What does Floyd Mayweather Jnr need to do to be best ever ?

[Trojans44]

I think in the decades to come people will look very favourably on Mayweather's record.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Oscar and Shane were too busy, too quick, iron chinned and skilled I think in their primes.

Floyd has been a pickpocket at above 135, dont see him managing that act against either of them at 147.

[jessi]

floyd is`nt as good as pernell whitaker imo
when he`s retired he`ll be mentioned as a great boxer but he`ll never be compared to
the true legends

I think he will be mentioned with the true legends !

[Quixall]

floyd is`nt as good as pernell whitaker imo
when he`s retired he`ll be mentioned as a great boxer but he`ll never be compared to
the true legends

I think he will be mentioned with the true legends !

Not being funny, but who to you are the "true legends" ?

[dan28uk]

whats the point in answering this, all these "experts" in here are gona say no the truth is we will never no will we everyones got their own opinions. all you can do is best in the era which he certainly is.

[Quixall]

whats the point in answering this, all these "experts" in here are gona say no the truth is we will never no will we everyones got their own opinions. all you can do is best in the era which he certainly is.

What is the point of being on a boxing site if you don't post, debate and answer threads. Who said any of us were experts ?

People say "no" because the evidence is there to support it. Even the "experts", ie, journalists, ex fighters, commentators of the sport, critics, writers, all point to the likes of Robinson, Ali, Armstrong, Wilde etc as being the best of all time. There is a need to debate it, because Mayweather proclaims himself to the best ever, not just the best of his era. It strikes me that what you describe on here as "experts" are people who may hold a contrary viewpoint to yourself.

[tommo100]

floyd is`nt as good as pernell whitaker imo
when he`s retired he`ll be mentioned as a great boxer but he`ll never be compared to
the true legends

I think he will be mentioned with the true legends !

Not being funny, but who to you are the "true legends" ?

leonard
hagler
hearns
duran
whitaker
jones jnr
hopkins
mccallum
barrera
morales
chavez
nelson
no doubt iv`e missed a few more and there can be no doubt that there are fighters before my time who should be in(monzon,robinson etc)

[mrbassie]

Another 100+ fights would be a good start.

[stujones]

Agree with what your saying on regardly your overall analysis there Datsue, very much disagree with your analysis of many of those 10 fighters you mention.... particularly when it comes to the "can you see Floyd signing to fight him" bit.

As a reminder - in his time, Floyd fought the very best at Super Feather, fought the #1 Lightweight... in two fights I would never describe as "life and death" struggle..... Ayers vs Rigby was a life and death struggle.... Floyd vs Castillo were two snooze fests, in which Floyd one handed beat Castillo by about 3 rounds... I never saw the controvesy in fight one, and for me fight two was equally as close.

Floyd also fought the long time Undisputed 140 champ, the Lineal 147 champ, the #1 147 pounder at the time (Mosley), the #2 147 - at the time (Judah), the #1 154lbers (Oscar) and is now fighting the #1 in the devision again.... but yeah... off course Floyd would have avoided fighting the best in the devision, just like he has done all his career.

Absolutely, unless something special happens in these final years he's not going to go down as the greatest of the last 30 years - let alone the best of all time However, there is still a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't attitude with Floyd with some folk.

[jessi]

floyd is`nt as good as pernell whitaker imo
when he`s retired he`ll be mentioned as a great boxer but he`ll never be compared to
the true legends

I think he will be mentioned with the true legends !

Not being funny, but who to you are the "true legends" ?

In no particular order, jack Johnson, jack Dempsey, s r robinson, s r Leonard, r jones jnr, j c Chavez,
J Louis, Roberto Duran, Ali, Marciano.
Possibly o d l Hoya, tommy hearns, Barrera, azuma Nelson, and many others,
Obviously there's hundreds of great fighters but only a handful deserve the true legend status, I'm not saying Floyd is there yet but if he can beat Cotto and pacman convincingly I would place him in that handful, there's a case for fighting some fighters past there best but there's a case for every fighters record.

[stujones]

Tommo,

Not being funny, but not sure I quite understand that list of "true legends".... You say you missed a few out.

How do you define legend? Is it on their legacy in and out of the ring or something.

You have Barrera, Morales, McCallum and Azumah Nelson in your list of true legends - but ommitting the likes of Ricardo Lopez, MANNY PACQUIAO, Lennox Lewis, Oscar De La Hoya, Evander Holyfield and Floyd Mayweather?

Is it the PED thing as too why you don't classify Pacquiao as a legend, cause I am really struggling with that one. He effed up Barrera and Morales yet he is not a legend and the Mexicans are?

[stujones]

Tommo,

Not being funny, but not sure I quite understand that list of "true legends".... You say you missed a few out.

How do you define legend? Is it on their legacy in and out of the ring or something.

