What's the best argument against FMJ being the greatest?

The Canelo that lost to Floyd wasn't great, but still the best JMW at the time aside from Floyd. Floyd, at 36 years of age and not bigger than that he could make 140 and probably even 135, beat him one-sidedly as you say.

The only possible argument against that being a really good win is that the catch weight could have badly effected Canelo, who usually was around 170 in the ring. I personally don't believe so - Canelo was used to making 154 so two extra pounds for one fight shouldn't be too much of an issue for a young man - but impossible to know for certain. Silly thing for Floyd to insist on.

 

No. Your generalization that the smaller fighter in the ring (in terms of weight) will be benefited by a lower limit, is merely an aspect of the point you made (and isn't necessarily true, at any rate).

When you wrote earlier: "

This content is protected

", you were asserting that Cotto was better off having fought Mayweather when he did at the weight he did because he would have been disadvantaged by having to make 147.

That's the point that you were making, which seems to ignore that Cotto was actually competing at Welterweight in 2008. Not only this, but also that he was excelling there, being rated as one of the ten best boxers in the world, pound-for-pound.

But Maywweather's form at 154 is proven to be better than Cotto's. Indeed, FMJ's wins at 154 could be counted among his best victories. The same can't be said of Cotto.

More to the point, Cotto was at his absolute best at 147; particularly 2007. As previously mentioned, there is such a thing as a boxer's ideal fighting weight. 147 was Cotto's.

I'd say Cotto's 2007 wins (Judah and Mosley) were on a par with Mayweather's (OdlH and Hatton) for the same year.

Mayweather's rate of decay was much lower over the next several years and beyond, than that of Cotto's - not least because he took a sabbatical. Cotto's decay was exacerbated by way of him getting paneled - twice.


Mayweather/Cotto in 2008 would have carried a much bigger question mark, than when they eventually met in 2012, and been a much better fight, in my opinion - the points I've been making all along.

 

That Cotto, weighing more, would have drain more to make 147 is a fact derived by quite simple logic. It doesn't ignore or affirm anything about what Cotto did at WW.

Floyd had better wins at 154, and even more so at 147, simply because he was a better fighter.

And there would be absolutely no question mark about them meeting in 2008. Comfortable win for Floyd.

We're not getting any further here.

 

I didn't argue this^, did I? And, I really can't see why you are having trouble following the thread of the discussion.

No, it doesn't, because your unnecessary Janet & John exercise in logic is completely irrelevant.


So, I'll try again...

In an earlier post, you asserted that Cotto was probably better off, having fought Mayweather when he did, at the weight he did, because he would have been disadvantaged by having to make 147.

You have been using this argument in conjunction with a sweeping statement that you don't think "

This content is protected

", in an attempt to rebut my point that Cotto's form at 147 was superior to what he showed at 154.

It's fairly easy to follow and, given it was yourself who made the rebuttal points, one might have hoped you'd remain aware of them, as well as be quite cognizant of their implications. It had nothing to do with a general rule of thumb that the smaller man, "

This content is protected

", was served better by the lower weight limit.

You are quite blatantly stating that there would either have been no difference between 'Cotto 2012' and 'Cotto 2008' - or, if there were a difference, that it would have been to the detriment of the Cotto from 2008.

As such, yours is a patently weak position, if only for the fact that your assertions do not make sense.

When you take all the relevant facts into consideration, from the two respective timeframes, it becomes clear there is a strong likelihood that Cotto would have been a stiffer test for Mayweather, back in 2008.

By the close of 2007, their respective records in fights above 140 were quite similar - both had 4 wins at Welterweight - FMJ had the one extra win, at 154. Both of them were undefeated.

And, I have at no time argued otherwise.

There would be "

This content is protected

"?? About a fight between what would then have been two undefeated boxers; the Ring Champion and the Ring's Number 1 contender???

Give over!!

Only fools and fanatics talk in absolutes about speculative sporting outcomes.

No. We're not and it doesn't help when you fail to properly address points put to you and forget the main thrust of your own arguments, made earlier.

It's funny, because my starting position was by no means either an extreme or complex one - in fact it's a fairly common sense way of looking at sporting form and preferring to have seen Mayweather face Cotto back in 2008 is not particularly contentious, either. Why you decided to take issue with a position that is in line with the natural order of things, I'm still not sure.

Whether one is a fan of Mayweather and personally believes he would have beaten opponent X,Y or Z, at any time in any given circumstances, is neither here nor there. It stands to reason that a younger, undefeated Cotto, at his peak, coming off his best wins to become the Ring No. 1 Contender in the Welterweight division, would have made for a better contest with Mayweather, in 2008.

I can't see much of a difference, save one year in the period of the delay, between FMJ/Cotto and FMJ/Pacquiao and yet most would acknowledge that Pacquiao's heyday had been and gone, by the time the fight with Mayweather was made.


