The Ring: "Mayweather Doesn't Crack The Top 25 Greatest Ever"

Which fighter was more talented? Which one would is better head to head? Head to head and skill also come into play. Also, boxing was much different when Arguello fought. The guy fought more than twice as many fights as Mayweather. His resume should be deeper. The politics of the sport were much different. Matchmaking wasn't as difficult. I don't know a lot about Arguello, so I'm no going to say Mayweather should be ahead of him. However, simply rattling off their resumes is not enough to discern which one was better.

 

That's simply not true, match-making has been a hassle since the days of SRR, and he proved it. The difference was, quite simply, the guys I mentioned wanted to fight the best and prove themselves, not hold on to their undefeated record by taking the easiest road possible.

Arguello's era was roughly the same as Leonard's, and he is considered a great having fought the same amount as Floyd has. Toney fights in Floyd's era and has fought as many times as old timers have. These excuses aren't viable.

 

mayweather could have fought anyone he wanted. everyone was calling him out. but he decided to pick and choose duck and dodge. its his fault his resume is a joke. and theres no way they could ever fight each other so your fantasy boxing/theory boxing **** gets thrown out the window. we have to compare there accomplishments and how they were in there respective eras and arguellos accomplishments are much more impressive.

 

Did they have network exclusive fighters? Were the fighters heavily dependant on basically two networks? On average, did star fighters fight more or less back then? Were guys making 8 figure paydays? **** like this will change the way fights are negotiated. If Arguello was the type of money some of the top guys today are making, he wouldn't have fought as often.

All of this is irrelevant. First off, Floyd is considered a great fighter as well. Second, Arguello still fought more than twice as many fights as Floyd. He had way more opportunities to pad his resume. Again, which fighter is more talented? Who would win in a head to head matchup? I believe these factors are relevant as well.

 

First, his resume is not a joke. Second, he could not fight anyone wanted. Floyd didn't become a bankable fighter until around 2006. He tried to make fightw with Hoya and Mosley earlier in his career, and was ignored. Guys like Casamayor and Frietas also weren't to eager to fight him. Overall, his resume could've been better, but it's certainly not a joke. That's a gross exaggeration.

 

What does that even mean "network exclusive"?

They made plenty of money back as far as anyone can remember, up to 7 figures even in Robinson's days. There have been duckers in all eras and fighters willing to fight the best in all eras, Arguello was the latter in his era, Floyd was the former in his. Bottom line.

Why? It all depends on the fighter, not the era. Certain fighters fight less, take less risks, etc, others fight more often, take more risks, etc. Again, it depends on the fighter, not the era.

Talent doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with it otherwise a glass jawed, no mental capacity bum like Judah would be considered great. Floyd wins head to head based on styles, he was not the more accomplished or willing fighter though, and didn't prove as much. Nothing to do with eras, it has to do with one fighter being a man and the other being a money-grubbing hack.

 

This is a great post. That's no dig at you Reg, I think Mayweather was a great fighter and should be higher up these lists, but the points Pea makes are excellent. Arguello was a true multi-divisional great who actively sought the toughest fights available to prove his greatness (he went for Pryor when he could've took an easier option).

 

1stly, I never called out nobody on no topic, I said that I dont accept that there were 25 better fighters than Mayweather.
If you ask me to list my top 25 of all the fighters Ive seen & PBF ends up at say 13 & I havent seen Greb or Langford etc, that doesnt mean Im saying PBF was better than them just because they are not in my top 1-12 because I, like you, dont really know because I have not seen them fight, all I can do is compare him to guys I do know & its entirely up to me if I dont believe there were 25 better boxers than Mayweather, personal opinion, we`ve all got one, thats why were here.

As for your list of fighters (ross, ortiz etc) you can stick as many As on the end of the word far as you like when discussing resume`s & you may even be correct but were any of them as talented at BOXING as Mayweather or did any of them beat EVERYONE on their RESUME ?

Answers - probably not & definitely not.

Having a packed resume is only 1 criteria for judging a fighters greatness albeit an important one but there is more to it.

:thumbsup

 

You said anyone who says Floyd doesn't belong in the top 25 is severely biased or doesn't know what they're talking about. All that proved was that your knowledge was lacking.

So why make a remark about anyone else disagreeing with you not knowing their ****? You're clearly the one who doesn't know his **** if you're prepared to rate Mayweather above any of those guys you listed.

They didn't beat everyone on their resumes because they actually fought the best instead of taking the easy road against much lesser opposition.

I'd favor guys like Ortiz, Gavilan, Napoles, etc, etc all over Floyd, and yes I do think they were better fighters overall.

Is Sven Ottke better than any of them too because he didn't officially lose to anyone on his resume?

There is more to it, but I'm not about to rate someone who didn't fight anywhere near the opposition of these guys and didn't prove himself nearly as much as these guys over them. It's nonsensical.

 

A fighter who is exclusively signed to 1 network. For instance if you're signed to HBO, you can't fight on Showtime. If you're signed to Showtime, you can't fight on HBO. It makes matchmaking difficult when and HBO fighter tries to fight a Showtime

What was Arguello's biggest payday. Do you think Arguello would take significantly less money to fight a lesser known fighter?

If you're making 7 or 8 figures fighting on ppv, there's only so many fights you can take. These fights take time to hype up. It's rare that top shelf fighter these days fights more than 3 or 4 times a year.

This is a completely ridiculous statement. If Judah had so much talent, he wouldn't have gotten his ass kicked as much as he did. Punch resistence, adaptability, ability to overcome adversity, these are all important in boxing. To say talent is irrelevant makes no sense. Would you say Magic Johnson is a greater player than Jordan because he faced better comp? Of course you wouldn't. Talent and skill would surely come into play.

This part clearly shows your bias. You have an axe to grind and don't seem willing to look at this objectively.

 

Like who? What was the bigger fight that was available to him? Anyway, my point wasn't even that Floyd should rank ahead of Arguelo. My point was that resume alone is not a enough to discern which fighter is greater.

 

I do you one better, I shorted that **** up for you..xc :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl ****ing mancini you he was a glorified hometown fighter..You got to do better then that **** you BOXREC junkie....

 

I didn't say bigger fight, I said easier fight. He didn't need to take on Pryor, there were easier challenges there for him, but he wanted to beat the best man around.

 

That's what people are missing, every fighter looks for the biggest fights. That was the biggest fight out there for him and offered the most money. People can criticse Mayweather all they want, but it's hard to deny that he was taking the biggest fights available.

 

Sorry... IN MY VIEW... I think you would have to be biased against Floyd to rank him outside the top 25 as you clearly are by picking Ortiz, Napoles & Gavilan in a head to head AND claiming that you believe they are better fighters than Floyd (Im sure you made a statement a while ago regarding Floyd v Gavilan at 147 & you picked Floyd by decision back then, could have been someone else, never mind) & to mention Ottke is just absurd, he isnt on the same planet as Floyd technically & I wouldnt dream of naming him because of his record as you suggest.

We both know you rate Mayweather as one of the best ever, otherwise why would your signature be about your fav boxer saying more or less that he`s better than Mayweather... you wouldnt have that as your sig if Pernell was talking about ****ing Zab Judah.

Ps. Its 12.50am in scotland & I need a sleep for worso I`ll take this up again tomorrow if its still a front page topic.

Chill.

:thumbsup