So Mayweather is essentially retired...

So you load up a video of 38 year old Mayweather and prime Whitaker?

 

Floyd wasn't 38 when he fought Corrales.

 

Better is what suits you. The beauty of every list is in the eye of the beholder.

Clearly some people have better resumes and some don't, but the reality is when debates like those drag on I find myself losing patience with it. I prefer watching fights than studying fighters.

I agree though, more fun, less better.

I know Jones Jr isn't the 3rd greatest fighter in history but I love watching him fight. I don't need to convince anyone if my list other than myself though and as long as I enjoy it, I'm cool with that.

 

Castillo is a good notch and Floyd beat him both times with no stink over 'em as far as I'm concerned, beating an injury the first time, and I take nothing from Floyd at SFW. He was a superb SFW.

It does detract the fact he basically payed for the right of fighting overweight.

No, but certainly doesn't improve either considering Cotto took the title from a knee shot middle-aged man, two years after he fought Floyd, after he started training with Roach (Cotto didn't ruffled any feathers after Floyd until he sparked Delvin Rodriguez.), and Alvarez took the title from Cotto himself, with 3 years of experience after he fought Floyd (That you could say was the first real challenge Canelo faced. Shane was 41, and Trout didn't cause any shockwaves besides upsetting Cotto.)

And like I said before don't try to push 'em as lineal champions.

F*ck lineage. Nobody can claim to be THE MW champion until they passed through you know who.

Getting a belt by pushing down a 39 years old man on sh*tty knees, by itself, means sh*t.

Getting a belt by beating another JMW 10 years older that got a belt by pushing down a 39 year old man on sh*tty knees, by itself, means sh*t.

I don't have a problem with Floyd over Pea or vice versa. But quit padding.

 

I rate Mayweather as a great Jr. Lightweight and top 10 Lightweight and Welterweight, and also as one of the great defensive fighters of all time. He also did a tremendous job marketing himself and making a lot of money. I think he would have given a lot of all time greats fits because he was hard to hit cleanly.

I would not rate him above the likes of Leonard, Hearns, Duran, etc. But the next level below that I would.

 

I think Mayweather clearly exceeded Hearns. Hearns lost too many of the big ones (and little ones considering the Barkley fights). His best wins (Benitez, past-it Duran, Cuevas, Hill) aren't really enough imo considering the manner of his loses and who he lost to.

 

I definitely see the appeal of that. But I feel like judging accomplishments is easier than picking who would win in a fight. We've all been so so wrong so many times picking fights, so why would we be any more accurate in fantasy H2H matches? Plus level of opposition clouds perception of abilities. Broner looks great beating up DeMarco. Only to become a lower level contender once he moved up in weight and got beaten twice by rough fighters. Plus, as biased as the evaluation of a resume can be, I think looking at two tapes and deciding who "looks better" is even more vulnerable to that.

Not knocking your ranking system btw, just explaining why I'm of the opposite approach.

 

Lineage matters. Cotto defeated the reigning champion, who had yet to lose his crown to that point in spite of showing signs of wear and tear. He did so, as a pronounced underdog, two fights after being written off following a bad loss. That's not something that can, or should be dismissed outright.

Cotto did something pretty remarkable, even if he didn't get around to facing the very best middleweight on the planet. You may think that means nothing, but he'll be remembered as lineal champion, even if he happened to be an unlikely one.

 

I love Cotto's win over Martinez. I was there. Magic night. Perfect plan.

But that doesn't mean Floyd beat a prime Cotto, or a Roach-trained Cotto at Middleweight. Still one of Floyd's best wins though.

 

Easier yes. But not as interesting to me.

Ultimately it comes down to would I rather study a resume or watch a fight and the answer is the latter.

I used to love studying records and I built a database on every HOF fighter but it was mentally draining. And for every fighter I researched there's another fighter waiting to be reached and another after that. It just never ends. What began as a passion became a chore.

That's why I changed my approach because watching fights is why I got into this sport and ultimately what difference does it make to me if someone thinks my ranking is ****, what difference does it make to life or to the fighters themselves. I'd rather have natural rankings that reflect my view of the sport.

And yes, Jones Jr does not have the resume to match certain greats but I would favour him to beat them and that's reflected in how I rank the fighters.

 

I feel you on that. I think ultimately, there are two different questions.

Who is greater?

and

Who is better?

Not the same thing.

 

No disrespect to Cotto. I like Cotto a lot. But as a scalp, that Martinez don't count. We're not talking about the usual ring wear or age. His knee was f*cked. He wasn't a technical marvel to begin with, his legs were always the key ingredient and he could barely move right. By the time of the stoppage he was falling by himself. He had nothing left.

 

Pedro Diaz>Freddie Roach

 

Greatness is hard to define.

People can rank on resume, achievement, skill level and other attributes. Sole are much stronger weighted depending upon the individual doing the rankings.

For me I'm sticking with skill level for now for reasons already stated.