Is Mayweather underrated ?

Theoretically, yes. But you could say that about a lot of fighters, even SRR. Ok, so he didn't face Margarito or Williams, or DLH or Mosley in their primes. But Robinson didn't face Burley, Lytell, Williams or Ezzard Charles at all. I don't hold that against him really, but about as much as I hold the former against Floyd.

 

He was a safety first fighter for a big chunk of his career, but that doesn't mean that his defence wasn't great. One doesn't contradict the other.

 

@C.J. is a legend.

Long may he continue to discredit Mayweather.

 

Yes, the only division where he didn't beat the best beside himself was 140. But Kostya was fading out when he moved up and he beat Kostya's successor at 147, and he was only at 140 for a short time at that.

Aside from Kostya - Wllliams, Margarito, Brook, Khan and Bradley would all have been interesting opponents, but he beat better fighters, fighters that in several cases beat them.

 

I dont aim to discredit him. I merely give my own personal opinion of him which is not very high. He had the talents to be great , but in my opinion, took the easy route & joined the Vegas mafia & they've protected his bogus 0 ever since. Its strange how many people agree with me. Maybe I'm right LOL

 

ROFLMAO Floyd was TERRIFIED!! of Antonio Margarito

 

Yes it's often overlooked how Robinson did just that: overlooked burley and a lot of the black murderer's row. Can't get mad at Mayweather for not facing Williams or Margarito but just gloss over the open ducking that some ATG's did.

I just meant in terms of seeing how his philly shell would hold up against a wider variety of strategies and styles. To be completely honest, even though I have defended Mayweather in this thread, the majority of his opponents at 147 seemed to be aggressive flat footed Latino guys (maidana, Guerrero, etc) and seemed to really lack the quick handed athletic guys like Khan or the cagey scrappy guys like Bradley who could potentially take him outside his comfort zone. I don't think those two would win, but stylistically they would have been interesting to see how he adjusted. It's very telling how he called Emmanuel Augustus one of his most challenging opponents.

 

Yes this is another thing I find strange about the criticisms toward Mayweather. He often beat the guys who beat the men he supposedly avoided.

Margarito is just comedy. He got his ass handed to him on a silver platter by Mosley and then Floyd fought Mosley in his very next fight. But somehow Floyd was scared of Margarito even though the guy lost to not one, not two, but THREE men that Floyd beat.

 

I think especially Brook would have been a great challenge. Big, strong, quick and a good boxer. Floyd was fairly ancient when Brook rose to the top, though, so no shame in any way if he had struggled with him.

Khan would have been a good watch as well. And Bradley - just think his lack of height and reach would really hurt him against Floyd.

 

You are ignoring that styles make fights.

Mayweather would have most probably beat Margarito, but it is also probable that Mayweather didn't want to take the risk given Margarito's durability and high output.

 

Hating on any fighter because of their personality is funny - I get it but I find it funny, yet I do it. I guess I compare social impact and good achieved with status as an aspect of greatness - Louis, Jim Brown, Ali will always be greater than a Floyd as men if I'm teaching my kids about owning your talents and being an example but that shouldn't detract that Floyd enters the ring in top shape, makes adjustments mid-round, has incredible ring IQ and likely shows the most consistent defence on film of all the great defensive boxers.

I'm not excusing bad behaviour but boxing history is full of race baiters, racists, wife beaters, murderers, rapists and all sorts of undesirable behaviours that society generally punishes/punished outside the context of celebrity.

Imagine an audience where fighters get paid to cause other fighters potential life threatening violence yet the audience doesn't like certain fighters because of what they said out of the ring or how they chose to fight inside the ring. It's completely ironic.

For everyone that brings up Floyd's wife beating, Robbi did the same, as did others.

If we judge them purely by their skillset I think we avoid rabbit holes - I mean Monzon and Ayala aren't ever going to win Citizen of The Year awards are they?

 

Guerrero wasn’t flat footed back then. He was like a poor man’s Marquez but was a southpaw and much more of a true welterweight than him. He became much more beatable after fighting Mayweather when he turned blood and guts, but still got quite a few paydays.

Maidana stopped being flat footed once Robert Garcia got ahold of him. He would rush in at tricky angles instead of plodding like he did in earlier fights.

I feel like Pac would’ve had a lot more success if Bradley were really capable of giving Floyd issues.

Khan might’ve been a decent fight, but he never really forced the issue. Garcia gave him a dose of reality before he could really claim to be a star.

 

Do you believe that Mayweather could have won World War 2 single handily?

 

Well I wasn't completely ignoring it.

People forget that in the first Margarito Cotto fight, Cotto who was known as a well rounded aggressive boxer puncher suddenly changed tactics and became an outside fighter. Even with his half assed outboxed skills, he managed to look very good and had an impressive lead before he got broken down.

Margarito was big and durable and threw a crap load of punches, but he was also a VERY wide open target. Mayweather would not be able to miss if he tried.

And as far as aggressive high volume fighters go, Mayweather did beat Pacquiao in a very full affair. He completely neutralized Pacquiao's usual bum rush high output style. I just can't see Margarito managing to do much better even with the size advantage.

Maidana was another very durable high output guy and while he did have some success, it wasn't like Mayweather got his ass kicked or ran for the hills, he often stayed right in the pocket and landed some solid counters.

 

I completely agree. When it comes to how an athlete should conduct themselves, I would absolutely prefer teaching my kids about boxers like Ali and Louis. But when it comes to learning technique or discussing boxer ratings/skill, it would be foolish to ignore a boxer because of something they did outside the ring.

Liston fought cops and even broke the leg of one, but does that mean today's heavyweights shouldn't study his incredible Jab?

Good observation that boxing is an inherently violent sport where two men are attempting to inflict major damage to each other. I cringe when people virtue signal or cherry pick which boxer to criticize for their extracurricular activities.