BoxRec

if we go by boxers who call themselves the best ever, the list is quite long. the best in any profession dont need to label themselves the greatest...other people can decide that on their own. Floyd is best 147 LBer of his generation. I have a little issue with his choice of opponents from 2009 to current. prior to this he fought less for pure PPV purposes

Floyd is the the best of his era and the best boxer on the planet today. Not much more you can ask from a fighter. Of course Floyd won't appease everyone and there will always be people who won't give him the credit he deserves.

Funny how just about every pro boxer and trainer in the business today have nothing but respect for Floyd. But yet the hardcore keyboard warriors who talk on forums can't seem to grasp the idea that Floyd is a bad mother fornicator.

I don't think Floyd is TBE and I think it's kind of a silly concept for people like us forum users to even talk about and think that we can actually come up with a solid conclusion on a subject that simply can't be proven. Floyd is among the best boxers ever and will go down in history as such, where he ranks among the other ATGs is opinion based. Floyds credentials don't hold up against a lot fighters from the past, but his skills are definitely among the best the sport has seen.

The Irish Assassin wrote:

cultus wrote:fvck, he didn't fight Pacman, he's not the best! Period!

There are a lot of all time greats that don't have Pacman on their resume... Neither Sugar Rays fought Pacman, Duran never fought Pacman, nor Hagler, Hearns, and Armstrong.... Ali never fought Pacman... Hell JMM fought Manny four times, so he must be the best ever.

Manny would push Floyds stock up quite a bit. For me anyways. Even now.

HomicideHenry wrote:If ALL boxers had to be judged on a certain set of rules and criteria, and were to be eliminated via tournament (decided by experts), I think we would find Mayweather losing early on in the tournament to the likes of Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and countless others whose resumes were made in a day and time when 15 rounders were the norm, that fights happened on the same day as weigh-ins, where money was far less than it is today, where gloves ranged from 3oz to 6oz in size, and where there was but one undisputed champion in each division and there were only 8 weight classes, etc.

No, he is not the best ever. Not in the P4P sense, let alone in the welterweight or junior middleweight sense. Fact of business, Manny Pacquiao has accomplished more in his career than Mayweather has. Juan Manuel Marquez, though he lost to Mayweather, I would argue is a top 5 lightweight champion. Which, in my view, is superior than anything Mayweather has accomplished. He could surpass Marciano's 49-0 record, or even Lopez's 50-0-1 record, etc. and he still won't be a top ten welterweight champion, or a top twenty pound for pound great.

All in your biased and very twisted opinion of course.

It's impossible to really answer the question objectively, of course, though I'd go with no if I were making a list.

Then again, this is more of a thread to knock Mayweather than it is any kind of serious assessment, in my view.

HomicideHenry wrote:If ALL boxers had to be judged on a certain set of rules and criteria, and were to be eliminated via tournament (decided by experts), I think we would find Mayweather losing early on in the tournament to the likes of Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and countless others whose resumes were made in a day and time when 15 rounders were the norm, that fights happened on the same day as weigh-ins, where money was far less than it is today, where gloves ranged from 3oz to 6oz in size, and where there was but one undisputed champion in each division and there were only 8 weight classes, etc.

No, he is not the best ever. Not in the P4P sense, let alone in the welterweight or junior middleweight sense. Fact of business, Manny Pacquiao has accomplished more in his career than Mayweather has. Juan Manuel Marquez, though he lost to Mayweather, I would argue is a top 5 lightweight champion. Which, in my view, is superior than anything Mayweather has accomplished. He could surpass Marciano's 49-0 record, or even Lopez's 50-0-1 record, etc. and he still won't be a top ten welterweight champion, or a top twenty pound for pound great.

Yeah getting KTFO cold is accomplishing more than someone who hasn't never been.

TBE: The Best Excusemaker

Brut wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:If ALL boxers had to be judged on a certain set of rules and criteria, and were to be eliminated via tournament (decided by experts), I think we would find Mayweather losing early on in the tournament to the likes of Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and countless others whose resumes were made in a day and time when 15 rounders were the norm, that fights happened on the same day as weigh-ins, where money was far less than it is today, where gloves ranged from 3oz to 6oz in size, and where there was but one undisputed champion in each division and there were only 8 weight classes, etc.

