Contemporary Standards
I can’t get worked up about Floyd Mayweather. He’s very good, and worthy of respect--maybe even of admiration. If he’s not the best fighter in the world, he’s comfortably ensconced among the top three or four.
But I can’t help but think that in a tougher era Mayweather would be nothing other than a solid performer—very much in the title mix, but certainly not regarded as unbeatable.
If Floyd were fighting in the early 1960’s, for example, he’d be rated below both Emile Griffith and Luis Rodriguez in the welterweight ratings. Frankly, I think Beny Paret would have been a problem for him too.
In the early 1980’s Mayweather would be behind Leonard, Hearns, and Duran. Could he have beaten Wilfred Benitez? They seem pretty close skill-wise.
I’m not even confident that—circa 1984—he wouldn’t have found Donald Curry and Marlon Starling a little too difficult.
It’s not worth talking about him in the same sentence as Ray Robinson, of course. And Kid Gavilan, Carmen Basilio, or even Billy Graham and fighters of that ilk would have already seen everything that Mayweather could have shown them—which is not to necessarily say that they would have beaten him.
This isn’t meant to denigrate Floyd Mayweather, who really is an excellent professional prizefighter. But the quality of contemporary boxing may have slipped to the point where a consummate pro is now mistaken for an all-time great.
posted by Anonymous @ 11:02 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
As boxing careers have gotten shorter--in terms of number of fights--it gets harder and harder to judge just how good a good fighter is, or could have been. Mayweather's a perfect instance of this. He's in his prime, he's beaten some very tough opponents, he has demonstrated much skill and natural ability and polish, and he has gotten better and better. Clearly, as Charles says, he's one of the best and most complete fighters around these days. But after the last fight he was already weeping and talking about hanging it up after the next one. Granted, that's not going to happen, but it underscores the handicap, in the all-time ratings, that the current shape of a boxing career gives to excellent fighters of today. How good is Mayweather? Well, if he'd fought Castillo, Corrales, and a bunch of other tough guys 3 or 4 or 5 times, it would be a lot easier to say. Even a loss or two against that kind of competition, here or there, wouldn't hurt his all-time standing, and the wins would help. Going 5-1 vs. his own version of Jake La Motta (to invoke the Robinson parallel, which, I agree with Charles, is indefensible at the moment) would do Mayweather more good, in the long run, than going 1-0 vs. Gatti or Oscar De La Hoya, which will mean exactly nothing in the all-time scheme.
And fight writers aren't helping things. After the last fight, somebody on secondsout.com wrote that it was time to start thinking about Mayweather as one of the greatest of all time, just as, way back at the beginning of recorded human history, it had been time to think of Tyson (Tyson!) as one of the greatest of all time. The analogy just lets all the air out of any case for Mayweather as an all-timer, reducing his "greatness" to an ability to impress people who are so ready to be impressed that they're willing to watch a fight--or a fighter's career--with their eyes closed and judge it just by the cheering.
If Floyd Mayweather is one of the greatest fighters of all time, as the secondsout writer Carlo mentions says, what does that make Jose Luis Castillo? In my opinion, Mayweather isn't even undefeated, let alone one of the greatest fighters of all time. Maybe the writer from secondsout didn't see Mayweather's first fight with Castillo. I did, and Mayweather lost it 7 rounds to 5, or 115-113 on points.
Before I can even think about Floyd Mayweather as an all time great, I need to be convinced he's better than the best Shane Mosley I've seen fight at lightweight and welterweight.
Floyd Mayweather is a physically gifted fighter. He's defeated some of the best fighters of his era, and there's a lot to be said for that. However, beating an undefeated Diego Corrales doesn't make him Duran's equal. Having to fight Jose Luis Castillo twice, whose no Duran, to better him inside the ring once, isn't quite the same thing as Sugar Ray Leonard needing two fights with Duran before scoring his first win over him.
This summer Mayweather will fight Oscar De La Hoya, probably at a catch-weight of 152. De La hoya has only fought once in the last two years and hasn't looked good since 2002. And that was two years after he lost his welterweight title to Shane Mosley. The fighter I regard as the one who hung Oscar's first loss on him, not Felix Trinidad.
At this time, everything favors Mayweather. He's been active for the last 10-years, his style and hand speed will cause De La Hoya problems, and he's the fighter who represents the establishment. A loss to a declining De La Hoya would kill Mayweather ever being considered one of the greatest of the greats.
Although I'm sure the secondsout writer will see Mayweather as being a greater fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson, if he beats De La Hoya.
Post a Comment
<< Home