Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would Mayweather Still Be Considered Great If He Had a Loss?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Hed still be an all time great with 2-3 losses

    Comment


    • #12
      It would depend on where the loss was

      Floyd is considered one of the best to ever put on gloves because he was able to maintain his excellence for an unheard of amount of time. Debuted in 1996, was basically on the p4p lists by 1997, and basically stayed there through 2017 (and would arguably still be there now, tbh).

      He's the "Hank Aaron of Boxing"; Roy Jones Jr's peak was likely higher than Floyd's, but Floyd gets mad credit for his longevity.

      Floyd was a champion at 130, 135, 140, 147, and 154lbs (and likely had the skills to pick off belts at 160, too); one loss isn't going to change any of that.

      Outside of Genaro Hernandez beating the ever living dog**** out of Floyd Mayweather and ruining him before he gets started (similar to what James Kirkland did to Glen Tapia), one defeat doesn't change much.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Scipio2009 View Post
        Floyd is considered one of the best to ever put on gloves because he was able to maintain his excellence for an unheard of amount of time. Debuted in 1996, was basically on the p4p lists by 1997, and basically stayed there through 2017 (and would arguably still be there now, tbh).

        He's the "Hank Aaron of Boxing"; Roy Jones Jr's peak was likely higher than Floyd's, but Floyd gets mad credit for his longevity.

        Floyd was a champion at 130, 135, 140, 147, and 154lbs (and likely had the skills to pick off belts at 160, too); one loss isn't going to change any of that.

        Outside of Genaro Hernandez beating the ever living dog**** out of Floyd Mayweather and ruining him before he gets started (similar to what James Kirkland did to Glen Tapia), one defeat doesn't change much.
        yeah but the question should be how was he able to maintain his "excellence" very careful opponent selection is the answer. hes no hank aaron. please apologize to mr. aaron. longevity is overrated as hell in a sport where you can pick and choose who to fight and when to fight. quality over quantity always is better and he simply doesnt have the quality as other great fighters.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by daggum View Post
          yeah but the question should be how was he able to maintain his "excellence" very careful opponent selection is the answer. hes no hank aaron. please apologize to mr. aaron. longevity is overrated as hell in a sport where you can pick and choose who to fight and when to fight. quality over quantity always is better and he simply doesnt have the quality as other great fighters.
          Keep on hating if you want; no objective person actually believes you.

          From Genaro Hernandez on, Floyd's resume holds up beyond well when compared to the history of the sport.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Scipio2009 View Post
            Keep on hating if you want; no objective person actually believes you.

            From Genaro Hernandez on, Floyd's resume holds up beyond well when compared to the history of the sport.
            how is it hating? he doesnt have wins as good as other great fighters. sure thats my opinion but how can you compare compare past prime guys like mosley, hoya, and pac to prime guys like hearn, benitez, duran, hagler etc...it doesnt hold up when compared to real greats. its actually an insult to compare floyd to real greats like leonard who actually took risks and actually took chances so you are disrespecting them by comparing floyd to them.

            Comment


            • #16
              Avenged losses sometimes add to a fighter's legacy instead of tsking away from it, it shows the fighter's ability to adjust and shows mental strength, immediate rematches where the loser of the first fights win the 2nd are my favorite type wins.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Dip_Slide View Post
                Avenged losses sometimes add to a fighter's legacy instead of tsking away from it, it shows the fighter's ability to adjust and shows mental strength, immediate rematches where the loser of the first fights win the 2nd are my favorite type wins.
                floyd did that with castillo. im sure he knew he lost that one in reality but got saved by boxing politics ward style. castillo wasnt a great fighter though so that hurts losing to him. didnt want to fight stevie johnston but was willing to fight the slower lumbering castillo with 4 ko losses so that backfired on him. after that his level of comp dropped drastically unfortunately. didnt fight another prime top fighter until canelo and that was at a catch weight. yikes.
                Last edited by daggum; 10-22-2017, 10:56 PM.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by daggum View Post
                  how is it hating? he doesnt have wins as good as other great fighters. sure thats my opinion but how can you compare compare past prime guys like mosley, hoya, and pac to prime guys like hearn, benitez, duran, hagler etc...it doesnt hold up when compared to real greats. its actually an insult to compare floyd to real greats like leonard who actually took risks and actually took chances so you are disrespecting them by comparing floyd to them.
                  Well first of all Leonard for examole had a very short peak compared to Mayweather, Leonard had an incredible run at 147 in his first weight class where he was in his early 20s, Floyd might've never fought a Duran or a Hearns but he was at the top waaaaaaay longer and fought through hand injuries and at a weight disadvantage for 20 years without losing, that is CONSISTENCY, LONGEVITY and dedication, that should count for something, plus his incredible ability to make the money he made after being an obscure undercard champion for like 8 years with top rank also deserves a lot of praise imo.

                  When he was at his first weight class in his early 20s he fought the absolute best guys in his division and beat them all easily, stopped all of them, they didn't have the legacies that Hearns and Duran had after the fact but u can only fight the people that were available for u to fight, and he did that and he won despite his experience disadvantage, hand problems and size disadvantage even at 130 lbs.
                  Last edited by Dip_Slide; 10-22-2017, 11:00 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Dip_Slide View Post
                    Well first of all Leonard for examole had a very short peak compared to Mayweather, Leonard had an incredible run at 147 in his first weight class where he was in his early 20s, Floyd might've never fought a Duran or a Hearns but he was at the top waaaaaaay longer and fought through hand injuries and at a weight disadvantage for 20 years without losing, that is CONSISTENCY, LONGEVITY and dedication, that should count for something, plus his incredible ability to make the money he made after being an obscure undercard champion for like 8 years with top rank also deserves a lot of praise imo.

                    When he was at his first weight class in his early 20s he fought the absolute best guys in his division and beat them all easily, stopped all of them, they didn't have the legacies that Hearns and Duran had after the fact but u can only fight the people that were available for u to fight, and he did that and he won despite his experience disadvantage, hand problems and size disadvantage even at 130 lbs.
                    ok thats a lot of excuses but i didnt see any resume comparison in there. bad hands and cherry picking for a long time is comparible to beating all time greats in their prime? not to me anyway.

                    he was at the top because he beat guys like baldomir, old mosley, gatti, etc...while not fighting guys like marg, cotto, pac, etc...and as you know in boxing once you are "at the top" the only way you can fall is by losing and that didnt happen because of level of comp.

                    also the reason they had strong legacies after the fact is because leonard fought them in their prime so that only strengthens my point. you cant create a good legacy after the fact if you are old and shot like a lot of floyds opponents. canelo might do that but guys like pac lost to horn shortyl after losing to floyd which kind of shows how past it they were. guys like corrales and castillo did most of their best work after losing to floyd so hes lucky in that regard. they didnt turn out to be great but if they had flopped wow his resume would be piss poor.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Better

                      had he lost to castillo on the cards he would not have lived off protecting his record and cherry picking

                      without the 0 to worry about, he fights Pac earlier and beats him in his prime. That was the defining fight of this era and it was fought way too late

                      Losing to Castillo would have done wonders to his career. Imagine that, he fights Pac after Pac vs. Cotto!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP