Pacquiao-Thurman or Mayweather-Canelo: What Is The Greater Win???

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Pakkuman, Jul 30, 2020.



Pacquiao-Thurman or Mayweather-Canelo: What Is The Greater Win???

  1. Pacquiao's Win Over Thurman

  2. Mayweather's Win Over Canelo

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Richmondpete

    Richmondpete Real fighters do road work Full Member

    7,141
    5,004
    Oct 22, 2015
    I'm done with this trivial nonsense. If you can't use your own brain to determine that Mayweather looked amazing vs Canelo and Thurman looked awful vs Lopez I literally cannot help you
     
    iii likes this.
  2. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,320
    Aug 1, 2012
    Why do you have such a problem with me disagreeing with you view of it? This is boxing. And by the way, I agree that Mayweather looked good even amazing vs Canelo. My argument isn't that Mayweather looked bad vs Canelo, my argument is simply that Canelo was more competitive than you are giving him credit for. But we both agree that Mayweather looked great, it was one of his best performances for sure.

    And Thurman, you say he looked awful. I think you're exaggerating. He looked fine to me, but did get caught that one round, struggled a bit, but he was far from looking awful.
     
    Bofo24 likes this.
  3. herbzg

    herbzg Euro-Level Athlete Full Member

    1,829
    169
    Dec 5, 2009
    Mayweathers win Canelo is better and the fact that this is even being debated is mind blowing
     
  4. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,320
    Aug 1, 2012
    The poll is nearly even. Thus far, 45 votes for Pac, 51 votes for May. What's mind blowing to me is how often people act like what they believe is the only way that anyone could possibly believe it. People need to get outside their bubble and realize how subjective all this is. The answer to this question can be argued and examined in a plethora of ways.
     
    Bofo24 and scandcb like this.
  5. m.s.

    m.s. Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,738
    4,801
    Nov 2, 2010
    Canelo was defeated more times than his record indicates, not the other way around.
     
    iii likes this.
  6. m.s.

    m.s. Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,738
    4,801
    Nov 2, 2010
    Canelo should have at least 3 defeats, and as many as five.
     
    iii and George Crowcroft like this.
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,520
    15,575
    Sep 15, 2009
    All you've done here is put words into my mouth with a whole bunch of false arguments.

    Canelo, is clearly superior to Thurman.

    You don't have to agree with me, that's fine. But don't try to create all these false narratives and then attribute them to me.

    For example, the fact there was a catchweight still doesn't change that Canelo had achieved more than Thurman. A drained Canelo is better than a fit Thurman.

    The level of inactivity shown by Thurman is not beneficial at all. His declining performances show this.

    You might think his only true accomplishment is beating Golovkin, but this is a subjective sport. I rate his other victories and achievements, obviously higher than you do. He clearly demonstrated around the time of the Mayweather fight he was the best LMW in the world, this is something Thurman has never been able to do.

    Beating Crawford and Spence, assuming Pacquiao isn't in the picture any more, makes Thurman the unified and undisputed champion. It doesn't matter how you rate the guys he's beaten. It clearly makes him a better fighter than he's perceived to be today.

    I clearly rate Canelo a lot better than you do, again it's a subjective sport, that's fine. Catchweight have been fought since boxings inception. Canelo is and always has been throughout his career, a better fighter and a greater fighter than Thurman. 2 pounds in a catchweight doesn't change that. Beating Canelo at 154 would make the victory even better, but without that it's still better regardless.
     
  8. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,320
    Aug 1, 2012
    @lufcrazy Well we both agree that Canelo is superior to Thurman. He's a bigger puncher, he has better defense, he has more upper body movement, he is a better body puncher. He's a much better all around fighter than Thurman. So we agree on that. However Thurman is a very different type of fighter than Canelo and is very determined to compete at a high level. So despite Thurman's limitations, he still is one of the best pure boxer punchers in the world in my opinion. He has fast feet, fast hands, and is defensively sound for the most part. He's hard to hit, he's rangey, he's awkward. Thurman may not be as well rounded or as good P4P as Canelo, but he's no slouch in many areas, and he's very hard to beat.

    I rate Canelo very highly, but I also rate Thurman, not as high as Canelo currently but still up there near the top. But when Canelo fought Mayweather he wasn't as seasoned as he is now. He was still pre-prime. Not only that he was drained. But him being drained isn't the only reason why it makes Pac's win better. It's one of several reasons. Pac's age is also a big reason, he was much older than Mayweather was when Mayweather beat Canelo. That's a big reason, too. Another reason is he actually knocked down Thurman. Mayweather didn't knock down Canelo. You argue that 2 pounds isn't that big of a deal, but it was a big deal when Pac knocked out Cotto. Mayweather himself thought it was such a big deal that he said he still considered Cotto undefeated. So I'm merely using Mayweather's own words against him. Yes I rate Canelo higher than Thurman, but I didn't rate Canelo as high as I do now back when he fought Mayweather, even less when he had to agree to a 152 catchweight that drained him. These are all reasons including Pac's age when he beat Thurman that make Pac's win greater in my mind. And yes all this is subjective!
     