You have Barrera, Morales, McCallum and Azumah Nelson in your list of true legends - but ommitting the likes of Ricardo Lopez, MANNY PACQUIAO, Lennox Lewis, Oscar De La Hoya, Evander Holyfield and Floyd Mayweather?

Is it the PED thing as too why you don't classify Pacquiao as a legend, cause I am really struggling with that one. He effed up Barrera and Morales yet he is not a legend and the Mexicans are?

Manny's a fair few places behind Floyd when it comes to handing out accolades.

I agree, but I was under some assumption that the reason why Tommo defines the Mexican's, McCallum and Azumah Nelson as more "legendary" than Floyd was based on out of the ring shenangans, inactivity and an apparent lack of top quality opposition on his resume.... None of these you can really label on Manny, unless its the PED thing that has rattled his cage.

I think the debates on how the likes of Floyd, Manny et al shape up against the all time greats is always fun and worthy. However, not even in the same category of greatness as McCallum, Nelson et al.... think its time those rose tinted glasses were taken off.

Floyd that much better than Manny for me..... but both a certainly, clearly, undoubtedly, worthy of being at the very least in the same bracket as McCallum, the Mexicans and Nelson.

[Lenny]

If people don't know much about fighters like Armstrong, Pep, Greb, Langford, Charles and Moore then that's fine, but they deserve to be mentioned alongside your modern day guys like Leonard and Duran and well above your McCallum's, Nelson's, Barrera's etc

Mayweather will most probably be looked back on within a second tier, ranked anywhere between 10-40 - depending on how highly you rate his unbeaten record (assuming he doesn't end his career Jones Jnr style).

[stujones]

If people don't know much about fighters like Armstrong, Pep, Greb, Langford, Charles and Moore then that's fine, but they deserve to be mentioned alongside your modern day guys like Leonard and Duran and well above your McCallum's, Nelson's, Barrera's etc

Mayweather will most probably be looked back on within a second tier, ranked anywhere between 10-40 - depending on how highly you rate his unbeaten record (assuming he doesn't end his career Jones Jnr style).

I would agree with this.... and I think given the long history of the sport I think its not idiotic to debate if people in the "second tier" - particularly the upper part of the tier could be regarded as the greatest of all time.... e.g. Duran etc.

[tommo100]

it`s most likely not floyds fault but his major fights i.e de la hoya,mosley,marquez were all slightly over the hill imo,likewise he should have fought cotto four years ago and his seeming reluctance to negotiate a deal with manny is annoying to say the least,do you no think he comes across as seeing fighting as more a means to an end that and his legacy of remaining undefeated seems to drive him more than wanting the big fights

all the fighter on my list were warriors prepared to fight anyone,anywhere,sure the money was great but to them it was all about the fight

[loaded_gloves]

Mayweather would need to take a page out of Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four and rewrite boxing history so that it didn't exist prior to his career and vaporise anyone who questioned him.

Seriously, it's depressing anyone would even ask a question like this on a boxing forum. You would have to have essentially zero knowledge of boxing's rich, brilliant history of fighting greats.

Truly Mayweather is a great for the idiot generation, who lap up everything Floyd and the subscription channels who sell him tell them to believe.

[Finn]

Mayweather only needs to beat one or two elite fighters to be considered a true legend imo. I dont think the greatest ever title can really be used to describe any fighter other than Ali and alot of that is due to the scale of media attention surrounding his fights.

If he beats martinez and pac who could say he hasnt been great. At the moment there is still a question mark in some peoples mind about him fighting elite fighters in their prime in their optimum weight division.

[Trojans44]

Theres always such harshness when considering Mayweather and history tells us that evaporates with time. He's already dominated quite an incredible list of opponents in my opinion, including some future hall of famers. Mayweather is the one who always gets the blame for not making the fights. Remember he went his own way fairly early, pissed alot of people off and also Arum controlled many of the fighters he gets stick for avoiding.

People will queue up to wank over Carl Froch, Barrera and Cotto for being warriors but Mayweather's list of wins beats the shit out of theirs every day and twice on Sundays.

In terms of talent he'd have been competitive in any era. I don't believe, for example, that it anything like a foregone conclusion he'd lose to Leonard.

[loaded_gloves]

Wow. Please name the opponents he beat that communicates to you that he would have a chance with Sugar Ray Leonard.

THIS I have got to hear.

[stujones]

it`s most likely not floyds fault but his major fights i.e de la hoya,mosley,marquez were all slightly over the hill imo,likewise he should have fought cotto four years ago and his seeming reluctance to negotiate a deal with manny is annoying to say the least,do you no think he comes across as seeing fighting as more a means to an end that and his legacy of remaining undefeated seems to drive him more than wanting the big fights

all the fighter on my list were warriors prepared to fight anyone,anywhere,sure the money was great but to them it was all about the fight

I don't want to do the fighters you mention a disservice whatsoever - okay if you want to say DLH, Mosley and Marquez were over the hill fine.... what about Hatton, Castillo, Corrales etc? Where these over the hill?

