Does Everyone Have Floyd Mayweather In Their Top 20 All Time

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 09 Dec 2007, 18:47

He definitely deserves serious consideration. [/quote]

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 09 Dec 2007, 18:57

No.

PBF is a hell of a fighter / talent........But to me his best win is still years ago Vs D. Corrales. Where he truly faced a guy in his prime...at his best weight...and beat him....

His second fight with Castillo was another big win....

Last night over Hatton was another very good win. However, it would have been better for PBF had he faced and beat Hatton a year or so ago at 140 (Hatton's best weight).

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 09 Dec 2007, 19:05

yes i have him in my top 20.

when he retires for good history will be very kind
to floyd jr.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 09 Dec 2007, 19:53

MEISINGER wrote:yes i have him in my top 20.

when he retires for good history will be very kind
to floyd jr.

I don't believe so - I think his career is going the way of Roy Jones Jr. He was never in divsiions when other true top notch guys where there (while in thier primes too).

Corrales and Castillo still remain his best wins to me....Over guys in their primes, in their best divisions....(and there can be a case made that Castillo actually beat him in their first match-up).

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 09 Dec 2007, 22:32

meade95 wrote:
MEISINGER wrote:yes i have him in my top 20.

when he retires for good history will be very kind
to floyd jr.
I don't believe so - I think his career is going the way of Roy Jones Jr. He was never in divsiions when other true top notch guys where there (while in thier primes too).

Corrales and Castillo still remain his best wins to me....Over guys in their primes, in their best divisions....(and there can be a case made that Castillo actually beat him in their first match-up).

Oscar and Trinidad were 147 when Floyd was 130, Mosley ran like hell to keep at least a weightclass away. Roy collected belts to continually fight crap mandatories, Floyd had 5 WBC belts and an IBF belt he gave up a week later.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 09 Dec 2007, 22:47

meade95 wrote:No.

PBF is a hell of a fighter / talent........But to me his best win is still years ago Vs D. Corrales. Where he truly faced a guy in his prime...at his best weight...and beat him....

His second fight with Castillo was another big win....

Last night over Hatton was another very good win. However, it would have been better for PBF had he faced and beat Hatton a year or so ago at 140 (Hatton's best weight).

We're only talking about seven pounds (or roughly three kilos) though, mate. I don't think that's a dent in a fighter who weighed in at 145lb. (approx. 70+kg)

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 Dec 2007, 23:42

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
meade95 wrote:No.

PBF is a hell of a fighter / talent........But to me his best win is still years ago Vs D. Corrales. Where he truly faced a guy in his prime...at his best weight...and beat him....

His second fight with Castillo was another big win....

Last night over Hatton was another very good win. However, it would have been better for PBF had he faced and beat Hatton a year or so ago at 140 (Hatton's best weight).
We're only talking about seven pounds (or roughly three kilos) though, mate. I don't think that's a dent in a fighter who weighed in at 145lb. (approx. 70+kg)

You dope, at those lighter weights it does make a difference!!

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 10 Dec 2007, 02:28

I think the difference is overstated. You often hear people talking about a mid-range (in terms of weight) fighter who has moved up one to two weightclasses as though it's the equivalent to ageing ten years.

I'm not disputing there are peak weights for fighters. Of course there are. But often when a fighter has his best win or gives a great performance at a single weight it can be misconstrued as being his ideal division, when other, more complex factors may well be in play.

We're not talking about Flyweights, here. Personally, I don't think beating Hatton when he is a few kilos heavier than he was previously makes much of a dent in knocking him out, if at all.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 10 Dec 2007, 02:31

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I think the difference is overstated. You often hear people talking about a mid-range (in terms of weight) fighter who has moved up one to two weightclasses as though it's the equivalent to ageing ten years.

I'm not disputing there are peak weights for fighters. Of course there are. But often when a fighter has his best win or gives a great performance at a single weight it can be misconstrued as being his ideal division, when other, more complex factors may well be in play.

Personally, I don't think beating Hatton when he is a few kilos heavier than he was previously makes much of a dent in knocking him out, if at all.

Then you are a dope too.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 10 Dec 2007, 02:40

A pleasure, Ringsider. Truly.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 10 Dec 2007, 04:37

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
meade95 wrote:
No.

PBF is a hell of a fighter / talent........But to me his best win is still years ago Vs D. Corrales. Where he truly faced a guy in his prime...at his best weight...and beat him....

His second fight with Castillo was another big win....

Last night over Hatton was another very good win. However, it would have been better for PBF had he faced and beat Hatton a year or so ago at 140 (Hatton's best weight).

We're only talking about seven pounds (or roughly three kilos) though, mate. I don't think that's a dent in a fighter who weighed in at 145lb. (approx. 70+kg)

NOPE! Approximately 2.2lb to 1kg. 145lb is 65.9kg, not 70kg+!

