Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton III Scorecard by Champion97


scorecard by CHAMPION97
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
MUHAMMAD ALI
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
143
KEN NORTON
9
10
9
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
142

Fight:



More:

Muhammad Ali

Ken Norton



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Gold's picture

Had it by one round for Ali again, Norton was a really bad stylistic fight for Ali and Ali was quite a ways from his prime at this point. Ali did a good job of doing just enough to win rounds in my opinion which is what made the difference which is similar to Ray Leonard vs. Marvin Hagler.

Champion97's picture

I think Ali should have retired after this fight. I don't think it was that much of a stylistic match up as much as it was Norton doing his 100% best, and Ali, at times, letting stupidity get in the way, that round when he was standing there dancing for example, I just think he could have done better.

Leonard, like Mayweather, knew when he would and wouldn't win, he admitted that in a smaller ring in a 15 round fight, he would have lost.

Gold's picture

Probably, but for someone like Ali, he would have never been as great as he was if he had that kind of mentality. Norton had the best combination of a jab and counterpunching of Ali's opponents, he was a very technically sound boxer. That combined with Futch as a trainer who had a lot of experience and success versus Ali previously helped to counter and nullify a lot of Ali's strengths without exposing Norton's weaknesses. Ali had quite a lot of miles on him at this point and didn't have the stamina he used to have where he'd work more. Norton still had some very good performances left in him, he beat Jimmy Young and fought extremely close versus Larry Holmes. If Norton would have faced Ali before his boxing ban Ali's physical advantages would have made it an easier fight.

Both Hagler and Leonard were far from their peak by the time they fought and to my knowledge, Hagler chose more money over negotiating over ring size and round number. Leonard seems to be honest about his career though which is nice to see.

Champion97's picture

I don't know, it's very hard to break that down, that's psychology. Well there are always strengths when fighters are as good as Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, but Norton had success because he was good, not because his style was inconvenient for Ali, because in my opinion, Ali's style was wrong for any opponent just as most of these styles could be worked on to be bad for him from the other team's training camp. Ali's combination of oustanding mobility and output was a problem for Norton, probably, more than a fighter with more physical strength and body attacking ability than Ali. I agree on that, Futch was a great trainer, with his first hand knowledge, that had to have helped. That's definitely true, plain age, and damage, it ages you, simple as that, and you could see Ali was less agile in this fight, and as for his stamina, I agree, but Ali was tired after the first round against Liston and Norton the second time, but what was impressive about Ali's fitness was that he could recover so well in the minute, he would look tired, then in next round, fresh as a daisy, round after round, but the minute wasn't as much of a help to him at 34, even at this point, fitness and stamina was good, but not comapred to earlier in his career, but in my opinion, this was time to retire, there is an argument he should have retired when he beat Foreman, and there is an argument he should have retired when he beat Spinks in 1978, but no question, absolutely no question, he should not have come back for those last 2 fights. That shows how good Norton was, that's what I'm saying, he didn't do well because his style didn't suit Ali (at least, not especially), he did well against Ali, because he was very good. He could have won this one slightly easier in my opinion, not much, just slightly I think, not saying Norton wasn't very good, but Ali is a boxing legend, and I think he was capable of beating Norton, and not just by getting by almost nothing, even in 1976.

Yes, but they BOTH were, and that's why the Mayweather vs Pacquiao complaints annoy me, that's why Khan vs Brook is still a good fight, and will be in 3 years, they both are past prime, a 45 can still look good at an eased off level, it goes wrong when fighters try to fight at the same level at 40 as they did at 30, but when two fighters are both past prime, like Mayweather vs Pacquiao, Hagler vs Leonard, Alexander vs Berto, they might not look any different in the ring, can still go at it hard for 12 rounds, and the rests they both take, the rests they can't stop each other from taking like a prime fighter would, you don't notice. Hagler vs Leonard, both past prime, and is a classic, top 10 of all time for sure in my opinion.

Gold's picture

Norton was still the same good fighter versus Foreman and Shavers, still got completely destroyed and lasted three combined rounds when he went the distance three times with Ali and beat him once. The way they fought exploited Norton's weaknesses, Ali stylistically wasn't going to be able to do that regardless of how well prepared he was for Norton. He definitely should have retired after he beat Spinks in the rematch, the fact he lost in the first place shows how past it he really was at that time. No one was going to tell him he couldn't keep boxing though.

Mayweather vs. Pacquiao wasn't the same level of past it for both guys, but I'm not going to have that discussion. A more extreme example of the same thing would be Hopkins vs. Jones 2, Hopkins beating Jones at that point meant a lot less than if Hopkins were to have beat him before Roy Jones declined so much. Even though Bernard was a lot older he took less damage and relied much less on physical attributes to win, therefore he was in much better shape at that point in his career like Mayweather was compared to Pacquiao. Khan vs. Brook I personally don't want to see, the size difference is too much. It'll probably happen though because the money is there. I don't know where else Brook would go otherwise. I'm not a big fan of Hagler vs. Leonard as a fight, it is a great fight to see once or twice but it doesn't have a lot of replay value to me because it is too much of a tale of two fights, Leonard in the first half and Hagler in the second.

