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…..
