Speed Plus The Ability To Adapt Plus Athleticism Plus A Chin= Unbeatable

Joe Calzaghe got me thinking.

If a fighter has:-

A: The ability to adapt to any style, for example Mayweather.
B: A great chin, for example Mayweather.
C: A great athletic frame that allows them to WORK for 12 rounds, for example Mayweather.
D: Speed, for example Mayweather.

Then aren't they unbeatable?

Isn't this the best combo a boxer can have?

Top five active in this way:

1. Mayweather
2. Ward
3. Rigo (chin bit debatable at that weight)
4. JMM
5. Potentially Broner?

I'm talking the extreme elite, guys.

JMM has lost on a few occasions, so whilst I agree he is super elite as are all the guys on this list bar Broner, no one is unbeatable.

Even Sugar Ray Robinson lost fights. If people are matched against the best around consistently then at some point they will lose a fight either because they have an off night or they come up against a style that has an answer for them - might be someone who you wouldn't even regard as an elite fighter, like when Junior Jones beat barrerra - some people just have a number for a fighter.

Good points, blackkymamba.

davidemore wrote:Good points, blackkymamba.

Interesting question though

Don't see anyone beating Mayweather at the moment though for the record.

Think ODLH had the best chance of this but he did his trademark falling asleep in the last third of the fight and let it slip away.

See, this is why Canelo fails for me. He simply cannot produce over 12 like May can. May never tires, never ever.

davidemore wrote:See, this is why Canelo fails for me. He simply cannot produce over 12 like May can. May never tires, never ever.

He's an elite athlete for sure, he stays in shape year round and despite his trash talk he is a dedicated professional who "lives the life"

Given the trouble that Trout gave Alvarez can see Mayweather as a convincing winner, shame he never fought Pac as I think he would have been an even more convincing winner there.

Defo, but Pac as proven didn't want it. Didn't want testing and got lost in a world of betting and woman and 'yes' men.

Pac aint no saint.

Not so sure, guys. Nobody easily beats the Pacquiao that demolished Cotto. If they'd have fought straight after that fight I think it would have been an absolute barnstormer. He was relentless back then, a serious engine and otherworldly speed. A shoulder roll might not have been so effective under such a barrage of rapid punches.

I'd have found it tough to pick a winner, but there was only a very narrow gap in which this fight could have taken place and been extremely competitive. As it was I don't think either of them wanted it too much and the only real losers were us lot.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not so sure, guys. Nobody easily beats the Pacquiao that demolished Cotto. If they'd have fought straight after that fight I think it would have been an absolute barnstormer. He was relentless back then, a serious engine and otherworldly speed. A shoulder roll might not have been so effective under such a barrage of rapid punches.

I'd have found it tough to pick a winner, but there was only a very narrow gap in which this fight could have taken place and been extremely competitive. As it was I don't think either of them wanted it too much and the only real losers were us lot.

Fists of Fury - good points all - my reason for thinking FMJ wins this comfortably is that Pac struggles with technicians - he has always had his sternest tests of recent years against JMM. If JMM gives him problems, Floyd will be beyond his worst nightmares

Have to agree with Fists on that one, the Pacquiao that destroyed Cotto would have given mayweather his toughest fight in my opinion. I dont think any fighter is unbeatable but would say that with the current fighters in and around Mayweathers weight he shouldnt lose.

the main thing though with boxing is the fact that one punch can knock any man out so all it takes is one mistake in those 36 minutes for an unbeatable fighter to be beaten.

Remember Jim Watt making a decent observation on Manny around that time that he had the look of a guy it would be hard to outpoint as he threw so much and much of it looked fairly impressive. Always felt Floyd would beat him but whether he would have got the decision remains to be seen. I had him beating Oscar a lot wider than the cards suggested. Against a guy who threw more and would not fade, you never know (and never will now!)

Let's not forget Jeff, Oscar is a much bigger guy than Manny, and that's why he was able to win rounds against Floyd by using the strength of that push jab (in my view the key to beating FMJ). A volume puncher is most likely to beat to beat FMJ in my opinion, but it needs to be a bigger man, I always thought Paul Williams could possibly have been the one..

Never really bought into Williams, always struck me as a guy who had all the assets but never really used them to their maximum advantage. With his height and reach he always seemed a guy it was too easy to get in close with. If he could have used his reach he could have troubled Floyd but if lesser fighters could negate this advantage you have to think Floyd does so.

BlakkMamba wrote:JMM has lost on a few occasions, so whilst I agree he is super elite as are all the guys on this list bar Broner, no one is unbeatable.