Champion97's picture

Good point, but I think a lot of that was him getting caught early by punchers, that's why I think a lot of these punchers are upset by underdogs, because when they win, they often win early, and the difference between a fighter who makes a mistake early, and a figyter who knows not to, is the difference between an early KO for the puncher, and a later win for the boxer. Don't agree overall, I just think Ali's style was almost as bad for Norton as vise verse, styles make fights, but I don't think they often make outcomes. They should have, when he was 38, against Holmes, it was very sad to see, Holmes was sad to do it.

We are never going to agree on that. This isn't what I was talking about, but I agree, Hopkins knew how to make his decline glacial. That isn't like May vs Pac though. Mayweather was older than Pacquiao, and that always is relevant, even with the Hop vs Jones rematch, but also, Mayweather was coming the much more toll taking year, had serious, worsening hand issues, and had nearly as many miles on him as Pacquiao, also, look at the evidence, Hopkins retired shortly before Jones, but he fought at a high level for much longer, and didn't look old really until Kovalev, Jones looked old well before 2014, whereas Mayweather retired a fight later, Pacquiao, now, 3 years later, is still fighting, and coming off an impressive win. No if they can do a catchweight of 150, the size difference isn't too much, Brook could make 150, just that last lb or 2 would kill him, but when he has has to grind down to 150, not 154, Khan shouldn't be bullied, be at the weight disadvantage he would be at, at 154. Brook has other options, he can work towards a world title shot, Hearn will get him a shot if he maybe just gets another win, and I think Brook is still one of the best if not the best challengers at 154, I just think definitely Charlo and Hurd and maybe even already Munguia, might have a bit too much for him, but Brook might be top 3, but I think top 4, definitely top 5 I think. I get it, but most great fights are at least a bit like that, and let's be fair, round 9 was one of the best rounds I've ever seen, there were a couple of close late rounds, and there were a couple of close early rounds, but I think Leonard would have been unlucky to have lost the first half 4-2, Hagler would have been unlucky if you don't have him winning the second half though. I like fights with two halves personally, but there are great fights which were more consistently close, and more your cup of tea, like Barrera vs Morales, Pacquiao vs Marquez, Ali vs Frazier III.

Gold's picture

Had a comment all typed out and I lost it somehow so I'll try to hit the points I can remember.

That was the stylistic weakness of Norton, he did very poorly versus Foreman and Shavers who could put pressure on early and hit him with powerful shots. He did do very well versus Ali and Holmes, two great outside boxers, which I think makes it a fair statement to say he did well versus high-level boxers and poor versus high-level punchers. Norton was a well-polished boxer and through his excellent jab, counterpunching and bodywork he exploited some of Ali's mistakes that he likely wouldn't have been able to exploit versus a faster and better conditioned pre-boxing ban Ali.

Hopkins was able to do that because he maintained his body well, didn't take a lot of damage and didn't fight in a style that relied largely on his physical abilities which is similar to Mayweather. Hopkins was much older than Roy Jones but that wasn't relevant because Hopkins was a much better boxer at the time. Pacquiao had accumulated much more damage than Mayweather throughout his career, the series versus Marquez (especially the knockout) and Morales and even the fight versus Margarito put a lot of miles on Pacquiao. Mayweather took damage versus Chino comparatively to his other fights, but those fights did not put a lot miles on him and he was not actually getting busted up. His hands did not get worse before the Pacquiao fight, he had long adapted to boxing and point fighting his opponents. His power was never a real issue, he was not a power puncher as Money Mayweather but he had enough power to get his opponents respect. He also traded throwing power punches for throwing fast counters. Mayweather's athleticism declining was the main reason for his declining performances, but his decline was much slower than Pacquiao's and Pacquiao relied much more on his athleticism. Mayweather could still be fighting today at a higher level than Pacquiao but he would lose versus Crawford or Spence. He also didn't want to fight Thurman at the end of his career which would have been a risky fight. Matthysse was a great win for Pacquiao but only in the context that he is that far away from his prime at 39 years old. As I said before the fight, it was a battle of shot fighters and Matthysse was much more shot than Pacquiao. Brook was a massive Welterweight and is now a Super Welterweight while Khan is only an okay sized Welterweight. I'd be surprised if Khan could win that fight. Of course, Brook can work his way up to a title shot, but I'd like to see him face one legitimate Super Welterweight before he gets a title shot. I definitely think Hurd and Charlo would be too much for him and I think Munguia likely is as well. If we are talking about the Four Kings era I prefer Leonard vs. Duran I which is a much much higher level fight than the older versions of Hagler and Leonard.

Champion97's picture

There might have been an element of that, but like I say, I believe that styles make fights, but either a fighter is good enough to make it close or not, and the styles make it a high action fight, a chess match, messy, cleanly fought, but when both fighters are good enough, there are strengths and weaknesses in every style. I think a lot of devastating punchers were favoured because their earlier knockouts looked better on paper, but punchers can finish a fight early if they land that first hurtful shot, and I think really because one punch can always change a fight, that is part of the excitement of the sport, one of the interesting things about boxing, not about one style being worse for a boxer than another, or maybe, it is not much about that, and more about a world level puncher being more likely to finish it early, and look better than a fighter like Ali who they are not necessarily better than. I think he would have been able to exploit them, but not as much, he would have lost decisively I think.

