Where does Floyd rank all time?

[jezzamundo]

Makes me laugh how people tend to forget the likes of Salvador Sanchez. What a fighter he was.

Cheppaaa your list reads like a who's who of mainstream modern bias.

1 Jones - It's the "cool" thing presently to rate Jones so highly but fair do's he was a hell of a boxer in his day. All time P4P number one though? Not for me.
2 Robinson - No argument, he must feature highly.
3 Leonard - Excellent fighter but probably a bit over-rated as he came from an era where TV's were relatively newly available to people and brought people first real heroes they could see compete. You always have to be slightly dubious when there are FOUR legends from the same era (Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns). However exciting, when four are so closely matched it usually means there wasn't anyone outstanding.
4 Rigo - No, just simply no. Who has a pro has he beaten or what has he achieved to be P4P all time number 4? Nowhere near.
5 Hearns - See Leonard - Hearns not as good.
6 Pacquiao - Too many defeats and Mayweather schooled him. Nowhere near a top ten all time P4P.
7 Mayweather - You can't knock his record. The one thing that nags away is that first Castillo fight. Mayweather lost that fight so his "0" is bogus. However the rest of his career he's been magnificent.
8 Ali - Another from the dubious "golden era". Ali did a lot for the sport and for humanity and people admire him as much for who he was as for what he was as a fighter. You could argue that Ali and Frazier only met once when both were at peaks and Frazier won. You could argue against that too. I think although a great heavyweight champion Ali will always be a bit over-rated in terms of what he was as a boxer. Very, very good but all time top ten P4P? No.
9 Hagler - See Hearns
10 Duran - See Hearns

Everyone you've listed is a household name and most of them from the US. Whilst they are all extremely popular in a boxing sense some of them are nowhere near top ten fighters of all time. Pacquiao, Duran, Rigondeaux to name three without even needing to think about it.

Rigo is the name that stands out - based on his accomplishments he doesn't crack the top 100, let alone top 5! Pacquiao shouldn't make top 10, but I think there is an argument for having him slightly higher than Mayweather, though I wouldn't. I would say having Duran in the all-time top 10 p4p is probably more common than not - considering he came up from being a dominant lightweight champion to defeat one of the greatest welterweights ever, in his prime is a remarkable accomplishment, not to mention going on to win a strap at middleweight. I think Duran definitely belongs ahead of Floyd and I would pick him to beat him in a prime-for-prime matchup.

[jezzamundo]

How anyone could rate Mayweather below Pacman is beyond me. Mayweather has only come close to losing in 1 fight, Pacquaio has been beaten by Morales, and was flattened by Marquez, and frankly, was gifted 2 decisions against Marquez also. The Bradley fight we will ignore as that was just horseshit.

I'm not sure either man makes top 10, Mayweather perhaps just about, Pacquaio not.

Because Mayweather lacks a single win against a prime atg fighter, not to mention clear loses to Castillo and Maidana, and a debatable results vs Pacquaio, Castillo 2 & DeLaHoya. Pacquaio's body of work up to Margarito is a substantially stronger resume than Floyd's. Throw in the nature if his victories and performances Pacquaio is quite simply greater.

There's definitely a discussion, until the last few years, I would have had Pacquiao ahead of Floyd, but now I rank Floyd slightly higher. That said, I don't think you're being objective about Floyd. He definitely lost clearly to Castillo (I had it 115-111), but the Maidana fight was close and could have gone either way. I agree that the Pacquiao and De La Hoya fights were close and could have gone either way, but I think the right man was given the win on both occasions. The second Castillo fight was a clear win for Floyd, I think you have to be pretty biased to score than anything but a Floyd win.

[squiggy]

Where would you rank him on the ATG list?

I have him around 25-30.

I bet at least half a dozen of your top 25-30 wound up broke or destitute. For that reason alone I would place him considerably higher than that. I'd probably say he's in the top 10 or 12 boxers of all time - and even that's probably too low.

I think that's pretty poor reasoning. Given the choice, 100 times out of 100 I would choose to live the life of Max Schmeling over Joe Louis, but that doesn't mean that Joe Louis wasn't the greater boxer.

I'll call it extraordinarily poor reasoning. It reminds me of the prevalent theory that a certain someone deserves to be president by virtue of being wealthy.

[magwitch]

I bet at least half a dozen of your top 25-30 wound up broke or destitute. For that reason alone I would place him considerably higher than that. I'd probably say he's in the top 10 or 12 boxers of all time - and even that's probably too low.

