I'm good with that. It's an embarrassment that it got beyond exhibition status - money don't talk but swears.@old joe. I am not disputing Mayweathers record prior to Saturdays "event". But I wiil never accept that should be on his record as a "fight", and Marrciano and Mayweather share the record of 49-0 in my book. Regards Mervyn The Gee
106-1-6 is his total record including newspaper decisions however they arent legitimate results, just a general consensus of the scored results totted up in the newspapers of the time.I had never heard of this guy so I go to BoxRec and look him up. Initially they claim 106-1-6 as his career record. However, once I clicked on his name to bring up his list of fights, it says 70-0-5 as his record with 50 by KO. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I figured it had to do with something like that since it was in the early 1900's and not sure how things were recorded back then. Thanks for clearing that up.106-1-6 is his total record including newspaper decisions however they arent legitimate results, just a general consensus of the scored results totted up in the newspapers of the time.
70-0-5 is his record based on legitimate results scored by official abjudicators for the fight.
You are totally immersed in old timers,so show no objectivity.Packey, of course. Mayweather never fought anyone as tough as McFarland (or his opponents).
I second Tracy Callis: "Packey McFarland was a fast and clever boxer with exceptional skills. He possessed an educated left jab, stiff punches, fast feet, and a savvy of boxing that always kept him a step ahead of his opponent. Packey was one of the greatest fighters to ever hail from Chicago." And that's where the praise should begin, not end.
I generally (albeit not always) favor old timers over the current or even recent crop. But it's hardly arbitrary or capricious; there's good reason to do so.You are totally immersed in old timers,so show no objectivity.
Mayweather 'never fought anyone as tough as McFarland'
Yet he has wins over ATGs like de la Hoya,pacquaio and Mosley plus solid champions like cotto,Hatton,Castillo,canelo,Judah etc.
He was a legitimate no 1 in several weight divisions and ruled right through from super feather to being an undersized light middleweight.
I won't give an opinion on this as my knowledge of McFarland is too limited,but I would always be objective whereas you seem to constantly favour the old timers whatever.
Mayweather was legit.
I can remember an article about Liston doing his workout to packed crowds in Sweden. Once started to look into him in detail - you must of saw him on the UK tour he cut short after the press kept asking him questions on current affairs (may been a bombing back in the US?)@old joe, great to get your reply. Re Sonny
With his skillset I agree, I just don't think he'd been the #1 draw of the sport in previous eras. So many variables but he probably wouldn't of have the longevity given his hand issues.Mayweather was a very good fighter and he probably would have been good in any era.
Merv it wasn't a reply to you mate.@One to watch. I really don"t know where you are coming from. If you had read my reply to "old joe", and I quote" I am not disputing Mayweathers record prior to Saturdays Event, so whats"s your problem.? I do not constantly favour the "old timers", read what I said about Crawford, GGG, Calzaghe, great fighters in any era, I accept your right to criticise me , I do like the "old timers" like Sugar Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis,Dave Charnley. Hagler, I make no apologies for these choices . I don"t know how old you are, but in the the late fifties earlysixties top class fights were shown evry week from the USA and you were able to compare the various fighters with our own, Mayweather was a very good fighter and he probably would have been good in any era. REgards Mervyn The Gee
No I'm not.I generally (albeit not always) favor old timers over the current or even recent crop. But it's hardly arbitrary or capricious; there's good reason to do so.
And you? Would it be fair and accurate to say that you're very much a "Presentist," someone who thinks that what's current is always, and by definition, superior to what came before?