Gold's picture

Yeah, sometimes you get fights where there are bad stylistic matchups and it doesn't matter because one boxer is that much better. Pacquiao vs. Algeri was an example of that, but Norton was not Chris Algeri lol. I'm not saying Foreman or Shavers were better than Ali at the time, but that Norton was weak to them stylistically which played out in the ring. What you are saying is inherently saying that punchers can finish fights early easier, but that didn't happen when Foreman fought Ali and Young when it did versus Norton. That didn't happen for Shavers when he faced Ali and Holmes when it did versus Norton.

Champion97's picture

Not that much more, Mayweather was in taxing fights, he had a lot of miles, 46 fights, took a bad round's punishment against Mosley and Cotto, Maidana, and Maidana again, was dragged into a tough, tough fight against Castillo, De La Hoya, and he was coming off a much more gruelling year than Pacquiao, that right hand against Chino in round 4, he was shaken in two fights in a row there. Mayweather's hands were a mess, end of story, he had hand issues, which were always going to get worse with age, not saying he sustained a particularly bad injury like in the Guerrero fight, but his hands will have been if anything worse than against Canelo, Maidana. Mayweather is older than Pacquiao, take that into consideration. You have to be realistic, you can not say the Marg fight put miles on Pac, then say the Cotto fight did not put miles on May?, well that can be seen from the other side of the argument, Pacquiao was well enough adapted to whatever state his body was in to dominate Rios and Algieri, beat Bradley clearly. You should consider that not only high output, aggression is a wear and tear style, because Mayweather, testing his joints, all that borderline inhuman mobility, and even blocking, that is wear and tear on his arms, he did his elbow against Canelo in the mid rounds, as hard as that is to believe. What yiu are not responding to is the topic which I will put into one word, form, now, look at the pace, stamina of Pacquiao against Algieri, and against Bradley, Bradley was a phenomenal athlete, had not power or technical skill but output and stamina, and he tired against Pacquiao, he hit Pacquiao and looked to very briefly hurt him, but not enough to follow it up, and this is the post Marquez KO, and as for Mayweather's form, he was coming off a tough, tough fight against Chino, he was gassing in those late rounds, Mayweather. I don't agree, Pacquiao wasn't declining faster I don't think, I also think it might be off the mark to say the more mobile fighter who is always changing direction doesn't rely on his athleticism. That's what I keep saying about realists in boxing, but that is irrelevant, you do not know that, because Mayweather retired in 2015 as he said he would, had a muck arpund with Connie McQuitter last year, but he is retired, so how do you know he would be still nearer to his best than Pacquiao?, you don't, the best we have to do on is that Pacquiao is still fighting now, Mayweather is not. I still don't think he was that much more shot, I think it was a terrible performance, but Pacquiao has more in the tank than I thought for a few possible reasons, but he won every round or 5/6 at the hardest, 3 KDs, stopped him, Matthysse isn't 60 and a 20 time KO victim, Pacquiao must have had more left 3 years ago of he can do that now, and again, he was coming off a brilliant year, 24 rounds, no rust, he took very little damage, and he did not look any older against Bradley III than he did against Bradley I or II, so you can't say he got old overnight between Alg and May, you also can't say his decline sped up between 2012 and 2015.

Khan is taller than Brook, a good inch, Khan just fought at 150, Brook was fighting at 147 a year ago, Brook can't make 147 now, 148 would be a real push, he can make 150 though, those 3 last pounds are a massive difference, and Khan will only be bigger now after his break, he has been at 147 for a while, he has filled put a lot, I know he used to be at 135, and he doesn't naturally carry a lot of weight, which is a valid point, and Brook is more squat, was 147 as a kid basically, but if you were arguing from this side, you would be telling me about bulking and cutting as if I don't know, but this is why 154 would be too much for Khan, 147 would be too much for Brook, I'm saying Brook's div. is one to high for Khan, vise verse too low for Brook, but Khan is tall, enough big enough at 147 now that he won't be bullied by a guy who has had to make 150, and Brook may be too big now, have too much muscle for 147, but not much too much, and he can make 150, it is a compromise, the fight is worth the trouble for both fighters.

So would I, he was supposed to fight Cook as you must know. I agree, they are too fresh, too young, and they are good enough, great fights though, Brook still isn't old. I wonder if maybe Brook would beat Munguia at this stage, not saying he would, but that would be an interesting one. I don't agree but I understand your opinion because it was more consistently close, but I like the momentum swings, and thefe is just something about Hag v Leon imo.

My point was actually that Khan vs Brook can be as entertaining now as ever, because they are both past their best, and that cancels it out, do you see what I mean?

