after we really go through his career here, I want to hear everyone's opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree with me! That's what this is for, to give everyone a voice to add their input. Boxing history is nothing if not a great debate!
Now, there is another thread asking if Floyd ever fought anyone as good as Danny Jacobs. To me that answer is even easier: no. And the same goes for Lemieux, with maybe one or two ties, but no one clearly better anyway.
However, other people disagreed. Some believe Floyd not only beat better prime opponents than Lemieux, but better than Jacobs too. They brought up the names you usually hear, like these:
Originally posted by Chuckguy
View Post
Originally posted by DeLorean
View Post
Sure, GGG might not have that many big NAMES on his resumé because so many guys ducked him, but we're supposed to be hardcore boxing fans. We're not supposed to care that Canelo beat Khan just because Khan is a "big name," we're supposed to know the actual circumstances around the fights that happen, like how Khan wasn't a natural junior middleweight, and how Khan is chinny and has been knocked out multiple times before. We're supposed to care about the quality of the opponent in each specific fight, not just the name.
Now shouldn't that same standard also to Floyd Mayweather's career, not just Canelo's? Let's go through the list.
For example, according to most Floyd fans, by far the best win of Floyd's career is his six knockdown performance against Diego Corrales. However, anyone who still believes that was an impression showing needs to watch the ESNews interview with Alex Ariza, who was Corrales strength and conditioning coach. Corrales had the fever all week, couldn't make weight, so Ariza said he just went **** it, and decided to try a crazy plan based on some blog he read or some random ****, which was to "starve the fever" out of Corrales.
Of course, it backfired horribly, and Ariza calls it the worst mistake of his career. He said Corrales was dead man walking. That win is always hyped by Floyd fans but Ariza confirmed it's actually the most overrated win ever. Corraes was dead man walking before Floyd even put a glove on him.
As for Judah? "4 round fighter" as Angel Garcia said. Coming off being beat up by Baldomir. Had Jacobs reach but not his size, power, or stamina. Or chin, actually, at least the chin Jacobs at 180lbs. Yes he had a nice uppercut but that was it power wise. He was faster than Jacobs but that's because he was a welterweight. That's really his only advantage over Jacobs. The Jacobs GGG fought is way better. As for Lemieux, Lemieux only lost when he was young because he had stamina issues. Since then he's fixed his training and it hasn't been an issue. Judah being KO'd then beat up right before fighting Floyd is not at all the same as Lemieux gassing against Rubio when he was 21 years old. Judah had not 1 loss like Jacobs, but three losses including a KO before Floyd fought him. He now has 9 losses and most came shortly before or after Floyd fought him, not when he was old. Lost to Baldomir and Clottey. The David Lemieux of the last few years is above the level of those guys.
As for Victor Ortiz, he is not in the same league as Jacobs or Lemieux lol. Jacobs has been KO'd once 8 years ago the week his grandmother died by an elite fighter. Lemieux gassed out when he was a kid. But Ortiz has been KO'd many times by fighters much less talented than Pirog.
Castillo? Well Castillo beat Floyd the first time in a much more decisive way than some claim Jacobs beat GGG, so that's #1, and #2, he had already been KO'd 4 times before fighting Floyd. FOUR TIMES. And he didn't have the speed, reach, or one punch power of Jacobs.
So how can ANYONE say Floyd ever fought a top prime opponent? Are you kidding me? Floyd fans have to list a fevered dead man walking, and a guy who had been KO'd FOUR TIMES before hand, and a guy who had just lost to Carlos Baldomir, as his best wins, because there's literally nothing better to list?
That's exactly my point. The truth is Floyd ducked and cherry picked his whole career, then bragged about it, but some people still buy a FANTASY he created because he's an enthusiastic, convincing liar. Maybe he believes his own lies, or maybe he's just that good. But when we look at all the supposed best wins of his that people bring, they are all illusions. Like "Oh how amazing he was against Corrales. That was the young Floyd! The Pretty Boy Floyd! We all know Money May was a joke, but that guy, that was a real fighter! That guy really dominated!" but just like always with Floyd, it turns out to be bull****. He just relies on people not having good enough memories, or the fact many of his current fans did not even watch boxing back then.
It's a total illusion, a lie, a double standard relying on people's ignorance. I mean just stop and think for a minute how many I assume Floyd and Ward fans tried to discredit Jacobs as a GGG opponent because he was KO'd once against an elite fighter 8 years ago, but then they bring up Floyd's wins over Castillo as some sort of accomplishment, even though Castillo had been KO'd four times and Floyd still lost (unofficially) to him the first time. How is that consistent? How is that logical at all lol?
This is why boxing is a joke. It reflects a large segment of the sport's fans. We reap what we sow. You have these ignorant fans on one hand saying GGG was "exposed" against Jacobs, but on the other hand, Floyd Mayweather (officially almost, in reality definitely) lost a fight to someone who has been KO'd four times already, yet they hold Floyd as this pinnacle of greatness, this unsolvable puzzle who was never "exposed." Yet in reality he has at least two performances where he performed worse, against worse opposition, than GGG did against Jacobs: Castillo I and Maidana I. Sure Floyd did better the second time but those guys aren't half as talented as Jacobs, so it shouldn't have ever come to that.
