They weren't at the weight that Duran claimed supremacy in, though. With that said, I agree that the window to face Margarito and Williams was short, so in that sense not surprising that they didn't happen.
Anytime anyone mentions Floyd in the same breath as Sugar Ray Robinson I die a little inside as does the sport of boxing. Any other opinions on who Floyd whups I can deal with but not the Sugar man...just leave me that for the love god! I mean 129–1–2?? I have of course been thoroughly educated on here that everyone SSR fought was a useless bum but still!
A very intelligent post, even though I take the p*ss out of Mayweather a bit there are some really good points here. I will admit that Floyd being such a pr*ck makes me really really want to underrate him.
Who did Robinson beat during his 129-1-2 run who was better or will ever be rated higher all time than Pacquiao or Canelo? Answer. NO ONE. Phenomenal run. Then he lost to Randy Turpin. Then he lost to Tiger Jones. Then he lost to Paul Pender. Then he lost to Terry Downes (who sucked). And Denny Moyer. And Phil Moyer. And Mick Leahy (whoever the hell that is). And Memo Ayon. Then you have to start making excuses for him. He wasn't interested in fighting anymore. He had financial problems. He was having trouble at home. He was old. He wasn't as good as he used to be. He fought too long. You don't have to make any excuses for Floyd Mayweather. He was great when he turned pro and when he retired and he was great in between. Floyd never lost to garbage like Memo Ayon. Do you want to have to make excuses for the GREATEST fighter ever? If someone pulls up his terrible losses, do you want to have to make excuses and say, well don't pay attention to this one because ... and then make a list of reasons why he doesn't look so great? Or would it be nice not to have to make any excuses at all, because they beat everyone, won titles in a pile of divisions, and they were great for two decades? Mayweather beat guys as good as anyone you'd rate above him fought, he was great for 20 years, and he lost TO NO ONE. There's no "poo pooing" that with a wave of the hand, when you go back and look at the BAD NIGHTS people you'd rank above him had. If people want to RATE Robinson above Mayweather, fine. But don't act like Ray Robinson didn't lose to garbage fighters and didn't have terrible performances and didn't have to fight some fighters any number of times just to beat them the first time, and don't pretend Robinson didn't lose to guys and NEVER AVENGED those losses. You'd hold that against most fighters. Don't put on the blinders for guys you like. Mayweather fought great fighters over two decades and beat everyone. Didn't have to avenge any losses because there were none. He has as much claim to the top spot as anyone.
I'm not a Floyd fanboy. I always rooted against him. And I was a fan when Leonard and Hearns were coming up. I remember all that. If you would've told someone when little junior lightweight Hector Camacho turned pro that he would one day beat Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran and Boom Boom Mancini ... they'd have thought Camacho had become one of the greatest fighters who ever lived. But that wasn't the case. At some point, Ray Leonard was still fighting and he sucked. And Roberto Duran was still fighting and he sucked. And Boom Boom Mancini was fighting part-time and thought mullets looked cool. Floyd Mayweather never sucked. He was great during his entire career. I thought Leonard was incredible. I'm a huge Hearns fan. I spent a whole afternoon with Ray Leonard once when our company hired him to give a motivational speech. I have signed boxing gloves from Ray Leonard. Great guy. But Floyd Mayweather never entered the ring and looked like Leonard did against Camacho. EVER. Floyd Mayweather never got in the ring with some can like Pat Lawlor, got punched in the armpit and QUIT, like Duran did. Anyone you'd rate over Mayweather probably looked like absolute garbage at one time or another, sometimes against really bad fighters. There are no fights like that involving Floyd Mayweather. There just aren't. That's not a fanboy talking (I don't like the guy at all) ... that's someone who is trying to judge them all on an even playing field. How many great wins did Leonard have and how many did Floyd have? How many bad losses did Leonard have and how many did Mayweather have? How long was Leonard on top and how long was Mayweather on top? Just be consistent. Should the greatest fighter ever have a loss on his reel that looks like Leonard did against Camacho?
Floyd?...Mayweather?....Best ever?..."HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" Listen...if he was fighting in the 1940's or 1950's....he'd be lucky to be a 6 round prelim guy!!! They'd eat him for lunch! He'd have to fight "real" fighters...
By all means, do try to make a case for why an injured and more gunshy version of Pacquiao is better than 2 wins over a prime Kid Gavilan. Or how an inexperienced at the world level Canelo, who had only fought Trout and the shell of Mosley, and was fighting at around 165 lbs in the ring and was weight drained down to 152, is a better win than the primed LaMotta who had already beaten names like Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams and Marcel Cerdan, and was at his natural division.
Yeah, i have to agree. The tone of that post is directed to past-prime criticisms of Leonard etc., but Pacquiao was not performing anything like the prime version when he finally got to Mayweather. Canelo obviously enough got better, especially with that third punch. There's a difference that can be seen for me. All that said, I think you can put together an argument for having Mayweather above Leoanrd and he should be above Hearns IMO.
Ralph Jones ... your table is ready. Ralph Jones. Can you imagine if Floyd Mayweather came back after knocking out Hatton and ... instead of beating the World Lightweight Champ (and totally dominating the fight, which is what he did) ... Mayweather lost to a journeyman in the midst of a five-fight losing streak? And then never fought him again? Neither can I. But it happened to Ray Robinson. I see those blinders are firmly in place.
In terms of consistency throughout a long career, in terms of years, yes, Floyd looks good for nr. 1. But in terms of consistency in number of fights over good opposition, I'd go with Robinson. And there's other metrics, like best wins and cleaning field with viable opponents. In these Floyd doesn't come as high, but you somehow fail to mention them.
Was Robinson more consistent over good opposition? He won and lost to Turpin. Won and lost to Basilio. Lost (no wins) over Giardello. Lost (no wins) over Archer. Won and lost to Denny Moyer. Lost twice (no wins) over Paul Pender. Only had one win in four fights with Fullmer. Lost to Downes. Lost to Maxim. Robinson was most consistent over Bobo Olson and Lamotta, but he even lost once to Lamotta. Who was more consistent than Mayweather? He beat every name he ever fought. No losses. That's consistency. Not splitting half or never even beating some of the names you fight. Right? It's not like he fought Fullmer four times and won all four. And fought Basilio twice and beat him twice. And fought Pender twice and beat him twice. And fought Turpin twice and beat him twice. That would be consistency in a number of fights over good opposition. Olson is the only guy he did that with.
