Will Floyd Mayweather become more well appreciated as time goes on?

Fighters who won world titles/lineal championship after they faced Mayweather:

Diego Corrales (title at junior lightweight, lineal championship at lightweight)
Jose Luis Castillo (lineal at lightweight)
Miguel Cotto (lineal at middleweight, current titleholder at 154)
Canelo Alvarez (lineal at middleweight)
Famaso Hernandez (130lb title)
Jesus Chavez (130 and 135lb titles)
Juan Manueal Marquez (title at 140lbs, victory over Pac at 147lbs)
Manny Pacquiao (lineal at 147lbs)

Using championships as an indicator of real success-which seems a better indicator than double digit win streaks over scrubs- these guys all qualify as enjoying some following their respective defeats to FMJ.

 

If that's how we're judging Floyd be consistent.

 

Again, another poorly constructed argument. The criteria and structure you're wanting him to be consistent on, is widely inconsistent and poor framed. Saying somebody didn't have any notable wins after a fight, and using a fighter either dying because of the fight or being a vegetable; isn't mutually inclusive with a fighter being in fine health after a fight, and not doing much after. Those are worlds apart, and frankly, one of the worst arguments I've ever seen on this site.

 

Really dude? So two fighters that had unfortunate situations in the ring and your making a point with that? Question? Did you really consider Benn or Mancini a great fighter? Before OR after those fights ? If your going to be rediculus please don't respond. I never have a problem with someone else's point of view. And I try to get feedback from others opinions. And if I hear something convincing I have no problem with seeing a situation from a debaters way. But your being silly really.

 

That's what you focus on? Did Dempsey have an unfortunate accident? Did Tunney? Did Gibbons? Did Willard? Did Louis? Did Walcott? Did LaStarza?

Did Tommy Burns have an unfortunate accident to only have four wins after he lost to Jack Johnson? Schmeling won four fights after losing to Louis. Does that render Louis' win a non-factor in rating him all-time?

How about Ali's win over Frazier? Joe won two fights after that? Should we never bring up Ali's wins over him because they don't matter ... because Joe didn't string enough wins together for you?

This content is protected

 

When did I say a fighter has to have no losses? And the unfortunate situations I was talking about were deaths in the ring. With the two fighters you used as examples. Fighters at or close to their prime don't lose to the J.Horns, Medines, or Trouts. When Ali fought Frazier both fighters were undeafeated, and were looking good. Most of Mayweathers opponents were coming into the fight with him with major question marks. And after they fought, if was proof that they were past prime what little they accomplished after the fight. And in my opnion on Louis that Schmeling 1st fight and the Conn 1st fight are very big indicaters of Louis issues he would have with quite a few fighters that came after him. But that's another topic

 

Again, so we're all clear on your criteria, how many wins and how many titles does an opponent have to win post-losing-to-great to be considered a "decent win?"

 

He was green, we can color it any way you like, but he was Green for that fight. Sure, everybody needs their first "Big fight", but imagine that being against a Whitaker or a Floyd; fighters who make a living off of making you uncomfortable and dictating the fight. They make you change your gameplan from the jump, and at that stage, against them, good luck. That is the worst possible scenario for your first big step up in competition. He wasn't ready for a May, and that was plainly obvious to anybody watching that fight.

You avoided the next subject completely, why make Canelo fight a catch weight? Was it not to gain an advantage over him? If so (we know it was), why do so if your goal is to fight the best of the best at their best?

 

Haven't you figured it out yet?

If Mayweather beat a guy and he wins a lot of fights afterward, he was too green to be considered a good win.

If Mayweather beat a guy and he won a lineal title afterward, he didn't win enough fights afterward to be a good win.

If Mayweather beat a guy and he doesn't win a lineal title or many fights afterward, that proves Mayweather only fought bums.

These are the guys that are already being drowned out by the masses who recognize Mayweather as an all-time great.

Mayweather's career is already the PINNACLE ALL active fighters today want to achieve.

But these guys don't recognize that. Because that means they've been wrong the whole time about him. And they can't deal with that, yet.

 

Manny was handpicked years after heshould have fought him.. and was knocked cold by Juan Marquez.. look if someone beat Hearns after Barkley beat him, is that a real win against the Hearns?

 

Yes. Because Hearns went on to defeat Hill after getting knocked flat by Barkley. In much the same way, Pac was still operating a world class level in 2016 after Floyd defeated him.

 

yeah but is still is not the same Hearns.. Hearns jab was why he beat Hill.. And Hearns experience. But Hearns and Pacman were not close to how great they were before. Floyd waited 6 years to fight Manny. You know who Hearns fought 6 years before Hill? The same time span he fought Duran and Hagler.

 

There's a reason that Mayweather's record is scrutinised so much by so called "haters" (which appears to be anyone who doesn't think he is the greatest of all time) - it's because it doesn't stand up well to close analysis. I guess I must be in the hater camp because I don't think he is any of the following:
1) TBE
2) All-time top 10
3) All-time top 20
4) All-time top 30
5) All-time top 40

I'd put him in and around top 50, maybe... but even then I'm reluctant, because beyond a superficial glance at the names he fought, his record doesn't compare to so many other fighters. His natural talent is hard to deny - and I'm not denying it - but his achievements are overrated by many. I think his legacy among fight fans will actually diminish over time, because the flaws in his career are clearly there and the more you analyse them, the more obvious they become.

 

Ok.

One of. Not "TBE".

He does if you're making the argument that he is "tbe"

Since you've watched about 12 fights, that may be true for you.

Arguably took the first four rounds and nearly broke him in half with a body punch. And who can forget the image of the "greatest ever" boxer Floyd turtling up like a little girl while Conor beat him like a ***** from BEHIND. That's right. the guy with the plodding footwork managed to flummox "tbe" so badly he managed to get his back LMAO. A 0-0-0 boxer had better footwork than Floyd

Old as **** and Pac aged much worse than Floyd. That's the truth.

Your opinion.

I truly love Floyd, I'm his biggest fan and I'd give him a blood transfusion if he were bleeding out after a car accident ... but I have to admit that he's nowhere near the "best ever" and would be lucky to crack the Top 20 best fighters ever.

I never said Floyd was a ****.