How will boxing history remember Floyd Mayweather?

You no the answer and I stated it in my origonal thoughts. Stick to bringing up conversations with trainers who don't like me for low blows son.

 

Well said Jdawg.

 

I think Flea & BB look at a fighters career and glass half empty. Each to there own i guess.

 

*sighs* Rob, if you really think I just won't change my mind, then you don't understand anything about me. I'm tired of explaining it to you, so I won't bother again. Have as many issues with me as you want, I'm not the one that tries to **** off people involved in the game just to gain attention.

 

A great defensive fighter of our era, very good footwork, very good left hook, great counter puncher, fast hand speed, great head movement, and his defensive shoulder roll is a real work of class.

But how many greats/elites in their primes has Floyd beaten?

His best wins vs Castillo(x2) Corrales, Zab, Hatton, ODH(faded), JMM(blown up), Shane(gased after 3rds, shot to ****)

Always felt Floyd picked fighters that kept him in his comfort zone, who have slower handspeed than his therefore counter/pot shot them. The only fighter who did not fit this was Zab, but Zab lacked the fittness to maintain his workrate beyond 4 or 5 rds. Zab is the only fighter who should of scored a clear KD on Floyd, but the ref did not pick it up.

Floyd does not like handspeed, therefore is not willing to get in the ring with this small asian guy called Pacman, not that he cant beat him , but knows he has the speed to land on his chin clean, just like Shane did in the 2nd rd, he dont want to be out his comfort zone, because if a old ODH can ruff him up and get him out of his zone get him to run onto the ropes, I am sure Pacman can.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTfEbYVjtXo[/ame]




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcoa4PpM4v0&feature=related[/ame]

To refresh the Zab fight Rds 1-4

 

He did beat Castillo twice btw. Although some will say the once as the first fight many felt he lost. I personally believe he won it.

 

:good ta Rob. Theres good posts (and a few 1 line rile ups) from both sides of the argument here from Rob and Flea in particular. Theres definately more than 1 way to judge a fighter; skill set, opposition, win-loss, achievement relevent to potential (ie over achived or lived up to expectation), how convincing the performances amongst other factors and i think too much emphasis is on opposition when a fighter doesnt even have to beat it to have it boost thier record

 

Yeah but the 2nd time Floyd had no problems, but yeah you can add Castillo to that list aswell.

 

Yeah agreed. That makes the 1st win so good in my eyes. I know a lot of people will say he lost but i thought he won it and won it with as you say problems.

Castillo was a top class lightweight champion.

 

Added :good

 

Darni, quality post.

I never said that Floyd has to blow his opposition away. The same accusation CAN be levelled at B-Hop (Howard Eastman for instance) but the fact is that B-Hop has superior opposition.

Rob, one of your main arguments is that Hopkins can only blame himself for certain losses. Surely not against Pascal? At his age, against a young champion who set a fast pace early he actually forced the pace down the stretch.

Floyd doesn't get kudos for things like this. Because he hasn't done these things past his prime. Again, I'm rating someone based on what they've actualy done, not what they could have done.

When ranking a fighters greatness, you might as well just use boxrec if you're not going to take the fight itself into account. Calzaghe, top 3 P4P at the time, and the no.1 man in the weight below (and bigger than 'Nard for most of his career) was forced to look fairly ineffective. At worst you can give Calzaghe three more points. This is proof a fighters ability despite the official result. This fight would gain Hopkins more kudos than Floyds underwhelming performance against Oscar, who at that stage did not represent the challenge that Calzaghe did.

Jdawg always criticises me for giving fighters props for a losing performance. Fact is, this isn't maths. You need to take all factors into account.

The only way Floyd can be seen a great as he is, is if you take most of the factors out of his resume and just look at the names. Even then, it doesn't really strike you as a 'great fighters' resume.

TFFP, I'm genuiely surprised. What era would you start ranking fighters at? I guess if I talk all pre-1920 boxers out of my lost there'd be five or so places left to fill in the top 40. Even then I couldn't see Floyd forcing his way in.

As it stands, everyone can accuse mr of hating as much as they want.

That makes me assume I take personality into account when judging a fighters ability First of all, find me a post where I slag Floyd the person off. Secondly, when I have come out with a genuinely outlandish comment?

I have reasons. Why anyone could say I'm 'deliberately trying to push him down' is beyond me, what the Hell is my motive?

I ran through on another thread about how great either Pac or Floyd would be depending on the outcome, and as I said before, I can't say Anthony until I actually see the fight. As I say, if I'm going to make a judgement on a fight/fighter it's when I've seen it, rather than reading the result on boxrec, it's all about how the fight goes down and how the victor goes about it :good

 

Yeh quality post Darni. I don't remember DLH roughing Floyd up, and even if he did he was fighting a good version of Oscar in my opinion.

 

He was, and gets underrated IMO. But he's not an ATag at the weight. Other fighters have beaten even better fighters.

People say I 'underrate Floyd' and fact is I don't. I just don't chuck him in with the all time greats because many fighters did much more impressive things/beat much better fighters as impressively or moreso.

Which is why I'm surprised TFFP would rank him so high. He has top knowledge of older guys.

I'm looking forward to Gaz's opinions on this. I actually think he'll disagree with me, but would like to hear his reasoning. Might help me to understand the fascination with Floyd, who is undoubtedly quality, but not that astounding.

Fact is, as I keep saying, he has dine nothing wrong, he's class. There's just been a lot better. That's why I cannot rate him as high as everyone else.

 

Flea Man: Cheers :thumbsup

 

Oscar was out jabbing for at least the first half. And whilst always a good jabber (and effectively one handed for the better part of his career) Oscar was not at his best. The fact that Floyd much closer to his prime had so much trouble with De La Hoya. Oscar is also not truly in the upper echelon of greats (IMO!!!) There have been better wins by fighters with overall better resumes.

I'm going to keep stressing the above point til people understand my viewpoint. Being perceived as a 'hater' or 'biased' pisses me off, that's everything that I'm against when analysing a fighters abilities.