Why is Mayweather not the greatest of all time?

He didn’t face all that many black fighters, fast fighters, or fighters renowned as slicksters/technicians, period. Hardly anyone of note that fit any of those descriptions in his second career, particularly.

He fought two black fighters. One of them a second rater, the other an old man. He fought no technicians apart from an older Marquez who was naturally about 2 divisions smaller. And he fought no truly fast fighters outside of a past prime Pacquiao. He buttered his bread on slower/technically less refined fighters who were tailor made for his counter punching style.

I keep bringing up his second career for the simple fact that his legacy grew exponentially during that period, even though his feats in the ring did little to warrant his increasingly heightened public perception.

 

Hand picked opponents for a while and never fought any prime greats. Harry Greb and Ray Robinson fought prime greats multiple times. Greb fought frequently from middleweight-heavyweight. Beat the best at their best. May weather didn’t do enough to top him. I’d place mayweather on top 15 but nah not number one.

 

It’s a shame really...because he had the talent to be the best ....and he had the competition around him to build a much better resume ( some guys don’t )

 

Why is he judged by how many black fighters he fought?

 

Black Americans have been the most dominant demographic in the sport’s history. They’re the best athletes in the world, period. Floyd used the advantages that came from his superior genetics to reign against a hand picked crop of opponents that lacked any of them. Wasn’t too interested in facing opponents with the same natural tools, as that alone would’ve negated a major advantage he always held. And he was always intent on holding as many as possible before stepping into the ring.

That may sound conspiratorial to you, I dunno, but to me it’s pretty blatant. Floyd isn’t the first black man in boxing history to freeze out his own, by the way, so don’t think I’m just picking on him. It’s been happening since Jack Johnson won the Heavyweight crown over a century ago.

Even a total head case like Zab gave him fits for roughly the first half of their fight, and his physical gifts were all he really had. A near 40 year old Mosley had him badly hurt on multiple occasions early despite only being able to muster up fleeting glimpses of the physical prowess he had in his youth. Who’s to say how Floyd would’ve fared against an elite black fighter in their prime given the difficulties he had against the defective ones he actually did face? Even a guy like Amir Khan with his superior speed presented a stylistic risk that Floyd wasn’t willing to accept.

To be crystal clear, I would’ve favored him against any of his hypothetical opponents (with the possible exception of peak Pacquiao, but that’s a different discussion) in his prime, for what it’s worth. But, the juice just wasn’t worth the squeeze for him, so my opinion doesn’t matter. What he actually proved is all that matters.

 

It must have made a difference to him, he didn't choose to fight them. Looking for softer touches.

 

Do you think he walks on water too ??He is very over rated. I wonder just how good his record would look without the "help" of The NSAC, Vegas Boxing & their officials ? He certainly wouldnt have a 50-0 thats for sure

 

He was 1-1 against Maidana & Kenny Bayless was one of the biggest reasons he got a win at all

 

The longer he stays retired and the more people where there nostalgia tinted glasses, the higher up the "rankings" he'll go in many people's minds.

 

I once got banned here for proposing all time matchups between the best white fighters and the best black ones.Now you are stating that black fighters, indeed all black athletes have superior genetics to whites and have superior natural tools.This being why Mayweather was reluctant to face them.
I shall be most interested to see the reaction to your post from the powers that be.
ps Jack Johnson signed to defend against Jeannette twice.McVey and Langford, and defended against Jim Johnson a black challenger.
Jack Johnson held the "Colored Championship" and beat Langford, Jeannette multiple times, McVey 3 times.In 75 fights Johnson faced fellow black fighters 45 times losing 1 on a disputed dsq.I dont think the idea of "genetic superiority" was ever a factor is his choice of opponents, certainly not as far as he was concerned.It most definitley played a major part in the overwhelming preponderance of white challengers he facedall but one being black, but that was because of financial reasons and white audiences skewed belief that white men had a genetic superiority over black men.Which is just as racist and nonsensical as the idea that black have an inherent superiority because of the pigment of their skin,that you have just expressed.

