Vivek Wallace’s answer to a fan’s email. Thoughts? David N. (Atlanta, GA): The legendary Roberto Duran came out with some very critical comments recently about Floyd Mayweather jr, stating that Mayweather would have been “just another guy in the bunch”, and that Mayweather “is fighting in an era with no real boxers”. What are your thoughts on his comments and the fact or fiction to them? Vivek W. (ESB): Several things came to mind when I heard these comments. I’ll start by saying that Duran is actually my favorite Latino fighter of his respective era and I will always respect him for his contributions to the sport. But that being said, I think we have to analyze this a bit closer – when we start to look at things from a “fact” or “fiction” standpoint. I think he has a good point when he says the previous era had a better crop of fighters, but that’s somewhat a loaded statement, too. I personally hold the opinion that his era had the more accomplished fighters, but not necessarily the same depth. When you look at the welterweight division today, you can literally remove Mayweather from the division and take the top 10 fighters and do a tournament, and not know who the last man standing would be. In Duran’s era, you knew it would come down to a specific two or three men, only. So which era truly had the limitation of talent? I think we can go a division north or south of welterweight and hold the same type of tournament. At jr. welterweight, when you look at Matthysse, Garcia, Rios, Alvarado, and the list goes on, how the notion remains that this era lacks talent is beyond me. Not only is there far more talent today than any other era of the sport, but there’s far more parity today. You don’t have three of four key guys and a bunch of “B” side talent. In those days, you knew up front who the key talents were. Today, you can turn the television on and happen to see ESPN Friday Night Fights and by accident, stumble across someone like one of the Charlo brothers, or even a veteran like Lamont Peterson who can become champ overnight. I really think people have it all backwards. There’s far more talent today, but rather than 3 or 4 “greats” and a bunch of decent guys, you have maybe one great and a slew of potentially greats in the mix. Before, there was the top tier, and a drastic drop-off behind them. Mayweather has managed to stand out only because of a much more dynamic level of pure skills, which would have allowed him, like Duran and company, to compete in any era. The second thing I’d like to address is the “just another guy in the bunch” statement. I’m not so sure Mayweather would remain undefeated had he been in that era, but I will say this: statistics give him a very credible argument. Compubox numbers provide a very strong analysis when it comes to this very question. How does Mayweather’s numbers measure in comparison to the greats of that era? Consider this….. At Mayweather’s peak he ran a solid +30 in the plus/minus category, which outlines the amount of times he hits an opponent as opposed to the amount of times they hit him. This is important because it tells us the probability of a fighter winning on the scorecards if he avoids the crushing KO defeat. To date, he remains at a +26. At the very peak of their primes, Hagler never achieved above +17, Leonard never achieved above +13, Duran capped out at +8, and Hearns at +6. Muhammad Ali was amazing to watch because of his heart and heroics, but he capped out at +4. This tells me these men could hit, but they were far easier to be hit, in comparison to Mayweather. To expand on the analysis, I would present this question to Duran and those who feel that era was so indomitable: These numbers are essentially an average taken. Meaning they don’t cover only one opponent, they cover ALL opponents these men faced. So if these great warriors were able to be hit this often by talent with footwork and ring generalship far less effective than what Mayweather typically operates with, how is one to believe that Mayweather would not have been able to find a similar level of success on the scorecards back then? The biggest challenge for Floyd would have been avoiding the KO. Had he been able to avoid the KO, I think statistically, he has every right to say he could have found equal success in that era. It’s not to say I necessarily feel this. But it is to say that statistically, his numbers give him great leverage in that argument. These were all very hittable men. Floyd is not. If it goes to the scorecards, what gives? All of these men are legendary figures. And with that comes a great deal of both pride and ego. I don’t expect any of them to concede more greatness to the next. But this is why statistics become an underlying factor. 2+2=4 all day long, as numbers don’t lie. So everyone is entitled to their opinion, but somehow I get the impression Mayweather will continue to point in the direction of the numbers to represent his. The best chance any of these men would have against Floyd would be the knockout. As he is too elusive and ring savvy to lose 7 of 12 rounds (or more) to almost anyone. The truth is an answer we’ll never know. But numbers is a picture that will always show. Let the debates begin….. Bread’s Response: Man you are trying to start some stuff lol. I get these questions often…. Let me just say this. When boxing people refer to certain numbers too much they manifest a false logic. Numbers are important in all sports but not so much in boxing. I personally would need to know exactly what fights where these statistics were being recorded. Prime is a bland word and we can all have different opinions on when one’s prime started and ended. You also have to look at what type of fighters you are doing these statistics