Mayweather “better” than Ali
I recently read the article about Floyd Mayweather's claims of being
better than Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali and noticed tremendous outcry
by the author and by those who left comments. I will attach the link to it at
the bottom if you have yet to read it. First and foremost I will state the
obvious; I am a boxing fanatic and a fan of Floyd Mayweather. However I am
going to try and be as unbiased as possible in his defense. This will also be
more of a contextual examination than statistical as it will be a retort to the
article itself. With that being said if you have an utter distain for pro Money
sentiments, reader beware because this will probably make your blood boil.
The Article
To begin O’Donnell attempts to discredit Mayweather stating that the
disparity in size nullifies all comparison of the two fighters which is
essentially true which is why fighters are compared often through the lens of
pound for pound ability. O’Donnell continues by comparing Floyd to the Muggsy
Bogues of boxing which I can only hope is an over dramatization for the sake of
argument. The author continues by arguing that Mayweather’s competition is
significantly weaker than Ali’s however this is all suppositional. No one in
the modern boxing era would dare question the legitimacy of Joe Frazier, Sonny
Liston, Floyd Patterson, or George Foreman. However in Ali’s prime many accused
him of pulling a Floyd when it came to competition and match making. Boxing
pundits claimed Patterson was over the hill by the time Ali fought him, others
insisted Liston was on the take, Jerry Quarry lost to virtually every top tier
opponent he faced and Archie Moore was 46 by the time he faced a young Cassius
Clay. Many in the audience even insisted Ali ran too much in his first match
with Frazier. Needless to say many of Ali’s past opponents were greats but to
be fair so will many of Mayweather’s opponents from Mosley to Corrales. The
lens of quality goes in and out of focus over the decades but to insist that
the modern featherweight through super welterweight (Floyd’s weight classes)
divisions lack any comparable talent with the previous eras of boxing is
selling countless Hall of Fame fighters short for the sake of ridiculing one.
More importantly than the argument of who is better is the issue of the
comments Mayweather has made. Some may cringe at the idea of Floyd being spoken
about in the same breath as Ali and Robinson but it has already happened and
the perpetrators have been some of the most respected in the sport, Emanuel
Stewart and George Foreman come to mind. While the majority of the boxing world
does not agree that he is better than Ali and Robinson (myself included), his
statement is a matter of opinion and makes sense from a marketing perspective.
Opinion First:
Examining Mayweather’s opinion based on his comments make
sense from his perspective with Ali. As the author points out correctly
Muhammad Ali was a powerful and big man who often enjoyed an advantage in
either weight, height, reach or all three. That being said it is nowhere more
apparent than in the heavyweight division how beneficial these attributes can
be. In Mayweather’s defense he has fought fighters of a much wider range in
size comparatively given he’s taken on opponents from 130 to 154. Perhaps in Floyd’s mind this leads to more
versatile opposition.
Floyd’s argument from a technical standpoint is that the old axiom of
boxing is hit and don’t get hit. And while greatness is not measured solely in
stats and technicality, it is a crucial part. By this reasoning Floyd does have
a justification saying he is better as a technical boxer; he has relied on his
ring I.Q., ring generalship, timing and adaptability more than endurance,
speed, power or any other physical attributes to maintain dominance.
From A Marketing Perspective
Let’s
consider a hypothetical where Floyd doesn’t think he is best of all time. For a
fighter who is arguably the best of his era to insist he isn’t as good as the
fighters of the past would be detrimental to boxing given the prevailing opinion
by naysayers that boxing is dead. Such a hypothetical essentially states that Floyd
sees himself as the close to as good as it gets and could be interpreted as
proof positive that boxing is a dying sport. After all if the self-proclaimed
TBE is saying he is second to some where
does that put every other fighter of the last fifteen years? Fighters say often
outlandish things about their legacies and other’s legacies for various reasons
that they may or may not truly believe. However at the end of the day no one
person has the last word on a fighter’s legacy. In boxing greatness is often
based on collective knowledge over comparative generations; who beat who and
when. And while Mayweather’s legacy is still being written his polarizing
persona will be outlived only by his skills in the ring. The reality is
fighters’ public perception is similar to that of US presidents; the longer
their out the higher their approval rating goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment