Who would beat Floyd Mayweather Junior

Given the lively debate that went on about this earlier who do you think would beat Floyd Mayweather Junior? This is a multiple choice post.

All. Hearns and Robinson would be biggest favourites IMO. Leonard I'd make a favourite, Duran I think Mayweather matches OK with, Benitez would be an interesting clash of styles but I think Floyd starts as favourite against him and Pac.

Add to the list Marciano, Ali, Lewis, Tyson, Tunney....

Would or could?

Important distinction IMO.

Hard to say any of them are nailed on certs - Mayweather is a defensive genius and a tough night's work for anyone.

However - could? All of the above.

In terms of probability I'd say SRR>SRL>Hearns>Duran>Pacman>Benitez

On another day I might switch my order - but I reckon Floyd adapts to Benitez' jab and comes back. Course - if you take the other line that a jab is key vs Floyd - Benitez' jab was as good as any...

No doubt in my mind that all those fighters COULD beat Mayweather, but out of them I would make Hearns the biggest favourite to win, his style is all wrong for Mayweather with a huge reach advantage and the power than me armed with a RPG and a radiator.

SRR wins 8/9 out of 10 times and SRL possibly 7/10.

I put Mayweather 50:50 with Duran with myself leaning towards FMJ, especially at WW. Then I have Mayweather as a decent favourite against Benitez and Pac.

Benitez, laing, Leonard and any half decent technician beat Duran and three turkeys pick Duran to win...

Don't think I'll bother..If that's the level of debate..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Benitez, laing, Leonard and any half decent technician beat Duran and three turkeys pick Duran to win...

Don't think I'll bother..If that's the level of debate..

Yep - half decent technician like Leonard who absolutely beat Duran first time out in Montreal.

Oh wait...

Thanks for your detailed analysis anyway.

Don't think I'll bother..If that's the level of debate..
...........................
Yellow Belly.. too much for you..
Still i agree silly post.. Manny is the man to beat the cash cow.. in todays world.. in REAL life..
Come on guys this is 606 last decade stuff... or is this just the state of boxing revelling in its glorious past... the football. horse racing,tennis cricket
rugby do not hark upon the old days wake up it is 2011 lets talk about today.....
OK... Messi is better than Maradona... but messi has never won a world cup
well maradona is better than pele.. but he won more world cups.. yes but Messi is a modern day superstar winning domestic european cups.. yes but so did George Best....
That is what this boxing forum is like ... the football forum is nothing like this
it talks about what is happening TODAY... as does the rugby, cricket etc....
This boxing forum is like the Grumpy old man show... not a bad thing .. but come on guys. Johnson,Langton,Tunney,Dempsey.. lets not forget the past
but lets move on a bit...

I could name 50 fighters that could beat Mayweather from superfeather to light-middle.

D4thincarnation wrote:I could name 50 fighters that could beat Mayweather from superfeather to light-middle.

I know you could, but please don't.

I'd be editing replies from now until domesday

Joshsmith wrote:Don't think I'll bother..If that's the level of debate..
...........................
Yellow Belly.. too much for you..
Still i agree silly post.. Manny is the man to beat the cash cow.. in todays world.. in REAL life..
Come on guys this is 606 last decade stuff... or is this just the state of boxing revelling in its glorious past... the football. horse racing,tennis cricket
rugby do not hark upon the old days wake up it is 2011 lets talk about today.....
OK... Messi is better than Maradona... but messi has never won a world cup
well maradona is better than pele.. but he won more world cups.. yes but Messi is a modern day superstar winning domestic european cups.. yes but so did George Best....
That is what this boxing forum is like ... the football forum is nothing like this
it talks about what is happening TODAY... as does the rugby, cricket etc....
This boxing forum is like the Grumpy old man show... not a bad thing .. but come on guys. Johnson,Langton,Tunney,Dempsey.. lets not forget the past
but lets move on a bit...

Your trying to tell us what we can and cannot debate, if you don't like it don't bother posting otherwise put up with it

D4thincarnation wrote:I could name 50 fighters that could beat Mayweather from superfeather to light-middle.

I would love to see it go for it.

Joshsmith wrote:Don't think I'll bother..If that's the level of debate..
...........................
Yellow Belly.. too much for you..
Still i agree silly post.. Manny is the man to beat the cash cow.. in todays world.. in REAL life..
Come on guys this is 606 last decade stuff... or is this just the state of boxing revelling in its glorious past... the football. horse racing,tennis cricket
rugby do not hark upon the old days wake up it is 2011 lets talk about today.....
OK... Messi is better than Maradona... but messi has never won a world cup
well maradona is better than pele.. but he won more world cups.. yes but Messi is a modern day superstar winning domestic european cups.. yes but so did George Best....
That is what this boxing forum is like ... the football forum is nothing like this
it talks about what is happening TODAY... as does the rugby, cricket etc....
This boxing forum is like the Grumpy old man show... not a bad thing .. but come on guys. Johnson,Langton,Tunney,Dempsey.. lets not forget the past
but lets move on a bit...

