Floyd makes his case as the GOAT

I don't wish to argue with you Bokaj, but dismissing the rest of Duran's career out of hand due to the New Orleans stupidity/madness is mental. You've always seemed particularly bitter and unreasonable about it to me, and I say that as someone who otherwise has considerable respect for you as a poster.

It's something that no other great fighter has the infamy of doing in such a high profile fight and obviously Duran was a massive twat for doing it. It has to be seriously taken into account. He broke a key basic tenet of being a boxer.

But the rest of his career and achievements were of a rarified and exclusive level. Incredibly so. Way prior to the fight and after it. To the point where I think he could've been in the argument with Robinson, Armstrong, Langford and Greb as the greatest ever. I'd agree that the debacle and his inconsistency after it keeps him from ascending that last couple of steps to the mountain top, but denigrating him further is unfair when considering how extraordinary most of the entirety of his career was, culminating with the Barkley fight. Especially in comparison with Mayweather, whose achievements are a bit more complicated to assess than they should be in context to his achievements in paper.

Duran's CV buries Mayweather's. It's more the dominance and longevity on Mayweathers part that narrows the otherwise considerable gap imo.

I know that you feel strongly about it and that I'm not going to change your mind, so will just leave it at that. I think you're in a big minority amongst knowledgeable boxing folk though with the conviction of the opinion.

That said, I've been told that I'm excessively hard on Mayweather for the way I think he overly stage managed his career, sought unfair advantages and created too many asterisks compared to other fighters of his talent and stature, in an era when his opposition mostly wasn't threatening enough for such measures to be necessary. Not that I begrudge fighters earning the most they can in such a dangerous profession. So I understand the feeling of having stronger views than most on a given subject. It stems from my own life being hard at times and having to really battle for what others take for granted or have handed to them more easily.

I will say that it's not unreasonable to have Mayweather a smidge higher than Hagler depending on criteria. I'd disagree about Leonard, mind.

 

lol Clarence Darrow couldn’t make the case for Mayweather being the GOAT.

 

I don't dismiss the rest of his career, which was tremendous, but I think it keeps him out of the top 10 for me and has him lower than Mayweather. Having him somewhere around top 20, or even higher, all time p4p is hardly dismissing someones career.

Mayweather would have an argument against Duran anyway with more wins against ranked fighters and longevity, but this clinches it for me. Achievement wise that is. Duran was a more complete fighter, I'd say, even if Mayewather's offence is underrated.

Duran had incredible talent and ability, up there with anyone, but achievement wise New Orleans is a big blot on his record and it makes you wonder who else could possibly have had a similar effect on him.

 

You shouldn't have to go around telling people how great you were, they should be telling you. Not my GOAT, or even close for that matter

 

Ah well, I disagree, but there you have it.

 

Always will be around the 40 spot , give or take a few.

 

You know, I could give a damn about Floyd Mayweather. I usually rooted against him. And I've stated before how I haven't even been watching Canelo's recent fights because I don't find him particularly compelling anymore. And I liked Pacquiao but I'd root for him and not root for him, depending on the opponent and the situation.

I appreciate what they accomplished, though, even if I wasn't a huge fan.

All that said, I think it's ridiculous when people hop on here and say Floyd isn't TOP 40 all time, or Top 30 all time, or Top 20 or Top 10.

Floyd Mayweather is in the discussion for best ever just like anyone else would be in the discussion for best ever.

If someone has Mayweather at #1, they'd have a great case.

Being great for 20 years is being great for 20 years. Being undefeated for 20 years is being undefeated for 20 years.

Robinson boxed for 25 years and wasn't anything special the last eight. Duran fought for 30 years and was downright mediocre for about 20 of those years. They also lost to garbage opponents here and there.

You've got to put on a lot of blinders to ignore the bad nights some of these "all-timers" had. You have to ignore terrible or embarrassing losses.

Mayweather didn't have any of those. 21 years undefeated. 21 years without a bad year. Lots of opponents who were great in their own right. Lots of titles. Lots of divisions.

