How good is Floyd Mayweather's resume as a ATG?

[N/A]

Enough to be criticized, but a top resume, nevertheless. He is funny, not in a good way, for thinking he surpassed Rocky's 49-0 - he is nowhere near Marciano.

Some people blame Calzaghe for fighting almost always on UK soil, but Floyd fought on his own at 100%.

[IronDanHamza]

The obvious flaw with the Zab Judah win was that Zab was coming off a loss to a rather unheralded fighter. Zab was another example of an American "name" who got recycled way beyond his merit.



Didn't beat Margarito, that fight could have happened in 2006.

In hindsight maybe but he was still a Top 5 WW at the time and was P4P Top 10 6 months prior. It was a big fight, it was supposed to be a massive fight but he overlooked Baldomir which was meant to be a tune up and lost.

Miguel Cotto beat him a year later and it was seen as the best thing that ever happened in the history of boxing (joking, but point is it was considered a massive win for Cotto)

[IronDanHamza]

Enough to be criticized, but a top resume, nevertheless. He is funny, not in a good way, for thinking he surpassed Rocky's 49-0 - he is nowhere near Marciano.

Some people blame Calzaghe for fighting almost always on UK soil, but Floyd fought on his own at 100%.

He’s no where near Marciano because he’s about 15 levels higher.

You can’t seriously be trying to imply that Rocky Marciano had a better career and is a greater fighter than Floyd Mayweather?

[Roadblock]

Enough to be criticized, but a top resume, nevertheless. He is funny, not in a good way, for thinking he surpassed Rocky's 49-0 - he is nowhere near Marciano.

Some people blame Calzaghe for fighting almost always on UK soil, but Floyd fought on his own at 100%.

What did Marciano do, he would be slaughtered in the modern era, Floyd could fight and be great in any era, your post makes no sense to me at all, the USA has always been the center stage of world boxing they all want to be on top there, if that's where you are why would you go elsewhere.

[dan-b]

In hindsight maybe but he was still a Top 5 WW at the time and was P4P Top 10 6 months prior. It was a big fight, it was supposed to be a massive fight but he overlooked Baldomir which was meant to be a tune up and lost.

Miguel Cotto beat him a year later and it was seen as the best thing that ever happened in the history of boxing (joking, but point is it was considered a massive win for Cotto)

Or maybe Judah just wasn't that good. He got chinned in two rounds by Tszyu after all.

As for him being P4P, those lists have an inherent US bias. The Ring currently, for example, have Spence at #8 despite having one win in three years.

[IronDanHamza]

Or maybe Judah just wasn't that good. He got chinned in two rounds by Tszyu after all.

As for him being P4P, those lists have an inherent US bias. The Ring currently, for example, have Spence at #8 despite having one win in three years.

Tszyu was one of the best fighters in the world so losing to him is not shameful.

Zab Judah was a quality fighter, overrated perhaps but still a quality fighter of that time period. He was two weight world champion and Undisputed champion just months prior.

To beat him in 2006 is a quality win, that’s just an objective fact.

[garfios]

The marshall was waiting ringside to take Floyd to jail after the he beat Cotto. Does this elevate Floyd's win?

Of course it does, it proves floyd mettle and focus. Not that Corrales wasn't a dog because you need it to kill him in order to win. He proved it against every fighter he ever fought including floyd, he went down like five times and got up each and every time.

[djtmal]

What did Marciano do, he would be slaughtered in the modern era, Floyd could fight and be great in any era.

Marciano would be slaughtered by who exactly

Going by your logic, couldn't your crush Floyd be slaughtered by Robinson, Hearns, and Srl

[billeau2]

I've never been high on Mayweather. He found a style that worked for him in his home city with a US referee and various other factors he stacked in his favour. The successful propaganda line was that he was a "master boxer". So when he spent rounds "moving" around the ring and poking out the occasional punch, judges had been conditioned to think there must be more going on. Coupled with US referees enabling his holding to avoid exchanges it made for the underwhelming events we witnessed. Fans of the guy used to claim detractors "didn't understand the sweet science" of a low output boxer, moving and holding.

I half agree with this Dan. My caveat would be Mayweather's stats which were a watermark of efficiency. his connect percentage, etc. But yes, judges determine "winning." A perfect example would be the pac fight with Mayweather. I find it dubious to proclaim any one a "winner" in that fight. Depending on what one looks for, either guy could be said to have "won."

To me mayweather falls down when we consider two marks: 1. The ability to dominate an opponent... and in this respect I think not only Jones, but Ward was better in this particular measure. 2. Competition. Mayweather did not fight fellow greats. I give him a youn g canelo... as compared to Jones. The HOF is indeed a joke.

Iron Dan did mention the Judah fight... and it is a good point. Judah was a dangerous and talented fighter, even with his many flaws.

[dan-b]

I half agree with this Dan. My caveat would be Mayweather's stats which were a watermark of efficiency. his connect percentage, etc. But yes, judges determine "winning." A perfect example would be the pac fight with Mayweather. I find it dubious to proclaim any one a "winner" in that fight. Depending on what one looks for, either guy could be said to have "won."

To me mayweather falls down when we consider two marks: 1. The ability to dominate an opponent... and in this respect I think not only Jones, but Ward was better in this particular measure. 2. Competition. Mayweather did not fight fellow greats. I give him a youn g canelo... as compared to Jones. The HOF is indeed a joke.

Iron Dan did mention the Judah fight... and it is a good point. Judah was a dangerous and talented fighter, even with his many flaws.

To expand upon the Judah fight, it's another example of the US bias I regularly complain about here. The institutions that run boxing had decided Judah and Mayweather were the two best welterweights, so even after one of them lost we were supposed to pretend they hadn't. Mayweather did at least fight Baldomir, but it was a dreadful performance. I distinctly recall Manny Steward saying "no, no, no" when Lampley mentioned Floyd comparing himself to Ray Robinson.

The HOF has little more credibility to me than the Oscars. Award ceremonies are another example of arbitrary authority. Is it really a coincidence 'best actor' always go to someone who performed in a Hollywood blockbuster? I don't need people to validate what I consider art. It's part of the reason I bristle at those who insist I "don't understand the sweet science" for not being high on Mayweather. I know what I'm looking at.

Another point Mayweather falls down on is activity. His (cynical in my view) "retirements" and spells of inactivity quite obviously contributed to his ability to remain undefeated. Whether they like it or not, Mayweather and Pacquiao will always be indelibly linked so let's compare them. Pacquiao had 72 fights, that's 44% more fights. He fought JMM four times. Coupled with his riskier style, it's no surprise he had more losses.

After their 2015 fight, Mayweather had two more professional fights, one of which was a glorified exhibition with a former MMA fighter. Pacquiao had seven more, the penultimate being a win over Keith Thurman.