    Bofo24 likes this.
  9. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,520
    15,575
    Sep 15, 2009
    Again, stop using others arguments as if they're mine.

    Clearly Pac vs Cotto is a great victory, much greater than Floyd vs Baldomir for example.

    Pac's age is the only thing that is mitigating here. But that's not enough to overwrite the quality of opponent.

    But as I've said. I just rate Canelo higher than you do.
     
  10. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,320
    Aug 1, 2012
    LOL you want me to stop using other arguments as if they're yours, but yet you keep claiming that you rate Canelo higher than I do. I highly doubt you rate him higher than me as I've had him P4P #1 for years. I doubt you've had him P4P #1 as long as I have. And I'm not claiming that you are making any of those arguments, I am simply using those arguments as reasons why for why Pacquiao's win is greater, reasons that you seem to be ignoring, as you claim Pac's age is the only thing that is mitigating here. No, Pac's age is just one of many factors that makes Pac's win greater. The other reasons are, the knockdown of Thurman, the catchweight in Canelo Mayweather which drained Canelo, the fact that Canelo was still pre-prime when he fought Mayweather and wasn't as seasoned as he is now or as seasoned as Thurman was when he fought Pacquiao. These are all "mitigating" factors that make Pac's win greater, you are just choosing to ignore these reasons because they don't suit your subjective argument that Mayweather's win is greater.

    But look man, we don't need to fight about this. I respect you for calling Mayweather's win greater on the basis that Canelo is superior to Thurman as a fighter. That's a fair belief to have, I just personally disagree with that stance as for me there are too many mitigating factors that you are ignoring that makes Pac's win greater. But again, this is subjective and it's OK that we disagree. But don't tell me that you rate Canelo higher than me, because I highly doubt that. And to test this, if you rate Canelo so highly then how did you score both Canelo GGG bouts?
     
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,520
    15,575
    Sep 15, 2009
    Pac's age is the only mitigating factor.

    Younger Canelo is better than prime Thurman.

    Catchweight Canelo is better than prime Thurman.

    Less seasoned Canelo is better than prime Thurman.

    My argument is not about Mayweather. Pacquiao has lots of wins that are better than lots of Mayweather's wins.

    My argument is about Canelo being superior to Thurman.

    You don't feel the Canelo that Floyd beat is superior to Thurman. That's fine, the sport is subjective. I just rate Canelo higher than you do.
     
    Pimp C likes this.
  12. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,320
    Aug 1, 2012
    All of that is fine, except for the part where you said you rate Canelo higher than I do. How high I rate Canelo doesn't have anything to do with why Pac's win is greater. The main reasons why Pac's win is greater is because he was much older, his opponent wasn't drained, and he scored a knockdown.
     
    Bofo24 likes this.
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,520
    15,575
    Sep 15, 2009
    The best filled performance in boxing history is Robinson vs LaMotta in the Valentines Day Massacre. No knockdown scored. One of the greatest victories in boxing history is Duran vs Leonard. No knockdown scored. Scoring a knockdown doesn't make a fight greater.

    A drained Canelo is still far superior to a non drained Thurman. I can't believe I have to stress this. Catchweights have always been a part of boxing, always.

    I have said Pac's age is a mitigating factor. Like Foremans age against Moorer. Like Hopkins age during his LHW reign. It shows how capable Pac is at such an advanced age.

    But Floyd himself was no spring chicken against Canelo so that mitigation counts here also.

    If you don't consider the Canelo that Floyd beat, superior to the Thurman that Pacquiao beat, you don't rate Canelo as high as me.

    Which is fine, it's a subjective sport. Whilst i strongly disagree with your position, I wouldn't start calling you a Canelo hater or a Thurman fan boy, I just continue to strongly disagree.
     
  14. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,320
    Aug 1, 2012
    In my opinion, it does, but of course it depends on how close each match was. I am also in the minority in regards to Canelo Mayweather in that I pretty much agreed with the judges that it was a very close match, and wasn't a Floyd domination as most argue. So that's another mitigating factor. You probably believe that Floyd won every round vs Canelo, that Mayweather "schooled" Canelo, so that would make you more inclined to say that Mayweather's win was greater if you believe he dominated. That would be another mitigating factor, however I am not a Mayweather fanboy and I didn't give Mayweather rounds just because he was Mayweather. I saw Mayweather perform at a very high level, but I also saw him struggle a great deal with Canelo, especially early on. He was biting on feints, he was schooled on how to fight on the ropes in the 10th, he was booed for stalling in the 12th. He got Canelo in a headlock in the 4th and cranked Canelo's neck, which is a bad foul. So these negative aspects of Floyd's performance also make the win less great for Mayweather.