Even Sugar Ray Robinson lost fights.  If people are matched against the best around consistently then at some point they will lose a fight either because they have an off night or they come up against a style that has an answer for them - might be someone who you wouldn't even regard as an elite fighter, like when Junior Jones beat barrerra - some people just have a number for a fighter.

A few of Marquez losses are highly debatable, except for the Mayweather one, that is the only time he was decisively beaten. Which Mayweather is one of the fighters on the list.

BlakkMamba wrote:

davidemore wrote:See, this is why Canelo fails for me. He simply cannot produce over 12 like May can. May never tires, never ever.

He's an elite athlete for sure, he stays in shape year round and despite his trash talk he is a dedicated professional who "lives the life"

Given the trouble that Trout gave Alvarez can see Mayweather as a convincing winner, shame he never fought Pac as I think he would have been an even more convincing winner there.

All because of 'HARD WORK! DEDICATION!'

Rowley wrote:Remember Jim Watt making a decent observation on Manny around that time that he had the look of a guy it would be hard to outpoint as he threw so much and much of it looked fairly impressive. Always felt Floyd would beat him but whether he would have got the decision remains to be seen. I had him beating Oscar a lot wider than the cards suggested. Against a guy who threw more and would not fade, you never know (and never will now!)

I still think that Pacquiao vs Mayweather is a good fight, especially if Pacquiao looks good against Rios.

I thought Pacquiao looked the best he has in a long time against Marquez except for when he got stopped.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

BlakkMamba wrote:JMM has lost on a few occasions, so whilst I agree he is super elite as are all the guys on this list bar Broner, no one is unbeatable.

Even Sugar Ray Robinson lost fights.  If people are matched against the best around consistently then at some point they will lose a fight either because they have an off night or they come up against a style that has an answer for them - might be someone who you wouldn't even regard as an elite fighter, like when Junior Jones beat barrerra - some people just have a number for a fighter.

A few of Marquez losses are highly debatable, except for the Mayweather one, that is the only time he was decisively beaten. Which Mayweather is one of the fighters on the list.

A close loss is a loss nevertheless.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not so sure, guys. Nobody easily beats the Pacquiao that demolished Cotto. If they'd have fought straight after that fight I think it would have been an absolute barnstormer. He was relentless back then, a serious engine and otherworldly speed. A shoulder roll might not have been so effective under such a barrage of rapid punches.

I'd have found it tough to pick a winner, but there was only a very narrow gap in which this fight could have taken place and been extremely competitive. As it was I don't think either of them wanted it too much and the only real losers were us lot.

True, the Pac that beat Cotto was a beast

a missing one is timing. it can make up for been slower than a opponent, something JMM uses perfectly.

ps: emore, i don't think broner has earned p4p...... yet.

Marlon Starling beats the Manny that destroyed Cotto............

Never was a fighter made for a good defensive counterpuncher more than Manny.

But the Marquez fight also proves (Five times)...Manny can drop a counter puncher. And if you can drop a fighter you can knock him out.

Marquez isn't a good example Mate.........most people had him winning at least three out of four fights If not the lot..

You talk about the Marquez encounters as if Juan Manuel had something even approaching an easy night in any of the 4. He didn't. No matter what you make of the decisions each of them were close, tough fights.

They showed Pacquiao not AS effective against a counter puncher, but they didn't show him completely lost.

As well as showing him struggle, they also showed him being extremely competitive against one of the best counter punchers in the game, with at least two of the fights up for grabs. Not bad for a guy supposedly helpless against counter punchers.

Pacquiao is in danger of becoming a Tyson style myth of vulnerability; if you're not scared and have a good jab you beat Tyson, has become the line. Soon it will be that if you can circle left and counter you'll have an easy night against Pacquiao, even though that has never, ever been the case despite him repeatedly facing an ATG counter puncher in Marquez.

JBW - That is a point not even worth bringing up on 666, Marquez schooled Pacquiao for 40 rounds and thats that...

Totally agree JBW

Everyone seems very quick to say that Pac cant cope with counter punchers and that they give him fits,

But if that's the case then you could say Marquez cant cope with Pacquiao's speed seeing that he was knocked down 5 times by him.

In my view its down to Pacquiao not looking amazing against him that people say he was rubbish. This isn't the case at all he has been in 4 very competitive fights and both men fought competitively giving as much as the took in those fights.

Gave him fits in the first fight.........won 10 rounds for me..........and nearly killed him in the last..

Great fighters adapt........Manny is one dimensional that's his problem and guys like Starling would block and smash his face in..

Or get dropped.... If Manny was so predictable, how did he drop Marquez five times. By your reasoning (i.e the Marquez fight as a benchmark), Floyd could outclass Manny, but theres still every chance that he is kissing the canvas.

