How would Floyd Mayweather have done against Sugar Ray Robinson or Harry Greb? Call me crazy but I think he could beat Robinson. Greb I can't say cause I've never actually seen a fight of his, I just know his record and reputation.
I don't think you need to go that far back to find people who'd be a big challenge to floyd, duran and hearns jump to mind as people with assets that floyd hasn't really faced, a highly disciplined brawler and the punching power of a heavyweight, respectively.
Floyd always wins. He trains the hardest, and is the smartest. His record has people on it who would have been competitive in their weight in any era.
Perhaps, but the point stands that he hasn't beaten a fighter who could be described as either of those two things.
Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest at a time when fitness and nutrition were very limited. He was also using 15 rounds. He was also the reason the p4p exists. I wouldn't make it out as easily as you guys are.
I have to disagree. There are numerous hall of famers to be on Floyds record. He gets umfairly judged just because he is so damn good. People forget for instance what they were saying before the Alvarez fight. Other fighters, including the "4 Kings", have a lot of fighters on their record that would make even the most enthusiastic boxing fans ask, "Who?" When was the last time, regardless of whether you like him or not, you thought that about Floyds opponent? A long time ago. I think Robinson probably more than anyone, changed how boxers fought. He brought more movement and applied, in my opinion, more of the "sweet science" than any before him. We have a lot to thank him for. Without him, and those like him, we probably wouldn't have guys like Mayweather. Just my opinion. But it can't stop there. The sport has to go to the next level, not stay still, and I believe that is what the likes of Mayweather have done. Love him or hate him, he is bloody good and works harder than any athlete I can think off.
Oh no! I don't think Robinson would be easy for anyone. Ever. I just think Floyd has everything he had and more, which as I said in my previous post, isn't disrespectful, but how I think it should be. Well, sort of. Whoever is the best in the world in 2050 I hope will be even better than Floyd.
I never questioned the validity of Mayweather nor his record, nor did i say that Hagler or Leonard were terrible match ups for him, i picked both Hearns and Duran for very specific stylistic reasons that i feel present tangible challenges for Mayweather. Duran because he is a very highly skilled pressure fighter, and if the first Maidana fight taught us anything, if you are a skilled pressure fighter, you can push Floyd out of his comfort zone, and i honestly believe Duran is a more skilled and technical pressure fighter than Maidana. As for Hearns, he has the stopping power of a heavyweight and a significant reach advantage, two things that i've never seen Floyd have to come up against, and i honestly believe that that combination, not to mention everything else that went into making Tommy Hearns the nightmare he was, would lead Floyd to wilt.
Duran was a brawler who came at you. mayweather eats guys like that alive and so did Whitaker. I'm not saying they would eat Duran up but I can see them beating him. If Wilfredo Benitiez could then they could.
Yet he was not exactly easy to hit cleanly at a short distance and was rather good at counter punching off feints, which is more than i can say for the sluggers that Mayweather has faced, had Maidana anything more than body punching he might have kept the fight competitive beyond the 6th round. As for the Benitiez fight, that doesn't exactly work as a comparison, as Floyd would probably be backing up the whole time, trying to create distance, where as the main reason Benitiez won was because he pretty much stood within punching range for most of the fight, which given Floyd's tendency to parry with his shoulder would only provide Duran a target.
I don't think Floyd would back up. I think he would let Duran smother himself, like he did Hatton. Ricky thought he'd push Floyd back, but when Mayweather stood his ground Hatton didn't know what to do. He didn't expect it. Duran also wasn't very big. Maidana came in as a super middle against a welterweight. Maidana also had no intention at all of boxing Mayweather. His only hope was to either hurt Floyd illegally, or rough him up to the point that Floyd lost his cool. Duran was also dirty, but even he wasn't that blatant. I don't think the Maidana match is any guide really simply because he had no intention of actually boxing. Hearns was a lot bigger than Mayweather, so its different. But I'm sure if we all note that Hearns right hand was a danger, I can only guess Floyd would notice and take that into account also.