If you don't like a thread or don't want to discuss fighters that no longer compete don't comment on the thread. Clearly other people do.

Joshsmith wrote:Don't think I'll bother..If that's the level of debate..
...........................
Yellow Belly.. too much for you..
Still i agree silly post.. Manny is the man to beat the cash cow.. in todays world.. in REAL life..
Come on guys this is 606 last decade stuff... or is this just the state of boxing revelling in its glorious past... the football. horse racing,tennis cricket
rugby do not hark upon the old days wake up it is 2011 lets talk about today.....
OK... Messi is better than Maradona... but messi has never won a world cup
well maradona is better than pele.. but he won more world cups.. yes but Messi is a modern day superstar winning domestic european cups.. yes but so did George Best....
That is what this boxing forum is like ... the football forum is nothing like this
it talks about what is happening TODAY... as does the rugby, cricket etc....
This boxing forum is like the Grumpy old man show... not a bad thing .. but come on guys. Johnson,Langton,Tunney,Dempsey.. lets not forget the past
but lets move on a bit...

Let's enjoy discussing what we enjoy, while returning the courtesy and allowing you to do the same.

Didn't you recently write a Tyson article ? Hardly ' hot off the press and topical,' was it ? Some of us have a passion for the history of the sport, and as far as I know there's nothing written in the forum rules requiring us to seek your approval.

oxring wrote:Would or could?

Important distinction IMO.

Hard to say any of them are nailed on certs - Mayweather is a defensive genius and a tough night's work for anyone.

However - could? All of the above.

In terms of probability I'd say SRR>SRL>Hearns>Duran>Pacman>Benitez

On another day I might switch my order - but I reckon Floyd adapts to Benitez' jab and comes back. Course - if you take the other line that a jab is key vs Floyd - Benitez' jab was as good as any...

You've done it for me, oxy.

Agree with every word.

I went for all of the above, Pacman a tough one but i would pick him to beat Floyd if they fought today, all lot of the fights are 50/50 but would expect most on the list to pull through and be victorious. These fighters above would come into the ring with their own agenda and not let floyd dictate the fight.

I went for all of the above, Pacman a tough one but i would pick him to beat Floyd if they fought today, all lot of the fights are 50/50 but would expect most on the list to pull through and be victorious. These fighters above would come into the ring with their own agenda and not let floyd dictate the fight.

Brilliant

Another FMJ thread.

Didn't we discuss who would've been able to unlock him yesterday, and why? I mean come on FFS.

This site is so much better when people don't write articles that bring the resident nuthugger out of his chicken choking coma.

Morning, coxy.

Hope you're having a good day so far coxy

In a wonderful mood. Barring hanging out of my bum like a consumate professional

Good to hear it, mate, and that makes for a startling piece of imagery.

Coming as a shock to absolutely nobody personally think Burley turns him over. Has defensive skills to match and perhaps surpass Floyd's. People often say pressure is the way to beeat Floyd and whilst this is not a view I am totally sold on in Burley he is fighting a guy who can not only apply this pressure in close but is also defensively cute enough to avoid a lot of what is coming back at him.

Add into the mix the fact he is a natural welter who carries genuine power at the weight and for me I see a guy who does everything Floyd does as well, if not better than he does and also carries more of a natural dig at the weight.

Yeah definitely Rowley, half way through the Harry Otty book just now, he would probably be avoided as usual though.

Hearns, Duran, Pacquiao, Leonard, Robinson, Trinidad, De La Hoya

Da Cat

I'm sold on Burley handing a beat-down to Floyd, jeff. Agree with every word.

If the fight is over 15/20 rounds - Floyd gets stopped. Floyd gets UDd over 12 IMO.

I'm an animal

How are you so sure without seeing a guy fight? For me that's crazy.

I voted for all...

Against Hearns, Leonard and Robinson I would give him little chance, 3 equally skilled boxers but naturally much bigger.

Duran has a chance because, well he's Duran! If he can outhustle Leonard then he stands every chance of getting to Floyd. Over 15 I'd favour Duran, over 12 I'd pick Floyd.

Pac and Benetiz are the best chances of Floyd picking up a win here, but still very interesting match ups. I would go for Pac UD and Benetiz KO2 if pushed though...

