Could Floyd Mayweather been another Hank Armstrong in Hank's era

I can see it now........."Mayweather-Ambers 24/7." :roll:


He'd have to change who he is on a fundamental level. No way to cherry-pick your way through Armstrong's era of titlists. There was only one guy per weight class. He'd have to step up.

 

No way on earth he would dominate a far stronger era of fighters. Floyd is an excellent fighter but he is made to look better by the calibre of opponents he has faced. He managed to duck Pacquiao when he would have presented a genuine challenge and by doing so will leave a tarnished legacy without a defining fight to emphasise his greatness. When you look at the truly great fighters they actively sought the best opposition with a view to leaving a legacy that was more than just the money involved. Protecting the zero on their record was a secondary consideration.

 

I don't see anyone Armstrong beat Mayweather having much of a problem against. His fragile hands would be a bit of an issue for him but I still see him finding ways to win.

 

He wasn't a cherry picker when he started out, though. The first iteration of Mayweather (up to 135lbs) actually seemed to target the fighter who was considered to be the top dog in the division. That version of Mayweather has a pretty good chance of winning at least one legitimate championship during Armstrong's time...though he probably isn't defending it as frequently as Homicide Hank.

 

Must not have been that much of an accomplishment, then, what Armstrong did.

 

Probably not.
Fighting 10, 20, or more times a year, including the best names in multiple divisions, picking up the world titles along the way ..... there's no evidence that Floyd Mayweather could cope with that.

 

mannny, ran from a drug test after issuing demands about the 10 million dollar per pound weight penalty right?

 

And what does that have to do with this thread???

You're just another parrot parroting.:tired

 

Doubt it.

 

He could in "theory" but I would never credit anyone as being able to do what Henry Armstrong did until they actually proved it..

 

I love this nostalgia that surrounds boxing and boxing alone. In any other sport the notion that 1930s athletes would outmatch the athletes of the 21st century is completely risible.

 

I don't know every sport enough to comment on that. There are a lot of sports out there. Hundreds of sports.

The thing about professional boxing: The boxers of the 1930s and '40s fought far more often, with less safety regulations, smaller gloves, longer fights, etc. Those are objective facts. 21st century fighters are doing less in a less severe environment (safer). It's measurable.

 

Another thing that's measurable is the size of the heavyweight division as there's no weight cap.

Is it surprising that the division has gotten bigger and bigger as time moves forward? Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano are lauded as the greatest heavyweights of their eras yet they wouldn't even be cruiserweights today.

 

It doesn't really apply for the lower weights though. Of course, with these 36 hours weigh-ins, you could say today's welters are yesterday's middles, but if everyone gets to weigh in at the same time, they have to fight against men the same size.

Mayweather's a genuine 147 -150-pounder, often fighting guys who are bigger, so we can compare him with, say, Ray Robinson who was around 147-153.
I think Robinson was better.