Who would beat Floyd Mayweather Junior

First topic message reminder :

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.

Excactly Rowley, it's coming straight from the horses mouth. I'm only halfway through the book just now but noticed many other quotes from Moore when flicking through. Nice one.

Moore is an unreliably witness, he would be thrown out in court. Admits to lying about Marciano but we're supposed to believe him when he talks about Burley who wasn't even good enough to win a title? You can put him up there with Arum "Yesterday I was lying...".

Just kidding, but it does show you can't always rely on what people say because there may be reasons behind their words you don't know.

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

I would agree with most of this, but would take mild issue with the ' era dependent ' part.

Ray Arcel was training champions in the '20s and was still doing so in the '70s, and Dempsey lived to see the moderns, as did Tunney, Moore, etc.

We need only follow the bloodline to dispense with the era dependent idea.

I'd pick him over Manny only - who's a fellow great a division or two too high to be competitive against these big natural welters (save Duran).

Robinson and Leonard win comfortable UD's - something like 8-4.
Hearns stops him in 2 or posts a a shut out.
Duran is a pick em. Over a three fight series I think FMJ, might take it 2-1. Duran is the far better fighter though.
Benitez squeaks by with an SD in a fight that fails to get going.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

I would agree with most of this, but would take mild issue with the ' era dependent ' part.

Ray Arcel was training champions in the '20s and was still doing so in the '70s, and Dempsey lived to see the moderns, as did Tunney, Moore, etc.

We need only follow the bloodline to dispense with the era dependent idea.

What I mean is that actual records are era dependant. For example the greatness of a fighter depends who was around and the circumstances of the era in order to compile a record.

For instance someone like Ezzard Charles fought in an era where they fought far more regularly and there was lots of quality. Hence hes wiely considered the greatest lightheavy. Had he been around today with the likes of Dawson and Pascal at lightheavy fighting twice a year would he be considered anywhere near as great even if his talent was identical? Pobably not, He just doesnt have the competition or the circumstances to acheive that level of greatest. Similarly some greats might not be so great in other eras where the level of competiton was higher.Thats what I mean about greatness being era dependant.

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

I would agree with most of this, but would take mild issue with the ' era dependent ' part.

Ray Arcel was training champions in the '20s and was still doing so in the '70s, and Dempsey lived to see the moderns, as did Tunney, Moore, etc.

We need only follow the bloodline to dispense with the era dependent idea.

What I mean is that actual records are era dependant. For example the greatness of a fighter depends who was around and the circumstances of the era in order to compile a record.

For instance someone like Ezzard Charles fought in an era where they fought far more regularly and there was lots of quality. Hence hes wiely considered the greatest lightheavy. Had he been around today with the likes of Dawson and Pascal at lightheavy fighting twice a year would he be considered anywhere near as great even if his talent was identical? Pobably not, He just doesnt have the competition or the circumstances to acheive that level of greatest. Similarly some greats might not be so great in other eras where the level of competiton was higher.Thats what I mean about greatness being era dependant.

I understood what you meant, manos.

This is precisely why I believe that the expert opinions of men like Arcel are so important. He has the in depth knowledge and experience to make such judgements, whereas we, perhaps, do not.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

I would agree with most of this, but would take mild issue with the ' era dependent ' part.

Ray Arcel was training champions in the '20s and was still doing so in the '70s, and Dempsey lived to see the moderns, as did Tunney, Moore, etc.

We need only follow the bloodline to dispense with the era dependent idea.

What I mean is that actual records are era dependant. For example the greatness of a fighter depends who was around and the circumstances of the era in order to compile a record.

For instance someone like Ezzard Charles fought in an era where they fought far more regularly and there was lots of quality. Hence hes wiely considered the greatest lightheavy. Had he been around today with the likes of Dawson and Pascal at lightheavy fighting twice a year would he be considered anywhere near as great even if his talent was identical? Pobably not, He just doesnt have the competition or the circumstances to acheive that level of greatest. Similarly some greats might not be so great in other eras where the level of competiton was higher.Thats what I mean about greatness being era dependant.

I understood what you meant, manos.

This is precisely why I believe that the expert opinions of men like Arcel are so important. He has the in depth knowledge and experience to make such judgements, whereas we, perhaps, do not.

Yes thats true. Its always woth taking on board respected opinions. However the flip side is that even the greatest trainers suffer from the human condition of having ther favourites, nostalgia and so forth and its precisely because they have such standing that can then lead to their comments carrying too much weight if not spot on.

I have plenty of time for Arcel for instance but I cant agree with him in any shape or form on Dempsey. Im sure youve seen it beofre but just in case:

“Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

“Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

“Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”

Now even if your inclined to rate Dempsey as the best heavyweight in the world, I certainly dont think hes the head and shoulders above everyone that Arcel insinuates. Nor is he devoid of any weakness.