I think that's pretty poor reasoning. Given the choice, 100 times out of 100 I would choose to live the life of Max Schmeling over Joe Louis, but that doesn't mean that Joe Louis wasn't the greater boxer.

I'll call it extraordinarily poor reasoning. It reminds me of the prevalent theory that a certain someone deserves to be president by virtue of being wealthy.

I'll call your post extraordinarily poor. It's called "Prizefighting" for a reason.

[Ricky_]

How anyone could rate Mayweather below Pacman is beyond me. Mayweather has only come close to losing in 1 fight, Pacquaio has been beaten by Morales, and was flattened by Marquez, and frankly, was gifted 2 decisions against Marquez also. The Bradley fight we will ignore as that was just horseshit.

I'm not sure either man makes top 10, Mayweather perhaps just about, Pacquaio not.

Because Mayweather lacks a single win against a prime atg fighter, not to mention clear loses to Castillo and Maidana, and a debatable results vs Pacquaio, Castillo 2 & DeLaHoya. Pacquaio's body of work up to Margarito is a substantially stronger resume than Floyd's. Throw in the nature if his victories and performances Pacquaio is quite simply greater.

There's definitely a discussion, until the last few years, I would have had Pacquiao ahead of Floyd, but now I rank Floyd slightly higher. That said, I don't think you're being objective about Floyd. He definitely lost clearly to Castillo (I had it 115-111), but the Maidana fight was close and could have gone either way. I agree that the Pacquiao and De La Hoya fights were close and could have gone either way, but I think the right man was given the win on both occasions. The second Castillo fight was a clear win for Floyd, I think you have to be pretty biased to score than anything but a Floyd win.

I have Floyd winning Castillo 2 as clearly as Castillo won fight 1, but i was going more on mainstream opinion that both fights were very tight. I know posters on here who scored fight 1 a draw and fight 2 to jlc.

[davie]

1. jones
2. robinson
3. leonard
4. rigondeaux
5. hearns
6. pacquiao
7. mayweather
8. ali
9. hagler
10. duran


somewhere around 6-8 is floyd.


25-30 is ludacris, you sure aint can show me 25 boxers who wouldve won against prime time mayeather (coralles version), sure no duran or chavez, judging how much problems they had against athletic fast defensive minded boxer.

Chepppaaa recently alleged that he was a boxing expert. He now has posted a list in which Guillermo Rigondeaux is the #4 boxer pound-for-pound of all time. I would like the support of everyone on this forum in informing Chepppaaa that he is utterly clueless about boxing.

I'm all for freedom of expresion. But anyone who ranks Rigo top 5 ATG should be forcibly removed from the forum.

[davie]

I'll call your post extraordinarily poor. It's called "Prizefighting" for a reason.

Anyone who ranks their ATGs primarily on money earned before skills and achievements should be ranked top 10 alongside Cheepa on the all time stupid list

[Ricky_]

I'll call your post extraordinarily poor. It's called "Prizefighting" for a reason.

Anyone who ranks their ATGs primarily on money earned before skills and achievements should be ranked top 10 alongside Cheepa on the all time stupid list

[Chepppaaa]

Makes me laugh how people tend to forget the likes of Salvador Sanchez. What a fighter he was.

Cheppaaa your list reads like a who's who of mainstream modern bias.

1 Jones - It's the "cool" thing presently to rate Jones so highly but fair do's he was a hell of a boxer in his day. All time P4P number one though? Not for me.
2 Robinson - No argument, he must feature highly.
3 Leonard - Excellent fighter but probably a bit over-rated as he came from an era where TV's were relatively newly available to people and brought people first real heroes they could see compete. You always have to be slightly dubious when there are FOUR legends from the same era (Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns). However exciting, when four are so closely matched it usually means there wasn't anyone outstanding.
4 Rigo - No, just simply no. Who has a pro has he beaten or what has he achieved to be P4P all time number 4? Nowhere near.
5 Hearns - See Leonard - Hearns not as good.
6 Pacquiao - Too many defeats and Mayweather schooled him. Nowhere near a top ten all time P4P.
7 Mayweather - You can't knock his record. The one thing that nags away is that first Castillo fight. Mayweather lost that fight so his "0" is bogus. However the rest of his career he's been magnificent.
8 Ali - Another from the dubious "golden era". Ali did a lot for the sport and for humanity and people admire him as much for who he was as for what he was as a fighter. You could argue that Ali and Frazier only met once when both were at peaks and Frazier won. You could argue against that too. I think although a great heavyweight champion Ali will always be a bit over-rated in terms of what he was as a boxer. Very, very good but all time top ten P4P? No.
9 Hagler - See Hearns
10 Duran - See Hearns

Everyone you've listed is a household name and most of them from the US. Whilst they are all extremely popular in a boxing sense some of them are nowhere near top ten fighters of all time. Pacquiao, Duran, Rigondeaux to name three without even needing to think about it.