D4thincarnation wrote:I could name 50 fighters that could beat Mayweather from superfeather to light-middle.

Manny is just one man?????

Hearns I think, reach too much. SRR, knew too much. SRL, would probably have had enough offensively. Duran would be interesting as he has is a pressure fighter and the closest comparison to Pacman on that list, couldn't say how Duran fight would turn out as it really could go either way depending who was getting the upper hand.

Scott am by no means certain, the end of the day with these fantasy matches you can never be certain and not seeing much of a guy certainly doesn't help.

However I have read pretty much everything I can get my hands on about Burley and so feel I have a pretty decent handle on his style, strengths opposition etc and also have a decent idea how highly he was regarded in his day so whilst my opinion is not as informed as would obviously be the case with a wealth of footage to rely on it is also far from a position of ignorance.

Not really you jeff, but oxring saying 'beatdown'. Think that's a bit much against a guy who has very rarely looked troubled against someone you can't even watch to see just how his style would win.

Pat "Da Flash" Barrett would give him hell, if he stuck in.

Scottrf wrote:Not really you jeff, but oxring saying 'beatdown'. Think that's a bit much against a guy who has very rarely looked troubled against someone you can't even watch to see just how his style would win.

There's a detailed analysis on his style floating around. This combined with his record, history and the fact that SRR didn't fancy fighting him.

Now SRR had all the skills - defence and offense - and if HE and his managers didn't fancy Burley - that tells me he was pretty special indeed.

That, combined with what I've seen, combined with what I've read adds up to a Burley win.

As I said earlier - Floyd would be a challenge for anyone. But once Burley figured Floyd out (and I believe this WOULD happen) - Floyd would be beaten. Floyd has a good chin - so would ship a lot of shots. Hence "beatdown".

Course - we could say that we can only judge on what we see - in which case we'll be arguing over whether Greb actually existed in no time...

Its not neccessary to judge only on what you see, but comparing a fighter that you see alot of and have lived in their era to one thats there is virtually no footage of and based on the opinions of others doesnt really translate well for me.

The methods and means of comparison are just too vague for my liking.

Its one thing to judge two fighters of a pre television era based on books, reviews third party sources etc as you are using a consistent basis. But to compare a fighter you have seen to one you have just read about I think is a bit like apples and oranges.

However much research or reading you do, it can never quite match actually witnessing a fighter in their era first hand.

I'm sure the two sugars, hearns and duran all beat mayweather, and pacquaio would have a great chance at super feather, while benitez is 50:50

people use the argument against duran about him losing to skilled boxers but at lightweight duran ko's mayweather for me.

about the 50 that could beat mayweather, there is a lot at light middle, mccallum would be a nightmare cos floyd don't like it to the body, a catchweight, a young roy jones should have too much for him at light middle and maybe winky wright also beats him at that weight.

zx, not sure why you give RJJ a chance as less than 10 fight LMW novice. But each to their own

zx, not sure why you give RJJ a chance as less than 10 fight LMW novice. But each to their own


more on talent and the fact he's hold all the physical advantages rather than his experience at the weight, I was going to say jones at a catchweight, but mayweather wouldn't go above 154

I dont even really see the point of rating Mayweather above Welterweight.

manos de piedra wrote:I dont even really see the point of rating Mayweather above Welterweight.

I agree, manos.

Each to his own, but I think welter is his absolute limit, and I've always believed that he was at his formidable best at superfeather.

I'm sure there are extended highlights of Burley against 'Oakland' Billy Smith on youtube if anyones interested.

manos de piedra wrote:Its not neccessary to judge only on what you see, but comparing a fighter that you see alot of and have lived in their era to one thats there is virtually no footage of and based on the opinions of others doesnt really translate well for me.

The methods and means of comparison are just too vague for my liking.

Its one thing to judge two fighters of a pre television era based on books, reviews third party sources etc as you are using a consistent basis. But to compare a fighter you have seen to one you have just read about I think is a bit like apples and oranges.

However much research or reading you do, it can never quite match actually witnessing a fighter in their era first hand.

True - but then how do we form a fair p4p list across all eras?

You either don't make p4p calls - in which case, we remove Burley from this discussion.

But if you debate p4p lists including historical fighters - Burley-Mayweather is a valid question

oxring wrote:True - but then how do we form a fair p4p list across all eras?

You either don't make p4p calls - in which case, we remove Burley from this discussion.

But if you debate p4p lists including historical fighters - Burley-Mayweather is a valid question

Well, I don't usually bother as it's pointless and too subjective to have much merit discussing. But normally you focus on record, and I think a picture of their ranking on how they did against their contemporaries is a fairer basis that subjectively how they would do against someone from a different era, who fight depending on the rules/opponents of their era.