Yes, but as intelligent fight fans we can easily discern the difference between unbridled enthusiasm and stone cold analysis.

Arcel, in a quieter moment, named Dempsey, Louis and Ali as the three greatest heavies, and declined to separate them.

He was also sufficiently lacking in nostalgia to say the Locche was a better defensive fighter than Pep.

HumanWindmill wrote:Yes, but as intelligent fight fans we can easily discern the difference between unbridled enthusiasm and stone cold analysis.

Arcel, in a quieter moment, named Dempsey, Louis and Ali as the three greatest heavies, and declined to separate them.

He was also sufficiently lacking in nostalgia to say the Locche was a better defensive fighter than Pep.

Perhaps, but the margins arent always clear. By all means take on board the opinions of these guys but I wouldnt treat it as gospel. As the above quote shows, they are just as capable as getting exciteable or saying things in the heat of the moment as any other boxing fan.

Tunney, considered a great thinker in boxing, also said in all seriousness that Dempsey would take out Moore, Charles, Walcott and Marciano all in the same night taking only 10 rounds in total to do it.

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Yes, but as intelligent fight fans we can easily discern the difference between unbridled enthusiasm and stone cold analysis.

Arcel, in a quieter moment, named Dempsey, Louis and Ali as the three greatest heavies, and declined to separate them.

He was also sufficiently lacking in nostalgia to say the Locche was a better defensive fighter than Pep.

Perhaps, but the margins arent always clear. By all means take on board the opinions of these guys but I wouldnt treat it as gospel. As the above quote shows, they are just as capable as getting exciteable or saying things in the heat of the moment as any other boxing fan.

Tunney, considered a great thinker in boxing, also said in all seriousness that Dempsey would take out Moore, Charles, Walcott and Marciano all in the same night taking only 10 rounds in total to do it.

We're all given to poetic license. How many times do we read that ' so - and - so would have schooled, ' etc.

I advocate following the ' bloodline ' in tandem with reading contemporary sources, watching as much film as possible, etc., and I'm quite happy that these combined are worthy analytical tools.

To each his own.

Can I just say that without the modern weigh in Mayweather would not have made SF and probably not Lightweight. I'd say Mayweather is/was about the same natural weight as SRL.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Can I just say that without the modern weigh in Mayweather would not have made SF and probably not Lightweight. I'd say Mayweather is/was about the same natural weight as SRL.

I wouldn't argue until I see the ' tale of the tape, ' Juke, but I suspect that Leonard is significantly bigger. He's certainly two inches taller and his reach is two inches longer, also.

Take your point about the weigh ins, though.

SRL is a bit taller, Mayweather is a more heavy build. I think they're both, in their prime, natural Welterweights.

Would have been a very interesting fight. Obviously the modern fighter wins though, as we agreed before.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:SRL is a bit taller, Mayweather is a more heavy build. I think they're both, in their prime, natural Welterweights.

Would have been a very interesting fight. Obviously the modern fighter wins though, as we agreed before.

Ha !

Obviously, mate.

Floyd Mayweather jr has won titles at 5 different weights so here is my list of fighters at those weights that would beat him.


The Light Middles:

01 Vernon Forrest
02 Sergio Gabriel Martinez
03 Ronald (Winky) Wright,
04 John Mugabi
05 Mike McCallum
06 Wilfred Benitez
07 Terry Norris

The Welters:

08 Antonio Margarito
09 Miguel Angel Cotto
10 Manny Pacquiao
11 Paul Williams
12 Felix Trinidad
13 Oscar De La Hoya
14 Marlon Starling
15 Donald Curry
16 Sugar Ray Leonard
17 Thomas Hearns
18 Pipino Cuevas
19 Jose Napoles
20 Emile Griffith
21 Carmen Basilio
22 Kid Gavilan
23 Sugar Ray Robinson
24 Barney Ross

The Light Welters:

25 Amir Khan
26 Julio Cesar Chavez
27 Pernell Whitaker
28 Meldrick Taylor
29 Aaron Pryor
30 Nicolino Locche


The Light weights:

31 Shane Mosley
32 Hector Camacho
33 Roberto Duran
34 Carlos Ortiz
35 Henry Armstrong
36 Tony Canzoneri
37 Benny Leonard
38 Lou Ambers
39 Joe Gans
40 Robert Guerrero


The Super Feathers:

41 Erik Morales
42 Juan Manuel Marquez
43 Azumah Nelson
44 Alexis Arguello
45 Yuriorkis Gamboa
46 Jimmy McLarnin
47 Willie Pep



I'm try to make the list to 50, so if I have missed anyone out let me know and I will add them to the list.



Windy you might as well delete my thread, don't think you can do the poll things. Though it would have been nice to see how people voted.

Okay, D4.

Perhaps you could do it at another time, mate. ( Come to think of it, I'm sure you will. )

Thanks for your understanding.