Rigo is the name that stands out - based on his accomplishments he doesn't crack the top 100, let alone top 5! Pacquiao shouldn't make top 10, but I think there is an argument for having him slightly higher than Mayweather, though I wouldn't. I would say having Duran in the all-time top 10 p4p is probably more common than not - considering he came up from being a dominant lightweight champion to defeat one of the greatest welterweights ever, in his prime is a remarkable accomplishment, not to mention going on to win a strap at middleweight. I think Duran definitely belongs ahead of Floyd and I would pick him to beat him in a prime-for-prime matchup.

based on accomplishmant rigo is not even top 200, but that does not matter, what more importantly matters is that the man is BETTER than close to anybody else, rigos skills, athletic ability, ring iq, footwork is above of 99,5 % boxers ever, that what matters.

leonard fought in the first fight how duran loves to fight, slug it out. you think floyd would fight this way? he would fight like leonard fought in the second fight and cruise to an UD, esspecialy when we talk prime floyd (coralles version) who had one of the best footworks and footspeeds ever in boxing!

[jezzamundo]

I have Floyd winning Castillo 2 as clearly as Castillo won fight 1, but i was going more on mainstream opinion that both fights were very tight. I know posters on here who scored fight 1 a draw and fight 2 to jlc.

I probably scored the fights similarly to you, in that case. I had the first to Castillo by 4 points and the rematch to Floyd by the same margin. Having either fight by 2 points is fine too. Anyone who gave Castillo the rematch but not the original is clearly blind!

[Ricky_]

Cheppa, wtf are you talking about? Everytime i've watched Rigondeaux his ass has been on the canvas. The best name on his resume is Donaire. Go take a nap.

[Chepppaaa]

Cheppa, wtf are you talking about? Everytime i've watched Rigondeaux his ass has been on the canvas. The best name on his resume is Donaire. Go take a nap.

if you dont see his briliance than you do not understand boxing

[jezzamundo]

I don't think Mayweather-Duran is a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. I agree that Floyd would be smarter than Leonard and wouldn't try to out-slug Duran. Stylistically it's a tough matchup for both fighters. Ultimately the reason I'd pick Duran comes down to this: Floyd was - let's face it - beaten by Castillo when he was in his prime and AFTER he destroyed Corrales. Perhaps Floyd wasn't 100% on the night, but you can't argue that he wasn't in his prime. The Roberto Duran who beat Leonard in their first fight was arguably the last time anyone saw Duran in his prime - his weight had ballooned prior to the rematch, which by the way, was a lot closer than people seem to think, until Duran had a brain-fart and quit. Simply put, I don't think any version of Floyd would beat the Duran who beat Leonard. Mayweather was unquestionably the more consistent fighter, but for me he falls well short of Duran in terms of resume and would lose a prime vs prime matchup, which is why I would rate him significantly lower.

[Chepppaaa]

I don't think Mayweather-Duran is a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. I agree that Floyd would be smarter than Leonard and wouldn't try to out-slug Duran. Stylistically it's a tough matchup for both fighters. Ultimately the reason I'd pick Duran comes down to this: Floyd was - let's face it - beaten by Castillo when he was in his prime and AFTER he destroyed Corrales. Perhaps Floyd wasn't 100% on the night, but you can't argue that he wasn't in his prime. The Roberto Duran who beat Leonard in their first fight was arguably the last time anyone saw Duran in his prime - his weight had ballooned prior to the rematch, which by the way, was a lot closer than people seem to think, until Duran had a brain-fart and quit. Simply put, I don't think any version of Floyd would beat the Duran who beat Leonard. Mayweather was unquestionably the more consistent fighter, but for me he falls well short of Duran in terms of resume and would lose a prime vs prime matchup, which is why I would rate him significantly lower.

styles make fights and also the reffery would play an important role in this fight, prime duran vs prime mayweather.

if the ref lets floyd hold and wrestle, than floyd will move lateral all day, punch pause punch pause and cruise to an UD. if the ref is not into that wrestling and holding shi&/t, than floyd would have a problem, cause duran would unleash hooks a la maidana and try to break floyd upclose, ultimatly floyd will grab and hold and the ref would start deducting points after some warnings.

sure duran could win, chasing floyd and overpowering him. but prime floyd had super condition and could move at anytime for 12 rounds and one punch his way to an victory. if i had to make a choice it would be ud floyd. to much moving, to much defensive finesse, but close fight.

