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

Disagree here. Genero and Manfredy were better than the level Canelo faced before Floyd.

 

Right, but the difference being, we have to SEE how they perform to make that judgment. If they perform adequately, then they were clearly AT that level and ready. We see this in almost all the examples you listed. Gavilan was ready... Clay was ready... Frazier was ready... SRL was ready and the list goes on and on. Their performances shows they were ready and able to compete. The polar opposite is true with Canelo vs. Floyd. Canelo proved every second of every round he wasn't ready for that level of competition. That is how we determine somebody is green at that level or ready. Their performance, and from that, I distinctly see that Canelo wasn't ready... but you do?

 

Again, you avoided the question, and it's becoming quite apparent why. So I'll ask again and watch you squirm. Why did Floyd make Canelo fight at a catchweight, instead of the weight he was comfortable with, currently fighting at, and best at? If he's about fighting the best at their best, why do that?

 

So if Floyd looks good against him, he's by definition green? By that definition it's impossible to give Floyd credit. If Floyd doesn't beat him soundly, he isn't really better than Trout. And if he does, Canelo was green anyhow. Perfect hedge. Only problem is that it's also weak and an obvious way not give someone credit.

In fact, Canelo looked no worse than most that face Floyd and better than many of them. But they're either old, small, drained, injured, just not very good or under a friggin woodo spell aren't they? No matter that they held titles or were p4p ranked, right? They were really ****, weren't they?

This is just so tiresome. Canelo had been a pro for quite some time (8 years) and had had a good number of pro fight and quite decent opposition. And he performed like most do against Floyd. It might just be because Floyd is good and not that the guy with seven title wins is "green" might it not?

 

Who exactly did he perform better than? That is quite perplexing. Certainly not better than Castillo, not better than an injured Pac, not better than Cotto, not better than Maidana, not better than very old and past his best Mosley, not better than a past his best Hoya. So which of the elite competition Floyd face are you referring to that he did just as good?

You keep missing the point here, and I'm not sure why, we KNOW somebody isn't green based on their performance when they step up to that level. You listed NUMEROUS examples which show that very thing. They stepped up in competition and performed well. You listed fighters I consider better than Floyd i.e. SRR, SRL, Ali etc etc. Even when fighters faced better fighters than Floyd, they were still very competitive, barely lost or won. THAT is how we know they were ready for the task at hand. I'm not understanding how you missing this basic concept. Floyd isn't better than the fighters I named, yet when some challengers took them on, they did vastly better than Canelo did. You don't think that could be an indication that Canelo wasn't ready for that level yet? That is an impossible premise to make?

You again reference "quite decent" competition when talking about who Canelo faced before Floyd. Who are your referring when making that statement?

Yes it could mean that, that is possible, but to me, it's much more likely he wasn't ready, than Floyd is that good. Older, more past their prime fighters performed better against Floyd. Shoot, Judah, who's about the epitome of stinking up the joint in some of his biggest fights performed exponentially better than Canelo. He at least won a few rounds and hurt Floyd a little with some crisp punches. Canelo couldn't win a second of any round against Floyd, and somehow this tell you he was ready?

 

Jesus, why not just admit that you're wrong?

Corrales, Gatti, Mitchell, Marquez, Ortiz would be guys that did less well than Canelo. Hatton won some rounds early, but was well handled and then KO'd, so depends on how you judge that.

Cotto, Judah, Maidana rematch would be about the same. Mosley managed to hurt him, but was otherwise easily dealt with.

Pac and DLH might have won a couple of rds more than Canelo, but not much in it. They were comfortably dealt with. Same with Castillo in the rematch.

Haven't watched his fights with Guerrero and Berto but they also was easy wins for Floyd from what I've heard.

Castillo and Maidana, in the first fights, were the two fighters that did significantly better than Canelo against Floyd. But apart from them Floyd easily dealt with everyone. Canelo doesn't really stand out. And, no, Floyd didn't win every second of every round. He didn't even win every round even.


As for Canelo's quite decent opponents: Baldomir and Mosley were past their best but experienced fighters. Rhodes, Cintron and Trout were all ranked in the top 5 by The Ring going into the fight.

And now you will do the idiot exercise of picking apart these wins, which you can do to all wins, instead of just admitting you were wrong.

 

Floyd needed to fight them there is no doubt. If he wouldn't have he would have been picked apart more than he is now.

Well, Duran already had a full career of 13 years before moving up in weight. Somehow people always ignore that.

 

But not that many title fights.

I tend to not put too much emphasis on number of fights, but rather number if title fights and fights against ranked opp.

Wilder has had more wins so far than Frazier had in his whole career, has won almost all by KO and is undefeated. If he had had half that number of wins but 3-4 wins against top 3 ranked opponents he'd rank higher for me.

 

Fair enough, however, keep in mind that back then it was common that the champ does not always put the title on the line. Today every fight a champ has is a title fight. Also, do you count any fight where one holds a belt as a title fight? If so the increase of number of belts also leads to an inflation of "title fights". Many of them actually being without value.

IMO beltholders are nothing more than contenders, therefore their "title fights" don't count as title fights. If you are not the THE proven man in your division you are just a contender, belt or not - eg. most defences DM or RJJ made at lhw weren't really title fights, same for Ottke and Calzaghe at smw or Hopkins reign until some point in the very late 90s.

 

Duran was a belt holder for almost all his title fights. The only time he unified was against DeJesus, but he moved up to WW afterwards, so he never defended his undisputed chapionship.

 

I stopped reading after that.

 

The point is that it is very superficial to say Floyd has more title defense than Duran. It may be relevant for the stats but I am looking at the quality of opposition.

 

Duran was the champ. Recognized by pretty much everybody at the time. That he only had one belt didn't mean anything.

 

I'd say that Floyd eventually established himself as the man at most weights he held a title at.