Gold's picture

He really wasn't in taxing fights and he didn't have a lot of miles lol. The examples you give prove my point. He had one round versus Mosley where he was in danger of losing. Castillo, De La Hoya and the first Chino fight were competitive and close fights, but they were not damaging fights that put miles on Floyd. Floyd was cut a total of two times in his career. You know why? He was never in drag out wars, never got seriously damaged. He is considered one of the best defensive fighters of all time for a reason, he didn't get hit and he didn't take damage. So what? He was the best boxer in the world with bad hands, he shifted to a style that didn't rely on punching power. That isn't a relevant point for Floyd being banged up. Again, clock age does not matter like ring age. Meldrick Taylor was 23 years old when he stepped in the ring with Chavez, he might as well have been 35 when the fight was over. Margarito was a huge Welterweight and a good sized Super Welterweight punching a former Flyweight. That was a part of the accumulation of damage of Pacquiao, not the damage in its totality. Cotto did well versus Floyd, but to say Floyd got miles put on him in that fight shows how little damage he actually took throughout his career. No offense to them, but Rios and Algeri suck even compared to an aged Pacquiao. There is a reason Top Rank was so heavily criticized for Pacquiao's opponents at the time. That is just an asinine argument, look historically at boxers who lasted a long time, high output aggressive fighters relying on athleticism do not age well e.g. Tyson, Roy Jones. Low output fighters who win with ring generalship, boxing craft and/or punching power can e.g. Hopkins, Moore, Foreman, Duran (vs. Barkley). Pacquiao at that point did not throw combinations and break his opponent down like he used to be able to as he aged. Pacquiao had a good chin after the Marquez KO, but being knocked out like that puts miles on the brain and Pacquiao already had a ton of miles put on him over the years that were eventually going to catch up to him. Chino essentially followed the perfect gameplan that night, Mayweather was not gassing out in the late rounds, if he was he would have lost the fight because he lost the majority of the early rounds. Mayweather didn't use his legs nearly as much as Pacquiao, he often stood in the pocket a lot and picked guys off. You can say a lot of things about McGregor, but he is not a quitter or someone who backs down from challenges. He was facing Mayweather for a paycheck, and guess what, they sold over four million pay per views so they both won. I can assume he'd be closer to his prime because his style is one that ages much better than Pacquiao's. Matthysse really was shot and sucked, his performance showed that. Pacquiao looked better than I expected in isolation, but he's still shot compared to his prime. Matthysse was not a top world level contender at Welterweight, if Mayweather was competing today I strongly believe he could be beating higher level guys than Matthysse. Pacquiao stepped down the competition because of Top Rank while he was declining, facing Bradley is a hell of a lot different than facing Mayweather. This is just such a strange argument, I know you have seen the Marquez and Morales fights where Pacquiao gets cut up, tagged with big power shots and KO'd in the last Marquez fight, yet we are talking about one of the best defensive fighters of all times taking more punishment than that.

Doesn't matter that he is taller, Brook is way more filled out. Khan fought at Caneloweight, doesn't mean that he is anything more than an okay sized Welterweight. Khan cannot bulk up to Brook's size without being considerably worse and Brook cannot cut down to Khan's size without being considerably worse. The size isn't even the greatest issue, it is that Khan is going to get tagged eventually and Brook is the second largest opponent he's faced in his career. I don't see it being a winnable fight for Khan even though I think it will be competitive for the duration it lasts.

Munguia is bigger than Brook and is only going to be getting better while Brook declines. Brook can definitely outbox Munguia but I think he's going to get to Brook's titanium eyes eventually.

Champion97's picture

He did, I gave you examples. It still adds up, both Chino fights as well. Good point about the cuts, but that is about the fact that he was mobile, the heads didn't come together often. Because he couldn't use all his power, that's why, it is a mental challenge, dealing with brittle hands. It is related to damage, wear and tear. Age is relevant, of coyrse it is!, you think a 35 year old can come back from a couple of damaging fights like a 25 year old can? It is definitely worth considering. Well sometimes that happens, for a number of possible reasons, I never denied that a KO can ruin a career, but when a fighter is 100% mentally in the right place, it is a combination of being young enough and fresh enough. I agree in that Mayweather never got cleanly dropped, but the fights I gave you added up, it is damage, miles, he was 38 when he fought Pacquiao, both these things matter, and just because a fighter is defensive doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't endure a toll taking career. That is irrelevant when it comes to damage, he can be King Kong,Marg, but we saw the damage with our own eyes, and Pacquiao took less damage in the few rounds that fifht was competitive than Mayweather against Cotto R8, Mos R2, and even if you disagree, Marg never hurt Pac like Mos and Cot hurt May. Yes, Mosely, part of dam to May, not Total, but I gave you 6 other examples. Broken nose in 3 places, you would be talking about bother on the brain and stuff if you agreed with me, you say Cot didnt put mls on May wth pnchs R8?

They do not suck, former world champion and a fighter who beat Provo, but that is besides the point, my point was, Pacquiao was coming off a year that wasn't damaging. You seem to jave avoided that, you should at least acknowledge when I obviously make a point you can't argue with.

It is not just about that, fighters with aggressive styles can last long, Foreman, Pacquiao, it is definitely more taxing overall, I agree, but it is just another point out of a lot. That was more about moving up in weight I think, but as well, look atbhoe close he was to finishing Alg, dropped Marquez IV, but I do acknowledge we didn't see that fire we saw against Cotto, for many years. Well yes, punches take a toll on the brain, and what I'm saying is, for a start, you don't know who has taken more punches outside the ring, more bad sparring sessions, you also are forgetting that May defence devel over the years, he still was in tough early fights which accumulate, it is impact on the brain, what May took ag Maid, Maid, Cot, Mos. Yes he was my friend, in 8-10, he was gassing! Come on He did!, Pacquiao used his legs, but nowhere near as much as May!