[Ricky_]

Cheppa, wtf are you talking about? Everytime i've watched Rigondeaux his ass has been on the canvas. The best name on his resume is Donaire. Go take a nap.

if you dont see his briliance than you do not understand boxing

What brilliance? Getting put on your ass? It's not that hard buddy

[Chepppaaa]

Cheppa, wtf are you talking about? Everytime i've watched Rigondeaux his ass has been on the canvas. The best name on his resume is Donaire. Go take a nap.

if you dont see his briliance than you do not understand boxing

What brilliance? Getting put on your ass? It's not that hard buddy

dumb?

[magwitch]

I'll call your post extraordinarily poor. It's called "Prizefighting" for a reason.

Anyone who ranks their ATGs primarily on money earned before skills and achievements should be ranked top 10 alongside Cheepa on the all time stupid list

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

[Ricky_]

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

Who gives a shit? Apparently Cotto has a massive dong, does that get him higher on your all time rankings? Getting deeper inside vaginas > perfect left hook.

[davie]

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

I fully appreciate that money is the primary motivator for 99% of everyone who laces up the gloves. But the fighter doesnt decide who the best was.... the fans do and the experts do.
And bank balance means the square root of fcuk all, to any knowledgable boxing fan, commentator, pundit or journalist when they are compiling top 20 lists, whether p4p or ATG.
those list are based on skills and technique, who they fought and who they beat, how they performed in victory and defeat and attributes both physical and technical.

If Floyd had faced the same opposition and won the same fights and held the same record but a bad manager and advisor, a greedy entourage that bled him dry, had he made poor business decision and accepted lower purses and was facing bankrupcy right now would you rank him lower on an ATG list? If the answer to that question is even maybe... you're a moron.

Some of the very best fighters in the history of the sport wound up broke having squandered a fortune, many never earned a fortune in the first place but earned eternal respect from the boxing community and marked their place in history with their fists.
Many very ordinary fighters left the sport very comfortable financially (and I dont grudge them a penny when you consider how they earn their living)

But you just cannot judge a fighters record on money. If you do you need to stop listening to Floyd Mayweather interviews and pull your head out of your arse

[magwitch]

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

I fully appreciate that money is the primary motivator for 99% of everyone who laces up the gloves. But the fighter doesnt decide who the best was.... the fans do and the experts do.
And bank balance means the square root of fcuk all, to any knowledgable boxing fan, commentator, pundit or journalist when they are compiling top 20 lists, whether p4p or ATG.
those list are based on skills and technique, who they fought and who they beat, how they performed in victory and defeat and attributes both physical and technical.

If Floyd had faced the same opposition and won the same fights and held the same record but a bad manager and advisor, a greedy entourage that bled him dry, had he made poor business decision and accepted lower purses and was facing bankrupcy right now would you rank him lower on an ATG list? If the answer to that question is even maybe... you're a moron.

Some of the very best fighters in the history of the sport wound up broke having squandered a fortune, many never earned a fortune in the first place but earned eternal respect from the boxing community and marked their place in history with their fists.
Many very ordinary fighters left the sport very comfortable financially (and I dont grudge them a penny when you consider how they earn their living)

But you just cannot judge a fighters record on money. If you do you need to stop listening to Floyd Mayweather interviews and pull your head out of your arse

Got straps baby! .....seriously now. Can't tell if you're trying to convince me or yourself.

[davie]

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

I fully appreciate that money is the primary motivator for 99% of everyone who laces up the gloves. But the fighter doesnt decide who the best was.... the fans do and the experts do.
And bank balance means the square root of fcuk all, to any knowledgable boxing fan, commentator, pundit or journalist when they are compiling top 20 lists, whether p4p or ATG.
those list are based on skills and technique, who they fought and who they beat, how they performed in victory and defeat and attributes both physical and technical.

If Floyd had faced the same opposition and won the same fights and held the same record but a bad manager and advisor, a greedy entourage that bled him dry, had he made poor business decision and accepted lower purses and was facing bankrupcy right now would you rank him lower on an ATG list? If the answer to that question is even maybe... you're a moron.

Some of the very best fighters in the history of the sport wound up broke having squandered a fortune, many never earned a fortune in the first place but earned eternal respect from the boxing community and marked their place in history with their fists.
Many very ordinary fighters left the sport very comfortable financially (and I dont grudge them a penny when you consider how they earn their living)

But you just cannot judge a fighters record on money. If you do you need to stop listening to Floyd Mayweather interviews and pull your head out of your arse

Got straps baby! .....seriously now. Can't tell if you're trying to convince me or yourself.

