Mayweather & Current Legacy

Some of this is very good and accurate.

However:

1) DLH fought several Top 10 PFP guys when he faced them. Hopkins, Trinidad, Mosley 1. More importantly, in the last several years, we've had a lot of Top 10 PFP guys facing each other (Pac, Marquez, Wright vs. Taylor, Wright vs. Hopkins, etc.).

What we need, as stated in another post, and in line with some of your post, is full fledged unification. Calzaghe and Kessler did it....other examples as well. Or, ignoring the alphabets, and just shooting for the best guy.

This fight tonight is not bad. It's a very interesting match-up. What I'd like to see, however, to solidify a claim to be mentioned along with greats of the past, is full unification of the division, and precipitated by a challenge from Mayweather without pricing himself out.

 

1) Your first point is a distortion. When Duran made his challenge, it was to all of the unified champs, all of which were in their primes. You never heard a sportswriter criticize Duran for going after those guys, because they were pure champs.

What Mayweather has done in the past is put exorbinant price tags on himself, which makes it hard for the other guy to make money against him. Why did Tszyu go to Britain? Obviously, more money because of how Mayweather negotiates.

As we know, there isn't clarity or purity at 147. What is best for the division isn't a win over Baldomir. I certainly hope you wouldn't compare Mayweather's challenge of Baldomir to Duran's challenge of Leonard. After all, Forrest, past his prime and injury prone over the last several years, was more impressive against Baldomir than Mayweather was at 147.

UNIFICATION---as stated previously---is the way to go. Don't get a trinket, and move on, and then start comparing yourself to Armstrong, Ali, and Robinson. If other divisions shoot for unification as we've been seeing, and Williams and Cintron were trying to unify a % in their division, why not Mayweather? Shoot, Archie Moore had wanted posters published all over the country challenging Marciano. Mayweather is not a guy who pushes the envelope like that. He's a risk assessment guy.

2) Addressed pretty much in the previous post. Don't compare Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, and Hagler to the comp. Mayweather has faced at 147 and 154. Duran had fought almost 70 professional fights when he moved up, and beat Leonard in the first fight in one of the great welterweight title fights in history. You're talking about automatic HOF guys in their primes with who Duran went after, and his fights with Hearns, Benitez, and Hagler were fought when Duran was several years past his prime, and his HOF opponents were in their primes.

Remember as well, Duran actually started his career as a bantamweight to super bantamweight. Armstrong started low as well, won his first title at 126 and held 126, 135, and 147 simultaneously. He drew with Garcia for the middleweight crown. Much of Armstrong's defenses at 147 were fought well under that limit. 140 was actually kind of pushing it when he defended his 147 pound crown. He sometimes even weighed below the lightweight limit when he defended at 147.....and he made a helluva lot of defenses there.

3) I don't like to repeat this, but as addressed in a previous post, Leonard did not avoid Pryor as a pro. He was fighting higher level pound-for-pound game in 1980 and 1981. The detached retina issue came up in 1982, when Leonard was aiming for a prime Hagler. It is believed by many that Leonard got the detached retina in the Hearns fight. Hearns, in the meantime, actually fought as a middleweight in his next fight, and settled in at jr. middleweight thereafter for quite a while. Pryor's claim would be legitimate if he did what Duran and Benitez did, vacate (135 & 140),establish yourself as a contender at 147, and earn the title shot.

4) Look at the amount of Hall of Fame fighters they faced in those fighters' primes. Look at the IBHOF list......It's almost countless. I hope you wouldn't compare Baldomir to Kid Gavilan. So many more examples it would be hard to list. Mayweather hasn't faced a HOF fighter in that fighter's prime in his career. Hatton might be the closest thing to it because he beat Tszyu, and is generally considered the top guy at 140. Let's remember, Castillo was a good fighter at 135, but he was JC Chavez's sparring partner, and not mentioned among the top elite Mexican fighters in history.

