MAYWEATHER is probably TBE (from a Pacman fan)

He won 120 fights but a lot of those guys were bums. Look at their records and you'll see that it wasn't the most competitive era at that particular point in time.

I'm not saying SRR didn't beat great fighters but he lost to great fighters too. He wasn't dominant in the way Floyd is where he's just beating all the great fighters and not taking any losses.

You can argue Floyd ducked Williams so that is why he never took a loss. You can also argue that Floyd ducked Pacquiao and wont fight Bradley. Honestly I think Floyd probably could beat any of these three guys but I think those are the three guys who had the best chance of handing Floyd his first loss.

I don't see how Floyd could have beaten prime Williams. The Paul Williams who beat Margarito would have probably beat Floyd due to his style. If you think Floyd struggled with a guy like Maidana then Williams is the worst possible style because of his work rate.

I think Pacquiao actually would likely be outboxed. Bradley would be tough but it depends on what weight they fought at and how old Floyd was. If Floyd has to fight Bradley right now he might actually lose that fight because his physical abilities might not given him the kind of advantages he would have when younger.

So yes I think Floyd should have fought a few guys he didn't fight but would it have made much of a difference. If Floyd had all of those fights he still would have beaten everybody else. If Floyd fought guys multiple times like SRR did then yes I think he could have a 100-3 record if he lost to Pacquiao, Williams and Bradley.

Here is something to factor into SRR's record. It was also a racist time back then. I don't think boxing wanted a black champion and fighters were probably avoiding fighting him which caused him to fight the same guys multiple times. This makes the record more padded but it also would mean there wasn't a lot SRR could have done about it.

 

You're back to obsessing about records without any context. So if Duran had retired after the 1st Leonard fight his record would have been 72-1 with one of the best wins in history under his belt.

Isn't that better than Floyd's record?

JCC went 89-0-1 that too is far better than what Floyd's done.

Lopez retired at 51-0-1

 

How old was Duran though? I'm looking at age too.
It's not just record, it's who you beat, it's how you beat them, it's longevity.

For example Foreman won a title at almost 50 years old which puts him in the history books until Hopkins went and surpassed that. Holyfield is in the history books because he won more heavyweight titles than anyone else. Floyd could be the 40 year old undefeated with 50-0.

Then on top of that we could look at who he beat.

 

I'm not sure of your question. When he was 72-1 he was about 30 years old, and he ended up fighting until he was 49. When he beat Barkley he was 37. As mentioned Duran was the 2nd fighter to fight into his 5th decade.

 

Well again, 'champion' in this era has taken on a different context as opposed to 'champion' in Robinson's era.
Most champs today are merely belt-holders who hold a portion of a 'world' title. However we cut it, winning a strap today is easier to do than winning a genuine world title of the past and hence, the quality of these belt-holders is not of the same standard as a true world champion (or even sometimes contender) of the past. (Generally speaking.)
So yes, you can look at 'champions' he has beaten, but the word champion today does not carry the weight it once did. It skews people's perception of things and alters the context of these achievements relative to each era.

Floyd's being the best fighter of his generation well into his late 30's is a great accomplishment, but again to compare that to Robinson's state at the same age is unfair.
SRR had a lot more mileage on his clock in his late 30's. He had a tons more fights and therefore a ton of wear and tear on his body at 37. Floyd remains well-preserved because of a relatively inactive schedule and because he is much more defensively-minded that Robinson. He has been given the boon of proper rest and recuperation between fights, which Robinson did not have.

Also, inevitably once a fighter has more and more fights, his winning percentage is going to drop. Let Floyd fight another 47 fights, and I bet that he will have several losses on his record. It's inevitable.

I'm not downplaying his achievements but even though factually you are correct, it has to be viewed in the right context if you're going to compare his achievements to fighters from distant eras.

 

By age 37 how many losses did he have and how long in years was he a boxer? I think longevity is an important metric.

 

I think longevity is based on the number of fights you have, don't you. So if you go by that mean after 50 fights he was 49-1, after 60 fights he was 59-1, after 70 fights he was 69-1. So let Mayweather fight another 20 fights and see where things stand.

At 37 Duran had 21 years of boxing behind him. (He didn't retire midstream into his career,)

 

How do we know it's easier? I don't think it's easier. I think it depends on your weight class and the era. I don't think 140-154 are walk in the park weight classes but then look at cruiserweight?

I think it depends on the talent pool depth in your weight class in the era you're fighting. I think Floyd was in one of the most talented weight classes but just didn't take on all the fights he could have. He could have fought Williams, Margarito, Bradley, Pacquiao, and then there would be no question.

 

That's a fair comment.

Hey listen, I think Floyd is a terrific talent, he really is. His personality puts some people off but looking at the fighter only, anyone would be hard-pressed to not give him his due.

It will be interesting to see how he is remembered in 10 years time. Like I said earlier, I think his stock will rise.

 

I give up with *****s and their *****ism's. Absolute ******ed boxing knowledge, the lot of them.

 

Although I do not hold that Mayweather is TBE, I think the point that the OP is trying to make is a significant one.
Although it is speculation ultimately, it is true that testing was not stringent AT ALL back in say SRL's time or earlier. It was far easier to get away with many more corrupt strategies.
Ajax F.C the 70's for example, all of their players were on PED's and one of the ex-players stated that he would have so much energy that it'd go through the night.
Fighters are MUCH better with PED's. I think this warrants research.

 

Well it certainly warrants research before you decide there's an validity to it. Right now it's merely a hypotheses.

 

I don't see any man being able to handle that defense, I can see Floyd beating anyone in the history of the sport (In his weight class).

In terms of skills, he is TBE.

 

yull be shifted to the classic forum soon enough mvc

 

The classic section should be password protected, and a skill tested questionnaire completed to see you gets in.