 

As many here have touched upon there was calculating element to his match-making that probably helped his earning but hurt his all time standings.

I'd say that started after the Castillo fights.The only top fighter he fought at 140 was Gatti, while Hatton, Kostya, Cotto and Judah were active in the division. Yes, he faced three of them later on, but at least Judah was slipping at that point, and you always want fighters to face off as near their primes as possible.

At WW, things weren't much better. He won the title from Judah, who came off a loss, and then proceeded to the next softest belt holder.

And in his comeback he never faced prime Pac, or Khan, Brook or Bradley. It was impressive how dominant he was over JMM and Canelo, though. Also think the Cotto fight was a good performance, and he showed grit against Maidana. And of course you have the wins over Corrales, Castillo, DLH etc in his first career, so there are plenty of good wins and performances there, but he kind of wasted what should have been his best years, 2003-2006, from a legacy standpoint.

 

That isn’t what I just expressed, actually. But thanks for taking it there. I suppose I’ll have to go into further detail thanks to your reply.

I specified black Americans for a reason. Their skin pigment has nothing to do with it. The hundreds of years their ancestors spent in extraordinarily taxing physical conditions courtesy of the slave trade does. Each generation was bred a bit stronger than the last out of necessity. As an evolutionary means of adapting to their strenuous environment. That’s my educated take on it.

It would explain why African Americans appear to stand alone in this regard compared to African descendants from across the rest of the globe. However, once again this is not fact but educated conjecture. Forgive me for speaking in general, sweeping terms when covering broader areas. Not saying this applies to all or there aren’t exceptions, etc. It makes logical sense to me having done a solid amount of studying on these topics.

But, it’s not something anyone has the balls to discuss, even though there are obviously no racist motives behind it. Won’t stop me from being branded a racist, though. You’ve already proven that. Let’s keep this increasingly Orwellian culture of shutting down difficult discussion going!

 

I don't consider you a racist,but your views on this subject most definitely can be classified as such. Neither have I any wish to shutdown this discussion ,on the contrary I'm intrigued to see the reaction to it. If you were correct in your explanation/defence of the systematic breeding of African Americans to produce what amounts to an" Uber Mensch," surely all black guys would look like Ken Norton and all the black women like Whitney Huston? Since there are just as many runty little black guys and fat ugly black women in the US as there are among white Americans I see no tangible basis for your theories.

If the result of breeding black slaves in the US centuries ago is a ,genetically superior to other races black man.How do you account for the fact that in the current ring ratings we have at;
Heavyweight just 5 blacks
Cruiser just 5 blacks
Lhvy just 3 blacks
Middle just 4 blacks

?
ps I've the balls to discuss any subject, but try and confine myself to boxing whilst on this Forum.

 

Frankly, I don't know exactly where I'd put Floyd as an ATG.

You'd have to put SRR above him, just because his record holds up so well in just about every aspect. A 90 something unbeaten streak and wins over numerous world class fighters from 135 to 160. Yes, Floyd was more consistent in old age, but then also had had third as many pro fights by that point.

But more difficult to compare to for example Leonard. Floyd had more wins over ranked opp and was more consistent, but Leonard has the greater wins of course. And he never dominated a division as Duran dominated LW or had a win as the one against Leonard, but he also never had a No Mas or Duran's general inconsistency after Montreal.

Ali, Louis... Both had more wins against ranked opp and many more wins in fights for undisputed titles, but how do you compare career HWs with someone who climbed through the weights in a p4p sense?

RJJ - Floyd was not as dominant in his prime as Roy was, but of course had better longevity. You could say something similar in a comparison with Whitaker.

A comparison with Pac is also tricky.

So not nr 1, that's clear to me. But apart from that, he could probably end up anywhere in the top 10- 20 more or less, perhaps even in the top 10.