Better resume/greater fighter: Floyd Mayweather or Barney Ross

Well, You don't have to agree nor I expected You too, but I have a question.
You wrote You'd pick Barney Ross to beat Mayweather. How would He do that? Floyd would have a massive speed advantage, 5 inches in reach. He was superior defensively and superior technically (Ross started boxing at age 14, while Floyd had his first junior amateur fight at age 10 and that difference in fluidity that one can usually only achieve with early start is certainly visible hear). Ross was leaving many openings and didn't even have much strength or power to bother Floyd.
I can appreciate his ring intellect, but that's quite a lot to overcome in a fight...

 

Let's not forget that Ross was a US Marine during World War 2 who single-handedly fought off nearly two dozen Japanese soldiers and saved a fellow Marine who was more seriously injured than he was. That's a spirit, mentality, and bravery that few boxers in history could match, definitely not Mayweather.

It would be unfair on Floyd to say he loses it with any degree of certainty; I think people are understating just how good Mayweather was defensively, but if they fought prime for prime, I'd pick Ross. Multiple wins over Canzoneri and McLarnin are just objectively better than any Mayweather win by quite some margin.

Ross fought two dozen times a year during the sport's golden age, and didn't go into fights with the officials, judges, and media all fanning his ego. It's almost impossible to compare them because they are such different people from such distinctively unique eras.

If Castillo and a clearly declining De La Hoya could give Floyd trouble with an effective aggressive swarming style, I don't really see how Ross doesn't give him nightmares either considering he was one of the most effective high-volume pressure fighters that has ever existed at 147.

Floyd is nothing compared to the likes of Armstrong and McLarnin, really, in the grand scheme of things, despite recency bias and elite marketing trying to convince people otherwise.

 

You don't even have clean film of them.

 

And so would Juuko, Gerena, Vargas, Augustus, Chavez, N’Dou, Ortiz, Bruseles, Berto, Baldomir, Corley, Manfredy, and Maidana.

 

This has been a good thread, but your contribution has been so painful.

I can only assume that you've been trolling throughout.

I can't believe that these are genuine opinions.


"Floyd fought in a tougher era"

Too stupid to even debate.

 

Awful post.


Floyd fought in a weaker era, with 17 weight classes, instead of 8.

With 4 org's instead of 2.


Floyd never fought a prime ATG in his career.

Never took the same risks or tested himself in the same way.


It's easier to stay undefeated, fighting less fights against lesser fighters.


Floyd could not have been a 5 weight champ in an earlier era.

Most of the champions he fought would not have been champions in earlier, tougher eras.


Then look at the guys you've listed:


An end of career Oscar, who had only fought once in 3 years, who retired the following year.

JMM, a 36 year old LW, who Floyd cheated on the scales, completely ignoring their C-W agreement, where he was dragged up 2 divisions.

A young Canelo, who he made fight at a C-W, despite him being a champion in the SAME division. A version who could barely beat Lara and Trout.

An aged Manny, who he ducked for years, where he had to wait for him being iced by JMM.


They're not even Floyd's best wins/opponents.

 

Your opinion on the film on Ross, has nothing to do with how tough the era was.

And how on earth could Floyd's era have been tougher??

Less weight classes, less org's, less rounds, more protection, much lesser fights etc.

 

I remember this thread.

 

Number of weightclasses and titles isn’t inverse proof of depth of the sport.

And of course every Floyd opponent must be dismissed if not in an extremely narrow age range and weight while ignoring age and weight for Floyd and completely falling to do the same for whomever he is being compared with.

 

There's an objective way to measure everything.

Fair criteria to use for everybody.

If they are interested.

However, I don't debate you anymore, simply because I've been told that you have admitted to being a troll.

 

I don't think that you could forget a thread, where some lunatic had said that Floyd fought in a tougher era than Harry Greb

 

You can use the search function to find “troll” for my username but I think you’ll be disappointed.

I’m obviously above average at riling up other posters, but it’s with truth bombs and never fabrications or words that I don’t stand by.

 

You may disagree with my judgement - but the tape of the best fighters of given era fighting one another certainly tells us something about how strong, or tough it was?
Guess I should clarify though. What I meant was that Floyd's opponents - to me - seemed more talented, skilled and overall capable. That's what I had in mind while talking about "toughness", or agreeing with other user who used that term.
The points You listed refer to something a bit different.

 

Okay.

So you feel Floyd’s opponents were more talented.


Really, you used the wrong term.


The era of Ross was obviously physically tougher.

More rounds, more fights, less protection from the referees and different rules etc.

 

Yes, that's fair.