Nevertheless, you dismiss the delay of several years in the FMJ/Cotto match, as well as the weight class not being optimum for Cotto. And, I might have bought into that idea had there been anything resembling a 2007/8 version of Cotto in the years leading up to the Mayweather bout - but there wasn't.

Propping up your case with Cotto's fairly mediocre record at 154 and him beating another one-legged opponent; the nigh-on 40 year old Martinez (who hadn't fought for over a year and had been seen slipping for a couple of years before that), isn't cutting it, really. Cotto may not have been the betting favorite against Martinez, but there wasn't a lot of daylight between the prices and there were certainly some good reasons to place a bet on him. It's not like the knee surgeries Martinez underwent were a secret; neither was his age, his lay off, his regular visits to the canvas (three times in as many bouts before Cotto).

Cotto himself, at 33 years old, was seen as shopworn by many (which might well have played a part in people erring towards Martinez in the betting) and that's because, despite Cotto's resolve, he never truly regained the glory of his early Welterweight days. From the Margarito fight onwards, it was all about rebuilding from a loss (or losses) to get back into contention for another big payday. And, to be fair, he got pretty good at patching himself up and forging his way, back on to center stage, only to get beaten again in the next big fight - Martinez was the only exception and he was a spent force.

Whichever way you look at it, Cotto's series of resurrections were far cry from a boxer carrying the mystique of being undefeated and the force they had once been at Welterweight c.2006-2008. It really is that simple.

 

There was no prime 135 lb 147 lb Roberto Duran in his era !
There was no SRL in his era
They are all lucky there was no SRR in their era's - Hagler included

Floyd was the greatest of this era! but fortunate he did not have any of the above in his era

 

What a bunch of crybabies.

 

Good post.

I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. But I still rate Ray’s win over Benitez higher. Despite what you’ve said, I just think he was a better fighter and a harder opponent for Ray.

I give Floyd credit, because Floyd was past his best and he was fighting an accomplished fighter. But for me, a guy’s never the same after a bad beating, let alone a few of them.

Regarding Cotto being the MW champ, of course he was the legit MW champ, as in, he legitimately beat the reigning champ. But in my opinion, it was an opportunistic move, as Martínez was damaged goods. I don’t think he’d have challenged another MW champ.

I could never celebrate him being a MW champion.

Martinez was very lucky not to have lost his title to Martin Murray.

Saying that Floyd beat a guy who ended up becoming a MW champ doesn’t hold much weight with me.

 

I think many people thought that Martínez was lucky to have beaten Murray before he fought Cotto.

 

Do you think he deserves a lot of credit?

Martínez was lucky against Murray and never fought again after Cotto.

 

Yes, everyone knew Martinez was past his best, but he was still the favourite against Cotto. And as far as I can remember not many on this forum gave him that much of a chance. But he totally dismantled Martinez. And then even more so to Geale. In his mid 30's. Two years after the Floyd fight.

What I can't stand about this forum is how wins completely lose their merit in hindsight. And not by guys who for example said loud and clear here beforehand that Cotto would do a number on Martinez. But afterwards it's somehow a given that it's more or less worthless.

Of course, it would have been a greater win if it was a prime Martinez, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a very good performance by Cotto.

 

See my answer above.

 

He didn’t have a crappy chin.

This is a myth.

Sure, it was never great. But it wasn’t crappy.

He took solid shots from Toney, Del Valle, Tarver and Ruiz.

Floyd clearly had better fundamentals.

Roy based his unique, unorthodox style around his incredible athleticism. But he was also extremely skilled. People often think he was just a great athlete. But timing, accuracy, technique and balance etc, are all high level skills.

If Roy had retired after Ruiz, many people would rank him above Floyd. But because he crashed so hard, it’s now laughable to most. But the reason he crashed is because he didn’t change his style to compensate for his age. Which meant he had diminished reflexes and was almost defenceless against world class LHW’s and CW’s.

It’s such a shame how it ended. His legacy has touch a huge knock. But in his prime, he was something else.

 

Okay.

I can’t remember what the consensus on here was at the time. But I knew that Martínez was done after the Murray fight, and I really felt for Martin, especially as he’d gone to Argentina.

Martínez had bad knees, he’d had surgery, he’d been inactive, and he never fought again afterwards.

It was an opportunistic move by Cotto who was in a position where he had everything to gain and nothing to lose.

IMHO, he’d never have fought another top level MW who was at the top of his game.

I personally, can’t give him a lot of credit for that win, and I’ll never view him as a real MW champ.

 

"Modern fighters can't compete with the volume of fights legends from decades past had."

 

Not even after he lifted the belts off Golovkin? Or unified the one off of Jacobs? Huh. Weird.

Also, the poster you are responding to is correct, nobody was picking Cotto to beat Sergio except for perhaps a known Cotto fanboy or two. You can join all these hundreds of posters that "knew" Cotto was going to win but said the exact opposite until it happened. Cool story.