Who Has The Better Welterweight Record: Pacquiao or Mayweather?

by hazharrison Tue 06 May 2014, 1:18 pm

First topic message reminder :

Neither of today's top two welterweights crack an all-time top five (at 147 lbs) for me, but who has the better resume as a welterweight?

Pacquiao

7-2

De la Hoya W RTD 8
Cotto W TKO 12
Clottey W UD 12
Mosley W UD 12
Marquez W UD 12
Bradley L SD 12
Marquez L KO 6
Rios W UD 12
Bradley W UD 12

Mayweather

9-0

Mitchell W TKO 6
Judah W UD 12
Baldomir W UD 12
Hatton W TKO 10
Marquez W UD 12
Mosley W UD 12
Ortiz W KO 4
Guerrero W UD 12
Maidana W MD 12

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 06 May 2014, 10:17 pm

I imagine every fighter at the age of 37 needs the ability to maximise minimal work..

People do forget the guy fought for his first world title 16 years ago..

by kingraf Tue 06 May 2014, 10:17 pm

I think Norton-Ali 2 has more sympathisers for Ali, but I don't think anywhere near levels required for consensus...

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 06 May 2014, 10:20 pm

The consensus is Norton won the first and was unlucky in the third..........

Plenty of opinions on the fights and a high level of opinion makes the consensus bonafide..

But it's no big deal..

by Scottrf Tue 06 May 2014, 10:23 pm

kingraf wrote:Mate I'm not hung up on anything, I scored it for Floyd - I said as much, and don't think I've said it differently, there's a one round difference between your card and mine...

That doesn't change the fact that a chosen few fighters do have the ability of maximising minimal work. Like I said, fair play.

I think what he does is just maximise offense and defence efficiency. Nobody has the same disparity in percentage between punches landed and taken.

It's not the same thing as showboating, which I don't think he does to any extent. I've heard it mention he sits back and admires his work, I just think he gets out of range after delivering a combo.

by Strongback Tue 06 May 2014, 10:27 pm

Mayweather does showboat, it's not extravagant just enough to catch your eye and to emphasize he has just landed.

by kingraf Tue 06 May 2014, 10:32 pm

"Ali’s reputation was a weapon," Schuyler said. "A
close round with Muhammad Ali was most often
going to Muhammad Ali and that’s because judges
and fans saw the Ali who beat Liston, the Ali of the
1960s who was the dancing master and the man
who could float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.
They saw that Ali even though they weren’t looking
at that Ali. Ali was no longer the Ali of his
reputation." - Ed
Schuyler

Nothing wrong with that, auras are a part of any sport where perception is ultimately reality.

by kingraf Tue 06 May 2014, 10:38 pm

That fool Broner tries the same thing with his Sharapova-esque squeals, sadly,

Scott - Sunday there was a nine punch disparity between the two, and you wouldnt have known it looking at Floyd. Castillo, the output was in the negative, but gosh did he look good with the few punches that did land.

I said Floyd maximises minimal work, I never said anything about showboating.

by Scottrf Tue 06 May 2014, 10:51 pm

kingraf wrote:That fool Broner tries the same thing with his Sharapova-esque squeals, sadly,

Scott - Sunday there was a nine punch disparity between the two, and you wouldnt have known it looking at Floyd. Castillo, the output was in the negative, but gosh did he look good with the few punches that did land.

I said Floyd maximises minimal work, I never said anything about showboating.

To be fair, if the other guy has thrown hundreds more, but landed less, you're probably outboxing him pretty badly.

Yeah but others have.

by trottb Tue 06 May 2014, 10:59 pm

Strongback wrote: Its part of top level boxing. I wouldn't go into a fight clean if the other guy was at it.

So to clarify your position on things; when it comes to any business dealings, that you are involved in, it is imperative for you to be completely scrupulous (as confirmed in your many threads regarding a nameless promoter). However, should you go into a ring, where history has shown us that lives are readily put at risk, you would only be too happy to gain an advantage by using illegal and underhand methods on the presumption that the other guys is doing it so it is only fair that you do.

by kingraf Tue 06 May 2014, 11:08 pm

Depends on your definition of outboxing, imo. If you watch a game of footie, and Chelsea hit 20 shorts at goal, City hit 10, and the score is 1-1, would you say Citeh are outpacing them?