So it's crazy to me to see people criticize GGG's resumé when he now has the two best wins of either his or Floyd's entire career, in Lemieux and Jacobs. Obviously Floyd has bigger names like Canelo (drained at 152), Cotto (already beaten to a pulp by two separate guys, still gave Floyd a tough fight), Pacquiao (old and Floyd still barely stunk out a low activity decision), but those two wins by GGG when they happened, against opponents in their prime at their very best, are better than anything Floyd has ever done.
I mean, you can argue 37 year old Pacquiao would still beat a fighter like David Lemieux in the same weight class, but are you sure? It's been ages since Pacquiao took out a fast power combination bombthrower like that. He hasn't even fought anyone like that since Cotto lol. And as for Canelo, there are plenty of people who think Lemieux beats a fully hydrated Canelo at 160, so Lemieux against the drained Canelo that Floyd fought would not even be a contest.
The only other guy is Cotto at 154 after he lost badly to Pacquiao and Margarito, but before Roach trained him, so basically the low point of his career. He might have beaten a Lemieux, or he might have gotten knocked the **** out by a Margarito-style fighter with better hand speed and more power, but worse reach, chin, and stamina. So like I said, it could have gone either way. It would have been a hell of a fight if they were both the same size. But Cotto definitely wouldn't have beaten Jacobs. We already saw him lose wide to a lesser version of Jacobs in certain respects named Austin Trout, who is a bit craftier than Jacobs but far less big, athletic, and powerful.
This is why in my opinion, Floyd's entire resumé is smoke and mirrors, illusion, and GGG, just by virtue of being willing to fight the best, already has the best wins between the two, despite the fact GGG was ducked by the top names for most of his career, which is the exact opposite of Floyd's situation. Everyone wanted a fight with Floyd. He had what GGG could only dream of: choice of any top opponents he wanted. But he always chose the easiest one, at the right time. GGG isn't like that, so when the top opponents finally came calling, he was willing to fight them right away, at their best, unlike Floyd was ever willing to do. So once the opportunity finally came and GGG won, he already had the best win of either of their careers.
Because he was actually willing to fight in those circumstances. Floyd never, ever was. Beating Canelo at 152, and pulling Marquez up 11 pounds might look like good wins to casuals, just like Canelo beating Khan did, or hell you may as well give GGG credit for beating the name Kell Brook then too, if weight doesn't matter anymore. But in reality we as hardcore fans are supposed to know better. And that's why when you really look into it, Floyd's career is smoke and mirrors. He avoided Pacquiao for a reason. He is talking that he could dominate GGG but only fighting a UFC fighter Connor Mcgregor for a reason. He's used his big talk, and gullible fans, to avoid threatening his opponents his entire career.
It's how he always got credit for beating guys without ever having to beat them. To the hardcore fans out there who were there, remember when that always used to happen lol? We'd want to fight a top challenge for once, like Paul Spaddy or Williams or so many others, but his fans, parroting him, would always go, "Oh no he doesn't have to fight that guy. We all know he'd win anyway! I mean did you see what he did to Diego Corrales???? Corrales is way better than that guy, so that guy wouldn't stand a chance anyway!"
Of course, just like with all the other supposed great wins in his career, we now know the real story. Beating a fevered corpse Diego Corrales is not a top win. Beating old Oscar DLH with a bum shoulder is not a top win. Pulling up Ricky Hatton from 140 with a seven inch reach disadvantage is not a top win. No **** he got caught with a check hook, that's what happens when you give up over a half foot in reach to a naturally heavier man lol. Pulling Marquez up from 135 against Diaz to 146 pounds the next fight is not a top win. Barely beating old Pacquiao is not a top win. Beating drained Canelo is not a top win, or at least it's impossible to know. Beating twice KO'd Miguel Cotto at the low point of his career is not a top win, although it's still basically the closest Floyd has to one, along with Canelo maybe or maybe not, we will never know. He certainly looked slow and weak all fight. How much of that was the weight, how much was Floyd?
We'll never know for sure, so the best we can do is ask Floyd himself, and Floyd went on record many times that Pacquiao was a fraud, a "catchweight king," because he didn't fight Margarito or Cotto at his comfortable weight, and that it's impossible for fighters to have energy or be anywhere near their best when they have to drain themselves to make the weight. So it's not just my own subjective eye test that tells me Canelo was drained and that that wasn't a great win in practice. All I'm doing is applying Floyd's own words, and his own standards, to that fight. He's the fighter, not me. He's the one who would know. And he was very, very clear about this. If anyone wants to find the full quote, it was in lead up to the Cotto fight, when someone asked him why he was fighting Cotto at 154.
So I truly believe Floyd's career is smoke and mirrors, and that the nickname "haters" have given him, Fraud IVIayweather, is actually more accurate than most realize. I really do think, adjusting for size, that Jacobs and Lemieux would give any of Floyd's opponents trouble at the time Floyd fought them. Personally I believe the only thing left to debate is, does this mean GGG's resumé is underrated, or is it just as simple as Floyd's being totally overrated? In my opinion it's both, but I want to hear your thoughts!
Comment