Why is Mayweather not the greatest of all time?

But its not factual, is it? We have had some pretty parlous (in comparison) heavyweight champs. I have no problem with 'casual fans', lots of us might have started off as casual fans. There is a romance about the heavyweights, of course there is, they are akin to ancient mythical giant warriors to Joe Public working in a 'normal' job, living a 'normal' life, and that is why their success is afforded more 'respect' than other weights. We can all convince ourself we can beat a 10 stone man, but an 18 stone giant?

Slight thread deviation, but it would be interesting to go back and analyse how many times in history the heavyweight champion has actually been the 'best' fighter in boxing...

Thanks for your response, take care man, peace and love, Px

 

Mayweather is the ultimate smoke-and-mirrors master. Undeniably a HOF fighter and one of the greats, but also a phenomenal businessman who knew how to get his own commissions, referees, and yes-men into prominent positions. He perfected the art of the sale and managed to sell a zero on his record as this unattainable golden relic that all fighters should aspire to, which still has huge implications on the sport to this day. He should've lost it in 2002 against Castillo.

His performance against Marquez, on paper, is a 5-star, GOAT performance, but once you peel back the layers and see how he basically forced JM Marquez to fight at a catchweight, this, and some of his other wins, become more questionable. A great, but nowhere near the greatest of all time. The Duran that beat Leonard would've ripped through Mayweather, Leonard would've flattened him, but they're the greatest of the great. Mayweather simply isn't in that bracket.

 

But who would beat the best heavyweight in a boxing match?

In any sport, the best is the one who would be likely to beat all the others, or come out on top in a "round-robin" type schedule.

 

Beating someone simply because you are bigger or stronger does not mean you are a 'better' fighter. To exaggerate a point to make a point, Nico Valuev might lean on and eventually catch Floyd, stopping the much smaller man, but can anyone put their hand on their heart and say Valuev was a better fighter...? A more modern context might be AJ or Fury over Crawford. Nobody would pick either of those as a 'better' fighter, would they? I guess we are now down to quantifying 'best' and thats another can of worms perhaps best left unopened for a time when we have more time to post considered replies!!

 

I don't agree at all.

In theory the best heavyweight beats everyone but predominantly due to size and strength and certainly not skill.

Diminishing returns - there are infinitely more skilled ATG fighters at lower weights because the skill and physical ability at these weights is that much greater.

Look at the skillset of an Ali or a Louis or a Tyson or a Marciano and then compare them with the skills of a Duran or a Robbi or a Pep or a Hagler, then look at workrate and then compare the relative competition that they faced/was around at the same time as them in the same divisions.

HWs are limited in that it is an open weight and thus p4p they traditionally don't rank very highly, in comparison to lighter weight fighters.

 

Superiority in a boxing competition (whether it is 1 fight, or hundreds of fights) is a result of several physical and mental assets.
Why would "size and strength" be downplayed against "skill" ?
In what other sport would we downplay size and strength?
Athletes spend a lot of time developing and maintain strength. Coaches and fans in all sports generally look at size as an asset. Being tall enough to be good in basketball doesn't mean you need to prove any skill, you just need to get results on the court.
If a rugby player had minimal lateral footwork but just steamrolled through the opposition every single time, no one would question it.
Winning is what counts.

 

You mentioned Floyd using saline at age 38, which he was cleared for, while also praising Roy, who tested positive for steroids. Floyd ushered VADA/USADA testing into the sport whereas Roy fought without it. (And Pacquiao was full of corticosteroids for the Floyd fight.)

As for Leonard, Pacquiao is comparable to Duran, Canelo comparable to Hagler, and Corrales comparable to Hearns. Benitez would be lucky to go 1-1 against Cotto and Oscar. Floyd didn’t make great fights against these guys, but beating them clearly is harder. And he parked at 154, coming in under the weight limit. That would be like Leonard having serious run at 175.

It started with people thinking he was green for Hernandez. I can remember when people thought Corrales would beat him, and later laughed when he was a 135 pounder calling out Oscar. I remember the picks for Gatti, Hatton, and even Marquez to beat him. I remember when Mosley landed big shots on him and he turned around and walked Mosley down for the rest of fight. I remember when he won his passing of the torch fight against Canelo. And he capped it off by fighting Pacquiao while past prime and embarrassing him.

Go tell him that he didn’t dare to be great. Maybe you just wanted to see him concussed or taking an L.

 

I am tempted to make a thread asking were people rank Mayweather P4P all time

 

Those are terrible comparisons, each one of the older ones is light years ahead of the modern ones

 

Mayweather could very well be the lowest of the low, with his campaign to clean up the sport whilst cheating on PED's, or do you seriously believe that he, a fighter who never struggled to make weight, was dehydrated enough to require an IV?

 

Like I always say, if he has grown men butthurt and nitpicking the singular feats that only he accomplished, it only shows his greatness.

 

You can’t name a sinngle fighter with more apt comparisons. And Floyd trounces Leonard’s resume as a whole on account of longevity and getting his hand raised. He doesn’t need those four specific fights to be better overall. Although giving up 15 pounds to Canelo at an advanced age and trouncing him does trump beating an aging Hagler in a big ass ring over 12 not 15 with some favorable judging imo.

 

Hagler was three times the boxer they Canelo was. Fast feet, miles better jab, switch hitting. Canelo had one gear, a pretty poor jab relatively speaking. Not to mention one being a southpaw and one orthodox.

Pacquaio is like Duran if you took away his jab, feints, body punching, well if you took about 80% of the skills of Duran you might have Pac. Southpaw and orthodox again.
Duran moves up and beats Leonard, Pac moved up and loses to Morales..

Hearns was far better than Corrales

 

Well no, not if he was a dirty drugs cheat all along after pledging to clean the sport up.

 

He certainly had the greatest, most curated career, catching fighters off weight, off prime, winning every negotiation, then often stinking out the ring with a boring, non-combative style. He too often "played" boxing, which to be able to do is amazing in and of itself but not my qualification for being the greatest boxer.