I'd agree that Leonard would probably be a considerably bigger fighter than Mayweather, naturally. Even allowing for weigh ins thirty-six hours before a fight, Mayweather simply isn't a big Welterweight, whereas Leonard certainly was.

I'd say that Whitaker and Duran were a more comparable size to Mayweather, naturally speaking.

HumanWindmill wrote:Okay, D4.

Perhaps you could do it at another time, mate. ( Come to think of it, I'm sure you will. )

Thanks for your understanding.

I will have my full 50 by then

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Okay, D4.

Perhaps you could do it at another time, mate. ( Come to think of it, I'm sure you will. )

Thanks for your understanding.

I will have my full 50 by then

Only 50 ?

Cocoa Kid at Welter? Quartey?

Just because I think Mayweather is overrated, it doesn't mean I don't rate him, I just don't put him in the elite league of fighters such as SRR, SRL, Duran, Armstrong and Pacquiao.

Surely you'd put Ike Williams in at Lightweight, D4? Talk about a bad dude, not sure I'd fancy anyone aside from Duran or Leonard to get the best of him when he was at full throttle.

Oh, and you don't have Burley at Welter.

Scottrf wrote:Oh, and you don't have Burley at Welter.

Looks like I'll have over 50 then.

88Chris05

I have not seen much of Ike but will check him out.

...and it's hijacked.

BALTIMORA wrote:...and it's hijacked.

How? The thread is called 'Who would beat Floyd Mayweather?'

BALTIMORA wrote:...and it's hijacked.

Perhaps you should read the title of the thread.

Less of that D4, you look like my alt

Scottrf wrote:Less of that D4, you look like my alt

I seem to be doing a lot of that lately, guess my typing skills are not up to scratch because I always seem a minute behind.

Prescott (LW)
Hatton (LWW - was unproven at WW)
Gatti (peak)
Castillo (effectively did beat him)
Judah (almost knocked him out)
Clottey (ducked)
Bradley (LWW)
Maidana (beat Morales)

Would be a few more you missed out off the top of my head.

manos de piedra wrote:Prescott (LW)
Hatton (LWW - was unproven at WW)
Gatti (peak)
Castillo (effectively did beat him)
Judah (almost knocked him out)
Clottey (ducked)
Bradley (LWW)
Maidana (beat Morales)

Would be a few more you missed out off the top of my head.

I agree with Castillo, you are right he did effectively beat him.

manos de piedra wrote:Prescott (LW)
Hatton (LWW - was unproven at WW)
Gatti (peak)
Castillo (effectively did beat him)
Judah (almost knocked him out)
Clottey (ducked)
Bradley (LWW)
Maidana (beat Morales)

Would be a few more you missed out off the top of my head.

Ladies and gents, I believe we have our post of the day.

D4 - you forgot to add Kosta Tzsyu and Hatton at lww, Judah if fights were only 4 rounds long, Singsurat and Torrecampo, Castillio and of course yourself when you do your much practiced "takedown" on Floyd.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:D4 - you forgot to add Kosta Tzsyu and Hatton at lww, Judah if fights were only 4 rounds long, Singsurat and Torrecampo, Castillio and of course yourself when you do your much practiced "takedown" on Floyd.

I took them into account, and only Castillo and myself would make the list, but that would not be boxing.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:D4 - you forgot to add Kosta Tzsyu and Hatton at lww, Judah if fights were only 4 rounds long, Singsurat and Torrecampo, Castillio and of course yourself when you do your much practiced "takedown" on Floyd.

I took them into account, and only Castillo and myself would make the list, but that would not be boxing.

Tell you what, D4, if you and Floyd DID get it on it would be the best pre fight build up in history. Come to think of it, you'd probably drive the man to McCall - esque meltdown and box his ears off for a comfortable victory.

Ooooohhhh I dunno Windy, depends on whether or not D4 is a southpaw. Apprently Mayweather is absolutely clueless every single time against left handed fighters, and that's all you need to beat him. In which case, we can add Jimmy White and John McEnroe to the list.

88Chris05 wrote:Ooooohhhh I dunno Windy, depends on whether or not D4 is a southpaw. Apprently Mayweather is absolutely clueless every single time against left handed fighters, and that's all you need to beat him. In which case, we can add Jimmy White and John McEnroe to the list.

And Derek Underwood, though he applies less spin than D4.

This the same old carp he always writes; can't we get rid of this thread or have it merged into some of the earlier guff?

I see Pacquiao and Benitez as 50/50 fights.

The others all beat him. Also, a lot of Welterweights beat Floyd who hasn't done much in this division. Don Curry beats him.

Sugar Ray Leonard would beat him quite comfortably. Leonard has the speed and power over him and Leonard had great reflexes. Thomas Hearns is just too big and powerful.

I'd back JWW Aaron Pryor to beat Floyd.