What's the best argument against FMJ being the greatest?

Ok. Alexis Arguello. What Mayweather opponent could have beaten him at 130?
Manfredy? Diego? Hernandez?
Mayweather traded to be a legend for money and fame.
Weight clauses. Glove brands and sizes.
He had to have some kind of advantage.
Canelo beat Hearns? Not even on Hearns worst night.
Who has Canelo Knocked out with one punch Recently?
You can have your MANUFACTURED legends. They can point to their glossy records and say how they were "unbeaten" and how great they were.
Ill take a Hearns or Leonard who had the burning desire to prove they were the best and PROVED it time and time again.
Canelo shouldnt even be mentioned in the same breathe as a Hearns.
Hearns came up hard. Nothing was given to him- he took it. Canelo sells tickets hes an investment who is protected.
Hell he couldnt even take GGG fairly the first time- had to be bailed out with a "draw".
Mayweather vs prime Jones at 154? Jones runs him over. And Mayweather wouldnt even take that fight- too "risky".
Oscar was a 100 years old when he came back to face Mayweather. And yet Mayweather won a CLOSE decision.
Hearns/Leonard would have CRUSHED him in that state and I cringe at what a Duran would have done to Oscar.
Mayweather is a great fighter no question. But he isnt even close to a Leonard,Hearns,Arguello.
And its his fault.

 

And let me explain this myth to you.
If you have a glass jaw your going to get found out.
Your not going to go all the way to the olympics,win multiple titles- face heavyweights and not get hit ONE time.
Somebody is going to land on you and of ypur chin is GLASS its going to shatter.
You really think in 12 rounds Toney or Hopkins NEVER landed ONE hard punch on Jones?
NOBODY is that good.
I actually got to see Jones spar up close.
And he was amazing- it wasnt just his speed he could crack as well. And guess what? He got hit.

 

Are you really asking which of Floyd's opponents beat the widely considered number 2 in history at 130lbs. You don't apply this same standard to other fighters but Corrales is probably the nearest to Arguello in terms of ability and likely gives him a good contest. Corrales is a legendry boxer in his own right

Pacquaio and Marquez could probably beat Arguello but those fights happened above 130lbs.

Hearns got ko'd 3 times by Leonard, Hagler and Barkley and I pick Alvarez as a bigger puncher than Leonard for sure. We can't say anything for sure but if Alvarez gets to mid range or close range he could well dismantle Hearns. Who knows, it's hard enough predicting fights in our own era. Alvarez has just ko'd Kovalev at 175lbs and has tons of KOs at 154

As for Alvarez not being mentioned in the same breath as Hearns, he's actually arguably had a better career. He's a champion at 154, lineal at 160 and 175 with only 1 career loss. They both faced a MW great, one won a close controversial decision, the other got taken out in 2 rounds.

Also Delahoya was 34, while Floyd was 30 himself. Delahoya picked the weight class, the gloves and the ring. Floyd earned the right to do the same when he became the draw. Much like Ray Leonard did so against Hagler and Lalonde. Also you talk about manufactured careers, how did the Hearns-McCallum/Kalambay/Graham fights play out? Oh they didn't because they were too high risk.

And are you seriously asking how a 154lb 5'11 Roy Jones head to head nightmare for everyone in history would do against a 150lb Mayweather? Obviously Jones wins he's bigger and arguably (by me) better.

 

Resume wise Floyd might have the best one since Leonard (even though at least Pac and Roy are in the discussion as well). And I think you can make a case for him above Leonard and above Duran too (actually, I think the "No Mas" might put Duran behind Floyd, it's that bad).

It gets harder when you compare it to Robinson, Charles and the guys. I can't really see a case for Floyd here.

As for the eye test, which is of course highly subjective, I'd have at least Roy ahead of him. Probably Whitaker and Duran as well, but hard to say. Leonard is in the discussion, definitely, as is Sanchez. Haven't seen enough of Charles, Pep, Robinson etc due to lack of footage and find it a bit hard to compare to HWs such as Louis and Ali.

 

My personal opinion is while Charles and Robinson are clearly the best of their eras if boxing progressed as you got more world class ex pros training young up coming fighters. Which in there time you had less of. Guys like George Benton, Eddie Futch, Archie Moore, Emanuel Steward, Mayweather brothers all passing their knowledge on is a huge advantage that most 40s fighters didn't have.

They were asking Jeff Mayweather about Robinson and he said he though he was wild, not that skilled and he threw his punches with his elbow too far back. Meaning that Robinsons punches were telegraphed and easier to counter. I don't guys like Lamotta look good on film at all.

Obviously PEDs, supplements and training knowledge have also been advantages boxers of the last 30 years have had.

 

There was no need to repeat, really. I know your position and I've put forward a reasonable case for why I think differently.

If you believe that four years of ring wear, including two hellacious beatings, that took him further away from his prime and to a weight division, in which he'd made no real impression, are not significant factors in comparing a match between him and Mayweather 2008/2012, then I don't know what else to say.

