Could Mayweather have made it to the top during the era of Sugar Ray, Hagler, and Hearns?

Ray fought Benitez in 1979, Cervantes & Pryor fought in 1980. Duran fought Ray in 1980. Ray fought Hearns in 1981. (Cervantes continued to fight on until 1983). Knowing Floyd, he could have "cherry picked" an old Cervantes. Knowing Ray, he could have "cherry picked" a young Floyd in 1980 era.

 

Ok. Match them up however. (Ray retired in '82, then returned briefly in '84. As a WW, he really never got over the Hearns fight that damaged his eye. The Hagler fight was in '87)

 

Thanku brother and no need to apologize

 

Is Floyd vs Hagler one of the proposed fights?
See Hagler vs Caveman Lee:

This content is protected

 

While I don't think FMJ would have any chance against Hagler, in all fairness, Caveman Lee was on heroin in that fight. Not joking, he actually tested positive for it after the fight.

 

No SRR and his dynamite left hook,especially trippled up on would be way worse than Hearns. Robinson Ko 4 over mayweather. Hearns KO 8 after a super interesting fight.

 

Good info. Thanks. Caveman "explaining" the cocaine bad test result:
http://tss.ib.tv/articles-of-2010/11657-tss-where-are-they-now-caveman-lee
SM: Tell me about the failed drug test after the fight.
WL: I really did dry up for that fight. A guy that was working for one of the big promoters offered to urinate for me because I just didn’t feel like doing it after what had just happened. I thought he was a friend. He urinated for me and it came back dirty. I didn’t know the true consequences of it. I wouldn’t have been dirty. Before fights I put all that stuff aside.

SM: What years were you in prison?
WL: 1984-86, 1991-93 and 1994-2006. The cocaine got hold of me and I should have known better. I started experimenting with it and it just didn’t stop. Thank God I’m still here talking to you.

 

Agreed, with Duran ,Leonard, Cuevas, Hearns, Benetiz around Floyd would have stayed at most 140.

 

Man people love the hate Floyd lol. Not a fan myself but over the last few years my eyes beat my heart in evaluating him. I find Hagler a bit of a reach and don’t see that fight happening....
However I do see him battling Duran for the rights to move up and fight SRL. I think he rules under 140 along with Duran. I think he holds his own with SRL Hearns and Benitez. Beating Benitez....not sure he matches up good with Hearns and think Hearns narrowly outpoints him...The SRL fights would be epic...I lean towards Floyd but could easily see SRL or a split.

Not a Floyd fan by any stretch, but I don’t understand how people don’t see him being great in any era.

This era would be remembered as 5 kings were he a part of it

 

Because he doesn't have ONE Great win against another ATG in their prime .. And he had only 45 fights in 18 year of healthy boxing .. Sal Sanchez had 45 fights in 7 years .. as an example .. Look you can't just throw another 45 fights on his CV and assume he would have been successful and great in all eras, let alone his own , it just dosent work that way .. Could you imagine Floyd relying on the pot shotting and shoulder rolls up against the ropes with his average power? In other eras with 80-120 plus fights, he is a joe nobody .. he would get thrown up against the ropes and mauled

 

Of course he would have been a top fighter in any era. He may not have beaten Robinson, Leonard and (especially) Hearns… but he certainly wouldn't be just another journeyman in any era.

 

When comparing different eras, you seem to put a lot of emphasis on the number of fights (often very few in this era) boxers have during their careers.

So how do you feel about arguably the 3 best boxers today (Lomachenko, Usyk, Inoue) all having had less than 20 pro fights? And if we time-machined them (as they are today) back to when boxers had a lot more fights, would they be able to hold their own against the top men...or would the lack of pro experience relegate them to journeyman-status?