How Would You Rate Mayweather, H2H, at Each Weight?

McCallum was getting washed by Curry. Floyd would do the same without getting knocked out.

 

Donald Curry was a very good fighter.

Whichever way you try and slice it, Floyd wasn’t a better JMW than a prime version of Mike McCallum. He just wasn’t.

There’s absolutely no logic in rating Floyd as the 2nd best JMW of all time, even on a H2H basis.

Again, Winky ranks higher than Floyd at the weight.

 

Winky lost a several fights there.

You seem to not understand how adaptable Floyd was. It’s the reason didn’t lose despite fighting bigger and younger opponents, different styles, and guys who matched his athleticism.

 

Floyd was incredible.

I watched his entire career.

I have no issue with you rating him on a H2H basis, but no.2 of all time is just too high.

Again, he just can’t be rated above Mike.

Winky did drop a couple of decisions there, but we know not to just rate on stats. Winky also had some very good wins at the weight, and was a better overall JMW in my opinion.

 

I don’t rank McCallum or Winky too highly h2h. Either guy was vulnerable to being out pointed .

 

Thanks @Loudon. Yeah I suspected I might be in the minority on that one, hence I wanted to emphasise that it shouldn't be taken as a slight against the Bodysnatcher, who is one of my favourite fighters of all time. I just think that Mike was at his absolute best with the other guy coming to him, and Mayweather's ring smarts, defence and willingness to stink the place out in order to win if needs be would prove a difficult puzzle for him to solve - especially if we're talking about a version of Floyd whose legs haven't slowed yet. Kalambay (different weight, but you get my drift) showed what good movement on the outside could accomplish against McCallum.

But then again, McCallum's mix of size, own considerable ring smarts and in-fighting if Floyd does get caught flat-footed could easily see him take this one as well. I see it as more or less a 50:50 based on styles and the match up, but wouldn't take any real umbrage to anyone disagreeing and making McCallum a firmer favourite.

 

Mike was an incredible fighter in his prime.

 

Another great post.

I think if we were talking about a supremely confident version of Floyd who’d have moved up earlier than what he did, then he could have caused Mike issues. But not the versions of him we actually saw against Oscar and Cotto etc. And would he have been supremely confident and offensively minded against Mike at his peak? I honestly don’t think that he would have been.

Mike would have respected Floyd’s skills, but he’d obviously have known that he’d have had significant advantages in size, strength and power over him.

I do respect your opinion as always. I love reading your posts. I always look out for them. But I could never see this as anywhere near a 50/50 fight.

It’s 2021 now. Somebody has to build a time machine soon.

I was bored last weekend and someone mentioned a time machine in another thread. And I realised how much fun I’d have with one on a weekend. Whilst we all would have loved to have seen Ali fight Tyson etc, it dawned on me how much fun I’d have had just putting together fights that most people probably wouldn’t be too bothered about.

Fights like:

Michael Nunn vs Reggie Johnson

Tommy Morrison vs Herbie Hide

Anyway, I just thought I’d share that. Ha!

 

I'll not out a specific number on it, but he'd be elite at all of those weight classes at any point in history, especially 130 and 135, where he could bang too.
Yeah, I think he's that good. He'd give anyone massive trouble. (There might be the odd exception, but that would be exactly that-an exception.)

I'm not including 154 here.

 

1-Yes I believe based on ABILITY you can classify Floyd in the top 5 conversation for POUND FOR POUND yet this thread keeps getting derailed into legacy discussions.

2-It isn't just the body of work but how he consistently faced name opponents one after the other without taking on too many bums/journeymen in between. There are few welterweights alive or dead who you can confidently say would remain undefeated against all the best names he faced at 147 if they faced them all in a row.

3-Floyd was 4 lbs heavier than Marquez. You can cry to someone who cares. Marquez was the #2 p4p fighter in the world. There is no point in a ****ing p4p list if you aren't going to give a fighter credit for beating a guy in a different weight. If Marquez beat Mayweather people would worship the ground he walked on, call him the GOAT, and build statues in Mexico.

4-Maidana was a champion coming off his best win, a brutal slugger with power in both hands and a stylistic nightmare. Maidana also entered the ring weighing more than 160 lbs but you'll ignore that and whine about Floyd weighing 4 lbs more than Marquez who CHOSE to move up and challenge Floyd.

