How will boxing history remember Floyd Mayweather?

Yeah and Pac wasn't in his prime! He was limited getting through on grit and two natural attributes; handspeed and a powerful left hand.

JDawg, Pea fought better opposition than Floyd. Simple as. Did he coast past his prime against a peak De La Hoya when he arguably deserved a decision? This are the kinda' things that make up for it.

Corrales doesn't make up for it with Floyd as Chico was not a great fighter, actually you summed it up yourself so I'll stop rambling: it is a 'good record'.

Sadly there are quite a few great records out there. Do you see now why I dint have Floyd anywhere near my top 50? I dint know how many times I have to say it. Floyd has had a very good career, there has just been better.

Am I biased? Or hating?

 

Thats just modern boxing. The generation before you and I are to blame Flea.

Genuinley if I had been born 10 years ago, in the WBU domestic era I don't think I would be a boxing fan.

 

Manny has pried himself against far better opposition already. Bar five or so wins against every other top guy, Floyd has Manny to prove himself and that's it. If Manny and Floyd never fought for whatever reason, we would have a diverse opposition on Mannys record, mire names (and better names) ad more decisive victories. People will point to the Marquez fights but Marquez was a genuinely Elite fighter at his best weights (and has gone to solidify himself as a brderline ATG with performances at 135) and it was hardly Oscar-Sturm!

I gave the 2nd fight to Marquez 115-112. Did Manny display a lot of quality in that fight? Yes, and both fighters come out of it with top marks.

That is what happens when you fight the best, you dint score whitewashes. And Floyd hasn't whitewashed opposition that, with his reputation think he would. In the first JMM fight, Pac wasn't even technically that good.

Floyd drops Marquez, well out of his best weight and goes on to win widely at points, but apparently that's fine because it was a 'comeback' fight. After a long rest. After fighting Hatton at 147.

I honestly can't recall many greats following this path to being accepted as one to be honest.

 

Did I call you a hater?? :huh The Whitaker point wasnt a comparison to his wins/defensive ability (which I previously said is better than Floyds) or whatever but he was a relaxed fighter that didnt have to step on the gas to win well, like Floyd doesnt

 

Ok Flea. Challenge for you. What do you like about Floyd.

I want a 100 word post without any buts.....if you can do that you have official "not a hater" status.

 

Exactly Rob. The era isn't that strong. So you have to either a. Do something extra special to be labelled 'great'. B. Accept that the era isn't strong and therefore those achievments don't deserved to be ranked amongst those who had a much harder time doing so.

This era is still decent. But Floyd hasn't dine anything to truly distance himself from the pack, rather he's stayed outside it most of the time. And pounces when he sees a member lagging behind.

In recent years anyway.

 

I've already wrote some things I like about him and said there's nothing wrong with him. Why not a hundred more words about why others have done more?

 

I genuinley beleive Floyd would beat Pacquiao, Cotto, Tysuzu, Margorito, Williams & the rest. Its a shame he won't prove me right.

 

I'll humour you and won't lie either :good

I like Flouds accuracy and handspeed. When he decides to throw, invariably he'll land clean with a sharp shot and use it to re-set whilst his opponent tries to regain his rhythm. Against come forward straight on fighters, Floyds defensive radar sees him fare very well. The sharpness of his counters has made some durable and aggressive fighters more wary of throwing. That is due to his timing the counter punch, which is very impressive. He is clearly very good because he hasn't really been genuinely defeated and has fought some very, very good opponents. He hasn't faltered when he's been asked to step up, getting it done his own way but getting it done. I feel Floyd is tough enough and well-versed defensively to ride out tough patches against most opposition. He is in my top five of fighters from the past ten years, based on the fact whilst never blowing me away, he has consistently impressed against good opposition, and never looked massively troubled.

Although, with a bigger schedule and scattering some tough fights in there he might not have been as consistent. This is seperate to my first bit, which should meet your requirements :good

Rob, if he had beaten three of those guys I would have to be considered a hater for not ranking him in my top 50 or there about. Do you understand now why I don't rate him that highly? It's because I'm well aware of fighters who have dine better things IMO :deal

 

I think the fighters of this era are as good as the others but they just dont get the chance to prove it due to the landscape.

A figter like Miguel Cotto 50 years ago may have been a world title challanger at best. I think Mayweather is an elite fighter in any era.

 

I don't give allowances for a poor 'landscape' myself.

You're comment about Floyd is not backed up either. His style of not fighting often and historyfo'f bad hands is really not suited to a lot of eras either, trust me.

 

Cotto fifty years ago would be a small middleweight for most of his career.

 

First off, born ten years ago? You'd be a baby

I know what you mean though. Lennox? De La Hoya-Mosley? Trinidad decimating Joppy and chasing Hopkins? Barrera, Morales, Pac, Marquez?

There's so much more. There was more to that era then there is now ffs.

 

Award for 'post through gritted teeth 2011' goes to...