Does Mayweather get enough credit?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:All this top 25 crap.......

You don't even know what your Top 25 is..

In fairness Farah isn't as "forgetful" as your 400m chick.......

Banned for a year and woman of the year in 2014....

Say no more..

hogey wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:All this top 25 crap.......

You don't even know what your Top 25 is..

In fairness Farah isn't as "forgetful" as your 400m chick.......

Banned for a year and woman of the year in 2014....

Say no more..

I would have banned her for life Truss, not awarded her, same as i would strip Carl Lewis, Justin Gatlin and Tyson Gaye of every medal and title and ban them for life.
As for my top 25 i have a pretty good idea, all subjective though and if you agree with me or if you dont i aint gonna lose any sleep, argue or attempt  to bulldozer over other peoples opinions.

catchweight wrote:Im not one for making lists but I think hes generally an overrated boxer with an overrated record as a result of extremelly opportunistic matchmaking. Certainly extremelly talented but I wouldnt have him in the same calibre as a Leonard, Hearns or Whitaker. I think its debateable how he would fare even against an on form de la Hoya, Benitez, Pacquiao or Mosely.

captain carrantuohil wrote:In general, people accord Mayweather the respect that he deserves as a fighter. There will always be one or two who won't but no fighter, all-time top 10 or not, has ever managed to escape completely from sticklers who would insist that his record is padded/missing at least one great contemporary (more in Robinson's case)/ inconsistent or that Fighter A or B had his number. Doesn't much matter - Floyd is equalled only by Jones, Whitaker and maybe Nunn in terms of pure talent over the past thirty years or so. As far as achievements/CV are concerned, we can't totally ignore Roy's catastrophic downfall at an age when Floyd was still befuddling some of the best of his generation and Nunn falls clearly short of this sort of class. Only Pea, then, to touch him overall since the end of the 80s, in my view.

I havered for months and years before deciding where exactly to put Mayweather in my all-time list. I honestly don't see too many people he should have fought and didn't, with the shining exception of Pacquiao 4 or 5 years before he actually did. Any names such as Paul Williams are red herrings of the Jones Jr/Michalczewski ilk and are not to be taken too seriously. Nevertheless, I was once for putting him a step below Whitaker, Tunney, Ray Leonard and Duran at around the 14-15 mark - until he fought Alvarez. It was then that I felt that I was under-selling Floyd somewhat. Past his best in age and speed; fighting above his best weight; up against a young gun in the prime of life with some excellent recent wins behind him, the consensus number one at this higher weight - and Floyd took him to school. It was a rare display of virtuosity against someone who continues to take extremely high rank among his pound for pound contemporaries. For that reason, I have lifted him to number 10 in my list, which is where he will now remain until an even greater fighter hoves into view.

Not everyone will buy my reasoning, which is fine and dandy. No monopoly on wisdom here. However, not many could construct a reasonable case that Mayweather is not one of the greatest practitioners of his sport of any era.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yep....The Captain, Hammer, Chris and all the rest of us know f**k all compared to your journalist mates...

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yep....The Captain, Hammer, Chris and all the rest of us know f**k all compared to your journalist mates...

You've quoted Hammer in the same breath as Captain.  Are you trying to ensure Captain's sparse output on this board reduces to nothing?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haz is cosying up to Strongy the troll..Like me getting Waingro to back an argument up..

Haz has Jack Johnson at 7 so it's redundant asking him where he places Floyd..

AdamT wrote:Were would you rate him Haz? Around 20-25?

AdamT wrote:That's a fair post Haz. It is hard putting a number to these lists.

I say Floyd is top ten but how many great fighters do I overlook?

At the end of the day, it's really all about peoples preference and opinions.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Duran by 8th round massacre.

hazharrison wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:In general, people accord Mayweather the respect that he deserves as a fighter. There will always be one or two who won't but no fighter, all-time top 10 or not, has ever managed to escape completely from sticklers who would insist that his record is padded/missing at least one great contemporary (more in Robinson's case)/ inconsistent or that Fighter A or B had his number. Doesn't much matter - Floyd is equalled only by Jones, Whitaker and maybe Nunn in terms of pure talent over the past thirty years or so. As far as achievements/CV are concerned, we can't totally ignore Roy's catastrophic downfall at an age when Floyd was still befuddling some of the best of his generation and Nunn falls clearly short of this sort of class. Only Pea, then, to touch him overall since the end of the 80s, in my view.

I havered for months and years before deciding where exactly to put Mayweather in my all-time list. I honestly don't see too many people he should have fought and didn't, with the shining exception of Pacquiao 4 or 5 years before he actually did. Any names such as Paul Williams are red herrings of the Jones Jr/Michalczewski ilk and are not to be taken too seriously. Nevertheless, I was once for putting him a step below Whitaker, Tunney, Ray Leonard and Duran at around the 14-15 mark - until he fought Alvarez. It was then that I felt that I was under-selling Floyd somewhat. Past his best in age and speed; fighting above his best weight; up against a young gun in the prime of life with some excellent recent wins behind him, the consensus number one at this higher weight - and Floyd took him to school. It was a rare display of virtuosity against someone who continues to take extremely high rank among his pound for pound contemporaries. For that reason, I have lifted him to number 10 in my list, which is where he will now remain until an even greater fighter hoves into view.