If memory serves he only started to stand still once Hatton got tired of perusing him, which would probably not happen to Duran (unless he decided to redux no mas). I realize that Maidana is a poor example, but he is probably the best example of a pressure fighter getting to Floyd, so the comparison was made. I do believe that Duran was far more skilled, and i honestly believe skilled enough to beat Mayweather, although as you pointed out, he'd need to delve deep into his bag of dirty tricks to pull it off. Hearns, though was much more than people give him credit for, he was eerily accurate with that right hand, and was incredibly patient at finding it a place to land. With that approach he took highly technical fighters and forced them into brawls, and i don't really believe that Floyd has the ability to take a fight into his own hands and finish someone like Leonard had to.
The Greatest of all time is Ali. Why? Because he ducked no one. Because he was not afraid to put himself out there no matter who against. And because he avenged almost every loss he ever had. Floyd dodging Manny is the principle reason he will never be greatest of all time. And Sugar Ray Robinson would wreck him.
He ducked no one? Cause i'd love to find the tape of Ali-Foreman 2. Also, 3 out of 5 is only 60%, and i'd love to hear how you think the Norton fights weren't outright robbery. I guess Goebbels was right, repeat the same lie often enough, and people will start to believe it.
Not really, i mean, look at Ali's record and look at Floyd's then look at the records of the people they fought, Floyd's a much more proven athlete than Ali, which is pretty standard when talking about most heavyweights in comparison to smaller fighters.
Floyd Mayweather has not fought any competition that could in any way match Ali. Come on now. Norton, Liston, Shavers, Foreman, Frazier, Patterson? Floyd's record is mostly meaningless. Anyone can be undefeated if they don't face any competition.
Norton, Let's be honest, Ali never really beat him, so using him as an example of how good he is, is sort of moot. Liston, tried to postpone the first fight due to a bad left shoulder, then threw the second, hardly an endearing comparison. Shavers, Ali struggled against him, and while he won the fight, it's hard to use him as a benchmark because he hadn't ever beaten anyone of note. Foreman, so, Ali lets a guy hit him until he gets exhausted, pushes him over, then refuses to fight him, despite him being the #1 contender for a year, Ali was breathing a sigh of relief when Foreman retired at 26 to become a preacher. Frazier, it says a lot about the caliber of fighter you are when you're nemesis is 4 inches shorter, blind in one eye and unable to fully straighten their left arm, yet they beat you, then lost to you on the back of over 100 illegal clinches, then almost beat you, if only for the fact that their corner felt sending a fighter who couldn't see out for another round was some how negligent. Patterson, well, he was probably the least among them, but that was probably due to the fact he was on the tail end of his career, and wasn't the greatest at taking a punch once you got past his defense. Do you wanna go further into his record, find guys like Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coopman, Joe Bugner, Chuck Wepner, Karl Mildenberger or Brian London?
Honestly, none of what you put above I agree with. Joe Frazier for example was one of the greatest of all time. Saying otherwise makes you look pretty foolish. Regardless, Floyd has not fought anyone of any real caliber. And he still won't fight Manny, because he likes being as he put it "a rich coward".
Quite a lot of what i said were fact though, to disagree with them is sort of just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, and i wasn't exactly saying that Frazier was a terrible fighter, but the fact he was one of the better ones with such a number of physical limitations does make most of his contemporaries look rather bad, but still, if you are able to provide me with some facts or statistics to prove me otherwise, you have my full attention. As for Floyd, you are hinging his reputation on one fighter, you have said he's a coward because of one guy, who he was willing to fight, but if memory serves the reason the fight didn't happen in 2010 was because Pacquiao refused to take a drug test that would involve a needle because he was "afraid" of them, according to you, every fighter Floyd could possibly fight is a bum beyond Pacquiao. Fyi, Floyd threw the gauntlet down earlier this month for a may showdown with Pacquiao, keep yourself in the loop.