Suggesting 154 was slightly better for Cotto, based on how much weight he didn't need to lose? Sorry - But, this seems to be you missing the point entirely.

Moreover, it forgets the fact that Cotto was seeking a catchweight of 150lbs in his rematch against Margarito - the fight before Mayweather.

Also - your view of Mayweather's conservatism in "output and aggression" doesn't seem to add up. Floyd was, in the main, a very selective puncher throughout his career. But, from what I saw, he was easily throwing the kind of leather at Cotto that he'd thrown at Oscar - probably a substantial amount more.

What I actually mentioned was that "the scores [belied] how close the rounds were" in their actual fight.

Just about every post-fight report saw a comfortable UD win for Mayweather, but acknowledged that it had been a very competitive fight and one of, if not the toughest bouts Mayweather had fought in.

To read your remark on the match here, one could be forgiven for taking away thoughts of Cotto having been a walkover for Mayweather. This was not the case. Cotto acquitted himself admirably and looked nothing like the seven-to-one underdog he'd entered the ring as.

A quote from of Sports Illustrated - 6 May 2012:

"

This content is protected

"


I don't think anyone has said Cotto was "shot" in 2012, but I think there's sufficient reason to consider that a 2008, Welterweight version of Cotto was at his peak and could have forced an even more competitive bout with Mayweather. You disagree and that's fine. I just can't see your points arguing to the contrary, as being that convincing.

 

I think you have a point here, but you seem to be answering to where I compared resumes. Even if the skill level in boxing has increased since Robinson's time, that doesn't effect his resume. You can only fight those that are active at the same time as you and Robinson did as well as anyone against his contemporaries.

Just as I don't judge Di Stefano, Pele and Best on how well they would hypothetically have done against modern defences, I don't judge SRR, Charles etc on how well they hypothetically would have done against the best of today. Only on how well they actually did do against those that were there to fight.

 

I can accept this is a reasonable position. For me though I like to consider who was the actual best.

If you're going by resume alone though I think Robinson is hurt by the fact he didn't face Burley. I think Charles rates higher for this reason if you're doing it solely by resume. But on another note I think Robinson was more talented than Charles.

 

You don't think the fight happening when Floyd was younger and faster would of been advantagous to him?

 

1. Yeah, I know you meant that the rounds that went to Floyd were close, I just don't agree. They were typical (older ) Floyd rds in that he was enough in control to make it clear who won them. I felt it was pretty competitive when I watched it live (but not close as such), but have revised that opinion on later viewings. Floyd's nose blood and the fact that Cotto was definitely more in it than he was against Pac might have got my excitement up when I watched it live, but since then I just see a veteran with somewhat ageing legs knowing exactly which rds to take a bit of a rest and which ones to get more busy.

2. That Cotto wanted 150 instead of 154 against Margarito just drives home my point. Margo was probably around 170 at least in the ring at that time so every extra pound Cotto made him drain would be to Cotto's advantage. If you're the smaller fighter in the ring (in terms of weight) you will be favoured by a lower limit.

This principle is of course valid for Cotto and Floyd as well, but I don't think the difference in weight between them was big enough to make any real difference. But if it made a difference, the higher weight was of course also in this case in favour of the heavier fighter in the ring (Cotto). Just as a lower weight like 150 would be in his favour against Margarito, who was much heavier in the ring.

 

I will agree so far as to say that Robinson's resume would be even stronger with a win over Burley.

 

Fair enough. I take the cup is half full view, as did most of the press (as opposed to your half empty view).
Truth is, you can give props to both fighters for this bout, without taking away from either of them.

But that wasn't your point.

My point, in regards to weight has been, throughout, that Cotto was a better Welterweight than he was a Super Welterweight. His results in the respective divisions are evidence enough of that.

 

Yes, it has been all along.

Both were better at WW. Nothing strange with that. Cotto was never more than a WW (perhaps even a bit on the small side) in terms of weight and Floyd even a bit smaller than that (in terms of weight).

 

It took 14 rounds for Leonard to stop Hearns.
Barkley won fair and Canelo is nowhere near the puncher Barkley was.
Hearns moved up and beat an unbeaten Hill and stopped Andries.
Kov was done by the time of Canelo and everyone knew it. And once Canelo rook the easiest bout at lightheavy he went right back down didnt he?
Canelos biggest test- he failed getting outboxed EASILY.
Now all the sudden hes "great".
Lara fight i thought Canelo lost. Trout was RAZOR rhin decision that you could argue. Mayweather boxed his ears off. So tell who at Jr.middle did Canelo beat that you consider great?

 

At 154 Mayweather aside Lara, Trout and Cotto were the best, with Kirkland and Angulo not far behind and took them all. Khan was a WW champ. Alvarez beat all of these, that's what a great champion does. Lara is an elite all time technician. Lara probably landed more head shots, Alvarez landed the bigger more damaging punches.

Also the whole Golvokin controversy is somewhat off base because Alvarez was landing the more accurate flashy stuff.