How will boxing history remember Floyd Mayweather?

What?!? You've got to be kidding me. This is being genuinely debated.

Let me guess 'Roger Mayweather sat Sweet Pea on his arse, Floyd is better'?

 

DFTaylor is now involved so its no longer a debate and more a lecture.

 

You talk so much rubbish, Robert. I actually praised your post, I just don't agree.

 

I hope I'm not perceived as a 'lecturer' mush. I mustve missed when you and DFT fell out, but I know you dot always see eye-to-eye.

However, I can't see how post would opt out. Maybe if that aspect of the thread has woud you up you might want to bring something up that might steer it in another direction. We've all got some momentum going now :good

 

Probably top 40. That's what I reckon. I don't knock him as far down as some people are desperate too, but he's also not got the competition a lot of the greatest have so there is no reason to rate him ridiculously high either.

 

regarding Hopkins, who I rate as a great fighter may I add.

Forget the dominant loss to Jones Jnr. He faced a legit legend early in his career. Win or lose he deserves respect....I get that Floyd hasn't done that enough etc.

His Middleweight reign was impressive due to its longetity rather than the actual fighters he faced. Many would say Felix Trinidad is his best win. Thats more for the performance than anything else. One thing people tend to forget is that was a Trinidad that was past his prime and 14lbs above his best weight class. Same for Oscar De La Hoya who was coming of a debatable decision against an average fighter. Although it is a fair point the fight was at a catchweight which made it as much of a disadvantage to Hopkins as it was an advantage to DLH.

I felt he lost both Jermain Taylor fights. Respect to him though for fighting a young & hungry fighter who I think at his best (the Hopkins fights) was an elite Middleweight.

Sticking with fighting guys coming up in weight...Winky Wright and Kelly Pavlik. Great dominant wins agasint younger elite fighters but they were both fighting 10lbs north of there best weight division. After these fights instead of building on them he did nothing for 2 years.

Now onto my biggest issue and the biggest hole in Hopkins record. Roy Jones Jnr. He should have faced him around 2002 when both were the top two guys in the World. Hopkins demanded 50-50 and let money get in the way of revenge over the only man to legitimatley beat him. Money aside, he should have done everything he could to get Jones back in the ring and I do not beleive he did. The revenge came 8 years to late in a sham fight nobody gave a **** about. There were other fights around that time he should have taken which would have added to his legacy.

Tomas Adamek - winning the lineal title in a 3rd Division. He let money stop this fight. Even fighting Danny Green would have done something.

Chad Dawson - He had no intrest what so ever in making this fight. Infact I beleive since the fight with Taylor he had no intrest in fighting than kind of fighter. Its funny how as soon as Dawson lost he got back into the picture to fight Pascal. If he had got to Dawson first it would have been the only time he had beaten an elite undefeated fighter in there prime weight division.

My other major issue with Hopkins is the Joe Calzaghe, Jean Pascal and Jermain Taylor losses (Draw in the case of Pascal). Hopkins has cried to the hills about the decisions going agaisnt him in these fights but the only person to blame is himself. His own negative tactics and coasting cost him the fights. Infact if he has done 10% more in just 2 rounds he would have won all of these fights. Sometimes I get the feeling he would prefer to get screwed than actually win the fight.

These were my scores for these fights by the way;

115-113 Taylor twice
114-113 Calzaghe
113-113 Draw with Pascal


He is clearly a skilled warrior and a student of the game. But I do not rate him as an all time great due to his lack of wins agaisnt elite fighters in there best weight division, his failure to avenge his most significant loss and giving away a win in 4 major fights through coasting.

But in spite of all this, I still think Hopkins is a great fighter. Which is what makes me different to you guys with Mayweather. I just focus on what he has acomplished. For me his best win was agaisnt Antonio Tarver. A fighter I always liked and Hopkins completley dominated. I take into account that Hopkins is 40+ and still fighting top guys although I am totally agaisnt anyone fighting at that age.

 

you summed it up well in saying people are desperate to knock him.

 

You could throw a similar accusation Hopkin's way. The two times you could argue he 'blew' opposition away were against two smaller men - De La Hoya and Trinidad.

 

See above mate LOL. I Have just thrown a flame thrower to this thread HAHA.

The difference between you and DFTaylor is your open to changing your mined. DF is tunnel visioned, stuck in his ways.

 

mentioned that above :good

 

I no that.

Before this weekend I saw Floyd Mayweather as an all time great fighter. After debating and discussing it with Flea and other I came to realise he is not. I still feel he is a great fighter.

I do not think you can have a debate with someone that will not change there mind and thats my issue with you along with a few other things.

 

Yep, great post that was. Just shows that you can pick holes in the record of any fighter to suit an argument.

Hopkin's greatness skill IMO is his ability to take away the strength of the opposition, and make the fight completely different to how people think it's going to be as a result. It's the same with Floyd, and he doesn't get as much credit for it as Hopkins does, even if IMO he's just as effective doing it.

 

big dunk changes his mind every 5 minutes,, big diffo between being open minded and contrariness

 

Boxing history, as it stands, would not be able to mention Mayweathers career with Manny Pacquiao's name making a special guest appearance on the 1st line. That works vice-versa too. Its not just the biggest fight of the last couples but A GENERATION, imagine if Ali-Foreman hadnt happened. Or the Fab 4 not dualling it out. Tunney-Dempsey 2 or Tito-Oscar fights, defining moments in the sports history. How could any self-respecting boxing historian, of which I am not 1, not put a huge negative mark against both Floyds or Mannys career if they dont fight.

Im not with Flea that Floyd has to 'blow his opposition away', as previously mentioned B-Hop only did it a couple of times during his incredible middleweight reign and his longevity has depended on adapting his style to the defensive guru you see today.

Only Hopkins has regularly shown defensive ability to match Floyd amongst todays crop. Not in the level of Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker, neither of which decimated people its not in the defensive fighters nature. They can embarrass people, shut them out which they all have. I agree an aggresive fighter like a Margarito or Cotto would have been gold on Floyds record but had he won that I sincerely believe afterwards you would be seeing 'yea but thier styles were made to order for a counter puncher like Floyd'.

The frustrating thing for me is Floyds resume gets ripped more than Manny's of late, lets be fair both are guilty of cherry-picking opponents. Floyd beat Hatton, Oscar and Mosely (dare I jinx it) prior to Pac doing it. Pac gets props for his Barrera'Morales wins, JMM too (though they were losses for me) and the way he goes through people is more pleasing to watch than Mayweathers cautious style and probably is why he gets more lee-way in the record department in recent times.

Floyd, like many great fighters, will probably be more appreciated when his career is over. Lennox Lewis is the 1st name that springs to mind. But then we go back to numero uno with that comparison- Lennox beat his main challengers. Floyd has 1... just happens to be another claimant to best fighter of an era.

Question to flea, dft etc that rightly bring up the holes in Mayweathers record- How much does his 'resume' improve fghting Manny? Does he have to win? And Fleaman bear in mind that you frequently mention names that people fight but not neccesarily win. The 0's not as vital as it should be but it is still a positive when looking at a fighters career when his records good (not great)