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 10 Dec 2007, 04:46

Hence the word, "approximately", mate.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 10 Dec 2007, 04:52

Nnnnnnope

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Dec 2007, 08:23

Great fighter, yes, but top 20 no way. Too many others achieved more.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 10 Dec 2007, 09:15

Ezzard wrote:Great fighter, yes, but top 20 no way. Too many others achieved more.

yes so many other fighters have one 5 world titles
gone undefeated and have won over 20 world title fights

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 10 Dec 2007, 09:41

Let's look at The Ring's 80 best of the last 80 years from '02 (I know not everyone agrees with it but it's pretty fair):

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Archie Moore
15. Sandy Saddler
16. Jack Dempsey
17. Marvin Hagler
18. Julio César Chávez
19. Eder Jofre
20. Alexis Arguello

Not quite, not yet...

And the other 60:

21. Barney Ross
22. Evander Holyfield
23. Ike Williams
24. Salvador Sanchez
25. George Foreman
26. Kid Gavilan
27. Larry Holmes
28. Mickey Walker
29. Ruben Olivares
30. Gene Tunney
31. Dick Tiger
32. Fighting Harada
33. Emile Griffith
34. Tony Canzoneri
35. Aaron Pryor
36. Pascual Perez
37. Miguel Canto
38. Manuel Ortiz
39. Charley Burley
40. Carmen Basilio
41. Michael Spinks
42. Joe Frazier
43. Khaosai Galaxy
44. Roy Jones, Jr.
45. Tiger Flowers
46. Panama Al Brown
47. Kid Chocolate
48. Joe Brown
49. Tommy Loughran
50. Bernard Hopkins
51. Felix Trinidad
52. Jake LaMotta
53. Lennox Lewis
54. Wilfredo Gómez
55. Bob Foster
56. Jose Napoles
57. Billy Conn
58. Jimmy McLarnin
59. Pancho Villa
60. Carlos Ortiz
61. Bob Montgomery
62. Freddie Miller
63. Benny Lynch
64. Beau Jack
65. Azumah Nelson
66. Eusebio Pedroza
67. Thomas Hearns
68. Wilfred Benitez
69. Antonio Cervantes
70. Ricardo Lopez
71. Sonny Liston
72. Mike Tyson
73. Vicente Saldivar
74. Gene Fullmer
75. Oscar de la Hoya
76. Carlos Zarate
77. Marcel Cerdan
78. Flash Elorde
79. Mike McCallum
80. Harold Johnson

On that list I'd toss him in the low-mid 40's

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Dec 2007, 10:53

Seamus wrote:He definitely deserves serious consideration.

I agree with you, but it just takes a bit of time until the dust settles and we can place a fighter with confidence on the pfp list.

But a top 20 ranking will be quite feasible.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Dec 2007, 10:57

Oh God no.

Think about HOW MANY great great fighters have fought in the past 100 years, and the resumes they've accumulated.

Now look at Floyd's career.

He's top 100 . . somewhere from 80-100.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Dec 2007, 11:24

dempseyfire wrote:Oh God no.

Think about HOW MANY great great fighters have fought in the past 100 years, and the resumes they've accumulated.

Now look at Floyd's career.

He's top 100 . . somewhere from 80-100.

He's the leading boxer of our time and has been for the past few years. Now pro-boxing is about 120 years old. Do the numbers: how many folks coul dhave lead the pfp rankings for 3, 4 years since? Right, at most 30 or 40. How many folks will likely have done this? Surely far fewer, as there aren't many fighters leading the pfp list for several years. Assuming our era isn't much weaker overall than previous eras, simple caclulus suggest that PBF is top 20 pfp all time.

This is confirmed by a look at the Ring's list: I'd have no major trouble with PBF being ranked above Marciano, Dempsey (who are only there because they are heavyweights and white), Arguello, and maybe even Monzon and Saddler.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Dec 2007, 12:04

pundit wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:Oh God no.

Think about HOW MANY great great fighters have fought in the past 100 years, and the resumes they've accumulated.

Now look at Floyd's career.

He's top 100 . . somewhere from 80-100.
He's the leading boxer of our time and has been for the past few years. Now pro-boxing is about 120 years old. Do the numbers: how many folks coul dhave lead the pfp rankings for 3, 4 years since? Right, at most 30 or 40. How many folks will likely have done this? Surely far fewer, as there aren't many fighters leading the pfp list for several years. Assuming our era isn't much weaker overall than previous eras, simple caclulus suggest that PBF is top 20 pfp all time.

This is confirmed by a look at the Ring's list: I'd have no major trouble with PBF being ranked above Marciano, Dempsey (who are only there because they are heavyweights and white), Arguello, and maybe even Monzon and Saddler.

Mayweather has NOT been the number 1 PFP for 3-4 years. I'd say he deserved to be at number 1 starting at the Oscar fight. Give me a break . . Gatti was never a world-class fighter . .and the only reason Baldomir was Welterweight champ was that the previous champ (Judah) was crappy enough to have lost to him in the first place. Floyd hasn't actually established rule over a division (beating the champ plus the true top contenders) since he was fighting at 130 lbs.