No, he is not the best ever. Not in the P4P sense, let alone in the welterweight or junior middleweight sense. Fact of business, Manny Pacquiao has accomplished more in his career than Mayweather has. Juan Manuel Marquez, though he lost to Mayweather, I would argue is a top 5 lightweight champion. Which, in my view, is superior than anything Mayweather has accomplished. He could surpass Marciano's 49-0 record, or even Lopez's 50-0-1 record, etc. and he still won't be a top ten welterweight champion, or a top twenty pound for pound great.

Yeah getting KTFO cold is accomplishing more than someone who hasn't never been.

You could argue that Manny has accomplished more than Floyd, but I don't think you'd have a very strong argument. Most of Pacquiao's biggest wins are guys that Floyd Mayweather also beat, and in the case of Juan Manuel Marquez then Floyd beat him WAY, WAY more convincingly than Manny even came close to doing in 4 fights.

Manny does have the more impressive resume between the 2 fighters so far this year though. For what that's worth.

Rodian wrote:TBE: The Best Excusemaker

You mean like "I'm Afraid of Needles" or "Having Blood Drawn Weakens me??"

Nothings better than the first one though.

Brut wrote:

Rodian wrote:TBE: The Best Excusemaker

You mean like "I'm Afraid of Needles" or "Having Blood Drawn Weakens me??"

Nothings better than the first one though.

they were negotiating the fight on testing terms, not whether to have the fight or not.

Rodian wrote:

Brut wrote:

Rodian wrote:TBE: The Best Excusemaker

You mean like "I'm Afraid of Needles" or "Having Blood Drawn Weakens me??"

Nothings better than the first one though.

they were negotiating the fight on testing terms, not whether to have the fight or not.

I'm AFRAID OF NEEDLES (has a million tats on his body), can we say "Biatch Alert?"

Brut wrote:No he's just obsessed with hating and boycotting black people, go to his website and you'll see it for yourself.

I don't have a website.

Were not the fighters I mentioned as possibly being better then Floyd (Ali, Langford, and Robinson) also black? Your accusations of racism are ridiculous and pathetic.

Freedom2013 wrote:

Brut wrote:No he's just obsessed with hating and boycotting black people, go to his website and you'll see it for yourself.

I don't have a website.

Were not the fighters I mentioned as possibly being better then Floyd (Ali, Langford, and Robinson) also black? Your accusations of racism are ridiculous and pathetic.

So are you!!

It has nothing to do with racism. A fighter isn't the best ever if he's worried about his opponents gloves on fight night and makes him use ones he prefers to get hit with. Period.

Freedom2013 wrote:It has nothing to do with racism. A fighter isn't the best ever if he's worried about his opponents gloves on fight night and makes him use ones he prefers to get hit with. Period.

He's not The Best Ever, because he doesn't have the resume that compares with guys that are The Best Ever. Period.

NateJR wrote:
All in your biased and very twisted opinion of course.

Think about it, before you throw slander.

Mayweather lives in an era with far more weight divisions and far more titles. One may argue, because of this fact, far lesser boxers were able to win championships and become the 'best' at something--- when before hand, they would of been just considered good athletes, nothing more.

Henry Armstrong, for example, held three undisputed championships at the same time. Three weight divisions: Bantamweight, Lightweight, Welterweight. Which would amount to the following today: Bantamweight, Super Bantamweight, Lightweight, Junior Welterweight, Welterweight. Five titles. What is also well known about Armstrong is that he was robbed blind, when he fought for the Middleweight title, while holding those three world championships. He should of been a four division champion. Which would amount to two more titles thrown his way if he were around today. Could you imagine, a man holding seven world championships at the same time, in seven divisions?

Mayweather certainly hasn't done that. Neither has Pacquiao. Neither has Marquez. Or quite frankly, no one else has in the history of boxing, other than Armstrong. And even the great Homicide Hank, is not considered the greatest of all time by historians. Why? Because there's still men like Harry Greb, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, and Bob Fitzsimmons ahead of him.

