Max Kellerman on Who Is Greater: Mayweather or Pacquaio

Thx man! That was awesome! I NEVER liked him. But this changes my mind. Why doesn't he say this kind of stuff on the air instead of all the bull**** hyperbole? I agree with everything he said. I wish everybody heard that.

 

Kellerman just went up a peg or two in my book. Great explanation of his viewpoint.

 

I've watched this over a few times now, he justifies his opinion very well, but I still disagree, which is absolutely fine. The argument isn't settled on the overall result of their fight, but it definitely sways it in Mayweather's favour and it's harder to argue against him, due to how comfortable the victory was.

 

I know which one I would rather watch.

 

I don’t think it’s valid to compare Roman and Pacquiao. Pacquiao was a dried out teenager at those weights. Floyd at that age was only like 5 or ten pounds heavier.

 

He's spot on

 

I liked his logic to. I agree.

 

I agree with his argument in regards to p4p but I disagree with his logic in regards to Floyds win over Canelo at the beginning of the q&a. If you beat a green, developing fighter, you dont get credit for everything that fighter did after he developed and became a better more complete fighter. Thats a bull**** argument and the same logic used to justify Jones ducking Hopkins for years. "He already beat Hopkins." No, he beat a green, still developing Hopkins, he doesnt get credit for beating the finished product. I dont agree that if you beat a green, developing fighter in his first big dance and he eventually goes on to do great things, it looks like better win for you. No. It looks like a better win IN HINDSIGHT, but within the context of the event its only as good as the fighter was at the time in which you beat him. Period. If a guy is 17, has 10 fights and has never gone beyond 8 rds and you beat him and then 6 yrs later in his 50th fight he wins a title you dont get credit for beating the champion, you get credit for beating a prelim fighter. Period.

 

Here's my take:
Pacquiao was the best fighter in the world, and Mayweather was the best boxer in the world.
If they'd fought earlier, Pac MAY have battered him. However, at the advanced ages at which they fought, it is still possible to be the best boxer, yet it it is no longer feasible to be the best fighter. Hence, Mayweather wins every time. As for pound for pound, the jury is out for me. But I think I'll put Mayweather one place above. He beat him comfortably.

 

Fully agreed with both statements here. I like Pac more than Floyd by a lot, but it's tough to rate him over Floyd overall, even if I think at their respective primes, Pac had a good chance to win. That's not what actually happened though, and I can't rate based off potential and speculation.

 

Floyd beat a Canelo who hadn’t peaked yet (he still might be improving), but he was not green either. He had two belts already.

It was a very good win. I can’t of another fighter who moved up that high in weight, and at that age, to shutdown an undefeated, unified champion.

 

The Marquez fights are evidence enough for me that Pacquiao never would’ve won. Marquez was the only elite boxer-counterpuncher who Pac fought above 130. Bradley and Cotto were good boxers, but both more aggressive and less technical than Marquez.

 

In this era I dont equate having a belt with heing a developed fighter. Ggg had a belt a million defenses and hadnt fought anyone. Just having a belt or two doesnt make you a great or even finished fighter. I just have an issue with the fact that we can easily and correctly dismiss a win over a shot former great because he is no longer at his best but we give undue credit for wins over fighters that were fought before they were at their best? And frankly picking the right time to fight a fighter as a means of cherry picking was Floyds forte.

 

Spot on