Mayweather and the Double Standards

Great article.

 

Is floyd sitting down?

 

There you go.

:thumbsup

 

Great article...there's no doubt he should be runner up as fighter of the decade.

 

That's all well and good.

However, the issue that myself as a Mayweather fan and a fan of boxing has with Money is that he talks, borderline demands to be recognised at the greatest fighter of all time, in his own words better than Ray Robinson, better than Muhammad Ali.

Now Ray Robinson was not a natural Middleweight, his welter campaign was the stuff of legends and he is regularly regarded as the greatest fighter who ever laced them up.

Why is this the case? Becase when he moved up in weight he didn't fight a selection of fighters, he fought them all.

Now I'm not going to hold Floyd to Robinsons standard because the boxing landscape is utterly different in the present to the time Robinson was active - The fact Robinson has almost three times as many KO's as Floyd has fights in the time of just one champion per class, it's not that fair.

BUT

To be a "greater fighter than Ali, a greater fighter than Robinson" - You're putting yourself at a standard where you simply CAN NOT pick and choose.,

My main issue with the article above is that it's pre-determining results. "Lesser fighters" is used too many times in the article, because at the end of the day - It's a fight. Anything can happen in a fight and if boxing was a sport determined by somone being of "lesser ability" than the other - Why even have the fight in the first place?

Duran would have lost to Leonard in Montreal, Frazer to Ali at the Garden, Pacquiao to Barerra and DLH and so on and so on.

But the fact is - You don't know.

Is Gene Fullmer a more skilled fighter than Ray Robinson? Jake LaMotta? Carmen Bassillio?

Going by the "lesser fighter" theory - Ray should have turned down all their challenges with one glove - But no - He has a loss to all of those men, and also a win.

The difference between Ali and Robinson is that they FOUGHT. They fought everybody. They didn't have a "If it don't make dollars then it don't make sense" attitude to fighting, they fought everyone.

This is why Pacquiao is also the fighter of the decade in my opinion. Because no matter how you slice it or view his successes - He's fought them all!

The mere fact we're talking about a fighter who's manager at the announcement of the JMM fight kept saying in answer to questions from the press about the weight the fight would be fought at said "It's a welterweight fight" to me says - Then don't pick and choose - Fight the top five. All of them.

What is more valuable in terms of resume'? The perception that a fighter was old or the fact you fought them and bested them?

Cotto, Williams, Mosley, Margaritto - I'd only pick Williams to win over Floyd if I was forced to bet money. Even then I would probably lean toward Floyd seeing as how Williams was beaten by clever boxing, something Floyd posesses in spades.

Of course, he just keeps telling us he has it and doesn't show it enough in my opinion.

Give me the fights and I'll give you the respect you deserve, not demand.

 

ali and robinson couldnt lace there shoes at the end of there career. Fighting them all aint as good as it seem. Its easier on the fighter to be selective who he fights. Quality important figures in boxing is much better to have on your resume than how many robinson had? 80-100 some wins? and cant even watch tv because you forgot what was on because a commercial came on(memory of a gold fish)

 

He turned professional in 1940 at the age of 19 and by 1951 had a professional record of 128-1-2 with 84 knockouts

In 11 years? You can keep your respect.

Boxing record
Total fights 202
Wins 175
Wins by KO 108
Losses 19
Draws 6
No contests 2

 

Still a hell of fighter, though. Floyd, I mean.

 

Great piece.
He had his shares of fighting the best and handpicking some, well almost everyone does that anyway. But his achivements should speak for itself... 5 division champ(3 linear), unbeaten record. I for one doesnt like his personlity, but that doesnt bar me from giving him the credit due him.
Best fighter of the decade is a toss up between him and pac IMO

 

Handpicking and either "calling out" or waiting to be "called out" is not what great champions do. The fans want to see the best fight the best. There was never any BS going on lets say in Ali's era because he fought every one of the best. When another strong challenger came up, Ali would take them on too. Notice no one speaks of Ali as a cherry picker or ducker. None of the true greats are talked about in such a manner. Mayweather on the other hand has not faced the best in the division and has only himself to blame if he doesn't get what HE thinks is his just due. He has to earn it first.

 

True. I think him being already at the heavyweight division is a big factor why he fought everyone that comes or a challenge to him. Problem is with regards to mayweather or even pac is that their jumping up in weights in a very short period preventing them to really establish themselves at a particular weight, leaving impressions of them ducking and handpicking opponents. No, im not gonna say they duck or didnt duck no one because that discussion has already been debated million times already.

 

you put too much weight in what should happen and not enough in what has happened. even if i was floyds biggest fan and i thought he could beat all the fighters people want him to fight i would still have to admit that being able to do it and actually doing it are miles apart. much bigger upsets have happened in boxing than floyd losing to an old shane, for example. most people give floyd his props as a great fighter but you cant ignore the circumstances and strength of opposition in his fights. haters and huggers aside, i think most knowledgeable fans place floyd right where he deserves to be.

 

He never faced the prime, winning welters of his era. Nobody buys that everyone was running from him all the time, its silly. He isn't pound for pound the best, but dollar for dollar he did and does quite well. He was a pound for pound fighter at 130 and 135 and a of course one of the greats of his generation, but Pac's resume is far better. You have to take into consideration the far smaller stature of Pacquiao.

 

:goodGood ****