Head to head, there's an awful lot of people who don't believe Mayweather could have beaten Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, or Marvin Hagler. And, no one I think could make a great argument that Mayweather is above them--- or even a good one--- Hagler is a top 5 all time middleweight champion. Duran is one of the top ten p4p fighters of all time, and easily the greatest lightweight champion of all time. Hearns, without question, was the most dominate Junior Middleweight of all time. Leonard, of course, beat all three of these men. And it goes without saying that Leonard was easily one of the most well known and popular fighters in history. Hell the man was on commercials for 7UP and other products. When the hell have you seen any boxer, including Mayweather be such a celebrity as Leonard was?

When you get right down to it--- there are 129 variables for a fighter to be judged upon--- and that's just concerning what is done inside a ring. Not taking into consideration their social impact on the world around them. Or whether they changed the business for the better or for the worse. Fact of business, one may even argue the reason why Mayweather has had such tremendous PPV numbers, isnt because he's the greatest at this time and everyone knows it--- but because he fights men who have tremendous fan bases, who are more popular than even he is. What we got here, then, is a fighter who is very good--- who happens to be feasting on men who A) are old, B) have been through alot of wars before meeting him and are on the downside, C) men who are unproven or limited.

Not to take away his skills. He is hard to hit cleanly. His defense is great. But you have to look at the big picture here. Only two men ever made him look vulnerable in the ring: Castillo and Maidana. Why couldnt the other 44? Why couldnt De La Hoya? Wait, Oscar was more promoter than fighter at the time. Why couldnt Hatton? Wait, he was limited and between fights gorged himself on Guinness. Why couldn't Mosley? Father time. Why couldn't Canelo? The kid wasn't really proven. Why couldn't Marquez? He was too small, and too old. People are given title shots solely off their name value, or by politics. One may argue that Mayweather hasn't ever taken a real risk in boxing, and only if he moved to 160 would he.

Now, do I like Mayweather? Yes. He's a man you pretty much can bet on, and his fights go along like a script. He's always dependable in that ring. Opponents try like mad, but all they do is hit his arms and gloves. He makes it look effortless. And alot of it is because he's a damned good fighter. But the best? No. To be the best, one has to fight equally great men and come out on top. Muhammad Ali did that. Sugar Ray Robinson did that. An awful lot of men, whose names are only remembered by us die hard historians and fanatics, are ahead of Mayweather in terms of quality vs. quantity and accomplishment.

Mayweather, has yet to face one, equally great man who is his own size, or bigger.

Armstrong was never the bantamweight champion.

HomicideHenry wrote:

NateJR wrote:
All in your biased and very twisted opinion of course.

Think about it, before you throw slander.

Mayweather lives in an era with far more weight divisions and far more titles. One may argue, because of this fact, far lesser boxers were able to win championships and become the 'best' at something--- when before hand, they would of been just considered good athletes, nothing more.

Henry Armstrong, for example, held three undisputed championships at the same time. Three weight divisions: Bantamweight, Lightweight, Welterweight. Which would amount to the following today: Bantamweight, Super Bantamweight, Lightweight, Junior Welterweight, Welterweight. Five titles. What is also well known about Armstrong is that he was robbed blind, when he fought for the Middleweight title, while holding those three world championships. He should of been a four division champion. Which would amount to two more titles thrown his way if he were around today. Could you imagine, a man holding seven world championships at the same time, in seven divisions?

Mayweather certainly hasn't done that. Neither has Pacquiao. Neither has Marquez. Or quite frankly, no one else has in the history of boxing, other than Armstrong. And even the great Homicide Hank, is not considered the greatest of all time by historians. Why? Because there's still men like Harry Greb, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, and Bob Fitzsimmons ahead of him.

Head to head, there's an awful lot of people who don't believe Mayweather could have beaten Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, or Marvin Hagler. And, no one I think could make a great argument that Mayweather is above them--- or even a good one--- Hagler is a top 5 all time middleweight champion. Duran is one of the top ten p4p fighters of all time, and easily the greatest lightweight champion of all time. Hearns, without question, was the most dominate Junior Middleweight of all time. Leonard, of course, beat all three of these men. And it goes without saying that Leonard was easily one of the most well known and popular fighters in history. Hell the man was on commercials for 7UP and other products. When the hell have you seen any boxer, including Mayweather be such a celebrity as Leonard was?

