Who's greater? Duran or Mayweather Jr?

No I didn't miss that at all. However you said going 1-1 with Charlo would boost his resume.

You made the argument for me.

But going undefeated doesn't make you great, otherwise you would be saying Ottke and Menayothin are greats also.

 

At ringside only one had it a draw, the rest for Floyd: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Floyd_Mayweather_Jr._vs._Marcos_Maidana

 

Beating any name opponent would boost anyone's resume no matter how great the resume already is. That's common sense. Are you slow? If Mayweather came out of retirement and beat Charlo without losing the first fight people would just shift the goal post and say "well why don't you move up to light heavy and fight Beterbiev?".

Losing to Charlo and then beating him only enhances his legacy when he beats Charlo, not when he gets his ass kicked the first time.

You apparently lack reading comprehension. Ive said it multiple times already. Mayweather consistently beat ranked opponents over a long stretch of time while remaining undefeated. It isn't that simply being undefeated in and of itself makes him great--just like someone with a high KO% doesn't mean much unless they are consistently knocking out ranked opponents. The comparisons to Ottke and Menayothin are stupid and you yourself admitted it.

The purpose of boxing is to defeat your opponent and become a champion. Floyd did that and was never defeated. That enhances his greatness. There is no logical argument you can make to claim being undefeated doesn't enhance a boxer's legacy.

 

Ten pages. Ten (10).

Vote stands currently at 104 votes for Duran and 22 votes for Mayweather Jr.

 

I'm not on about what other people would say. I am saying if he was 51-1 with a victory and defeat to Charlo who's the unified champ, its a better legacy than being 50-0. You agreed with me, so in this case being undefeated isn't a legacy enhancement.

No, you just spewing emotional nonsense without actually reading what I write. I've never once said Mayweather isn't great, I said being undefeated doesn't make you great. You agreed with me on that as well, so in this case we don't refer to Menayothin or Ottke as greats.

You've already agreed with me on a resume improving despite losing a fight. But I'll give you another argument. In which of these two scenarios is Ottke considered greater

A) Ottke retires in 2004 unbeaten.

B) Ottke goes 1-1 with Calzaghe in 2002 to unify the WBO and IBF. He then goes 1-1 with Kessler in 2003 to unify the WBO, IBF, WBA, WBC. In 2004 he fights his mandatory as he did in real life and announces his immediate retirement.

In scenario A he's an unbeaten unified champ retiring at 34-0

In scenario B he's a unified champ retiring at 36-2.

Imo the undefeated version does not have have an enhanced legacy.

 

People are idiots. They just regurgitate the same nonsense they hear others say. Even when presented with visual proof, they just ignore it.

Mayweather was a champ for nearly 20 years and retired the biggest star in the sport and undefeated. Duran was excellent for 10 years, and was basically ordinary to garbage for practically the next 20 YEARS!

When did Mayweather EVER - in 20 years in the sport - look like that in the ring? And Duran fought for another 10 years AFTER this fight.

This content is protected

 

Nonsense. Mayweather cherry picked fighters years out of their prime based on names. Gifted fighter to be sure, but a much more gifted matchmaker.

When you talk about being the greatest ever, as Mayweather does, the goalposts shift. Breaking Rocky Marciano’s 49-0 record wasn’t enough, no one says the Brockton Blockbuster is the greatest heavyweight of all time, despite the fact he retired unbeaten.

No, the very greatest fighters stretch themselves, by either seeking out the most dangerous opponents in their prime, or moving up the divisions to cement their legacy.

Mayweather jr waited six years so that he could face a much less supersonic version of the Pacquiao who tore through Ricky Hatton, Miguel Cotto and Antonio Margarito.

Meanwhile, Oscar de la Hoya that Mayweather beat had lost two of his previous four contests (and one of the wins, against Felix Sturm, was widely disputed).

Cotto and Shane Mosley were also past their peaks when – after years of trying – they finally stepped into the ring with Mayweather. He is a classy fighter, sure. But he is a clever matchmaker, too.

Aren’t you the same fool who said Wilder would knock out Fury in the first round in the rematch? My friend you might want to open your mind to the idea that you could be wrong.

 

You're a bigger block head than I initially thought.

Beating an additional skilled ranked opponent is going to enhance anyone's legacy even if it's already great, wether they're undefeated or not. This is common ****ing sense. If Michael Jordan stayed one more year with the bulls and won another ring OBVIOUSLY winning 7 rings is better than 6, even if he lost one finals appearance in the process.

You aren't saying anything remotely astute. It's literally common sense.

What I'm saying that you are either too hard headed or too stubborn to comprehend is that if you beat all of your opponents that is a sign of greatness, period. Beating every opponent is better than losing and then making a comeback. Sure, it's exciting to watch an amazing come back in sports but setting the record straight the first time is even better.