Like I said on a separate thread, it's all perception, and what you extract from the perception. Floyd was hitting Maidana more accurately, but he doing anymore offensive work? Marginally. It's my view that all things remaining equal, if a guy throws 25 punches and lands five, and a guy throws eight punches and lands five, they've done the same work. The one may be more efficient than the other but you don't score for efficiency, you score for ring effective aggression, and all things equal 5/25 is as effective as 5/8. Maybe the guy who's thrown 5/8 wins the round on defense, but I'd give Maidana ring generals, because he took the fight where he wanted to go, at the pace he wanted.

by Strongback Tue 06 May 2014, 11:13 pm

trottb wrote:
Strongback wrote: Its part of top level boxing. I wouldn't go into a fight clean if the other guy was at it.

So to clarify your position on things; when it comes to any business dealings, that you are involved in, it is imperative for you to be completely scrupulous (as confirmed in your many threads regarding a nameless promoter). However, should you go into a ring, where history has shown us that lives are readily put at risk, you would only be too happy to gain an advantage by using illegal and underhand methods on the presumption that the other guys is doing it so it is only fair that you do.

I have never expected a promoter to have scruples. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Matchroom painting themselves as more ethical than the other promoters and then going out and apparently tapping up fighters contracted to smaller operators.

As for PED's I said any clean fighter at the top level in boxing is at a massive disadvantage given the mountain of evidence that shows PED's are endemic in the sport. Read up on it, the sport isn't clean.

by catchweight Tue 06 May 2014, 11:15 pm

Its all open to intepretation. Effective aggression. That might not mean simply landing clean punches. If you can back a fighter up, take him out of his comfort zone, pressure him, force him onto the defensive and to cover up, hold and spoil then that is effective aggression in my book even if most of the punches are not landing cleanly.

by kingraf Tue 06 May 2014, 11:20 pm

EXACTLY Catchy - open to interpretation. Sure helps then if present your work, whatever little you actually do, in a snazzy fashion

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 06 May 2014, 11:22 pm

Efficiency is a big part of scoring too, if you throw twice as many and land less then you simply aren't as good, you can call it maximising minimal work but it takes immense skill to land more than half your punches.

by hazharrison Wed 07 May 2014, 6:04 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Great fighters tend to find a way to win.........After four fights with JMM.....Manny is still looking..

Ali did with Kenny.......Louis did with Walcott 2........Robbo did with Turpin.....

Mayweather may have looked crap but he beat Maidana..

Pacquiao beat Marquez 2-1-1. Or does the official verdict not count?

by hazharrison Wed 07 May 2014, 6:10 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Efficiency is a big part of scoring too, if you throw twice as many and land less then you simply aren't as good, you can call it maximising minimal work but it takes immense skill to land more than half your punches.

Efficiency? Scoring a fight is pretty simple - you look at who won each round as a single entity. It's not about punch counting or gauging who's the more efficient boxer. It's about who got the better of the other in those three minutes.

Floyd landed some nice punches but Maidana outhustled him regardless (over the bout's first half).

by hogey Wed 07 May 2014, 9:16 am

The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.

by Scottrf Wed 07 May 2014, 10:31 am

hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.

He got outboxed, completely dominated, schooled, in boxing ability not power or strength. 59% vs 12% connect rate. I honestly wonder what people watched to believe that the weight made any tangible difference.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 07 May 2014, 10:41 am

hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.

In fairness not being on the shakes didn't stop him outclassing Manny........

I don't know what special shakes have to do with missing your target for 12 rounds..

by Scottrf Wed 07 May 2014, 10:43 am

Accuracy shakes?

Spoiler:

by hazharrison Wed 07 May 2014, 10:47 am

Scottrf wrote:
hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.
He got outboxed, completely dominated, schooled, in boxing ability not power or strength. 59% vs 12% connect rate. I honestly wonder what people watched to believe that the weight made any tangible difference.

The additional flab possibly contributed to his sluggishness -- his power was also ineffective, giving Floyd little to worry about. I'm sure the Marquez we saw against Pacquiao (4th fight) would have performed far better.

by milkyboy Wed 07 May 2014, 10:53 am

Scottrf wrote:
hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.
He got outboxed, completely dominated, schooled, in boxing ability not power or strength. 59% vs 12% connect rate. I honestly wonder what people watched to believe that the weight made any tangible difference.

Jmm might have been more in the fight had he been physically stronger, but ultimately he's a counter puncher not a pressure fighter. Floyd does everything he does only better, when that happens you get a one sided fight, no matter how good the losing fighter is. I've said it before but no matter what weight, however many PEDs, jmm never troubles floyd, always troubles manny.