Here's a quote from Charley Burley and the black murderers' row.

''You know, people ask me who was the best fighter i ever met and i tell them Rocky Marciano, because that's what they want to hear. Hell, Marciano beat me when i was 42 and i gave him a great battle. Eddie Booker and Charley Burley were the best. They beat me in my prime. Brooker broke my ribs and Burley gave me a boxing lesson.''

Archie Moore

Galveston Moore also had this to say about Burley

“If anyone was the perfect fighter it was Burley. When I fought Burley I was no greenhorn. I’d had nearly 80 fights at the time. Burley was already a legend. He could feint you crazy with his eyes, shoulders, head, even his pectoral muscles. His balance was uncanny and his timing was wholly unbelievable. If you threw a punch at Charley Burley you had better hit him; if you didn’t he would counter your head off. The night we fought in Hollywood, I caught Burley leaning back. He appeared to be off balance. I did not think he could find any leverage in that position, but he almost took my head off with a counter right cross. He had suckered me in beautifully. Charley Burley was inhuman!”

When that is coming from a guy who shared a ring with Charles, Marciano and Ali amongst countless other greats is an opinion you have to give some credence to.

manos de piedra wrote:Its not neccessary to judge only on what you see, but comparing a fighter that you see alot of and have lived in their era to one thats there is virtually no footage of and based on the opinions of others doesnt really translate well for me.

The methods and means of comparison are just too vague for my liking.

Its one thing to judge two fighters of a pre television era based on books, reviews third party sources etc as you are using a consistent basis. But to compare a fighter you have seen to one you have just read about I think is a bit like apples and oranges.

However much research or reading you do, it can never quite match actually witnessing a fighter in their era first hand.

I agree that it's difficult with head - to - head scenarios.

However, in assessing a fighter for whom there is little footage, ( and mercifully there aren't too many of those, ) strictly in terms of his overall standing, I believe we can build a composite, based on research into opinions of the day, ( including ' day after ' newspaper reports, ) and by watching the fighter's opponents for whom we do have footage.

Greb would be the perfect example. We have ample newspaper coverage, the testimony of men who shared a ring with him, and footage of men such as Tunney, Loughran, Walker, etc., etc., whom he fought.

In other words, we might not be able to venture head - to - head analysis, in any real detail, of a Greb v Fighter X match up, but we can, ( in my opinion, ) piece together enough information to be able to predict a winner, in most cases.

You two are going to make me finish this book halfway through and start on the Burley one.

When that is coming from a guy who shared a ring with Charles, Marciano and Ali amongst countless other greats is an opinion you have to give some credence to.

Unless you're Azania!

Scott if it saves you time the quote I put up is from a biography of Archie Moore, so plough on with the one you're on with mate

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its not neccessary to judge only on what you see, but comparing a fighter that you see alot of and have lived in their era to one thats there is virtually no footage of and based on the opinions of others doesnt really translate well for me.

The methods and means of comparison are just too vague for my liking.

Its one thing to judge two fighters of a pre television era based on books, reviews third party sources etc as you are using a consistent basis. But to compare a fighter you have seen to one you have just read about I think is a bit like apples and oranges.

However much research or reading you do, it can never quite match actually witnessing a fighter in their era first hand.

True - but then how do we form a fair p4p list across all eras?

You either don't make p4p calls - in which case, we remove Burley from this discussion.

But if you debate p4p lists including historical fighters - Burley-Mayweather is a valid question

To be honest p4p itself is about as vague as it gets. I dont think theres any remotely accurate way of compiling a list if you are including every era. Its simpler to do for seperate eras but in an all time sense its next to impossible. However its popular, fun and leads to decent debate. But at the end of the day its entirely academic.

Most rankings are compiled in the end with heaviest emphasis on the tangible paper record, which is entirely era dependant. For instance we might never see Greb box or have very limited footage of Burley but we know from their paper records that they were great fighters.

However this doesnt bear nearly the same quality when you actually go into the subtleties of comparing a head to head match. Especially when you have actually seen one fighters career unfold and have seen virtually nothing of another. You are using first hand information to compare against third hand which just doesnt translate well at all. I mean I find it very difficult to accept for instance that one can say with any authority that Burley was better defensively than Mayweather or did everything Mayweather did but better when one has barely ever seen Burley fight. Yes he may have a good defensive fighter and respected sources indicate as much but it impossible to accurately say how it compares to Mayweather without actually bearing witness to it. Especially as the majority of people who fought, trained or witnessed Burley have never even seen Mayweather.