Lets look at Barrera as an example. His single greatest win was against Hamed.... many many people say Hamed wasn't the fighter he was when they fought. Look at how many people still say a "prime" Hamed beats Marco.

Name me 3 fighters who Barerra beat who is in the Castillo, Corrales, Hatton bracket of fighter - and around their peak. Morales.... yep, no doubt...... Kennedy McKinney (pushing it a bit). Tapia past it, Ayalia... nope, the only true elite fighter Barrera fought other than Morales - he lost two (Marquez and Pacquiao). Kevin Kelley was past it also, Junior Jones.... ouch.

As good as a fighter Barrera was, his resume isn't a patch on Mayweathers.

[jamesmcdonnell]

it`s most likely not floyds fault but his major fights i.e de la hoya,mosley,marquez were all slightly over the hill imo,likewise he should have fought cotto four years ago and his seeming reluctance to negotiate a deal with manny is annoying to say the least,do you no think he comes across as seeing fighting as more a means to an end that and his legacy of remaining undefeated seems to drive him more than wanting the big fights

all the fighter on my list were warriors prepared to fight anyone,anywhere,sure the money was great but to them it was all about the fight

I don't want to do the fighters you mention a disservice whatsoever - okay if you want to say DLH, Mosley and Marquez were over the hill fine.... what about Hatton, Castillo, Corrales etc? Where these over the hill?

Lets look at Barrera as an example. His single greatest win was against Hamed.... many many people say Hamed wasn't the fighter he was when they fought. Look at how many people still say a "prime" Hamed beats Marco.

Name me 3 fighters who Barerra beat who is in the Castillo, Corrales, Hatton bracket of fighter - and around their peak. Morales.... yep, no doubt...... Kennedy McKinney (pushing it a bit). Tapia past it, Ayalia... nope, the only true elite fighter Barrera fought other than Morales - he lost two (Marquez and Pacquiao). Kevin Kelley was past it also, Junior Jones.... ouch.

As good as a fighter Barrera was, his resume isn't a patch on Mayweathers.

No version of Hamed would have beaten Barrera, Barrera was the smarter fighter, and technically better. It would have been more competitive for sure, but I think Barrera was notch above Hamed technically. Hatton, whilst undefeated at the time, was not a truly elite campaigner, and you could argue that he peaked before he even got to Tszyu, his title reign was not terribly impressive, he seemed to have regressed as a fighter, and lost his effectiveness.

I do however agree that Mayweather's resume is more impressive than Barrera's.

[stujones]

Wow. Please name the opponents he beat that communicates to you that he would have a chance with Sugar Ray Leonard.

THIS I have got to hear.

I don't think there really has to be an "opponent" per se. I'm sure everyone was saying "just who has Clay beaten to see he stands a chance with Liston".... similarly people were saying the same when Leonard stepped up to face Hagler. When you consider Leonard never fought at Middleweight before, struggled at Light Middle and hadn't done so well against common opponent - if you want to look at it completely objective on opponents, Leonard stood no chance. However, the manner of some of his wins against lesser opponents, meant that people (pre retirement) at least gave him an outside chance.

The thing that impressive me with Floyd is his adaptability. He roughed up Hatton, which people would have thought before hand played into Ricky's hand. He's dealt with quick fighters, he's dealt with fighters with sizeable size advantages, and he's dealt (one handed) with tough comeforward pressure fighters. They might not be a who's who of all time greats, but IMO aside from the DLH fight - which performances since have suggested it was a one off - he's not looked close to losing... against some solid, decent, world champions.

The moment though that I will never count out Floyd against any man in his devision, no matter what the era was how he dealt with being rocked by Mosley. It was the worst thing Shane could have done.... I've never seen such calmness under intense pressure. Sign of a true fighter, and any young fighter should be watching that round continually to try and learn from it.

Floyd might not ever go down as the greatest of all time, and yes there is nothing on his record to suggest - oh yes, cause he beat King Kong he must beat Leonard. However, there is nothing in his performances to suggest he doesn't stand a chance either.

[stujones]

it`s most likely not floyds fault but his major fights i.e de la hoya,mosley,marquez were all slightly over the hill imo,likewise he should have fought cotto four years ago and his seeming reluctance to negotiate a deal with manny is annoying to say the least,do you no think he comes across as seeing fighting as more a means to an end that and his legacy of remaining undefeated seems to drive him more than wanting the big fights

all the fighter on my list were warriors prepared to fight anyone,anywhere,sure the money was great but to them it was all about the fight

I don't want to do the fighters you mention a disservice whatsoever - okay if you want to say DLH, Mosley and Marquez were over the hill fine.... what about Hatton, Castillo, Corrales etc? Where these over the hill?

