Mayweather the Goat?

Let me ask you this, doesn't it show more dominance of a fighter when you KO them or win a lopsided decision than quitting (cards were still close or some foul ending a fight). Neither of those are nearly as clear as the later. Yet you feel like getting KTFO still gets you the same credit you had previously for beating that fighter... quit for weird reasons when you're not really getting beating badly at all, then somehow gets your previous victory greatly reduced. I'm just baffled by this logic. Your not consistent how you apply this, nor even that you should apply it frankly. Can't wrap my head around that logic, but okay

 

You gotta be kidding. Chavez was king of the cab drivers. thats it.

 

I would imagine that 15 rounds would favor Julio. He would have to get to the body. Chavez had precison and heavy hands.
Floyd is stronger than many realize. He can use those elbows and shoulders. Mayweather was lightening fast @130.
Chavez would push him I agree

 

Julio would obliterate May at 130 or 135.

 

Is this what you meant? Not tat I care. https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-been-born-the-same-year-as-r-leonard.625406/

 

Mayweather is capable of beating any ATG close to his weight.

Not saying he goes 50-0 against Sugar Ray Robinson, but he could win plenty of fights against ATGs of the past

 

Hard to say. Speed is what makes a difference when two elites fight. The problem is Floyd would not have fought him. he would have waited to fight Julio after Randall beat him

 

Anywhere from 31 to 50 is fine. I think Floyd has one of the best records of all time, but his winning resume isn't top-30 in terms of quality of his opposition.

I like his boxing skills, especially his great defense and excellent ring IQ

 

Why no option for NOT top 50?

 

Lol, just looked at the poll results. Is there a more polarizing figure in boxing? 13 % for top 10 other than that 15-20 % at each 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50? It seems most guys are closer to a consensus placement than FMJ. Why does he divide so many people? Any thoughts on the variables in his rating?

 

Some fighters will fight to be the best, some don't … Some of us like battle tested resumes and putting importance on fighting other greats while they were in their prime too, some it's more eye test, h2h, and his phenomenal abilities … Not surprised he is all over the map, tbh

 

Well, to be honest, a plurality voted between #20-30; and that is likely a fair rating - albeit too high in my opinion.

As for your specific question, I can venture two guesses as to why he divides people.

First, in some cases, an athlete's personality - or persona - is so large that it spills into people's assessment of his athletic prowess. For instance, no matter what people think of Ali today, he was deemed by many in his time as an obnoxious loudmouth - and some even considered him a traitor. And when a person evokes such strong emotions, then that is bound to cloud some people's assessment.

Likewise, Floyd has such an irritating personality that I reckon some folks will under-rate him - perhaps even sub-consciously.

Second, in more substantive terms, the biggest knock against Floyd is his competition. Yes, he did fight some elite fighters; but he fought them all - Mosley, de la Hoya, Pacquiao - after they were past prime. So he has no "defining" win. Frankly, I think both Mosley and de la Hoya would have whipped him if they fought Floyd in their primes.

 

I am just not sure there is another top 50 guy that is all over the map like he is, appearing in 28% either top 10 or 41-50? So 72% have him 11-40 which seems a better ballpark to me. I only rate guys that have been retired, but since the book on Floyd has mostly been written. I think the 25-30 range is where I will have him...but that is a guess not my placement.

McGrain did a decent write up on him in his 50 greatest WW’s series whereby he pointed out that for all of the criticisms of Floyd’s opposition he fought more ranked opponents at WW than Hearns...ahh I will just copy his thoughts on Floyd at WW

09 – Floyd Mayweather (49-0)


Floyd Mayweather is a divisive figure, to put it lightly. For his legion of devoted fans, he is nothing less than the greatest fighter in history and, presumably, the greatest welterweight, too. For those that seek to undermine him — due, in many cases, to personal disdain for one of boxing’s more unpleasant characters — he belongs nowhere near the top ten welterweights in history. This being the case, I’ve endeavored to stay away, as far as it is possible in this entry, from opinion. I’ll deal in fact.

Floyd Mayweather defeated more ranked welterweight contenders than Thomas Hearns (rankings by Ring/TBRB). He defeated more top five contenders than almost anyone outside the top ten, aside from the likes of Jackie Fields – but Fields also lost to a handful of welterweights. Mayweather was unbeaten.

Mayweather defeated more welterweight lineal champions than Barney Ross. Working by the scorecards of the judges he was, for the most part, in non-competitive fights at the weight. He made a past-prime Manny Pacquiao, his #1 contender at the weight, look like a journeyman. He defeated more #1 ranked fighters (champions or top rated contenders) than all but the most storied of fighters. He boxed only three unranked men at the weight, two of whom were soft touches (Sharmba Mitchell, his first fight at the weight, and Andre Berto) and Ricky Hatton, the light-welterweight champion of the world and universally recognized pound-for-pounder, who he knocked out.

He was one of the few men to become a two-time lineal world-welterweight champion and the only man who ever did it without losing a fight, coming out of retirement to do what Barbados Joe Walcott and Benny Leonard both failed to do. During his welterweight career, moments of true danger were extremely rare; he was run close just once, in the first fight with Marcos Rene Maidana, a narrow victory he rendered wide in the rematch.

What Mayweather didn’t do was beat everyone who was available. He probably should have taken on Antonio Margarito, and Paul Williams was ranked very near the top when he was active in the division. That said, fighters who beat everyone available are close to non-existent. But if it pleases, you can zip on down to the entry on Henry Armstrong to read about a worse offender.

Nor did Mayweather show either great longevity (at the weight) or have the opportunity to beat another great welterweight, outside of Manny Pacquiao, who he had a chance to meet in his prime and failed to do so (for whatever reason). This is why Mayweather is not #1, nor anywhere near it. The top ten is well within his range however, which I make somewhere between fourteen and eight.

Outside of the ring he was an arrogant, loudmouthed, woman-beating bully bereft of class. Inside the ring he was a genius.

Other Top Fifty Welterweights Defeated: Shane Mosley (#29), Manny Pacquiao (#22).

http://tss.ib.tv/boxing/featured-ar...test-welterweights-of-all-time-part-five-10-1

 

Thanks for referring to the article. McGrain's view is not too different from mine. But I don't know how relevant is the number of champions or ranked fighters a guy fought - at least without context. I've referred already elsewhere to the shrinkage in professional boxer pool. So today's alphabet champion may not have been able to crack top 5 in Hearns' time; and today's ranked fighter may not even have been a regional contender in some weights in the 80s.