When you get right down to it--- there are 129 variables for a fighter to be judged upon--- and that's just concerning what is done inside a ring. Not taking into consideration their social impact on the world around them. Or whether they changed the business for the better or for the worse. Fact of business, one may even argue the reason why Mayweather has had such tremendous PPV numbers, isnt because he's the greatest at this time and everyone knows it--- but because he fights men who have tremendous fan bases, who are more popular than even he is. What we got here, then, is a fighter who is very good--- who happens to be feasting on men who A) are old, B) have been through alot of wars before meeting him and are on the downside, C) men who are unproven or limited.

Not to take away his skills. He is hard to hit cleanly. His defense is great. But you have to look at the big picture here. Only two men ever made him look vulnerable in the ring: Castillo and Maidana. Why couldnt the other 44? Why couldnt De La Hoya? Wait, Oscar was more promoter than fighter at the time. Why couldnt Hatton? Wait, he was limited and between fights gorged himself on Guinness. Why couldn't Mosley? Father time. Why couldn't Canelo? The kid wasn't really proven. Why couldn't Marquez? He was too small, and too old. People are given title shots solely off their name value, or by politics. One may argue that Mayweather hasn't ever taken a real risk in boxing, and only if he moved to 160 would he.

Now, do I like Mayweather? Yes. He's a man you pretty much can bet on, and his fights go along like a script. He's always dependable in that ring. Opponents try like mad, but all they do is hit his arms and gloves. He makes it look effortless. And alot of it is because he's a damned good fighter. But the best? No. To be the best, one has to fight equally great men and come out on top. Muhammad Ali did that. Sugar Ray Robinson did that. An awful lot of men, whose names are only remembered by us die hard historians and fanatics, are ahead of Mayweather in terms of quality vs. quantity and accomplishment.

Mayweather, has yet to face one, equally great man who is his own size, or bigger.

Too much of a long book and too many things to argue but I'll only address the one in bold: tell us Mr. Homicide, who is this so called equally great man that is his size or bigger??

Therein lies the problem. One can argue, that no such man exists in the 140-154 divisions.

I know the Pacquiao fans will cite Manny as being that man, but at this course and time, it may as well be stated that Manny is in total reconstruction mode to erase the Marquez kayo loss from the people's minds. Unfortunately the only way I see that happening, is if Pacquiao/Marquez V takes place and Manny defeats him by kayo in a faster fashion.

There isn't really anyone left at 140-154 who poses any real threat or problems for Mayweather, for one reason or another. Either they are unproven, too old, etc.

So that leaves the potential catchweight (plausible) bouts. He is being called out by the likes of Hopkins. He has been called out numerous times by Sergio Martinez. A superfight at catchweight, against men willing to come down in weight--- is the most likely answer to ever see Mayweather fight someone who is equally great as he is. There are just a few problems with this however:

#1- How many people will buy into the idea period, there's a flare of freakshow in the whole mess

#2- How willing would Mayweather even be, for fighting someone who carved out their careers at middleweight or higher?

#3- For two superstar boxers, the best men in their perspective divisions, the amount of money necessary to pull it off would be astronomical and unlikely to happen

#4- How likely would a Hopkins/Mayweather bout, for example, be competitive? Either Hopkins would be too damn big and strong and it be a blow out, or he would be so weight drained that he himself would be picked apart. So that only leaves Martinez as the logical answer--- problem is, Martinez is on the way out, and is only looking for big money fights--- while he's the correct size to pull it off, just how competitive will he be now that he's shown himself to be slower, and more vulnerable?

At the end of the day... there just isn't an answer to the Mayweather problem... there simply isn't anyone in the guys league, and its not because he is so damn great--- its because, for the most part, there is no one out there who can effectively challenge him.

This is simply a troll thread by a fornicating idiot that hates Floyd. Ban the stupid piece of shit.

HomicideHenry wrote:Therein lies the problem. One can argue, that no such man exists in the 140-154 divisions.