Bobo Olson, Randy Turpin, Jake Lamotta ... those aren't better wins than beating Canelo and Manny. Hell, Turpin isn't a better win than beating Juan Manuel Marquez.

People in Classic like to run down modern fighters, mainly because they can see every mess up or flub in super slow motion. But most of the people they'd rate above these guys had far worse nights, really bad losses, and those posters either haven't seen them or just choose to ignore them.

Floyd Mayweather could be the best who ever fought. He has as good of case as anyone else, if not a better one.

Because he never sucked as a pro. And basically everyone you'd might rate above him certainly did a time or two or 20, some sucked for a decade or even more.

And Floyd beat people who were just as good or in some cases better than anyone you might rate above him did, without all the losses and bad nights the others drag with them.

You don't have to cut Mayweather some slack for losing here or there, because he never lost. You don't have to cut him slack for losing when he was green, because he was winning titles against great fighters like Genaro Hernandez when he was still green. You don't have to cut him any slack for losing when he got to be an old man, because he won all his fights when he was an old man.

Try to make a case for anyone else without cutting them slack or downright ignoring extended periods in their careers. You may be able to, but nobody has to make excuses for any bad nights in Mayweather's career.

There certainly aren't 40 guys who fought for 20 years, won as many titles, beat so many names and came through it all unscathed without a loss.

He has an excellent case.

 

i stand with Melankomas lmao, Floyd fought not the easiest era but the best one for building a record.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the number of bodies and belts is not a move by money-grubbing promoters and boxing bodies to further enhance fighters records they have a stake in. Floyd is to me exists as a fighter to 'legitimize' modern boxing and the fact that there is no longer one champion per division.

Floyd exists to make money. his legacy is built upon that fact. this is clearly a guy who doesnt have love and respect for the sport. he destroyed aged ATG and mediocre champions in an age where a belt had less value than in did in the imminence of the alphabet era.

 

Duran might not have but guys that were there swore Floyd literally **** his pants when Antonio Margarito walked up to him. He just asked politely "why wont you fight me "? You've seen the videos Floyd was hysterical blabbering like Daffy Duck Ive never seen a man look so terrified. How can such a person be classed as one of the GOAT LOL
Also how good do you think his record would look without the "help" he received. He would certainly not be 50-0
without vegas judges & a friendly commission that for sure

 

Pacquiao called himself the GOAT in 2010 on 60 Minutes. Many here agreed he had a legitimate case. Mayweather scared that Pacquiao to dump a fight over blood tests, and came crawling back years later to lose to a way past it Mayweather. I think a lot of you should recognize Mayweather's case here. That same lot of you.

 

given the right criteria i would agree with you.

 

Floyd must have the most perfectly managed and promoted boxer that ever lived. He never took a fight as an underdog like so many other Greats did.

 

He is not ag, simple as. He can state his case but a true goat doesnt have to. Great boxer, in the mix as ONE of the true greats. The GOAT? Heck no. undefeated or not? Doesnt matter. You could argue, for arguments sake that Pac is above, even though Floyd beat him later in there careers. Pacs body of work, win and lose is arguably just as impressive and he also is no where near to be considered as THE GOAT.

 

Yep.

 

Floyd is a total product and master of the era he fought in. Both in the ring and in the business. How highly you rate that era is up for debate.

The key thing he understands, whether premeditated or intuitively, it that whether fans love or hate him is irrelevant to his brand. Either way he created interest and controversy. Everyone is played, if you watch the video and denigrate him he wins, if you watch the video and support him he wins.

He is presenting an absolute when he knows there is none, everything is endlessly shifting sands. We cling onto 50-0 as a secular religion like ancient pagan mystics to be interpreted a thousand ways. I feel that people who seriously debate Mayweather (and I include myself) are those who still believe their vote matters, that we still have nation states, that soldiers who bravely serve always die for freedom. But it is a world view that is no longer relevant to understanding brand Money and a way of thinking that will not help us form a cohesive opinion.

He represents a total vacuum that has sucked in his talent and celebrity so they are more or less indivisible for a historian.