In (say) 2050, when the dust has settled... does anyone seriously believe that historians will NOT rate Mayweather in the top-25 (at the very least!) all-time (or at least up until today - we have no way of knowing, how many greats will see the light of day over the next 30 years!)?
I agree what he's achieved, imo, is undoubtedly great. But lately I've been thinking it's because of his career management rather than in spite of it. I mean had he fought the 4/5 people he's accused of ducking there's only really 2 possibilities 1) he wins those fights, no real difference to his legacy, he gets accused of ducking 4/5 other people 2) he loses those fights, losses forever held against him, detracts from his legacy
I think it'll be more towards the top ten to be honest. I think the fighters he didn't face, he didn't face for a reason, but then I kinda think, everyone in an ATG list didn't face someone at some point and that was probably for a reason, so can it be held against him.
Floyd ducked Wright and prime versions of Cotto and Pac. At least two of those three would have beaten him handily. Hence why I don't take his unbeaten record seriously.
I agree with your statement on his unbeaten record. But there is nothing that says anyone of the 3 beat him handily. At least be fair to the guy. He always had the height, reach, and style advantage over Pac. Not saying he would have won but Floyd's problem was that he didn't test himself enough and take on a lot of risk. So the correct answer is , imo, we will never know how great he really was, or not
That’s a very good point. I’m quite young, I grew up with Mayweather, but I still don’t see him in the top 30 personally. Maybe he just sneaks in, but it’s a sport with a very rich history so that is by no means insulting. However by the time 2050 comes you’ll have some people ranking him as the GOAT, because less and less people will be schooled (I owe so much of my schooling to this forum) of people like Greb, Charles, Langford, Armstrong Fitz etc. I mean realistically let’s say Fury wins a series with Joshua by 2050 you could have some people ranking him over Ali potentially. But as boxing ‘historians’ and I use that term lightly for myself I think it’s our duty to keep their legacies alive as best we can. Even if only 1 in every 30 people you spoke to in real life actually bothered to look them up that’s still better than 0
So beating pretty much all of the best world champions from 130-154lbs over a span of 17 years and going undefeated doing so is underachieving now?
Hatton beat Tyszu around the time Mayweather beat Gatti. Hatton's father is on record as saying Mayweather challenged Hatton 7 times before they eventually made the fight. For the record Mayweather/Arum wanted a PPV after Gatti (his first PPV). They initially wanted Winky, that fell out over money. Then they wanted Hatton, Hatton turned it down. Then they wanted Judah, very nearly happened, Judah wanted too much money, big mistake he then loses to Baldomir, which I think is a bit controversial. Then they decided between Casamayor and Mitchell as a tune up for Judah's WW title. Mayweather was calling out Cory Spinks before he lost to Judah too. The Casamayor fight was meant to happen but Casamayor lost to Freitas. Freitas didn't want to fight Mayweather. Casamayor was busy rebuilding against Corrales and Mayweather moved up after that Lots of reason fights don't happen for it all to be levelled at Mayweather's feet
Lots of fights in history didn't happen, you tend to look at the fights that did happen. Just sounds like you want to detract from his wins.