Mayweather the Goat?

Yeah he is. He’s not in great shape but he’s still holding up. A friend of mine visited him not long ago.

 

I read he's having problems with diabetes, among other things?

 

Yeah. He’s also losing memory and his wife waits on him and has to wash him and stuff.

 

Damn.
He was such a great fighter.

 

An incredible fighter. One of my favorites.

 

I posted this article a while ago .. Don't know if you saw it or read it but Jose has a strong support group, and Mexico, and still gets taken in the ring

https://latinamericanpost.com/22834-jose-napoles-now-boxes-against-four-diseases

 

Maybe it's because we are from a different generation then!

When I used to frequent boxing forum a lot - say - late 90s and early 2000s, Tyson's ranking was all over, even among truly knowledgeable posters I respect!

 

That's an admittedly interesting hypothetical: Pacquiao v. Cuevas, that is. (I am silent on Maidana, because I have not watched enough of him.) It's possible that Manny could run circles around Cuevas, but Cuevas would kill him the minute he lands. I don't know how this turns out for sure.

But you are comparing champion v. champion; and I was speaking more of depth. Besides, why pick Cuevas? Loading the proverbial dice a bit? I obviously pick Hearns, Leonard, and Duran to murder Pacquiao. Benitez would beat him, too, if in shape. To be honest, I say Palomino grinds him down, too.

 

Wait, I am an old-timer; but I am not that old!

I would think my position was a moderate one on the old-timer v. modern/contemporary debate. I was certainly pegged that way when I was in my 20s and 30s, but perhaps I am closer to the old-timer scale now that I am well-into my 40s?

At any rate, to answer you specifically: I think "infinitely better" is a bit of mis-characterization or mis-attribution. I would say in general that the pool of boxing talent have been deeper in the past (simple arithmetic, among other reasons). As a result, the top guys were likely better in the past, too. Still, there are exceptions. It is possible, for instance, that Roy Jones could have competed at any era - though I do have unanswered questions about his chin. I am also among the minority who thinks he and G-Man would be a 50-50 proposition. In the old days with fewer belts and weights, they most certainly would have fought and settled this question; and this highlights why I think having more competition and fights are important in measuring how good someone is. The old guys were "exposed" more because they were tested more; but with so many contemporaries, we do not know of weaknesses, because there were no corresponding tests. Again, I think a prime Mosley and de la Hoya would beat Floyd. But we cannot tell, because Floyd was able to duck them in their primes in a way he may not have been able to in the past.

Also, a clarification: When speaking of "old-timers," I rather not talk about Greb or Dempsey, et al. That's way too far back even for me. I prefer to stay with fighters within my lifetimes I've seen (so 1970s onward); and when I talk about people further back, I only do so with guys I've seen a lot on tape - often a dozen or more fights.

 

No one ever came close to beating Harada at flyweight except corrupt judges. Harada then moved up and twice beat arguably the greatest bantamweight ever. He then moved up and whooped Famechon for the featherweight title but for the worst decision in a professional title fight I've ever seen - a decision that even local fans lustily booed.

He's in top 20 for me - easily.

 

I was really just pointing out that it would have been entirely possible for Pac or Mayweather to bag world titles in other eras, is all. Granted, I would pick Leonard, Hearns and Duran to defeat Pac and Mayweather, too.

Still, I think Pacquiao at welterweight holds up pretty well in most eras, all things considered. Ditto Mayweather.

Mostly, I was just noting the fact that every era has its strong and weak contenders.

 

Top 50 for sure.

 

So are you saying, that 40 or so years ago (the 70s) boxers were likely better than today… because of a deeper talent pool back then?

 

Mayweather is a top ten ever...stats don’t lie and he literally has the best stats ever. Personality wise not top ten but the ability to hit and not be hit there was no one better in the last 60 years. That doesn’t mean I think he beats everyone (no fighter ever would) but ability wise top ten in my book