Which boxers in history could have beaten Mayweather?

[PeterD]

Hi all,

As a huge fan of Floyd, I was wondering which boxers could have beaten him.

Sugar Ray Robinson would be the obvious choice but what others would have given him grief?

[kikibalt]

Hi all,

As a huge fan of Floyd, I was wondering which boxers could have beaten him.

Sugar Ray Robinson would be the obvious choice but what others would have given him grief?

Too many to mention here.

[HE Grant]

Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Whitaker, De La Hoya and Mosley (all prime) come to mind immediately...from before then I can spell out a dozen in a minute...it all depends on what weight you are refering to.

[hawk5ins]

How about Jose Luis Castillo?

Oh that's right......

Hawk

[mike]

alot would have. hes a talented well conditioned arm puching amauture--imo.

[OMG65]

Besides the names already mentioned from 140 to 147
Pryor and Benitez
My God.Couldn't you see Pryor chasing and knocking out Floyd pretty easily?I do.

[greek1237]

I give Walker and Les Darcy good shots also.

[Funk49]

Well, let's see...


At 135:

Duran
Leonard
Gans
Arguello....Floyd would have a good chance of winning, though.
Mancini.....stylewise, he'd give Floyd fits
Camacho...pre-Chapo
Rosario
Chavez.....though, I give Floyd a good chance of pulling a Whitaker here.
Whitaker

At 140:

Pryor
Duran
Benitez
Taylor.....too fast
Chavez....see above....pre-Taylor
Whitaker...again.
Tszyu......though I give Floyd a good chance for a win here as well.


At 147:

Robinson
Armstrong
Gavilan....toss up, really.
Basilio.....he'd eat him alive.
Griffith....maybe
Napoles
Benitez
Leonard
Duran...the one from Montreal....not New Orleans.
Hearns
Curry
Starling
Whitaker
De La Hoya
Quartey



.....there are more; but I'll stop there.

[Sharkey]

Too many to mention here.

add my name to this post.

[hawk5ins]

Is Sharkey saying he could beat Mayweather?

Hawk

[Sharkey]

I may hint at it, but I'd never say it.

I might have taken a run at Oscar...but Floyd is a wee bit too fast for me.

[blv30]

Milton McCrory
Marlon Starling

[TKO Tom]

Mayweather ain't much.

He's the best out there TODAY - but that ain't saying ANYTHING.

The list of fighters that would have beaten him is as long as my arm, no make that both arms, both legs and feet and fingers and toes...

Not to crap on Floyd, but he just ain't all that he makes himself out to be.

[dongee]

Just a simple observation, nothing more. But I believe Kikibalt summed it up rather well.

Just to mention Robinson, Armstrong and Basilio in the same context with Mr. F.M. exalts him no end. The young man is fast, clever, elusive, and super confident in the ring. I wonder if he has ever really been tested?

And he is extremely marketable at this time, good for him and his. Great to watch him perform.

hap navarro

[Funk49]

Just a simple observation, nothing more. But I believe Kikibalt summed it up rather well.

Just to mention Robinson, Armstrong and Basilio in the same context with Mr. F.M. exalts him no end. The young man is fast, clever, elusive, and super confident in the ring. I wonder if he has ever really been tested?

And he is extremely marketable at this time, good for him and his. Great to watch him perform.

hap navarro

Let the choir say "amen".

[Sharkey]

I am not sure how good he is, but that doesn't mean to me his upside is unquestionably infinite. He may be the best ever for all I know..it may within him wherever 'it' resides. But it must be conclusively (as much as it is possible) demonstrated..and that only comes, to me, in performance and gauging against who the performances are done against..and the more often the better.

I manitain the older guys were easier to rank, rate, and compare..and PBF is a prime example of why I maintain that. Losses can kill a career today..because the perception is they define you. They do not if they are mere drops in a bucket full of wins and wins over other guys who have fought the best as often as possible.

In my time, the modern times, guys don;t fight as much. Superfights pit two guys with not many fights against not a great deal of other guys who didn't have tons of fights against each other. From there syllogism takes hold.

It is more difficult to accurately tell how good ultra-modern fighters are (especially in the mid-low classes) when the whole sport's structure precludes the exhibition of their skills and limits..thus, there is a lot of grey and guessing. The unusre factor is there with a majority of fighters old and new..but it is a rule today. And what usually happens is that when they do lose, or look bad, THAT is what we are told we have to go by. If there were more wins and less title grabs and weight changes and gimick matches to stamp a fighter as something whether he be it or not, modern fighters would be able to reach their limits and be defined more accurately.

It is a double edged sword for moderns, which leaves them, to me, in the default of not being able to claim definitive greatness as securely.