Right, so you can criticise a fighter, say what you want about Price and Bellew, but I can't say what I have to say about a nasty piece of shit who has quit 3 times? He was wheezing after 2 rounds, he hadn't run!, he wanted to quit at the end, he also was carried at least 6 rounds, could have been more! McQuitter is a fucker!

He can't be THAT shot, he just can't be, and 2015-18 as well. Why did he retire when he did?, Mayweather has admitted he has really been declining, he wouldn't be doing what Pacquiao is doing, no way. Acknowledge I make a point about when they retired.

Bradley was unbeaten, coming off Marq and Provo wins, that was always a tough fight, Brad would have been a chall for May. Anyway, Bradley is only relevant in that he Pacquiao fought him, and Pacquiao took much, much less damage in 2014 than Mayweather.

No, overall, Pacquiao might have had slightly more damage, but age, and less well known but still damage that May took, makes it so that it was close, and May was more or less as old and faded as Pac, definitely, so much that you have to give him credit for winning 8-10 rounds, if you predicted May nit to do as well, you must be impressed!

It does matter and we can do this all day, height is obviously a good metric for how naturally big someone is. I know he is, but most if that is muscle, not natural size, you can cut muscle, you cannot cut natural size. He has that experience behind him. He is quite a big welterweight. At 150, Khan wouldn't have to do an awful lot of bulking, remember, Khan fought Canelo at 155, then had the layoff, he never had to make 147 again, and again Grec and Var, it is at 150 I believe. If Brook was simply too big for Khan, he wouldn't be able to make 150, and Khan is good at 150, he has been above that weight, at 150, the fight is fair. Brook can make 150 surely. That's part of the excitement, chinny fighters are entertaining to watch when they keep getting up, and are always impressive when not caught. It's a winnable fight for both, Khan's speed, range control, output, movement, guves anyone problems.

I know, I'm talking about now, hypothetical I suppose, but no, size, age, and Munguia is almost certainly good enough to overtake Brook. I wouldn't advise Munguia to fight Brook at this stage.

Gold's picture

You are talking about a small amount of damage, and especially small compared to Pacquiao. The reason he didn't get cut a lot is that he didn't get hit, he was the least hit fighter tracked by Compubox throughout his career. Not getting hit is the best way to not take damage. Yes, a 35 year old who has not taken a lot of damage has a better chance of recovering than a 25 year old who has taken a lot of damage. Floyd didn't take a lot of damage because he was a successful defensive fighter and he didn't take the beatings in sparring that did master defensive fighters like Benitez and Toney in. Pacquiao went to the hospital after the Margarito fight because of the body shots he took. The fact you have to talk about individual rounds again proves my point. You can watch the Morales fights, the Marquez fights, those are knock down and drag out wars. Not single rounds where Floyd is getting hit more than usual or gets wobbled. Don't know what you are referring to about a broken nose, I don't remember Floyd having a broken nose.

They do suck compared to Pacquiao which was my point. What I am saying is that is irrelevant because you are arbitrarily setting the timeline of one year. Mayweather did not take a lot of damage in either fight, especially the second. He took some damage and more damage relative to what we had seen him take before, but that's it. We didn't get to see how far Pacquiao had declined facing pointless opposition like Algeri, Rios from the Marquez KO.

Foreman was not an aggressive fighter in his comeback, he was low volume and picked his spots. Pacquiao has lowered the level of his competition significantly outside of Mayweather because of Top Rank and him degrading. Again, Algeri sucks compared to Pacquiao, Marquez was arguably more worn than Pacquiao and was never a true Welterweight outside of that one fight. We know for a fact Mayweather didn't take the punishment in sparring that a lot of defensive fighters did early in their careers. We saw Pacquiao decline in the ring, we don't have to speculate about that. Again, Mayweather was the least hit fighter in boxing and was fighting at the highest level, he did not take a lot of damage. Mosley he got wobbled in one round, Cotto and Maidana he got hit more than usual but was not in any kind of war. Mayweather wasn't gassing in the first Maidana fight, if he somehow was Maidana did a terrible job of taking advantage of it. Pacquiao had some of the most active and best footwork of all times, he was a great offensive mover. Floyd didn't use his legs as much, especially as he aged because he adjusted his style.

You can call him a quitter if you want, it's just not true. Don't know what you mean by quitting three times. Also, don't know what you mean by calling him nasty, he does the exact same thing Floyd did in boxing, he promotes the fights and makes people want to watch them. He's not a boxer, big surprise he doesn't have the conditioning to go twelve rounds. In MMA, people almost always lose early on because the matchmaking is a lot more competitive, there aren't the same amateur backgrounds and there isn't promoter protection. He has faced and is facing the best opposition available even if he is extremely inactive.

What do you mean he can't be that shot? Because he beat a bunch of guys that aren't good compared to even a decreased level Pacquiao? Why did Mayweather retire when he did? Because he knew he would lose his zero if he kept facing top quality opposition. Doesn't mean he still wouldn't be a great boxer though. There is no doubt in my mind Mayweather could beat guys like Bradley, Algieri, Rios, Vargas, Horn, Matthysse. It is just irrelevant to bring up when they retired when it is common knowledge Pacquiao is fighting because he needs to make more money.