5) Your point is a distortion. DLH's "performance" was against Mayorga, who had been bludgeoned so badly by Trinidad that he considered retirement. De La Hoya peaked as a welterweight in the late 1990s. Whitaker was not in his prime for sure when they met, but he still had superb reflexes and timing when he fought Oscar, he was still essentially an undefeated fighter, while Oscar was a few years before his prime when they met. Oscar probably peaked around 1998-1999. I had him winning 8-4 in rounds over Tito, but as always, I was rooting against Oscar. The only time I ever rooted for Oscar was against Mayorga.

6) DLH fulfilled an oblgation to fight Carr, and didn't duck anyone. His next fight, listen closely, was unification against Trinidad. When Mayweather defeated Baldomir, who is a tough, but ordinary fighter, did he go after unification? No. He went to DLH, who can be deemed to be 3-3 in his previous 6 fights before the match. That's part of the problem in comparing Mayweather.....he claims he's one of the greatest fighters in history....Oscar is not vociferous along those lines.....and Oscar has a deeper resume....yet PBF puts himself with the greats like Robinson and Ali. Go figure.

7) The difference with Trinidad is that when he lost, he lost to legitimate HOF opponents in their primes. Hopkins---who he was favored to beat---and Winky Wright.

8) Unquestionbably. Mosley has put himself on the line a lot more than Mayweather has. Winky Wright and Vernon Forrest were multi-talented fighters with distinct physical advantages, and in their primes. Mosley had lost to Forrest in the amateurs, and it was well known that Forrest felt he had Mosley's stylistic number, and became the Fighter of the Year for that year. When Mosley lost to Cotto, it was close, and when Mosley was far, far past his prime.

 

Much of this has been addressed in a previous post.

If a fighter is going to call themselves one of the all-time greats, price yourself in such a way to make the fights happen. In 2002, if fights can't be made, and you think you're an all-time great, go for Forrest and Mosley at 147....just as previous lightweights in the past have done.

Let's remember something substantive as well: Kostya Tszyu aggressively sought unification when he was a champion, and he knocked Zab Judah goofi. He also spent a helluva lot of time injured during the time frame you mentioned as well, causing The Ring to vote him as Comeback Fighter of the Year in 2004.

I do need evidence of press releases, or exact quotes and their sources. With Floyd, much of the press has been very critical of him for the reasons stated. He is not considered a "ducked" fighter. None have been critical of the other fighters nearly as much as Floyd. Floyd, as Emanuel Steward has stated, is a "very good" fighter, but Floyd's grandiose claims just don't stack up well if you look at the overall level of opposition compared to those he mentions himself along with.

 

When I watched the first fight, I scored it 115-113 (7-5) based on effective aggression and the harder, better punches landed.

In the second fight, I scored it 116-112 for Mayweather.

However, let's remember that Castillo is not considered one of the elite Mexican fighters in boxing history. He was Julio Cesar Chavez's sparring partner.

Besides all of the other posts I've put up related to the topic of Mayweather, I think the best thing Mayweather can do right now to solidify his claims is to totally dominate Hatton and cleanly stop him within 6 rounds, and move towards unification, as Williams & Cintron were setting the tone for.

I hope that you all noticed that I did not include Duran's win over Barkley in the previous analyses. Sure, Barkley won it from Hearns, but if you trace the lineage, it's not as pure as one would like in terms of the opponent, and the history of that division from the time Leonard beat Hagler, and Hearns winning the splintered version from Roldan.

I hope it was also noticed how I didn't throw in Leonard's 1988 super middleweight/light heavyweight "title" win over Donny LaLaonde as well. He had other, and more substantive game, to go after instead of the political maneuvering he pulled in setting stipulations for the fight.

Several months before Leonard - LaLonde, I sat next to Julian Jackson during the Starling - Breland 2 & Chavez-Aguilar card earlier that year. Leonard came by and made some mock aggressive gestures towards Jackson. Jackson was polite, and didn't take a bit of it seriously. He knew Leonard wasn't going to give that a go, not to mention anything with McCallum or Nunn. Sugar Ray's major accomplisments started in the 1970s, and ended with Hagler. That's his true legacy....and a stunning one at at that.

 

You make a good and fair point on Cintron. He's been knocked out by Margarito, and Margarito - Williams was a good fight.