with and how long these fights lasted. More importantly I want to know exactly who the opponents were. Statistical fanatics love to show microcosms on what they want to prove to be right. I don’t buy that. I don’t know who came up with these stats. But there is no freaking way Ali was a +4. Especially if we track his prime run of his title winning performance against Liston up until his exile after the Zora Folley fight. No freaking way. I have seen every one of his fights from his first tile reign and he was beyond dominant. Cleveland Williams, Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson barely touched him. Seriously you look at those fights and tell me if Ali hit them just 4 more times than they hit him. There are just certain things that you can’t tell me. Then you look at a guy like Ray Leonard. During Leonard’s prime he was fighting a defensive wiz in Benitez, a top 5 all time guy in Duran and the most difficult welterweight to ever live in Hearns. If you mention the stats you have to mention the opponents. I think Floyd is SUPER SPECIAL. He is one of the best I have ever seen and I have either seen or studied them all. This in no way is a put down on Floyd. But he’s not going +30 against those killers. No way. As for Duran’s comments I wish he never said them. Old timers should show these new kids respect and vice versa. Everybody always thinks their era was the best, everybody thinks their neighborhood is the toughest. It’s just the way it is. But everything that is understood doesn’t have to be said. Let Floyd live in his era, the guy can’t help when he was born. Now I can’t tell if it was you or the writer of the piece that said you have far more talent today than there was 30 years ago, but whoever said that is WRONG. The problem is if you weren’t watching boxing 30 years ago or you don’t really know the sport then you may not know the B level studs. Just like some guys 30 years from now won’t know how tough that kid Chaves is that Keith Thurman just beat. Some guys you actually have to really do research on or have been watching boxing at the time to know who they were. There is NO way guys are better today at top or mid level. First let’s go through the top. Since you brought up Floyd, let’s use him as an example. Floyd has won titles from 130 to 154. Ok Let’s go back to Duran’s time. At 130 the best fighter was Alexis Arguello. I’m not going to get into who wins or loses. But Arguello is recognized as either best or 2nd best fighter ever at 130. His reign there was off the charts. Floyd would have had his hands full with a prime Arguello of 78-80. At 135 we have Roberto the Beater. Duran just beat you too death. Not so sure if Floyd would have won a title at 135 had he been fighting back then. Next you have Aaron Pryor at 140. That’s another tough fight for Floyd. That’s 3 all time greats he would have had to tangle with that are better than anybody he has ever faced. At 147 you have Leonard and Hearns. They stand 5’10 and 6’1 and they would both be big problems for the great Mayweather. Then at 154 Hearns and Mike McCallum were the guns on the block. Let’s assume that if a 154 pound Miguel Cotto troubled Floyd than these guys would. So the writer who claimed that things were top heavy back then was dead on. But he missed the killers in Bobby Chacon and Boza Edwards at 130. How about Edwin Viruet and Hector Thompson at 135. Antonio Cervantes at 140. Carlos Palomino and Andy Price at 147. Tony Ayala and Davey Moore at 154. I could really go on all day. In this day and age of interim this and super that there is more room to succeed. But in those days if Duran or Leonard wanted to unify they had to fight Hearns and Esteban De Jesus. There is a difference bro. In this era Floyd is probably the only guy at these weights that could have competed with the killers from Duran’s day. No disrespect to these guys but you wouldn’t even see all of this moving up. Adrien Broner jumping from 135 to 147 to fight what champion?! If Broner waits for Heanrs or Leonard to move up then he would have had to deal with Dandy Donald Curry and Marlon Starling. I’m telling you things are different. And trust me nobody would be moving up to 160 today if a guy like Marvin was around. I will just leave it at this. I train my fighters to be old school. That word is popular for a reason. Boxing was more popular, you had less titles and better champions. There were some really good fighters who couldn’t win a title that would be a champion today. Ask any matchmaker over 50 how would Edwin Viruet have done with Antonio DeMarco or Ricky Burns at 135. Seriously. I don’t want to disrespect any of these fighters today that are trying their best, again they can’t help when they were born. But there is just a difference. A distinct difference in the eras. I see too many guys that could not have competed at the top level years back. So let me name the guys who could have instead of the guys who I think would have just been ordinary. For the record Floyd MAyweather would not be ordinary in any era. He’s special. He just wouldn’t be a 5 division undefeated titlist. So the list goes Floyd Mayweather, Andre Ward, Manny PAcquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez, Bernard Hopkins, Nonito Donaire and Guillermo Rigondeaux would rock out and give as good as they would take in any era at their prime weights. If I didn’t name them then they couldn’t or I don’t know enough about them yet. Now let me state the guys I named wouldn’t do all of this weight jumping and their records may not be so glossy but they would do their thing. That’s my honest assessment.
Posted on: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 05:07:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015