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

He lost to Vargas in what was considered an off night for Vargas. De La Hoya he’s the crap out of Vargas.

Canelo was above Vasquez and Simon. Cotto wasn’t clearly worse than them.

 

How do you score the Simon and Vargas fights?

 

We're talking past each other here.

There's a difference between an athletic peak and a skill peak. But the two aren't equally malleable and are also weighted differently in where an aging fighter stands in overall ability.

Once again, my contention is that no aging fighter can improve enough in their technical or strategic skill such that it actually outstrips their losses in athletic ability. I would also call into question the extent to which a fighter can truly change his approach and strategies in his 30s. Seems to me that most fighters by and large revert to what they know, or can only change slightly.

Manny might have picked up some technical or strategic skill sometime in his early 30s. But by the time he was 35 or so, it was clear that father time had caught up to him such that whatever adjustments he made were cancelled out by a loss in athletic ability.

And once again, I think history support my original contention. Few if any fighters truly fall outside of this paradigm without it being a stretch.

I like that you're trying to emphasis that aging fighters can adapt and add new skills, but I don't see how it fundamentally alters the paradigm or common perception that roughly 23-33 is going to be your prime.

 

Glass City Cobra,

Not by me it doesn’t. I’m only looking at his ratings at the weights specified.

Again, he can’t be classed as the no.1 WW of all time. That ranking is too high for that weight class. But on a H2H basis, yes, I can see how you could rate him in the top 5.

They were very good fighters, but not great fighters. Not when he fought them. There is nothing phenomenal about his WW resume.

I’m personally not crying over it. And I was unbelievably impressed by how sharp Floyd was after a long lay off. But that’s not the point. The point is, he deliberately cheated Marquez on the scales. You know this. Again, I’m not seeing these phenomenal wins that you are seeing.

Maidana was tough and awkward. But again, nothing special. Remember, it’s you who has to defend your opinion that I have issue with. The onus is on you to tell me how these WW wins were phenomenal. That’s the only issue that I have. I rate the Maidana win. Because Floyd was at an advanced age, and it was a very tough match up for him stylistically. Which means that I have no issue with anybody saying that this was another very good win under the circumstances. But it seems to me, that you have clearly exaggerated the greatness of his WW resume. Yes, Maidana outweighed him. And we know that other fighters did too. And of course, that has to be taken into account when analysing his wins. Quite rightly, him being outweighed adds value to any victory. But still, the circumstances with Marquez were different. At the end of the day, despite outweighing him, Maidana was a WW like Floyd was. Whereas Floyd agreed a C-W with Marquez, before deliberately coming in heavier. Marquez wasn’t a WW. So to me, there’s no point saying that things evened themselves out, as Marquez was outweighed, but then so was Floyd. Again, it takes the shine off of the Marquez win. And when all of these wins have been broken down, they aren’t as special as what you think they are.

You will only see what you want to see.

Yes, it enhances your legacy. But again, only within reason. If Canelo goes on to clear out the LHW division, Floyd would still only get credit for beating a version of Canelo who’d fought guys like Lara and Trout etc.

Regarding the Rumble, I’d say that Floyd’s win over Canelo doesn’t even compare to that win.

 

Glass City Cobra,

How many times have we been over this?

Manny did not refuse any random drug tests. That is a myth that you guys have pushed for years. And it’s simply not true. Manny agreed to be randomly tested, but he didn’t want to be tested up until the day of the fight, as in 2005, he’d felt weak against Erik Morales, after he’d had to have blood taken close to the fight, as his original samples had somehow been misplaced. That’s what happened.

The boxing landscape has now changed. Testing of that nature is now commonplace. But back then, it wasn’t. Guys simply weren’t tested like that back in 2011. And Manny had a legitimate reason for his request. So he asked for a cut off period, which would have included an immediate after fight blood and urine test. But as you’re well aware, they could never reach a compromise on the number of cut off days. In the end, Manny eventually went back and agreed to Floyd’s number of cut off days. But by that point, Floyd had taken them off of the table, where it became a battle of one-upmanship due to their egos.

No, he didn’t. He was denied a painkilling injection before the fight. He then had surgery 5 days after the fight. He then claimed that he rested afterwards by bathing in the ocean.

Again, you only see what you want to see. If you go and look at the old timelines of the 5 year saga, there were many, many different issues. It dragged on for half a decade. Yet all you do is fixate on that one interview. Yet Roach also said many others things too. But you conveniently ignore that. You also ignore the fact that Floyd once tried to claim all of the PPV revenue, that Manny eventually agreed to all of Floyd’s testing demands, as well as the fact that after years of slandering Manny, it was actually Floyd who’d clearly taken PEDS before they fought.

Look how desperate you are man. Just stop. Shane’s peak was around the time he’d fought Oscar. Nobody else thinks that Shane was at his best against Floyd. Was he also at his best against Sergio Mora too? It’s absolutely ridiculous.