Those using how floyd did v Marquez compared to manny v Marquez as a barometer for floyd v manny are wasting their time.

The fact that manny struggles with an intelligent counterpuncher is an obvious marker, for floyd v manny... The floyd v Marquez fight is irrelevant.

by kingraf Wed 07 May 2014, 10:53 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.

In fairness not being on the shakes didn't stop him outclassing Manny........

I don't know what special shakes have to do with missing your target for 12 rounds..

by Scottrf Wed 07 May 2014, 10:55 am

I'm a little suspicious of bias when unproven drug accusations are used to excuse a difference in performances against a common opponent. Pacquiao struggled with Marquez at the lower weights too.

His power was ineffective because he didn't land cleanly. He was sluggish because Mayweather is quicker and had better timing. Maybe there would be a slight difference if he was more used to the weight, but it's hard to see it as game changing when he's so badly outboxed.

It's a little bit inconsistent that he gets no credit for beating Marquez, but weight becomes less important when he's expected to fight Martinez.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 07 May 2014, 11:01 am

milkyboy wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.
He got outboxed, completely dominated, schooled, in boxing ability not power or strength. 59% vs 12% connect rate. I honestly wonder what people watched to believe that the weight made any tangible difference.

Jmm might have been more in the fight had he been physically stronger, but ultimately he's a counter puncher not a pressure fighter. Floyd does everything he does only better, when that happens you get a one sided fight, no matter how good the losing fighter is. I've said it before but no matter what weight, however many PEDs, jmm never troubles floyd, always troubles manny.

Those using how floyd did v Marquez compared to manny v Marquez as a barometer for floyd v manny are wasting their time.

The fact that manny struggles with an intelligent counterpuncher is an obvious marker, for floyd v manny... The floyd v Marquez fight is irrelevant.

Think people do forget styles make fights Milky.........

Duva made much out of it Biggs outclassing Tillis and Tyson struggling with him..........Expect that Honey would always give Curry problems and that Starling would always counterpunch him to death......I know Azumah agrees with this analysis (probably the only thing he agrees with me on!!)

Maidana doesn't really tell us anything about Mayweather fighting anyone else as JMM-Manny doesn't tell us anything about Manny fighting anyone else..

Only thing May-Maidana tells us is that Mayweather maybe feeling his age...........The sad thing as Haz article shows "Nonsense top ten etc" Is when he does lose at 38/39 some people will hold it against him..........Forgetting that Spinks was beating Holmes, Willard was beating Johnson, Fullmer-Robbo etc..............when they were even younger...

and It's very sad...

by hazharrison Wed 07 May 2014, 11:02 am

If we can agree that their welterweight careers are difficult to split, how about their non-welterweight careers (eight toughest opponents -- Gatti preferred over Augustus or Hernandez):

Pacquiao

6-1-1

Antonio Margarito W UD 12
Juan Manuel Marquez W SD 12
Marco Antonio Barrera W UD 12
Erik Morales W KO 3
Erik Morales W TKO 10
Erik Morales L UD 12
Juan Manuel Marquez DRAW 12
Marco Antonio Barrera W TKO 11

Mayweather

8-0

Saul Alvarez W MD 12
Miguel Cotto W UD 12
Oscar De la Hoya W SD 12
Arturo Gatti W RTD 6
Jose Luis Castillo W UD 12
Jose Luis Castillo W UD 12
Diego Corrales W TKO 10
Genero Hernandez W RTD 8

by milkyboy Wed 07 May 2014, 11:15 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.
He got outboxed, completely dominated, schooled, in boxing ability not power or strength. 59% vs 12% connect rate. I honestly wonder what people watched to believe that the weight made any tangible difference.

Jmm might have been more in the fight had he been physically stronger, but ultimately he's a counter puncher not a pressure fighter. Floyd does everything he does only better, when that happens you get a one sided fight, no matter how good the losing fighter is. I've said it before but no matter what weight, however many PEDs, jmm never troubles floyd, always troubles manny.

Those using how floyd did v Marquez compared to manny v Marquez as a barometer for floyd v manny are wasting their time.

The fact that manny struggles with an intelligent counterpuncher is an obvious marker, for floyd v manny... The floyd v Marquez fight is irrelevant.

Think people do forget styles make fights Milky.........

Duva made much out of it Biggs outclassing Tillis and Tyson struggling with him..........Expect that Honey would always give Curry problems and that Starling would always counterpunch him to death......I know Azumah agrees with this analysis (probably the only thing he agrees with me on!!)

