Floyd Mayweather Legacy Discussion

:rofl

How is this a valid criticism? You can't create a hypothetical and then base your argument on 'if he faced the fab four', he didn't. You can only criticize him on how well he did in his own era and quite frankly he's done pretty damn good. Nobody since his 130 days has ever looked good against Mayweather being the defensive master he is.

 

I don't think that's what lora meant at all.

 

if he fights the last 5 fights of his contracted 6 and dominates all 5 and calls it a day then what?

most of these top 30's have so many anchored and cemented greats that almost cant be moved at all on a list

 

He shouldn't be above any of 'em. Certainly not Fighting Harada.

The reason Armstrong and Robinson don't suffer as much for the great fighters they didn't fight is because even without it the amount of quality opponents they faced likely outnumber all of Floyd's fights. Armstrong likely bettered the whole of Floyd's career with that winning streak and I've already given a brief description, of things you already know, of what Robinson was able to achieve in a couple of years.

The only thing Floyd has is the '0'. I guarantee that without it most of the people sticking up for him wouldn't be arsed. Glory hunting *******s.

 

How does Pacquiao stack up to Floyd AT?

 

Pacquiao would be higher up than Floyd in a hypothetical all time list.

His record is deeper, which is all that really counts.

 

Not if you rate the fighters performances in their era while taking into account the quality of the era they fought in.

Which I do. And it's been a generally poor era talent-wise in every division Floyd has fought in. Apart from Pacquiao and while it's probably not Floyd's fault it didn't happen, I can't give him the credit for the great win either.

Look at how Johnson and Dempsey get criticised for their title reigns. That's been pretty much all of Floyd's post-Castillo II career.

Again, it's a solid 44 fight winning streak, but when that's spread over nearly 15 years I don't find it much to write home about.

At best, Floyd would make my 50-60 tier.

 

If your talking about cherries picked than Pacquiao is without doubt greater than not only Mayweather, but every boxer who ever fought.

 

Fought MAB, JMM and Morales one after the other, three top 100 ATG in three conscestive bouts and ended up getting in the ring with them 9 times and as a former flyweight Champ. Pacman is a beast.

 

Pacquiao is an illegitimate flyweight champion. That is an achievement made possible only by the era he fought in, so I don't lend it that much kudos.

It just suggests that he has been a smaller man coming up through the weights. Whereas for much of his career he was nine stone+.

McLarnin on the other hand, was a boy who came up from the much lower weights, even if he was always big at the weights he fought at. He was also a good example of a modern day-esque champ', limiting his fighting appearances. But he fought the likes of Mandell, Canzoneri, Ross in those days, so can't be criticised as much.

 

Victor Ortiz, Henry Bruseles, Arturo Gatti, came in overweight for JMM who'd never fought above lightweight. I agree Pacquiao hasn't fought the greatest comp' in recent years (still some good ones though) but in a discussion with Floyd it's the last thing you'd wanna' bring up.

 

Name 25 other boxers who constantly fought the top guys around and constantly beat them and did so with such ease.
Name me 25 other boxers who never lost a fight they were good enough to win.
Who at 130 can you say without any doubt would beat him? same thing 135, 140, 147 and 154? Is there anyone who'd run him out of the ring? I beleve the answer to this question even if you think there guys who beat him 100% of the time that no one would run him out of the ring.
The fact that we dicuess Mayweather against other welterweights who were younger, faster in their prime (I think Prime is a misleading word. I beleve boxers should be judged on the time period that they were good enough to win whoever they faced, which is a longer period than prime is) tells us that tells us that he's one of the best to lace'em up.

 

Yea Marquez is the first lightweight to bypass 140. How could I forget atsch. silly me. Oh wait that's not true at all!

Pacquiao has Barrera and Marquez who he barely beat when he did. He couldn't beat the only decent verssion of Morlas he fought. He had to have the rules changed to fight Cotto. Everything else is a cherry pick. De La Hoya, Hatton, Mosley, Margarito all on the down side of their careers. Clottey was coming off a loss. He wouldn't have fought Bradley if he basicly hadn't run out of cherry picks. I doubt he would have fought him at 147 had he shown more power at 140.

An argument can be made that compared to other boxers Floyd Mayweather dose not have as good of a resume. Manny Pacquiao is not one of them.

 

Why does everything have to be compared with pacman? We're discussing Floyd's status all time, not just the past decade.

His whole lww stint was a cherry pick because he could have opted for a more difficult road to the title. At WW he has failed to fight the biggest challenge, that's not up for debate.

I think Floyd has tremendous talent but were i to rank as most do he couldn't crack my top 25. I tend to rank more on the eye test now though so i have him really high.

 

Sorry former Flyweight contender.

Need to watch more of the old timers like Ross, MClarnin etc...