Bradley was "unbeaten" coming off "wins" versus Provodnikov and Marquez. Bradley would have won 0-4 rounds versus Mayweather. How much damage specifically taken in the year before the fight isn't as important as the total accumulation over time. Again, Mayweather did not take a lot of damage in the Maidana fights either. Pacquiao was a lot farther down the road than Mayweather, I didn't like the fight when it was made and the criticism at the time was that Pacquiao wasn't the fighter he used to be.

It isn't a good metric for how naturally big someone is. I can list off comparisons all day but you will just ignore them. Denis Lebedev is a 5'11 Cruiserweight, Maurice Hooker is a 5'11 Super Lightweight. Dmitry Bivol is a 6'1 Light Heavyweight, Jarrett Hurd is a 6'1 Super Welterweight. Canelo is a 5'8 Middleweight, Jorge Linares is a 5'8 Lightweight. Alberto Machado is a 5'10 Super Featherweight, Golovkin is a 5'10 Middleweight. Ken Shiro is a 5'5 Light Flyweight, Gary Russell Jr is a 5'5 Super Featherweight. I can keep listing off current boxers, going through historical boxers, etc. You won't accept it though because it doesn't fit your narrative of natural size and rejecting different builds being existing and some being better for going up in weight classes. Khan should not be putting on muscle, he isn't someone who has the frame to go up in weight classes and he is trying to outpoint guys with his speed. Putting on muscle is not something he wants to do. He fought Canelo at 155 because Canelo told him to, not because it was good for Khan. Brook is squeezing down to make 150 if he can make it, Khan can definitely make Welterweight unless his discipline has gone entirely.

I wouldn't advise Munguia to take the Brook fight either unless he only thinks he can make Super Welterweight for one more fight. If he fights on the Canelo vs. GGG undercard that is a great opportunity for him. He can also headline cards on HBO while gaining experience which is pretty much the perfect scenario for him.

Champion97's picture

That one right hand against Chino second time, that one bad round, that's a small amount of damage, plus Mosley bad round, plus Cotto, plus first Maidana fight, plus that gruelling fight against Castillo, I've seen Mayweather get roughed up in earlier fights, and like I said, we were talking about a 38 year old fighter, age is very relevant, and he is over a year older than Pacquiao. No, it's because the heads didn't come together because he used to move, not many cuts even happen from punches nowadays, most are from the head, the cut in the Maidana fight was from the head. How do you know that?, most of Mayweather's sparring was confidential, and also, his joints, serious hand issues, that is damage which athletes as mobile as Mayweather sustain, when you put yourself through what Mayweather put through, it takes it's toll. Mayweather must havd been to hospital a few times himself, and the Cotto fight, well would we even know his nose was broken in 3 places if he hadn't been to hospital? No it doesn't, because I've given you a few, and I also listed 4 consistently tough fights, also, I didn't give you close rounds when Mayweather took one clean shot, I listed rounds when he got beaten up. I understand that last point, we rarely saw Mayweather pushed to the absolute limit, but Pacquiao wasn't either after the Morales and Marquez fights, which adds up to 3 fights, but Mayweather took much more damage in 2014 than Pacquiao, and Pacquiao is younger, and once more, Mayweather is retired, Pacquiao is still fighting, in 2015, he had slightly more damage and wear and tear on him, but not much more, and he had age in his side.

You are missing the point, first of all, they don't suck, thy are not poor opponents at ahy level, limited at world level, not that good, ok, but they were good enough to keep Pacquiao busy, and Pacquiao took little damage that year. I don't agree with that at all, Mayweather took punishment from Chino in both fights, for example, that right hand at the end of round 3, that is impact on the brain, that puts damage on you, he was hurt in both fights, and both fights were close, you had the first one a draw, and it was an action packed fight. Pointless opposition? That's harsh, unrealistic, a guy who beat Provo and Marquez, another fighter who beat Provo, and a former world champion, they were good enough that Pacquiao beating them like that was very impressive, if Pacquiao had really declined, we would have seen it, and he might have even beaten Bradley.

Yes, he adpated his style as he got older, didn't have that style earlier in his career. That isn't necessarily true, Bradley, Vargas, Horn, all good fighters, who was he fighting years ago after Cotto?, Mosely, Clottey, good fighters, better resumes, but not at their best, I don't agree with that, and for sure, Pacquiao has been fighting decent opponents in recent fights, good enough that if he was that far over the hill we would know.

That's enough for now

Gold's picture

He barely got damaged in the Cotto, Maidana and Castillo fights, it is just relative to his normal level of not taking any damage. Mayweather has never been actually roughed up, the most uncomfortable I have seen him was versus Castillo and he wasn't taking a beating in that fight like Pacquiao did in the first Morales fight, the Marquez fights, and even the second Morales fight. Pacquiao was many years older in ring age and fought with a more physically intensive style. Plenty of cuts happen because of punches, there are still doctor stoppages that result in TKO's. Why you think that would change is anyone's guess. Maidana was more effective at brawling Floyd than any other opponent so yes, their heads would come together more often than any of his other fights. Floyd didn't get hit clean a lot so he didn't have the opportunity to be cut. Come on man, you can google this information instead of assuming to fit your false narrative about Floyd. There is plenty of sparring footage of Floyd available. The most he got beat up is the Spadafora one that people use as an example of why sparring doesn't apply to actual boxing matches. You know where Mayweather went after the Cotto fight? To the post-fight press conference. Cotto went to the hospital. "Consistently tough" compared to how his fights usually went. Mayweather was never KO'd cold, never got in a single drag out knock down war, he did not have a lot of damage, was not damaged in the Maidana fights. Pacquiao is still fighting because he needs money, that is factual, not because he was less declined.