With your Ottke example, I agree that beating a skilled opponent enhances your legacy. 36 wins is better than 32 wins wether that includes 1 loss, 5 losses, or 0 losses. Are you with me so far? Do I need to slow down?

Ok.

Now if Ottke came out of retirement and went to 36-0 having beaten Calzaghe without getting a single loss that would be better than 36-1-1 having an epic trilogy where he suffers a loss and a draw with Calzaghe. The 36-0 record is clearly superior to the 36-1-1 record.

Getting your ass kicked and bouncing back doesn't give fighter A extra hot sauce on his resume above fighter B if the comparisons are close. Beating everyone you face the first time is better than needing multiple attempts.

Being undefeated does make a fighter greater if they are consistently facing ranked opponents for a long stretch of time. You can keep trying to cop out repeating your autistic 12 year old catch phrase "yOu MaDe ThE aRgUmEnT fOr Me" if you want. But until you actually explain how beating everyone you face somehow doesn't make you great I will just keep clowning you.

Again the purpose of boxing and sports in general is to defeat your opponents. If you defeat every opponent and are never defeated that is a sign of greatness--on the condition you are facing good opponents.

 

I never said I was saying anything astute. I made the original statement "being undefeated doesn't make you great" you chose to respond to that. I gave you two examples of undefeated fighters who were not great. You then changed the goal posts to being undefeated will always enhance a legacy, I gave you two examples were that isn't the case.

You have made a lot of my arguments for me, but here's another one.

You've literally just said "But until you actually explain how beating everyone you face somehow doesn't make you great I will just keep clowning you"

To explain, I give you one word "Menayothin"

 

And i already addressed Menayothin. Twice.

You really are slow.

Go read my post again. I said "on the condition that the undefeated fighter is consistently beating skilled opponents, an undefeated record enhances their legacy even more".

Menayothin didn't consistently beat skilled opponents. Therefore, being undefeated doesn't enhance his resume all that much.

In Floyd's case it does. He has literally fought nothing but belt holders or ranked opponents for 90% of his career. That is impressive to remain undefeated facing that kind of competition. This isn't rocket science so I don't get what you're disagreeing with.

You can disagree with what I wrote, but you cannot accuse me of shifting the goal post or being illogical. I've made myself very clear several times. No one else I respond to seems to have this problem but you! Even people who vehemently disagree with me!

 

@lufcrazy

This was LITERALLY my very first post responding to you. Notice the bolded section?

I NEVER wrote that being undefeated automatically makes someone great, I said it CAN make you great. Bringing up Menayothin and Ottke is pointless.

You keep accusing me of not responding to what you actually wrote and arguing against points you never made but thats exactly what you've been doing for 2 pages! Talk about a lack of self awareness.

 

It's not so much that I'm being slow, it's that you gave a direct question asking me to explain how being undefeated isn't enough to make someone great, when I answered you didn't like it and shifted the goal post. When you then said being undefeated will always enhance a legacy I gave examples where that wasn't the case neither.

Your clarity is most certainly in doubt.

The original post of mine you quoted said "Being undefeated doesn't mean you are great.

It just means that either you got the benefit of doubt in close fights or you never fought anyone good enough to beat you."

A lot of what you have said doesn't really respond to what I wrote, the bits that did respond and were answered then had big shifts in goal posts.

 

@Glass City Cobra "I NEVER wrote that being undefeated automatically makes someone great, I said it CAN make you great. Bringing up Menayothin and Ottke is pointless."

Also @Glass City Cobra "But until you actually explain how beating everyone you face somehow doesn't make you great I will just keep clowning you"

Talk about illogical.

 

Nonsense? What part? That Mayweather was a champ for nearly 20 years or that Duran was ordinary to bad for 20 years?

And I'm pretty sure Pat Lawlor was a cherry pick. (LOL) I'm pretty sure Kirkland Laing was, too.

When did Mayweather ever quit because of a punch to the armpit, and then waive the same arm around when the ref and doctor stopped it because of his complaints?

Duran was an embarrassment in the ring for the better part of 20 years. Should I post more lowlights from Duran? There are TONS out there. Almost 20 years worth.

Whereas Mayweather retired on the top of the sport. None of that is disputable.

What are Mayweather's worst performances? Do any involve his corner carrying him semi-conscious back to his corner? (LOL) Do any involve him quitting against club fighters?

Mayweather was greater. Not even close.

 

And I already explained myself with the quote you literally just posted. The one where I wrote that you must consistently beat good fighters. I've said this about 10x now and we still haven't gotten past stage 1.

You can keep playing word games if you want, or you can (taking a page out of your book) respond to what I am actually writing and claiming:

Being undefeated makes you great on the condition that you are facing good fighters.

There.

That's it.

Thats been my stance from the very beginning. Nothing ever changed wether you realize it or not. Either agree or disagree. If you disagree explain why. I'm not responding to anything else.