5-Not about to have another stupid Floyd vs Pac blame game debate. This is why I lost my temper earlier. George wasn't being difficult on purpose but he decided to dig his heels in and now here you are too. You can waste someone else's time on this idiotic endless subject.

6-If you beat a young fighter and they go on to become an all time great it absolutely enhances your legacy. Floyd beating Canelo isn't too different from Ali beating Foreman who would go on to make a dramatic comeback in the 90's. It made the Zaire win that much better.

 

Manny refused to take random drug tests because he was afraid of needles, the same guy who is covered in tattoos. You guys were living under a rock.

Manny's injury was nonsense to save face. He changed his story half a dozen times about when he got injured, how it got healed, claimed he won the fight, then claimed God told him in a dream he'd lose, etc. He was all over the freaking place. Manny is a sore loser but since he's the public's darling he can say whatever the hell he wants and people still buy into it.

I am not going through this BS again. His own trainer threw him under the bus yet you still have fanboys repeating the same BS arguments half a decade later. If I had a dollar every time this discussion came up I'd be able to buy Amazon.

As for Shane, there is a difference between being past your athletic best and past your best as a fighter in terms of technical skill and achievements. Shane came off his best win so saying he was "past his best" literally makes no sense unless you are strictly referring to his athletic ability.

Manny was p4p #2 in the world and the 2nd best WW. The only thing that had gotten worse was his aggressiveness which is a good thing because that's what got him knocked out due to being reckless and lacking defense.

Cotto is debatable since like Mosley he was coming off 2 of the biggest win of his career (Mayorga and Margarito). Then after the Floyd fight he had another huge win over Matinez.

I already addresed Mosley.

If George wants to say something to me he can say it. No need for you to WWE tag team, not that it bothers me. Neither of you have really said anything remotely sound on this matter.

I'm not embarrased at all. I'm waiting for someone to be consistent in how they determine when someone's prime is. cslb and Phillyfan have at least acknowledged that people are all over the place when it comes to this.

If you are coming off a streak of top notch wins and you are also ranked very high that is arguably your prime. Simply being in your physical athletic prime is not enough of a criteria. In some eras Hopkins at 28 when he lost to Roy would have been considered past it.

Yes Manny was a better all around fighter after the Marquez and Bradley losses. Because he did in fact become a better all around fighter. I challenge anyone on this forum to disagree with me. You'd be wrong.

After those losses Pac went back to the drawing board and:

-had better defense
-better footwork
-better lateral movement
-picked his shots more carefully
-used more angles
-went to the body more
-used the jab more
-hooked off the jab
-got better at winning rounds and had better ring generalship.

This is not even up for debate. I followed Pacuiao's career for a very long time and noticed the subtle changes in his overall style and game plan from fight to fight. When he was younger he often relied heavily on overwhelming people with sheer volume and hand speed.

 

I can't get behind this idea that a fighter's prime shouldn't be based primarily on his physical peak.

What this argument runs up against is the fact that virtually no one can improve mentally enough to overcome a loss in physical ability that comes with no longer being in your physical prime. And we also know that reaction time slips as we age, so it's mental too.

Manny is the LAST fighter I'd try to say this about. He had strategy, but he was still far and away known for being a freak athlete, so much so that fighters were shocked by it in the ring and were caught off guard.

I've come across a handful of other guys that say what you're saying. No disrespect, but I find it to be a narrative builder more than the superior criteria they think it is. History overwhelming shows us that fighters are in their prime from around roughly age 23-33. There simply aren't enough counter-examples to question this paradigm.

 

Do You think Pacquiao was more skilled and more technically sound in his 20's, yes or no?

 

When you say "20s", it's hard to understand what's meant and the difference matters. Early and mid 20s, you probably aren't at your peak technically, and Manny is no exception. But from around 27 on, I don't think a fighter improves that much mentally or technically to make up for the loss of your physical prime that starts occurring around 33.

Some fighters offset this a little bit by adapting well, but you can't outright overcome it, as say a 36 year old man.

 

Terry Norris would be a bad match for Floyd @54.