    That's your opinion, for me that version of Canelo who was not allowed to be at his best was more comparable to Thurman. While I agree that Canelo is superior to Thurman now, when you take a younger, pre-prime, weight drained version of Canelo and compare him to Thurman, it's more comparable. You say catchweights have always been a part of boxing, that's your way of excusing them. Catchweights are one thing, a fighter being drained is another. When Dawson dropped down to fight Ward, which was his decision, he was a skeleton and got schooled by Ward. Had that been at 175, it would have been a different story. Catchweight or not, he was drained and unhealthy making Ward beat him easily. SRL Lalonde was at a "catchweight" of 168 but unlike when Dawson fought Ward, Lalonde said he didn't have difficulty dropping down and making 168. It depends on the fighter's metabolism and a variety of factors. In Canelo's case, he was already big for the weight to begin with, so having to cut an extra 2 lbs was extremely difficult. But in other cases, a fighter is fighting at a weight class above where he is just so he doesn't have to struggle to make weight, and as a result could drop down to a lower division without much struggle. It depends on the fighter. And as it relates to Canelo Mayweather, all you have to do is look at Canelo at the weigh-in to see how bone-dry he was. You could see his jawbone through his skin he was so bone dry. That takes away your stamina, even after rehydrating. You can make excuses for the catchweight all you want, but for me it absolutely affects the greatness of a win when a fighter is forced to kill himself to make a catchweight like that. Many have tried to make the same arguments against Alvarez as it relates to Fielding or Kovalev with the rehydration clauses, which isn't anywhere near as dangerous for the bigger fighter as a catchweight.

    Floyd was no spring chicken either, but he was in great shape when he fought Canelo. You can tell by looking at his physique and comparing it to his physique when he fought Maidana. He was very ripped and shredded when he fought Canelo. He got himself into great shape which he knew he had to be in when fought Canelo. He knew he needed to bring his A game to beat Canelo, whereas he knew he could beat Maidana with just his B game which is why he came into Maidana not looking as sharp, but still won (barely). But the fact is that Pacquiao was much older when he fought Thurman so in the comparison, Floyd's age doesn't really play into it since it's a comparison of ages.

    That's not how it works. It depends on how high each of us rates Thurman. It sounds like you don't rate Thurman too high, or at least not the version who fought Pacquiao. If I rate Thurman higher than you, and we both rate Canelo the same, then a lesser, pre-prime drained version of Canelo could theoretically drop below Thurman. That's how I see it, and if we're going to talk about how high we rate Canelo when he fought Floyd, then how would you "rate" Canelo's performance vs Mayweather? Did you have it a Mayweather shutout or did you have it close like the judges saw it? If you have it a Mayweather shutout, and say Canelo was schooled, then you obviously don't rate that version of Canelo as high as I do as I saw Canelo have a moderate degree of success against Mayweather, which seems to be a minority opinion. So to gauge how high you rate Canelo, we need to hear how you scored Mayweather Canelo, and also it would help to get your view of Canelo Trout which preceeded that. Did you think Canelo clearly beat Trout, or did you think it could have gone either way. If you don't think Canelo clearly beat Trout, then you would be showing that you don't rate Canelo as high as I did back then.

    It's an interesting discussion we are having, and I welcome your viewpoint as something different for me to consider. Please let me know how you scored Canelo Trout and Canelo Mayweather so I can get a sense of how you think he performed in these bouts which will give me a better sense of how high you truly rated him back then. Thanks.
     
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,520
    15,575
    Sep 15, 2009
    Duran beating Leonard is one of the best victories in history and that was exceptionally close. Griffith beating Tiger is one of the best victories in history and that was incredibly close. Foreman beating Moorer is one of the best victories in history and Foreman lost nearly every second of the fight till he scored a one punch ko.

    Domination, knockdown etc don't make a victory better. Who you beat is what makes a victory good or not.

    Canelo from the Mayweather fight is a few classes above the Thurman from the WW fight. Again, I won't call you a Canelo hater, I just strongly disagree with your viewpoint.

    I would have to dig out my scorecards from back then as I don't have them to hand. I might well rewatch Canelo's fights at some point, but I'm not doing it right now obviously. But from memory I thought Canelo clearly beat Trout and Lara. I fought Floyd clearly beat Canelo, but I'm not sure how I rate the performance of Canelo in that fight as I said it's ages since I watched it. When I say clear, just so you're clear, I mean I think the decision was the right one.