What is the boxing forums take on mayweathers career?

[JayE]

Fail what? Pep was a can crusher.

He has 30+ wins over guys who were rated top 10 at the time by Ring Magazine at either FW or LW. Was everyone in his era at those weights a can?

 

[Bogotazo]

Only Leonard and Duran seem to be ranked above Floyd with any regularity out of the Fab 4. Pep can definitely be argued ahead of Floyd, though. People forget that he amassed a very impressive resume fighting at LW (despite never fighting for the belt there) on top of his dominant run at FW (and Pep was a small FW who was genuinely outsized at LW). His resume would have been a fair bit more impressive had he not been in the plane crash, as well.

I agree with all that, good point at LW too, he took his first loss against Angott and went on to get quality scalps, though I think Hearns usually gets mentioned above as well. Hagler is the one that Floyd can sneak past.

 

[JayE]

I agree with all that, good point at LW too, he took his first loss against Angott and went on to get quality scalps, though I think Hearns usually gets mentioned above as well. Hagler is the one that Floyd can sneak past.

I've seen it done, but it seems that more and more people rate Floyd over Hearns, mostly due to difference in consistency.

 

[Bogotazo]

So Sandy Saddler was a can?

Saddler, Manuel Ortiz, Chalky Wright, Archibald, DeMarco, Wilson, on and on. The filler shouldn't detract from his quality wins.

 

[Seano]

He has 30+ wins over guys who were rated top 10 at the time by Ring Magazine at either FW or LW. Was everyone in his era at those weights a can?

Nostalgia for the "golden age." No one could name more than 3 of them without boxreccing.

 

[Bogotazo]

I've seen it done, but it seems that more and more people rate Floyd over Hearns, mostly due to difference in consistency.

Hard for any fighter to beat Floyd in consistency, possibly his greatest attribute. I just put a lot of emphasis on best wins as they prove greatness (not just imply it like skills on the eye test). We all know of his most famous victories but people forget that he won a title at Light Heavyweight against an undefeated Virgil Hill. He was a huge welter, but that's still pretty ridiculous.

 

[Bogotazo]

Nostalgia for the "golden age." No one could name more than 3 of them without boxreccing.

The ignorance of forum posters isn't really a strong argument for historical recognition. It's the true boxing nerds, journalists, and historians who carry on knowledge and lay out the most detailed arguments for all time ranking.

The public imagination is a separate discussion. But I guess the thread is asking specifically about everyone here.

 

[Seano]

The ignorance of forum posters isn't really a strong argument for historical recognition. It's the true boxing nerds, journalists, and historians who carry on knowledge and lay out the most detailed arguments for all time ranking.

The public imagination is a separate discussion. But I guess the thread is asking specifically about everyone here.

I've been a boxing fan for over 30 years. I couldn't name 10 guys Pep beat who were considered great without looking it up. Historians tend to draw a line in history and thats just when people stop being great. Everyone Pep beat has been surpassed a dozen times over since then.

 

[JayE]

Nostalgia for the "golden age." No one could name more than 3 of them without boxreccing.

Oh. So a fighter with that kind of resume against top competition over 2 weight classes (it would be 3 classes in this era) wouldn't get any recognition? That's ridiculous.

 

[Seano]

Oh. So a fighter with that kind of resume against top competition over 2 weight classes (it would be 3 classes in this era) wouldn't get any recognition. That's ridiculous.

Not really what I said. I said Floyd has beaten better quality opposition. And he has.

 

[JayE]

Not really what I said. I said Floyd has beaten better quality opposition. And he has.

You can argue that Mayweather has a better resume than Pep. That doesn't justify the can-crusher comment, though. Very few fighters in history have beaten the amount of top rated fighters that Pep did (Mayweather included).

 

[Seano]

You can argue that Mayweather has a better resume than Pep. That doesn't justify the can-crusher comment, though. Very few fighters in history have beaten the amount of top rated fighters that Pep did (Mayweather included).

Pep was definitely a can crusher. He's the sort of fighter the term was created for.

 

[JayE]

Pep was definitely a can crusher. He's the sort of fighter the term was created for.

So all the top rated fighters from his era were cans? Because he beat all of them.

 

[Seano]

So all the top rated fighters from his era were cans? Because he beat all of them.

No, but the other 200 or so opponents were. Pep fought a shitload of cans.

 

[JayE]

No, but the other 200 or so opponents were. Pep fought a shitload of cans.

Yeah, and so did Ray Robinson. I know you know that's how things worked in that era. He still regularly fought elite competition and has almost 40 wins over guys who were rated top 10 at either FW or LW when he fought them. If you're going to call Pep a can crusher, you have to call Robinson a can crusher, as well.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I've seen it done, but it seems that more and more people rate Floyd over Hearns, mostly due to difference in consistency.

If he had a great chin Tommy might have been the GOAT.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Saddler, Manuel Ortiz, Chalky Wright, Archibald, DeMarco, Wilson, on and on. The filler shouldn't detract from his quality wins.

It was a different era when guys had to fight even multiple times a month to pay the bills.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Nostalgia for the "golden age." No one could name more than 3 of them without boxreccing.

Just because you don't recognize the names doesn't mean they were cans. You did the same trying to disparage SRR because he had a draw against someone nobody ever heard of.

 

[Bogotazo]

I've been a boxing fan for over 30 years. I couldn't name 10 guys Pep beat who were considered great without looking it up. Historians tend to draw a line in history and thats just when people stop being great. Everyone Pep beat has been surpassed a dozen times over since then.

If you couldn't name 10 guys then that's on you, it doesn't speak to the actual quality of the era. The champions and contenders of yesterday become forgotten over time. "Surpassed a dozen times over" is also a curious statement, boxing modernized in the 40's and hasn't changed all that much since.

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

a little of topic but this was fun