Not everyone will buy my reasoning, which is fine and dandy. No monopoly on wisdom here. However, not many could construct a reasonable case that Mayweather is not one of the greatest practitioners of his sport of any era.

Floyd was generally regarded the best 154 pounder before facing Alvarez (after defeating Cotto). Alvarez was number two in various ratings (those that rate fighters in more than one division at least).

mark_england wrote:There was nothing wrong with Pacquiao in their fight, he just couldn't land a shot because Mayweather was too good defensively.

De la Hoya was hardly past it when they fought either, and FMJ clearly won that fight as well.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Would somewhat share TopHat's doubts there. I've no doubt that Mayweather was propelled to the top of the 154 ranks in certain quarters by dint of the Cotto win, but I'm equally sure that there was a general reluctance to accept the fact that Floyd was really a light-middle, just as there was when Whitaker beat Vasquez at the weight years earlier. Good enough to beat the 154 pounders, of course, but basically a welter, all the same.

Cotto's stock was also seen to be very much a sell after Floyd beat him, a fact accentuated by the beating he took from Trout in his next fight after Floyd. Alvarez, meanwhile, was thought by many to be the best man who was genuinely plying his trade at 154, the leader of a group that didn't really include Mayweather. Plenty felt before his fight with Mayweather that Alvarez would at least give Floyd a serious examination; in the event, Mayweather proved conclusively that he WAS the number at both 154 and 147, a status that he hadn't truly nailed down beforehand (again, rather like Whitaker or Ray Leonard after he had beaten Kalule - both didn't bother to fight at light-middle at all after winning a strap).

Mayweather achieved all this at an age when most are already well on the path to the Sunset Rest Home for retired pugs. That longevity, the ability to continue at a high level, if not quite at the standard that he had set for himself as a younger man, when other greats have merely fallen apart and embarrassed themselves, is not the least compelling reason for placing Floyd as highly as I do.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

mark_england wrote:There was nothing wrong with Pacquiao in their fight, he just couldn't land a shot because Mayweather was too good defensively.

De la Hoya was hardly past it when they fought either, and FMJ clearly won that fight as well.

I laughed out loud at this comment...

Mayweather isn't as great defensive as you think he is, at least since his last few fights, it was a seriously close fight, watch it in slow motion and you will see that Pacquiao landed plenty of leather and the much more effective shots. He also made Mayweather miss a lot.

A lot of the punches Mayweather landed, brushed Pacquiao, these shots don't even get scored in the amateurs. Schooling and Masterclass are not words I would use to describe it.

I thought Floyd won, I don't argue either way, but I cannot fathom how it is an 'easy nights work' or 'Pacquiao didn't land a shot'.

I think there is a huge bias towards Mayweather when scoring fights.

That being said, Pacquiao is no mug at all and its a great win, but don't pretend that Manny did nothing

TopHat24/7 wrote:They both threw roughly the same 435 & 429 but Mayweather landed 34% to Manny's 19%.

I'd normally expect May to be more like 40%+ but Manny suffered worse.

Either way, tawdry punch stats from a supposed 'super fight', throwing just over 30 punches a round and landing only 6 to 12.

hazharrison wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

mark_england wrote:There was nothing wrong with Pacquiao in their fight, he just couldn't land a shot because Mayweather was too good defensively.

De la Hoya was hardly past it when they fought either, and FMJ clearly won that fight as well.

I laughed out loud at this comment...

Mayweather isn't as great defensive as you think he is, at least since his last few fights, it was a seriously close fight, watch it in slow motion and you will see that Pacquiao landed plenty of leather and the much more effective shots. He also made Mayweather miss a lot.

A lot of the punches Mayweather landed, brushed Pacquiao, these shots don't even get scored in the amateurs. Schooling and Masterclass are not words I would use to describe it.

I thought Floyd won, I don't argue either way, but I cannot fathom how it is an 'easy nights work' or 'Pacquiao didn't land a shot'.

I think there is a huge bias towards Mayweather when scoring fights.

That being said, Pacquiao is no mug at all and its a great win, but don't pretend that Manny did nothing

Pacquiao landed next to nothing. Floyd landed only a tad more. It was as atrocious a "super fight" as there's ever been.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I whole-heartedly agree, haz, that the boxers whom one would rate highest have generally beaten great opponents or, in the absence of a marquee name, have entirely dominated one or more of their weight divisions, taking on the biggest challenges that circumstances would permit them.