It's all about who you beat. The accomplishments of Arguello, Monzon, and Saddler (and about 80 others) far exceed what Floyd has done.

Placing him above Marciano and Dempsey, Arguello, and even with Monzon and Saddler . . . that is laughable!!! It still remains to be seen whether Floyd or Pacquao will be the top fighter of THIS era. If Manny beats Marquez, he is clearly ahead.

If Floyd beats Cotto or Williams, then you can have an argument for putting him top 40-50.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 10 Dec 2007, 14:06

meade95 wrote:Last night over Hatton was another very good win. However, it would have been better for PBF had he faced and beat Hatton a year or so ago at 140 (Hatton's best weight).

Excuses, excuses. Hatton started out at a higher weight than Mayweather, and Mayweather would probably be more natural to 140 himself.

I think Mayweather's the best in the world today, but I would not rank him ahead of Whitaker or Hearns, Leonard or Hagler. I would probably put Floyd with Jones and Hopkins. But Floyd is certainly an all time great, especially after his two wins this year, and I think a win over Cotto might put him ahead of Jones and make him the best of the last 10-15 years. But we'll see if that happens.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 Dec 2007, 15:11

dempseyfire wrote:
pundit wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:Oh God no.

Think about HOW MANY great great fighters have fought in the past 100 years, and the resumes they've accumulated.

Now look at Floyd's career.

He's top 100 . . somewhere from 80-100.
He's the leading boxer of our time and has been for the past few years. Now pro-boxing is about 120 years old. Do the numbers: how many folks coul dhave lead the pfp rankings for 3, 4 years since? Right, at most 30 or 40. How many folks will likely have done this? Surely far fewer, as there aren't many fighters leading the pfp list for several years. Assuming our era isn't much weaker overall than previous eras, simple caclulus suggest that PBF is top 20 pfp all time.

This is confirmed by a look at the Ring's list: I'd have no major trouble with PBF being ranked above Marciano, Dempsey (who are only there because they are heavyweights and white), Arguello, and maybe even Monzon and Saddler.
Mayweather has NOT been the number 1 PFP for 3-4 years. I'd say he deserved to be at number 1 starting at the Oscar fight. Give me a break . . Gatti was never a world-class fighter . .and the only reason Baldomir was Welterweight champ was that the previous champ (Judah) was crappy enough to have lost to him in the first place. Floyd hasn't actually established rule over a division (beating the champ plus the true top contenders) since he was fighting at 130 lbs.

No, because he moved up so fast.

It's all about who you beat. The accomplishments of Arguello, Monzon, and Saddler (and about 80 others) far exceed what Floyd has done.

Corrales, Hernandez, Castillo, DLH, Judah, Hatton -- all fighters people ranked highly in their pfp lists at the time.

Placing him above Marciano and Dempsey, Arguello, and even with Monzon and Saddler . . . that is laughable!!! It still remains to be seen whether Floyd or Pacquao will be the top fighter of THIS era. If Manny beats Marquez, he is clearly ahead.

If Floyd beats Cotto or Williams, then you can have an argument for putting him top 40-50.

People started putting Floyd high up in their pfp lists with the Corrales fight. This was six years ago. And Ring Magazine has him #1 since 2005, hence 2007 will his third year in the #1 spot. The last fighter who achieved this was: Pernell Withaker 1993-95.

(Btw, I had Pacman above PBF before DLH, but I was in a clear minority.)

And please spare me Williams. This invalidates any sense you may have talked before in your post.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Dec 2007, 15:19

MEISINGER wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Great fighter, yes, but top 20 no way. Too many others achieved more.
yes so many other fighters have one 5 world titles
gone undefeated and have won over 20 world title fights

Those titles would not have existed 50 years ago. What matters is who you fight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Dec 2007, 15:22

I Feel Fine wrote:
meade95 wrote:Last night over Hatton was another very good win. However, it would have been better for PBF had he faced and beat Hatton a year or so ago at 140 (Hatton's best weight).
Excuses, excuses. Hatton started out at a higher weight than Mayweather, and Mayweather would probably be more natural to 140 himself.

I think Mayweather's the best in the world today, but I would not rank him ahead of Whitaker or Hearns, Leonard or Hagler. I would probably put Floyd with Jones and Hopkins. But Floyd is certainly an all time great, especially after his two wins this year, and I think a win over Cotto might put him ahead of Jones and make him the best of the last 10-15 years. But we'll see if that happens.

Totally agree.

He's beaten a number of very good fighters and is obviously very talented but Salvador Sanchez has a better record IMO.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Dec 2007, 15:24

Just to say this. I think Floyd is a top fighter and would have been so in any era but you can't just ignore the records of other fighters and their achievements.

Does Floyd make the top 5 in any weight division?

Does Everyone Have Floyd Mayweather In Their Top 20 All Time

Does Everyone Have Floyd Mayweather In Their Top 20 All Time

Re: Does Everyone Have Floyd Mayweather In Their Top 20 All