They absolutely do suck as opponents for Pacquiao, you could make a very good argument Algeri and Rios won zero rounds versus Pacquiao. You know what impacts the brain? Being knocked out cold and getting in absolute wars, both things that never happened to Mayweather. It was action packed for a Mayweather fight, the second fight was absolutely not close. Bradley arguably lost to Provodnikov and Marquez, never beat Pacquiao. The fact they fought three times is ridiculous.

So you are saying he isn't that declined, but bottom of the top 10 limited Welterweight Jeff Horn is a good opponent? Mosley was ancient by the time Pacquiao fought him. If Pacquiao would have went it on his own he could have faced much better opposition.

Champion97's picture

We didn't see decline from Pacquiao until maybe Vargas but definitely Horn, not saying he wasn't declining, but he wasn't declining faster than Mayweather, definitely not outside of punch resistance and damage. He was 38, he had had 46 fights, a certain amoumt of da,wge was inevitable, coming off a fairly damaging year. But it was still wear and tear, damage, more damage than Pacquiao took from Rios to Vargas. He got rocked against Mosley. Inthe second fight I said. False, sorry, but that is not true, Mayweather was very mobile, Pacquiao used to take minutes off, he was nowhere near as fast on his feet as Mayweather, he couldn't pin him down and tet in range when they fought.

Sorry, I suppose McQuitter is the guy on your uncriticisable list. He doesn't have the conditioning to do 4 at a pace he has been allowed to pick. Look, I think you are intelligent enough to see that I am not unbiased on this topic and you will not get a sensible take out of me. I hate McQuitter, and I am allowed to say and think what I want. McQuitter accommodates his sparring partners in crack houses, lies to them, doesn't care if they take unnecessary punishment, and when you rip on AJ, remember that he pays his sparring partners well.

I mean can't be that shot as in, isn't so shot he can't beat Matthysse like he just did, isn't so shot that we are sad to see him in the ring and people beg him to retire, you want to talk about shot, look at Ali in 1980, that's a shot fighter, look at Gatti against Gomez, Tyson against McBride, Hopkins against Smith, that's a shot fighter, a fighter who makes us sad to see him fight. They are though, Vargas, Bradley are good fighters. He would lose to Crawford and Lomachencko, he could still have stuck around and beaten Liam Smith at 154, Canelo again, Brook maybe, but whether or not those particular examples are good, Mayweather could have stuck around, made more money. He would be about as far fro, his prime as Pacquiao, bit older, bit less damage, aggregate, Pacquiao's extra damage because of knockdowns, more fights, more punches, might compensate for Mayweather's more worn joints, hand issues, form, and age, but still, not a lot in it, and without doubt, nowhere near enough in it that you be anything but very impressed by Mayweather winning 8-10 rounds against Pacquiao. He still could beat any version of them, but they would all give him problems at 41, apart from maybe the version of Matthysse we just saw against Pacquiao, I have to be honest, I was wrong about that fight. Of course it is not irrelevant, listen, Pacquiao has a political career ahead of him, he aleeady has tons of money, rich people don't settle, Mayweather, I guarantee still wants to make more money, the richer people get, the richer people want to get, money is an addiction, Pacquiao is not as rich as Mayweather, but the reason Pacquiao is still fighting and Mayweather isn't is because Pacquiao thinks he has something to prove, Mayweather doesn't. The fact that Pacquiao is still fighting and Mayweather isn't, must say something in response to you saying Pacquiao was so much further past prime than Mayweather in 2015.

I don't agree with that at all, Bradley was an active, nimble, risk taking fighter, he would have rallied late, won maybe 3-4 rounds against Mayweather. No, but it is worth taking into consideration, because the body heals, and a rough, busy year previous is not the same as an easier but still active year previous. What is a lot?, he took a fair amlunt of da age however you look at it, against Maidana, no doubt he took damage both times. He wasn't, because for the last time, Mayweather had taken punches as well, tougher 2014, britlle hands, dodgy joints, 1-2 years older, so that narrows the gap, Mayweather beat Pacquiao at least 8-4, he fought the guy we said he was avoiding for years, give him credit! Neither were, and how you can not like that fight, I do not know.

