[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The best part is the fighter that all these guys would destroy is the one thats undefeated.[/quote]
With different judges he would have lost the first fight against Castillo. With some ill luck he would have lost against Mosely. Derek Chisora is undefeated, does this mean we should favor him against Wladimir?
What was your point again?
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The best part is the fighter that all these guys would destroy is the one thats undefeated.[/quote]
Another thought…
Mayweather is cloned twice… blah blah blah… in the future we have two identical Mayweathers. They fight and one loses. Is he inferior to the Mayweather of this era?
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The best part is the fighter that all these guys would destroy is the one thats undefeated.[/quote]
So what? He’s well known for making fighters come way out of their weight range to fight him, and fighting older guys.
Out of his last five fights, only one was under 35 when he fought him- Hatton.
I like Floyd, but the last few years haven’t been impressive with the exception of the Mosley victory. Even then… Shane looked like a shot fighter, and clearly IS, as evidenced by his draw with Mora.
My point is that the level of competition he’s facing is nowhere near the level that was around back in the early to mid 80s, when you had those four facing off against each other, and other great fighters as well like Sweat Pea.
Him being undefeated really just makes him the greatest to you, huh? That would also make Julio Caesar Chavez Jr. his equal.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hearns would fuck Mayweather up. A big man who knew how to use every inch of his reach, but also had absolutely devastating puncing power.[/quote]
This is pretty much how I see it. I can’t see May getting inside that jab. Everyone talks about the right hand, but Hearns jab was fucking ridiculous.
Lol. I was thinking along these lines… something like “Tommy Hearns is Paul Williams body with Margarito’s gloves”. But honestly I think Hearns was better than that. He had some serious boxing skills…
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Whenever Floyd needed a knockout, he knocked the guy out. The closest he came to losing a fight was the last one where he got a slight tag on the chin, then he proceeded to dominate. The funny thing about hoping someone undefeated can be beaten is it’s just HOPE. Until someone shows me otherwise he is the best. He’s a few years away from being out of his prime if he goes undefeated during that time I will say that nobody could beat him in his prime. Why? well nobody did.[/quote]
That doesn’t mean anything in mythical match ups. A fighter like Ray Robinson has lost but he would also make Mayweather look like an amateur at welterweight. All you’re doing is creating an argument to favor Mayweather.
There’s a difference between being the best of your era and one of the best of all time.
I don’t know if you’ve ever boxed, to be honest I doubt it. Mayweather trains the same way fighters trained in the days of Duran, even back to the 1940s. He’s not on the forefront of strength and conditioning or nutrition. He’s also not stronger or faster than some of the greatest fighters of the sport. And skills? LOL. He must be a dinosaur of the sport because the shoulder roll is a old move.
Mayweather’s father taught him to box and his father learned to box in the 1960s and started his pro career in the 1970s, Mayweather trains the same way his father trained and fights similar to fighters of that time. Your argument, if you can call it a argument, is more porous than a sponge.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The best part is the fighter that all these guys would destroy is the one thats undefeated.[/quote]
Being undefeated means nothing, quality of opposition means everything. Fighters used in this discussion fought in more difficult eras and won against higher quality opponents.