He was clearly faded and injured. That is unless you think that the surgery was fabricated and it never really happened.

It isn’t debatable. Cotto was past his best. He’d already been bashed up by Marg and Manny. Martinez was shot when they fought at MW. Martinez had barely beaten Martin Murray, where he’d had injured knees.

Ordinarily, I’d address every one of these above points. But I’m not going to bother. And here’s why:

Everything that you have typed above, completely contradicts your opinions of Manny from a few years ago.

We debated this subject either last year or the year before, and I ended up posting old quotes of yours from some of your previous threads.

Again, when Manny first fought Tim Bradley, YOU said that he was faded, and no longer the same guy as he’d once been. You said that. You said that he was nowhere near the guy he’d once been.

If you want me to post the links again, I’ll go and find them.

At the end of the day, you rubbished Manny, basically labelling him as being half the guy he’d once been. But then as soon as Floyd beat him, you then had to hype him back up again so it adds value to Floyd’s win.

None of your points above can be taken seriously.

 

Great post.

He’s trying to debate via Boxrec.

Canelo is a great fighter. But I’d have had Winky beating the version of Canelo who Floyd beat.

 

You obviously only want to focus on his losses.

What about his style?

What about the fact that he beat Shane and Tito?

A version of Shane coming off a win over Oscar in 2003, and not the 2010 version which Floyd fought.

What about the fact that Floyd had competitive fights with Oscar and Cotto at the weight?

Oscar caused him huge issues until he faded down the stretch.

You can’t just look at Winky’s losses on paper and then claim a victory for Floyd.

Look at Floyd’s fight against Maidana. That was just after his masterclass against Canelo. And I could say that Maidana had already been beaten by Khan and Alexander. But we both know that it’s not as simplistic as that.

What we know, is that Winky was a more established JMW than Floyd, and that he was bigger, stronger, heavier and a highly skilled southpaw.

It would have been a very tough match up for Floyd.

 

Tito—past it
Shane did pretty well in the rematch despite being at 154. Floyd owned Shane.

 

Winky beat Shane before Shane beat Vargas.

We can note things like this all day.

 

Again, we can play these games all day.

I could say that Oscar was past it.

Floyd fought a version of Shane that was 6 years older than the version who Winky beat.

We can twist these stats anyway we want.

The point is, Winky was a fine fighter who’d have caused Floyd huge issues with his size, style, skills and experience.

 

If he were capable of beating Floyd, I think we would’ve seen him do a lot better against Shane and Vargas.

 

Stop being silly.

Of course he was capable of beating Floyd at JMW.

More than capable.

Again, look at how they’d have matched up stylistically. That is the most important thing to look at.

Highlighting statistics and wins without allowing for context means nothing.

Again, we can play the Boxrec game all day long.

How about this:

Oscar beat Fernando Vargas in 2003.

Oscar then lost to Shane in 2003.

Winky then beat Shane in 2004.

Shane then beat Vargas in 2006.

Floyd then struggled to beat a faded and inactive Oscar in 2007. A version who retired the year after.

A young version of Winky losing to Vargas isn’t evidence that he couldn’t have beaten Floyd at his peak.

 

If we’re talking about stylistically, Floyd would torture Winky with lead right hands and turn him whenever he tried to set his feet.

 

Torture him with right hands?

You don’t think that using the word ‘torture’ is an exaggeration?

You don’t think that a bigger, heavier southpaw with an equal reach and a great jab would have presented Floyd with any issues?

Remember that Floyd ran his mouth off about once fighting Winky, until Winky then accepted and called him out.

Then what happened?

Winky would have been a very difficult match up for Floyd at JMW.

 

Your contention that no aging fighter can improve enough in their technical skill to outstrip a loss in athletic ability it simply false.

Hopkins, Walcott, Foreman, Wladmir, and several other boxers continued to improve technique/skill wise well past their physical/athletic prime. That is not even debatable.

The adjustments Pacquiao made were not cancelled out by his loss in athleticism because he is still a very explosive, fast, high workrate fighter. It's not like he has suddenly become a gunshy hesitant boxer who only throws 8-10 punches a round. And he has continued to get good wins over prime fighters such as Broner, Bradley, Vargas, Thurman, etc.

The eye test and the results in the ring do no agree with you. If he was really so far past it he'd be taking loss after loss, not being competitive with guys ranked in the top 10/belt holders/etc.

I do agree that there aren't a lot of boxers who fall outside the paradigm but it is quite clear Pacuiao is one of them.

I am not trying to change any sort of perception that 23-33 is the physical prime of most boxers. That's common sense and basic biology. The original point I was making was that Floyd's win over Pac should not be diminished by Pac's age since

1) Floyd was actually older than Pac

2) Pac was a champion and the #2 p4p fightter in the world when the match happened

3) Pac did in fact improve in many subtle areas technique/skill wise and

4) Pac has continued to remain relevant at 147 with several good wins over much younger men.