Lets look at Barrera as an example. His single greatest win was against Hamed.... many many people say Hamed wasn't the fighter he was when they fought. Look at how many people still say a "prime" Hamed beats Marco.

Name me 3 fighters who Barerra beat who is in the Castillo, Corrales, Hatton bracket of fighter - and around their peak. Morales.... yep, no doubt...... Kennedy McKinney (pushing it a bit). Tapia past it, Ayalia... nope, the only true elite fighter Barrera fought other than Morales - he lost two (Marquez and Pacquiao). Kevin Kelley was past it also, Junior Jones.... ouch.

As good as a fighter Barrera was, his resume isn't a patch on Mayweathers.

No version of Hamed would have beaten Barrera, Barrera was the smarter fighter, and technically better. It would have been more competitive for sure, but I think Barrera was notch above Hamed technically. Hatton, whilst undefeated at the time, was not a truly elite campaigner, and you could argue that he peaked before he even got to Tszyu, his title reign was not terribly impressive, he seemed to have regressed as a fighter, and lost his effectiveness.

I do however agree that Mayweather's resume is more impressive than Barrera's.

Oh I agree with the Barrera / Hamed thing. I think Barrera would have KO'd Hamed in any rematch. I think Barerra played it safe - studied the tapes, saw how Kelly and Sanchez got reckless and decided to just box. I think Barrera needed fight 1 to have confidence in his ability to take Hamed's punches. I think Marco would have gone for it a bit more, and his chin would have held up.

Hatton - not true elite? I guess it depends on the definition. If you mean elite by.... can hold an argument with anyone in his weight division at any era - then yes, he isn't elite. If the argument of Elite is P4P top ten, undisputedly number #1 in his division (for a sustained period) then yes, he is elite.

If people class Hamed as elite, then Hatton is also IMO.

[loaded_gloves]

Maybe Barrera's record 'isn't a patch' on Mayweather's because Marco boxed guys when they were in their 20s and in their prime? Mayweather fights them years after their peak, when they are old, their confidence and skills eroded. He has proven that you can talk your way into 'greatness' and people are stupid enough to buy into it.

[loaded_gloves]

I don't think there really has to be an "opponent" per se. I'm sure everyone was saying "just who has Clay beaten to see he stands a chance with Liston".... similarly people were saying the same when Leonard stepped up to face Hagler. When you consider Leonard never fought at Middleweight before, struggled at Light Middle and hadn't done so well against common opponent - if you want to look at it completely objective on opponents, Leonard stood no chance. However, the manner of some of his wins against lesser opponents, meant that people (pre retirement) at least gave him an outside chance.

The thing that impressive me with Floyd is his adaptability. He roughed up Hatton, which people would have thought before hand played into Ricky's hand. He's dealt with quick fighters, he's dealt with fighters with sizeable size advantages, and he's dealt (one handed) with tough comeforward pressure fighters. They might not be a who's who of all time greats, but IMO aside from the DLH fight - which performances since have suggested it was a one off - he's not looked close to losing... against some solid, decent, world champions.

The moment though that I will never count out Floyd against any man in his devision, no matter what the era was how he dealt with being rocked by Mosley. It was the worst thing Shane could have done.... I've never seen such calmness under intense pressure. Sign of a true fighter, and any young fighter should be watching that round continually to try and learn from it.

Floyd might not ever go down as the greatest of all time, and yes there is nothing on his record to suggest - oh yes, cause he beat King Kong he must beat Leonard. However, there is nothing in his performances to suggest he doesn't stand a chance either.

I don't think these are strong arguments matey. The Ali/Liston analogy doesn't work as Clay was brand new and we had no frame of reference. We have seen Mayweather struggle with a 35 year old Oscar de la Hoya in his biggest 'real' fight. Just because he has dominated some featherweights, 40 year olds and a face first English brawler doesn't mean that night was an aberration. That DLH fight shows that Mayweather is nowhere near great, and explains his reluctance to fight the best of the best, when they are young.

I can't really be bothered getting into Hatton but come on, he beat a waning Kostya Tszyu and a shot Castillo who had lost his last fight against that African. Hatton, whilst a useful fighter, was a product of PR and British fanaticism. It's hardly a great win.

He has nothing, NOTHING, to suggest he could hang with Leonard. A very difficult struggle with a 35 yeard old DLH, near decapped by a shot 40 year old Mosley, Leonard would beat up Jnr like he beat up Snr. Way too much of everything for Floyd.

As an aside, I don't see why you think Leonard 'struggled' at light middle? I have that fight on tape, he dominated Ayube Kalule.