Maidana doesn't really tell us anything about Mayweather fighting anyone else as JMM-Manny doesn't tell us anything about Manny fighting anyone else..

Only thing May-Maidana tells us is that Mayweather maybe feeling his age...........The sad thing as Haz article shows "Nonsense top ten etc" Is when he does lose at 38/39 some people will hold it against him..........Forgetting that Spinks was beating Holmes, Willard was beating Johnson, Fullmer-Robbo etc..............when they were even younger...

and It's very sad...

.... We didn't get our usual zoomy visit for this mayweather fight did we?

I think maidana tried some thing (at least with more conviction) that others haven't really, but his success with it might well be down to floyd losing a step. Hard to tell really. Age has to get him sometime, in some redirects it might be easier if he loses to an average fighter... Then we'll know its age. If he loses to say, manny... There'll be endless debate about whether he was ever THAT good. Of course if he beat manny, its a post prime manny.

From a legacy perspective their failure to fight in 2010ish is the big curve ball for both of them

by Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn Wed 07 May 2014, 11:17 am

Pacquaios win over Cotto wasn't at Welter, it was a Diamond Belt bonanza at the 145lb weight division.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 07 May 2014, 11:18 am

milkyboy wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
hogey wrote:The Floyd v JMM fight was like watching a flabby middleweight take on a heavyweight, no doubt it would have been a very much closer fight if JMM had been on his special shakes.
He got outboxed, completely dominated, schooled, in boxing ability not power or strength. 59% vs 12% connect rate. I honestly wonder what people watched to believe that the weight made any tangible difference.

Jmm might have been more in the fight had he been physically stronger, but ultimately he's a counter puncher not a pressure fighter. Floyd does everything he does only better, when that happens you get a one sided fight, no matter how good the losing fighter is. I've said it before but no matter what weight, however many PEDs, jmm never troubles floyd, always troubles manny.

Those using how floyd did v Marquez compared to manny v Marquez as a barometer for floyd v manny are wasting their time.

The fact that manny struggles with an intelligent counterpuncher is an obvious marker, for floyd v manny... The floyd v Marquez fight is irrelevant.

Think people do forget styles make fights Milky.........

Duva made much out of it Biggs outclassing Tillis and Tyson struggling with him..........Expect that Honey would always give Curry problems and that Starling would always counterpunch him to death......I know Azumah agrees with this analysis (probably the only thing he agrees with me on!!)

Maidana doesn't really tell us anything about Mayweather fighting anyone else as JMM-Manny doesn't tell us anything about Manny fighting anyone else..

Only thing May-Maidana tells us is that Mayweather maybe feeling his age...........The sad thing as Haz article shows "Nonsense top ten etc" Is when he does lose at 38/39 some people will hold it against him..........Forgetting that Spinks was beating Holmes, Willard was beating Johnson, Fullmer-Robbo etc..............when they were even younger...

and It's very sad...

.... We didn't get our usual zoomy visit for this mayweather fight did we?

I think maidana tried some thing (at least with more conviction) that others haven't really, but his success with it might well be down to floyd losing a step. Hard to tell really. Age has to get him sometime, in some redirects it might be easier if he loses to an average fighter... Then we'll know its age. If he loses to say, manny... There'll be endless debate about whether he was ever THAT good. Of course if he beat manny, its a post prime manny.

From a legacy perspective their failure to fight in 2010ish is the big curve ball for both of them

Disagree you judge a fighter on his record.........Dempsey didn't fight the best black fighters around.........Neither did Johnson but It doesn't stop Bernstein and Haz having him top 10......Although I think Haz has amended his list..

by Scottrf Wed 07 May 2014, 11:18 am

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Pacquaios win over Cotto wasn't at Welter, it was a Diamond Belt bonanza at the 145lb weight division.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 07 May 2014, 11:21 am

Scottrf wrote:
Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Pacquaios win over Cotto wasn't at Welter, it was a Diamond Belt bonanza at the 145lb weight division.

Watch this space Scotty........If Frampton wins a diamond belt or a copper aniseed one.........It will suddenly become bonafide in Reborn's eyes..

by hazharrison Wed 07 May 2014, 11:41 am

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Pacquaios win over Cotto wasn't at Welter, it was a Diamond Belt bonanza at the 145lb weight division.