If your only dimension is that you dart in from all angles at speed (ODLH + Cottos words), its a hell of an angle.

Manny is predictable but you still have to deal with the threat..........

I mention Starling because he was brilliant at disabling the threat and clobbering........

Manny tends to bounce in and out a la Honey...........Hence Marquez schooling him at least 3/4...

Norris hit the deck at least four times against Brown in their first fight.......s**t happens..

However he schooled his ears off next time..

Manny never learned...great fighters do..

Starling never tasted canvas legitimately...........

I fail to see how getting dropped 5 times in these fights and all of them (bar the KO) being very tight scores can be seen as Schooling Truss. I had Marquez winning 2 of them myself but by no means did he school Manny in those fights.

We can disagree........fact is Manny couldn't adapt because he is one dimensional........

Very good dimension.........

Well he did in the 3rd mate!! I had Marquez winning by a couple at LEAST. Even roach and pacquiao thought they had lost when he finished the final round. Fights one and two i had Marquez winning first and drawing second. 4th fight Marquez dropped him and stopped him to prevent probably another robbery. Klitschko has been put down a lot in his career. It happens. Its boxing for gods sake. He was dropped down 5 times over 4 fights. Nearly averaging once a fight. But he had pacquiaos number and made him loom ordinary. Something he couldn't do with mayweather.

Fair enough if that's your Opinion Truss!

Im sure theyl be a 5th 6th 7th & 8th fight between them for us to talk about in the future anyway!

Think Roach has to take some blame for that. If Manny didnt have a Left hand and a chin, he could have ended up like Khan....

Mobile, is winning by two rounds really such a schooling?

Truss, you say Marquez won more rounds in fight 1, but we all know that doesn't begin to paint the full picture as he was also nearly knocked out himself.

Nearly killed him in #4? Also knocked down, concussed and down on all cards.

Not bad for a guy who's depicted as being useless vs counter punchers, and this is a counter puncher who never ends up on the ropes. Unlike some...

I never mentioned schooling in my defence JBW i just mentioned that i thought Marquez comprehensively beat Pacquiao 3 out of 4.

yes he was knocked down and concussed in the last fight, but correct me if im wrong, pacquiao was knocked down and then knocked cold?

had Marquez not been dropped multiple times in the first fight he would have won by more than a couple of rounds and had a clear UD.

his knockdown in the second prevented what should have been a win to overturn the first.

pacquiao is a brilliant fighter and im not disputing that. But i agree with Truss on this. He is one dimensional and fights one way and one way only which is aggressive face forward with speed and power. A boxer or counter puncher beats him. Marquez for me did it 3 times. Mayweather would have done it easier.

Never said he was uesless..........Leave the hyperbolic stuff alone Mate......

Made for Starling is what I said.............

Fists of Fury wrote:Not so sure, guys. Nobody easily beats the Pacquiao that demolished Cotto. If they'd have fought straight after that fight I think it would have been an absolute barnstormer. He was relentless back then, a serious engine and otherworldly speed. A shoulder roll might not have been so effective under such a barrage of rapid punches.

I'd have found it tough to pick a winner, but there was only a very narrow gap in which this fight could have taken place and been extremely competitive. As it was I don't think either of them wanted it too much and the only real losers were us lot.

Agreed.
If Mayweather thought it would be an easy fight than he wouldnt have put any barriers in place. In fact, he would have done everything he could to make it happen. Regardless of wheather his requests were understandable, an easy fight that secures your legacy and gives you a record payday is not one you'd be willing to slip away.
I'm pretty sure that Mayweather saw something in Paquaio after the Cotto fight that he thought may beat him.

Load on nonsense Benson. Mayweather met the financial demands of a 50/50 split but pacquiao didn't agree to drug testing any time up to fight night. Something in which Mosley, Cotto and Ortiz all agreed with along with Guerrero. Pacquiao and Arum saw mayweather as a massive risk to HIS potential legacy. Had he lost against mayweather convincingly, he may not have got his "super fights". Why throw the Manny train under the bus when you could milk him for more money which is exactly what they did.....ironically using mayweathers name as a stepping stone.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Load on nonsense Benson. Mayweather met the financial demands of a 50/50 split but pacquiao didn't agree to drug testing any time up to fight night. Something in which Mosley, Cotto and Ortiz all agreed with along with Guerrero. Pacquiao and Arum saw mayweather as a massive risk to HIS potential legacy. Had he lost against mayweather convincingly, he may not have got his "super fights". Why throw the Manny train under the bus when you could milk him for more money which is exactly what they did.....ironically using mayweathers name as a stepping stone.