I know the Pacquiao fans will cite Manny as being that man, but at this course and time, it may as well be stated that Manny is in total reconstruction mode to erase the Marquez kayo loss from the people's minds. Unfortunately the only way I see that happening, is if Pacquiao/Marquez V takes place and Manny defeats him by kayo in a faster fashion.

There isn't really anyone left at 140-154 who poses any real threat or problems for Mayweather, for one reason or another. Either they are unproven, too old, etc.

So that leaves the potential catchweight (plausible) bouts. He is being called out by the likes of Hopkins. He has been called out numerous times by Sergio Martinez. A superfight at catchweight, against men willing to come down in weight--- is the most likely answer to ever see Mayweather fight someone who is equally great as he is. There are just a few problems with this however:

#1- How many people will buy into the idea period, there's a flare of freakshow in the whole mess

#2- How willing would Mayweather even be, for fighting someone who carved out their careers at middleweight or higher?

#3- For two superstar boxers, the best men in their perspective divisions, the amount of money necessary to pull it off would be astronomical and unlikely to happen

#4- How likely would a Hopkins/Mayweather bout, for example, be competitive? Either Hopkins would be too damn big and strong and it be a blow out, or he would be so weight drained that he himself would be picked apart. So that only leaves Martinez as the logical answer--- problem is, Martinez is on the way out, and is only looking for big money fights--- while he's the correct size to pull it off, just how competitive will he be now that he's shown himself to be slower, and more vulnerable?

At the end of the day... there just isn't an answer to the Mayweather problem... there simply isn't anyone in the guys league, and its not because he is so damn great--- its because, for the most part, there is no one out there who can effectively challenge him.

Well in all honesty even if he were to fight either SM or BHop and win the first excuse will be that both were old and weight drained and for anyone (including you) to say that Floyd hasn't taken any risk then that is unfair because any fighter who moves up and faces opponents in a higher weight class is taking a risk.

It is unfair to give credit to fighters of old simply because the fact that they fought on free TV and their opponents were more well known than most of these fighters today and simply boil them down to basically nobodies because of it. I think we have to consider how the media and marketing has changed and made an effect on the sport of boxing as well, when I was a kid ABC Wide World of Sports came on damn near every Saturday and you got to see fighters regularly so you knew who they were and it was for free.

Today's fighters (especially the ones without big names) are lucky to get on some well known fighter's undercard to get a bit of notoriety and should they win in an exciting fashion they may be asked to come back or placed on future big show fight cards but basically they get very limited exposure and what little they do comes with the cost of the PPV.

I bet if we were to do a comparison of the opponents of the likes of the greats like SRL, TH, RD, Ali and with the exception of the few well known names on their resumes then we'd end up with a list of fighters that hardly anyone recognizes at all, the difference being that some or most of those guys that they fought when they got more well known were featured on regular tv for free.

I can still remember guys like Frank "The Animal Fletcher and whatnot, today outside of Floyd, Manny, Oscar, Tyson and a handful of others the boxing public can scarcely tell you who is out there. I challenge anyone to line of the records of these opponents of the ATG minus those with a great name and the resumes of such will be on par with those of the great fighters like Floyd and Manny are fighting today.

Who's to really say who could've beaten who if guys like TH, SRL, SRR and the likes were around today; none of us really know.....all we have is our favorites and our own personal biases of those who we like or dislike but it still doesn't mean we know for sure. For all we know a guy like Herrera could've beaten Hearns, who really knows?? (rhetorical)

HomicideHenry wrote:

NateJR wrote:
All in your biased and very twisted opinion of course.

Think about it, before you throw slander.

Mayweather lives in an era with far more weight divisions and far more titles. One may argue, because of this fact, far lesser boxers were able to win championships and become the 'best' at something--- when before hand, they would of been just considered good athletes, nothing more.

Henry Armstrong, for example, held three undisputed championships at the same time. Three weight divisions: Bantamweight, Lightweight, Welterweight. Which would amount to the following today: Bantamweight, Super Bantamweight, Lightweight, Junior Welterweight, Welterweight. Five titles. What is also well known about Armstrong is that he was robbed blind, when he fought for the Middleweight title, while holding those three world championships. He should of been a four division champion. Which would amount to two more titles thrown his way if he were around today. Could you imagine, a man holding seven world championships at the same time, in seven divisions?