With these parameters in mind, it doesn't seem to me that Floyd has much to defend himself against. He has been the best fighter in each division through which he has graduated over a spread of 24 pounds, as great a range as all but a handful of the elite. There are very few names not already on Floyd's CV that one would wish to see there. The Pacquiao saga did neither fighter much credit and is something that prevents me from ranking Floyd any higher than 10 but there aren't many other missed challenges that stick out to his discredit from my angle. Not fighting Golovkin seems like a non-issue to me. How many other fighters at the age of 38 are being asked to take on a murderous hitter at a weight 30 pounds above that at which he started and 13 above his normal theatre of operation in order to prove himself worthy of a high rank in boxing history? None is the answer, and for good reason.

Think that Alvarez is an extremely accomplished fighter, who may still be improving and boasts decent notches on his belt both before and after his meeting with Floyd. Close wins, some of them, but all the greats have had their close shaves and it speaks to their credit that they are able to nick the tight ones. No-one, after all, bags Robinson too strenuously for his showings and results against Henry Brimm when in the prime of his welterweight magnificence. Not that Alvarez is Robinson, of course, but he is arguably one of the best ten boxers currently plying his trade at any weight; Floyd's showing against him is a career highlight and one of the most impressive things that I've seen in the sport since the turn of the millennium.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:They both threw roughly the same 435 & 429 but Mayweather landed 34% to Manny's 19%.

I'd normally expect May to be more like 40%+ but Manny suffered worse.

Either way, tawdry punch stats from a supposed 'super fight', throwing just over 30 punches a round and landing only 6 to 12.

Don't give me compubox stats, they are a load of complete rubbish.

Watch the fight, there are plenty of people doing punch counting, Floyd didn't land ANYWHERE NEAR 34%, but Manny has no defence right? He can't slip and counter? He can't change his style for one fight and have a game plan, not to throw 100 punches a round but to instead block Floyds counter on the way in and land his own. Or slip floyd's lead and counter him.

Manny is much better than you lot give him credit for, its just he is too fast to actually see what he is doing, watch it in slow mo and you will see what I mean

captain carrantuohil wrote:I whole-heartedly agree, haz, that the boxers whom one would rate highest have generally beaten great opponents or, in the absence of a marquee name, have entirely dominated one or more of their weight divisions, taking on the biggest challenges that circumstances would permit them.

With these parameters in mind, it doesn't seem to me that Floyd has much to defend himself against. He has been the best fighter in each division through which he has graduated over a spread of 24 pounds, as great a range as all but a handful of the elite. There are very few names not already on Floyd's CV that one would wish to see there. The Pacquiao saga did neither fighter much credit and is something that prevents me from ranking Floyd any higher than 10 but there aren't many other missed challenges that stick out to his discredit from my angle. Not fighting Golovkin seems like a non-issue to me. How many other fighters at the age of 38 are being asked to take on a murderous hitter at a weight 30 pounds above that at which he started and 13 above his normal theatre of operation in order to prove himself worthy of a high rank in boxing history? None is the answer, and for good reason.

Think that Alvarez is an extremely accomplished fighter, who may still be improving and boasts decent notches on his belt both before and after his meeting with Floyd. Close wins, some of them, but all the greats have had their close shaves and it speaks to their credit that they are able to nick the tight ones. No-one, after all, bags Robinson too strenuously for his showings and results against Henry Brimm when in the prime of his welterweight magnificence. Not that Alvarez is Robinson, of course, but he is arguably one of the best ten boxers currently plying his trade at any weight; Floyd's showing against him is a career highlight and one of the most impressive things that I've seen in the sport since the turn of the millennium.

TopHat24/7 wrote:You don't think Mayweather looked untouchable 130-140?? Castillo I is the only fight I can think of.

AdamT wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:They both threw roughly the same 435 & 429 but Mayweather landed 34% to Manny's 19%.

I'd normally expect May to be more like 40%+ but Manny suffered worse.

Either way, tawdry punch stats from a supposed 'super fight', throwing just over 30 punches a round and landing only 6 to 12.

Don't give me compubox stats, they are a load of complete rubbish.

Watch the fight, there are plenty of people doing punch counting, Floyd didn't land ANYWHERE NEAR 34%, but Manny has no defence right? He can't slip and counter? He can't change his style for one fight and have a game plan, not to throw 100 punches a round but to instead block Floyds counter on the way in and land his own. Or slip floyd's lead and counter him.

Manny is much better than you lot give him credit for, its just he is too fast to actually see what he is doing, watch it in slow mo and you will see what I mean

Pacquiao is too fast to see his punches land?

I take it you watched that 15mins highlight in slow motion, on youtube.

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:Im not one for making lists but I think hes generally an overrated boxer with an overrated record as a result of extremelly opportunistic matchmaking. Certainly extremelly talented but I wouldnt have him in the same calibre as a Leonard, Hearns or Whitaker. I think its debateable how he would fare even against an on form de la Hoya, Benitez, Pacquiao or Mosely.

I'd have to rate him over Hearns. Hearns lost his biggest fights. Head to head, though, I'd fancy Tommy to undo him. Again, though, depends how we're rating them.