None of that changes the fact that the blood testing was obviously one of the barriers that prevented the fight from happening. If you think someone is an easy opponent to beat, you wouldnt put any potential barriers to prevent that fight from happening especially if that fight will generate such huge amounts of cash.
Manny is not blameless either but lets not try to potray Floyd as some kind of knight in shining armour who just wanted to "clean up boxing"  

mobilemaster8 wrote:I never mentioned schooling in my defence JBW i just mentioned that i thought Marquez comprehensively beat Pacquiao 3 out of 4.

Fair enough but other than IV there are very few people who'd call any of them comprehensive. I'd call Pacquiao's victory in number 2 as decisive as any others that went the distance.

mobilemaster8 wrote:
yes he was knocked down and concussed in the last fight, but correct me if im wrong, pacquiao was knocked down and then knocked cold?

Not denying that was about as decisive a finish as I've ever seen, but pointing out that the end result doesn't show that Marquez had to come through some harsh times to get to it, and was second best for most of the fight. He won fair and square, but the content leading up is further proof that Pacquiao struggles with counter punchers about as much as counter puncher struggle with laser fast, powerful, swarming aggressive fighters who can throw in excess of 1,000 per fight.

mobilemaster8 wrote:
had Marquez not been dropped multiple times in the first fight he would have won by more than a couple of rounds and had a clear UD.

Yeah but that's a pretty massive IF and Pacquiao was much rawer back then.

mobilemaster8 wrote:
his knockdown in the second prevented what should have been a win to overturn the first.

pacquiao is a brilliant fighter and im not disputing that. But i agree with Truss on this. He is one dimensional and fights one way and one way only which is aggressive face forward with speed and power. A boxer or counter puncher beats him. Marquez for me did it 3 times. Mayweather would have done it easier.

Funnily enough I basically agree. Although there are fighters out there who fight with one style that encapsulates more than one dimension of boxing and Manny's one of them. He counters, pot shots, swarms, brawls, all from fast feet that gives much more than one dimension to deal with at a time. As I touched on earlier, I think the Marquez fights have shown Pacquiao struggles with a counter puncher as much as a counter puncher struggles with Pacquiao.

How is wanting a drug test a barrier by the way? Regardless of cleaning up the sport or not, this should be bloody compulsory and not an excuse to avoid a fight or be a barrier. This is a game of fighting therefore any PHD should be banned period.

Come on now mobile. Don't think anyone would argue that drug testing should be the norm. However when a fighter has never asked for it previously or expressed any strong views on the matter either way all of a sudden becomes absolutely insistent on it when faced with his potentially most dangerous opponent you can see why it will be interpreted as an obstacle or at least delaying tactic.

Manny just defied by convention by having more power at 147 than he did at 112........

Like no one else in the sport..

Ali defied convention by being a heavyweight who moved like a bantamweight... Steroids?

Also Manny grew seven inches from his debut fight. The body just needed to catch up.

Not the same thing and you know it..

We are talking about a guy from the philippines who when he is back there has carte blanche to do what he wants.........Philippines is a corrupt Country full of people with little in the way of moral fibre........who are p**s poor and in my opinion would do anything to gain an edge...

Exactly truss. How many fighters in the history of the sport started at 112 then moved to 147 and was still able to knock ten bells out of Cotto?! Id demand a drugs test just to level things out. The fact he denied it will always bring suspicion.

A joke really mobile..........Educated men like Linford christie get away with it in a civilised..drug testing Country like Britain and we are supposed to believe in Hillbilly-Marcos- Coast......... out of the way of prying eyes guys like him don't fancy a nibble........

Leave it out..........Filipinos are a bunch animals..........Just ask Cory Aquino..

So Americans wouldnt?
Mosley?
Nearly fifty year old Popkins... Just his vitamins you say?
Roy Jones jr. ?
Your NBA doesnt even test for HGH yet...

The funny thing is, while you baselessly accuse Pacquiao, Floyd is the one suspected of having failed three tests...

Youre Filipino-bad-America-good-and-noble act is wearing thin..

I'm not baselessy accusing manny........Who is going to test him in the Philippines.......

and his power has increased dramatically...............and he wouldn't commit to testing..

America isn't the philippines..........and we have a hundred thousand more athletes......

Marion Jones was clean until she got caught..

We are talking about a guy from the philippines who when he is back there has carte blanche to do what he wants.........Philippines is a corrupt Country full of people with little in the way of moral fibre........who are p**s poor and in my opinion would do anything to gain an edge...

Did the teenage bride they sent to you not look like her photograph?