One can throw Margarito in the mix against Cotto---that fight can happen---and put Mayweather in with Williams. Then go from there.

Remember, the point(s) of contention I have with Floyd Mayweather are specifically related to his claims---and the claims of his uncle Roger---that he is among the best, if not the best, fighter of all-time. I, along with others, need to see quite a bit more for that claim to be solidified. At the moment, he is among the best fighters of this era (last 10 years or so), but falls short as one of the all-time best for reasons previously stated. I like his work ethic, his fundamental skill set, his speed, and his mental toughness (I've never seen him freeze in the ring).

 

I think that's a good assessment. It's good to use the word "great" infrequently. I don't think Floyd is yet a "great" fighter, whereas Duran, Armstrong, Robinson, both Leonards, Ali, etc. were. If he can unify what is probably the toughest division in boxing right now at welterweight, we really need to bow our heads to him and start thinking about putting him up there.

My pick in a welterweight unification tournament, however, would be Paul Williams.

 

Floyd clearly stepped up his game in this fight compared to his wins over DLH, Baldomir, and Judah. Unquestionably, for polls that had Pacquiao as the #1 PFP fighter in the sport, that must be changed now. Floyd is the best fighter in the world.

I picked Floyd by clear UD or late stoppage (on cuts). On paper, he did close to what was expected. The conventional wisdom, which is often wrong in boxing, was correct here. What Floyd did, in my book at least, is exceed my expectations. His close out between the 8th and 10th rounds was brilliant stuff.

Although it is indeed very wise to wait and allow a fighter's legacy to soak in over time, his career does appear to be close to over, and we know how good his opposition has been thus far. Floyd, in my opinion, is on the cusp. Successful unification would put him over the top, and get him in with the top 15-20 fighters in boxing history.

Floyd is divisive for various reasons, nonetheless, and that causes issues for some in coming to crystal clear judgment.


Floyd Mayweather has a Jack Johnson mentality, and a Jack Johnson level of ring intelligence. Very smart, very subtle, and extremely tough mentally. He actually did some subtle things toying with Hatton last night, just as Johnson toyed with a lot of his opponents while not looking invulnerable in the process.

Floyd is the best fighter in the world, as Johnson was. He has also been guilty of defiantly hand picking some opponents in his career, too. In kind, he will probably continue to thumb his nose at critics, thumb his nose as he runs red lights at high speed in a car more expensive than a % of American real estate, just as the jazz thumper and Mann Act target did almost 100 years ago. As stated in another thread, imagine if Johnson was born in 1978 instead of 1878? Let's face it, he'd be a worse villain than Mayweather. The example was given in that same thread.....as the ultra-lucid Archie Moore said about Johnson, “The man was a disaster to anyone who came near him. American blacks are still paying for him." Mayweather can be bad, but he's not that bad.

GBP should send him a bonus for last night, and you can expect that they'll be inclined to take it step farther than that. Too bad that they're not of the ilk of Tex Rickard.

I've been informed by an experienced and astute source that a tournament will be tough to make because Harvard alum and music industry mover and shaker, Al Haymon, manages both Mayweather and Williams.

Nonetheless................ as a rejoinder.......

If a Harvard alum, Bob Arum, can speak of putting his two guys, Margarito and Cotto, in against one another, then the other Harvard alum, Haymon. should be reminded that Mayweather and Williams can be put in with one another as well. They should both be reminded that another Harvard alum, Lou DiBella, was the catalyst in the 2001 tournament, and his 36-year-old fighter at the time, Bernard Hopkins, became much, much wealthier thereafter, while improving the sport in the process. We know that Hopkins has experienced what some may deem as lead paint brain freezes since then, but still, these types of tournaments, pitting the best against the best while jettisoning alphabet malaise, is what drives the sport to a higher level in myriad ways.

Heck, I think Mayweather deserves Oscar De La Hoya money for it. If you look at the 2004 middleweight round robin, I believe Oscar made over $30 million. He reportedly made more for losing to Mayweather this year.

Food for thought.

See you folks in late January/Early February. 2008 is looking good, and as mentioned above, it can become great with some solid, well thought out tweaks from the power brokers in the sport.