That's welterweight.

by Herman Jaeger Wed 07 May 2014, 11:52 am

Trussman has bee coming out with so much garbage recently, the way he spins things to suit his argument or big fighters he likes, that I feel I have to intervene on this occasion. Just for the record, Jack Johnson defended the COLOURED heavyweight title 21 times. That's right TWENTY ONE times. So to say he didn't fight the best black fighters of his day is just, well, what can you say.

As you were.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 07 May 2014, 11:59 am

Herman Jaggery wrote:Trussman has bee coming out with so much garbage recently, the way he spins things to suit his argument or big fighters he likes, that I feel I have to intervene on this occasion. Just for the record, Jack Johnson defended the COLOURED heavyweight title 21 times. That's right TWENTY ONE times. So to say he didn't fight the best black fighters of his day is just, well, what can you say.

As you were.

Afraid you need to read more..

by Herman Jaeger Wed 07 May 2014, 12:03 pm

Listen to the opening minute of the video:

Jack Johnson vs Frank Moran - YouTube

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 07 May 2014, 12:05 pm

Mate..I'll be honest I felt the same as you about Johnson a few years ago... Until Rowley put me straight on a few things and fairplay to him..

Do yourself a favor and pm Rowley....His knowledge of these B/W days is above my pay grade..

by Rowley Wed 07 May 2014, 1:21 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Pacquaios win over Cotto wasn't at Welter, it was a Diamond Belt bonanza at the 145lb weight division.

That's welterweight.

It isn't for me. A welterweight fight allows fighters to weigh anything up to 147. For me the minute there are financial penalties or punishments for coming in at anything up to the divisional limits it becomes a catchweight fight.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 07 May 2014, 6:47 pm

Herman Jaggery wrote:Trussman has bee coming out with so much garbage recently, the way he spins things to suit his argument or big fighters he likes, that I feel I have to intervene on this occasion. Just for the record, Jack Johnson defended the COLOURED heavyweight title 21 times. That's right TWENTY ONE times. So to say he didn't fight the best black fighters of his day is just, well, what can you say.

As you were.

He didn't fight the best black fighters of his day, he fought Jeannette and McVea when they first started out then Langford gave him all he could handle but once he won the title and they'd all reached their primes he steered well clear.

by Herman Jaeger Wed 07 May 2014, 7:55 pm

Firstly, that video must have gotten it's facts wrong. A quick look at wikipedia says he defended it 17 times which was second only to Wills' 26 times.

Johnson reign of 2,151 days was the third longest in the 60-year-long history of the coloured heavyweight title. Only Harry Wills at 3,103, and Peter Jackson at 3,041 days held it longer.

He boxed Jeanette 7 times(winning four, two draws and one disqualification,) and Langford once winning a 15 round decision.

Yes Jeanette(a fighter who really should get a lot more attention on this forum,) made numerous unsuccessful challenges to his WORLD title, and Johnson avoided Langford(top ten atg for me,) but it's fair to say, looking at those impressive statistics, that Johnson HAD proven himself against fighters of his own colour which is what I thought Trussman was implying he hadn't. Forgive then if I was wrong about that.

One of these days I am actually going to read 'Unforgivable Blackness' but for now my question is this- how significantly had Jeanette improved since the last time he had boxed Jack, up to when he started challenging Johnson for his WORLD title?

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 07 May 2014, 8:07 pm

I would assume Herman that somebody that went on to fight 160 times would have improved significantly from the guy who first fought Johnson when he hadn't even won a fight yet.

Johnson hadn't proven himself against the best black fighters of his day because he didn't fight any of them when they were at there best. It's the equivalent of using the fight between Alvarez and Vazquez when going into the bout they had fought twice between them.

by Herman Jaeger Wed 07 May 2014, 8:22 pm

Fleischer- 'There really wasn't a white man who could be classed with this dusky quartet.'

Unforgivable Blackness . Sparring . Jack's Contemporaries | PBS

by Scottrf Wed 07 May 2014, 8:24 pm

Fleischer said a lot of crap, often contradictory.

by catchweight Wed 07 May 2014, 8:27 pm

He would have been at home here then

by Rowley Wed 07 May 2014, 8:30 pm

jennettte improved considerably by the time Johnson won his world title. If anyone chooses to read the round by round or contemporary reports on most of their fights you'd see most of the Johnson Jennette fights were pretty close.

Another factor to be considered is most of their fights were over shorter distances. A title fight would almost certainly have been over 20 or more as per the customs of the day. This would have suited Joe who was exceptional over long distances.

by Sponsored content