Mayweather certainly hasn't done that. Neither has Pacquiao. Neither has Marquez. Or quite frankly, no one else has in the history of boxing, other than Armstrong. And even the great Homicide Hank, is not considered the greatest of all time by historians. Why? Because there's still men like Harry Greb, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, and Bob Fitzsimmons ahead of him.

Head to head, there's an awful lot of people who don't believe Mayweather could have beaten Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, or Marvin Hagler. And, no one I think could make a great argument that Mayweather is above them--- or even a good one--- Hagler is a top 5 all time middleweight champion. Duran is one of the top ten p4p fighters of all time, and easily the greatest lightweight champion of all time. Hearns, without question, was the most dominate Junior Middleweight of all time. Leonard, of course, beat all three of these men. And it goes without saying that Leonard was easily one of the most well known and popular fighters in history. Hell the man was on commercials for 7UP and other products. When the hell have you seen any boxer, including Mayweather be such a celebrity as Leonard was?

When you get right down to it--- there are 129 variables for a fighter to be judged upon--- and that's just concerning what is done inside a ring. Not taking into consideration their social impact on the world around them. Or whether they changed the business for the better or for the worse. Fact of business, one may even argue the reason why Mayweather has had such tremendous PPV numbers, isnt because he's the greatest at this time and everyone knows it--- but because he fights men who have tremendous fan bases, who are more popular than even he is. What we got here, then, is a fighter who is very good--- who happens to be feasting on men who A) are old, B) have been through alot of wars before meeting him and are on the downside, C) men who are unproven or limited.

Not to take away his skills. He is hard to hit cleanly. His defense is great. But you have to look at the big picture here. Only two men ever made him look vulnerable in the ring: Castillo and Maidana. Why couldnt the other 44? Why couldnt De La Hoya? Wait, Oscar was more promoter than fighter at the time. Why couldnt Hatton? Wait, he was limited and between fights gorged himself on Guinness. Why couldn't Mosley? Father time. Why couldn't Canelo? The kid wasn't really proven. Why couldn't Marquez? He was too small, and too old. People are given title shots solely off their name value, or by politics. One may argue that Mayweather hasn't ever taken a real risk in boxing, and only if he moved to 160 would he.

Now, do I like Mayweather? Yes. He's a man you pretty much can bet on, and his fights go along like a script. He's always dependable in that ring. Opponents try like mad, but all they do is hit his arms and gloves. He makes it look effortless. And alot of it is because he's a damned good fighter. But the best? No. To be the best, one has to fight equally great men and come out on top. Muhammad Ali did that. Sugar Ray Robinson did that. An awful lot of men, whose names are only remembered by us die hard historians and fanatics, are ahead of Mayweather in terms of quality vs. quantity and accomplishment.

Mayweather, has yet to face one, equally great man who is his own size, or bigger.

An excellent post.
I hope this post is archived.

HomicideHenry wrote: At the end of the day... there just isn't an answer to the Mayweather problem... there simply isn't anyone in the guys league, and its not because he is so damn great--- its because, for the most part, there is no one out there who can effectively challenge him.

The solution to the Mayweather problem is one, Keith Thurman.

G.McClellan wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: At the end of the day... there just isn't an answer to the Mayweather problem... there simply isn't anyone in the guys league, and its not because he is so damn great--- its because, for the most part, there is no one out there who can effectively challenge him.

The solution to the Mayweather problem is one, Keith Thurman.

A)Plenty of fighters have challenged him, they couldn't beat him, because he is a great fighter. I figured that was pretty clear by now.

B) Thurman is becoming a bit overrated by some fans, to put it mildly. He certainly has a lot of potential, but the guy's best wins are Julio Diaz and Soto-Karass,and the latter hurt him. Important to keep things in perspective, lest we play another round of "Who would beat Mayweather?"

No way José. Resume doesn't stack up compared to other best of the best. Plus making Canelo come down 2 pound was a real turn off.