Is Mayweather the best pure boxer since Whitaker ?

I enjoy Mayweather's performances against e.g. Hatton, Corrales - somebody that forces him to work. I just don't like the way that he doesn't push the fight when he doesn't have to.

 

Arnt we forgetting a certain Gavin Rees?

 

In what way?

Talk about going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

 

One of the most fundamentally sound boxers, practising pugilism today is Nikosinathi Joyi.

 

Whitaker used athletic ability. Not everyone can duck and dodge shots like that. He often had his hands down, and Mayweather was superior offensively. If you teach someone to fight like Whitaker they likely won't be able to do it. What he had was a special gift. Floyd on the other hand makes no mistakes.

 

I don't really think Mayweather is necessarily superior offensively at all. For one thing Whitaker threw a LOT more punches per round than Mayweather and I'd say he was much better offensively on the inside as well. In fact I'd say Whitaker is superior or equal offensively to Mayweather in almost every aspect besides handspeed and explosiveness.

 

Were talking strictly pure boxing ability. Name me a fighter who is more textbook than oscar? Everything oscar does, is very technical. Even his combinations, so smooth and crisp. His jab, so perfect. Oscar had his flaws, but pure boxing was not one of them.

 

Hm, that´s an interesting wordplay. I wouldn´t say Mayweather equals Brazil though. It´s more Spain these days. Highly effective and technically perfect but boring at times and at the moment the best in the world.

 

It pains me to say it, but YES!:|

MR.BILL

 

I just don't think the words 'best', and 'Oscar De La Hoya' can be put together in any context of boxing. Maybe he had the best jab for a few years, but then no, Ike Quartey nipped that in the bud. We really must have to agree to disagree right off the bat, because i can't see how his combinations were perfect. At the lighter weights, he was standing at a range that suited him against usually shorter men, and smashed the **** out of them. I don't rate his combinations anywhere near the best i've seen on film in a technical sense. Maybe i'm jumping the gun a bit, because i don't know if that's what you're saying. If you're saying he's better than good or even great to a degree as a technician then i agree. If you're wanting to put him up with the best technicians then we're from singing from the same hymn sheet. I think his jab was very great in his prime, and even after his prime, he had a great left hook, and his combination punching improved as he matured as a 154 pound fighter in my opinion. We can pick performances here and there to represent our arguments in any old debate, but the true measure of any boxer's attribute is consistency. Without using consistency as a measure of performance we're able to say Ricardo Mayorga was a smooth boxer because he displayed that once or twice. Oscar doesn't rank anywhere where i can use the word 'best' in my book. Bernard Hopkins was twice the boxer he ever wished to be.

 

Haha, this thread is sporting great lyrics, good post.

 

Whitaker beat much better fighters at higher weights ... Floyd is not Sweet Pea ..

 

No.

 

It's a lot more plausible than Calderon.

 

It may be textbook, but I feel loathe to call anyone with that lack of upper-body movement a perfect technician.