Height is a good metric for natural size, the fact that you agreed that 5'8 or 5'9 is the average height for a welterweight proves my point. Natural size is how naturally big you are, size you can't change, height is just the most fundamental aspect. Look, I understand fully that height is not the 100% scale of size, I never said it was, I can think of examples myself, I know Callum Smith is not naturally bigger than Dereck Chisora, I know Zolani Tete is not naturally bigger Gervonta Davis. I know that some people are naturally stockier, but height is always relevant, and often, natural build isn't as relevant as whether or not a fighter has been building muscle for a long time, because some fighters build more muscle, others work harder to make lower weights, and stay there, and that isn't only natural size, not when it is muscle, for example, Adonis Stevenson carries a lot of muscle, which is why he is a 6 round monster but always tires in the second half, of Stevenson hadn't bulked up so much 10-15 years ago, he is naturally small enough to make 168, Badou Jack is naturally bigger if anything. I'm not saying 5'7 can't be a natural welterweight, I'm not saying 5'10 means the fighter is inevitably going to have to move up, because I understand about building and cutting weight, and I understand about natural size aside from height, I'm just saying, most of the time (not 90%, but still most, maybe 70%), a natural welterweight is 5'8 or 5'9. He can fight on tne inside as well, if he can't move and punch for 12 rounds, he might as well use his height, because height is always natural size to some extent, Khan has filled out a lot, carries the weight well, and most of all, I don't think you can read too much into frames, because Khan looked sharp against Canelo at 155, Khan is ok at 150. Khan is already big enough for 150. He can make 147, Brook can't, Khan is not big enough, too naturally thin to do well at 154 against Brook (I know 155 was a bad idea, I always said that he even admits it now), 150 is a meet in the middle, a balance, and it would work, because Khan is big enough and strong enough at 147, tall enough that he can do well and be strong at 150, and Brook made 147 a year ago, those 3lbs must be enough allowance.

Even then I wouldn't do it if I were him. Yes, but not too much, too soon.

Gold's picture

We didn't see him decline other than being KO'd cold by Marquez and not being as athletic and dynamic as he used to be? Pacquiao had 64 fights, had been in many wars, knocked out cold. Mayweather did not get actually damaged in the Maidana fights. Mayweather was very mobile many years before that fight, but with the shift in style he stopped moving as much as he used to. Pacquiao used to fight 3 minutes of every single round, what are you even talking about? Watch the Barrera and Morales fights. He had some of the best, most active footwork and stamina of any fighter in history. Pacquiao was nowhere near as fast versus Mayweather because he had declined considerably.

Criticizing him as a boxer is illogical, he's not a boxer. He doesn't have the conditioning to go twelve because he's not a boxer. I understand you are biased because he made Paulie look like an idiot. Paulie is still talking about him to this day which is hilarious. I have never heard anything negative about McGregor's sparring in MMA.

Matthysse sucked dude, I don't know what to tell you. I told you before the fight he was totally shot and he was. Again, Pacquiao is shot compared to his peak level, his peak level is arguably a top 10 to 15 boxer of all times. Vargas and Bradley are good but not good enough to beat a largely declined Pacquiao. I don't know if you can say he'd lose to Lomachenko, Lomachenko doesn't even want the fight even though it would be the biggest fight of his career and would build his name up massively. Again, the criticism of MayPac at the time was that the fight was made too late because Pacquiao had declined, and that showed in the ring. Pacquiao does not have tons of money, he spends it as it comes in. That's why he has a debt to the US and can't fight here. If Pacquiao somehow becomes the president of the Philippines, which would be bad for their country, he would be set for life though. Pacquiao is fighting to make money, that is the end of that discussion, it is well documented. Mayweather wanted to make more money so he fought McGregor in what was essentially an exhibition and made tons of money.

Rallied late? Name one fighter that "rallied late" against Money Mayweather. Bradley is outright not a good enough fighter to challenge Mayweather, he is a good overall boxer but does not have overwhelming skills in areas needed to challenge Floyd. Again, Floyd took damage relative to his other fights versus Maidana, but not compared to what we would consider taking damage for any other fighter. Brittle hands is just an irrelevant argument, he never actually had issues with them in a fight during the Money era because he stylistically adjusted to it. He had enough power too. Joints is another one, he never had issues with it during a fight and during the Money era he didn't move as much or throw as many punches because his style was better adjusted to aging than Pacquiao's. The Mayweather vs. Pacquiao fight should have took place in 2009-2010 for it to be the best, most competitive fight possible. I didn't like the fight because it was completely boring and obvious that it wasn't the fight it could have been.

Obviously, as a broad generalization, it is a good metric, you won't have a 6'4 Minimumweight or a 5'1 Heavyweight. It's not about building muscle, it is about different frames and builds. Callum Smith can never be as big as Dereck Chisora regardless of how much muscle he puts on, he doesn't have the build for it. Adonis Stevenson does not punch hard because of the muscle he carries, that is a common misconception. Actual muscle mass does not have a lot to do with punching power at a professional level. Tommy Hearns had a huge punch at Welterweight and had very little mass. George Foreman was in the 220's in his first career and AJ could never punch as hard as him no matter how many weights he lifts. Khan looked good against Canelo in the same way Gamboa looked good against Crawford and Brook looked good against Golovkin, naturally smaller fighters have greater handspeed but they will eventually be worn down by the naturally bigger boxer. I'm not saying it the fight can't or won't happen at 150 because Khan is too small though, I'm just saying it is not an equal sized fight regardless of how much muscle Khan puts on because of their frames.

I'm done talking about Mayweather and Pacquiao, it has turned into a fools errand for me like Matthysse and Kiram was. If you can't believe Mayweather, one of the best defensive fighters of all time who had taken little damage throughout his career and fought in a good style for aging fighters was less declined than Pacquiao who fought in a very physically intensive style, got in a lot of wars and was KO'd, I don't know what to tell you. Ask other people and I'm confident they'll agree with me.