Not trying to convince anyone, don't need to convince anyone.
I'm right and you're wrong.

[punchoutsb]

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

You fail to take in to account the generational and technological differences that span boxing. Would Floyd be a "master" at fighting for pay if he'd have turned pro in 1919? 1940? 1962? Would some of the great fighters who wound up broke and destitute still ended that way had they had access to PPV revenues?

A lot of fighters who ended up broke were robbed blind by "friends" and managers. Why should their finances count for or against them?

What if Floyd winds up broke years from now? Does that change his ranking? Do fighters also get points based on what they do with that prize money? Say investing, starting businesses, etc?

[magwitch]

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

You fail to take in to account the generational and technological differences that span boxing. Would Floyd be a "master" at fighting for pay if he'd have turned pro in 1919? 1940? 1962? Would some of the great fighters who wound up broke and destitute still ended that way had they had access to PPV revenues?

A lot of fighters who ended up broke were robbed blind by "friends" and managers. Why should their finances count for or against them?

What if Floyd winds up broke years from now? Does that change his ranking? Do fighters also get points based on what they do with that prize money? Say investing, starting businesses, etc?

Nice points, nicely articulated . Undoubtedly you are right there. You could also say is Floyd worth 200m dollars to fight? And I would say definitely not - but such is the climate, that snowball effect, that hype generates more PPVs.
We had a fella in Britain not long back who a lot of people thought would be a match for Ricky Hatton. That was Junior Wittor. He went on a run of fifteen consecutive KO's whilst winning and defending the EBU belt. Dynamite in anyone's book, you would think. Spectacularly took out Vivian Harris for a world title, I believe, and yet couldn't draw a crowd unfortunately.
Mayweather draws a crowd because he is unbeaten and the way to beat him seems to be a conundrum, wrapped inside a riddle, hidden in an enigma. Until someone can prove that he is beatable, Floyd Mayweather must rank in the upper echelons of the all-time greats.

[Badhusker]

With guys like Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Willy Pep, Jack Johnson, Mohammed Ali, Joe Louis, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Joe Gans, I would have a hard time putting Floyd in the top ten, but a valid argument could be made for the top 20.

Anyway, those above are my top ten. SRR first, and the rest could be shuffled with no argument from me.

[jezzamundo]

You do understand the object of the sport don't you? It's to pay bills - to escape poverty if need be, or simply to make money. How many boxers do you think would quit today if they found out that they were doing it for free? Did you think it was to fill a few minutes in your weekend and come on forums and make lists? No They fight for pay - Floyd is the master at it. To dismiss that one fundamental aspect of why these men get into a ring and risk getting hurt, that's ignorance. And that's without even touching upon the corresponding skills, which as yet no other fighter has managed to come up with a successful plan against.

You fail to take in to account the generational and technological differences that span boxing. Would Floyd be a "master" at fighting for pay if he'd have turned pro in 1919? 1940? 1962? Would some of the great fighters who wound up broke and destitute still ended that way had they had access to PPV revenues?

A lot of fighters who ended up broke were robbed blind by "friends" and managers. Why should their finances count for or against them?

What if Floyd winds up broke years from now? Does that change his ranking? Do fighters also get points based on what they do with that prize money? Say investing, starting businesses, etc?

Nice points, nicely articulated . Undoubtedly you are right there. You could also say is Floyd worth 200m dollars to fight? And I would say definitely not - but such is the climate, that snowball effect, that hype generates more PPVs.
We had a fella in Britain not long back who a lot of people thought would be a match for Ricky Hatton. That was Junior Wittor. He went on a run of fifteen consecutive KO's whilst winning and defending the EBU belt. Dynamite in anyone's book, you would think. Spectacularly took out Vivian Harris for a world title, I believe, and yet couldn't draw a crowd unfortunately.
Mayweather draws a crowd because he is unbeaten and the way to beat him seems to be a conundrum, wrapped inside a riddle, hidden in an enigma. Until someone can prove that he is beatable, Floyd Mayweather must rank in the upper echelons of the all-time greats.

Mayweather is far from unbeatable. He was beaten, in his prime, by Castillo, who was robbed. While in his prime he was also pushed to a split decision by a relatively inactive and arguably post-prime De La Hoya. Zab Judah clearly had the upper hand over Floyd for at least the first three rounds of their fight and should have been credited with a knockdown as well. Don't get me wrong, he's an ATG without a shadow of a doubt and there are very few lightweights in history who would have a chance of beating him, but at welterweight, he shouldn't make the top 10.