BoxRec

I'm sure it is right in your view.
We should give credit for a fighter beating great fighters. Mayweather fought beat a great fighter in his prime.
He could have done so and didn't.
Yes he won the 2nd fight against Castillo. Doesn't change the fact that he clearly should lost the first one. If it does, then we can pretend that Leonard never lost to Duran since he won the rematch.

And he had a lot of trouble against a past his prime De la Hoya. He could have fought him earlier when DLH was closer to his prime.
He could have fought Marquez earlier as well.

Robinson did not fight guys who were 30 pounds bigger like Moore and Charles, but he fought a ton of good competition. Do we really need to go through who he beat? He had a ton of great competition. Sometimes he could take a fight with one legend because he was busy fighting another. I can guarantee you if there was only 1 or 2 other great fighters out there when Robinson fought that Robinson would have fought them. Mayweather did not.

Who you beat is important. How many WBS titles you won is not.

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:JohnnyCross...........That's a great list But Bob Fitzsimmon at 6th and Ali 9th that's crazy and Julio Cesar Chavez Sr at 14 Leonard ranked 20th
that's big of ya and I loved Duran but he is not 8 spots above Leonard

It's hard to judge a Fitzimmons, you understand. Mostly based off reports, research articles, and old timers who saw him as well a bit more modern a fighter. He seemed like a beast. I know his style of boxing is ancient and likely not good against newer fighters, but his punching praise is unbelievable. He probably hit harder than Ali weighing like 50-60 lbs less..I've read from a boxer who fought both Fitzsimmons and Langford that he thinks Fitzsimmons would have won and is a better fighter. That's saying something...many ole timers think Bob was #1 P4P...Ali is one of my favorites, but I feel that he gets far more credit than deserved. Though I do think he might have to go right above Dempsey, now.

I've made many changes in my list!! Chavez didn't make top 20 cut. I've really reworked my list quite a bit and will repost when I'm more certain and give it a little more time. But I have Duran at 11 and Leonard at 15

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sure it is right in your view.
We should give credit for a fighter beating great fighters. Mayweather never beat a great fighter in his prime.
He could have done so and didn't.
Yes he won the 2nd fight against Castillo. Doesn't change the fact that he clearly should lost the first one. If it does, then we can pretend that Leonard never lost to Duran since he won the rematch.

And he had a lot of trouble against a past his prime De la Hoya. He could have fought him earlier when DLH was closer to his prime.
He could have fought Marquez earlier as well.

Robinson did not fight guys who were 30 pounds bigger like Moore and Charles, but he fought a ton of good competition. Do we really need to go through who he beat? He had a ton of great competition. Sometimes he could take a fight with one legend because he was busy fighting another. I can guarantee you if there was only 1 or 2 other great fighters out there when Robinson fought that Robinson would have fought them. Mayweather did not.

Who you beat is important. How many WBS titles you won is not.

Yes, who you beat is important.
Also the longevity is important.
The division dominance is important.
Beating the VERY BEST OF YOUR ERA is important. Mayweather did that.
World Championship fights is important. It means that you're the best. Mayweather won 25 of them in 5 weight classes. That's remarkable!
Mayweather was THE TOP DOG for a decade and a half. Every boxing fan paid to see him get beat, and he won. That's greatness. You mentioned that he should have fight Oscar De La Hoya.
De La Hoya was already a welterweight when Floyd made his mark at 130. When Floyd went to 135lbs, Oscar was already a 154pounder.
How can he fight someone 19 pounds heavier?

The great Juan Manuel Marquez wasn't a marquee fighter in his prime until he fought the great Manny Pacquiao. Plus, by 2004, Mayweather was already testing the 140pounders. Marquez would've been too small. And even at that, I don't see him beating Pretty Boy Floyd. Floyd was two levels or maybe 3 against everybody.

Mayweather was also dominant in 2 weight classes: 130 and 147. He is a top ten all time in both divisions. How many fighters are top ten in two classes? Not many. You could count it with your fingers.

He didn't beat a Henry Armstrong, or a Roberto Duran, a Willie Pep or a Sugar Ray Leonard. Maybe he didn't even beat an Alexis Arguello, Ruben Olivares or a Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles. But, he didn't beat TOMATO CANS nor teachers, nor policemen nor Tijuana taxicab drivers. He beat the best of his time and that's what matters. The very best.

JohnnyCross wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:JohnnyCross...........That's a great list But Bob Fitzsimmon at 6th and Ali 9th that's crazy and Julio Cesar Chavez Sr at 14 Leonard ranked 20th
that's big of ya and I loved Duran but he is not 8 spots above Leonard

It's hard to judge a Fitzimmons, you understand. Mostly based off reports, research articles, and old timers who saw him as well a bit more modern a fighter. He seemed like a beast. I know his style of boxing is ancient and likely not good against newer fighters, but his punching praise is unbelievable. He probably hit harder than Ali weighing like 50-60 lbs less..I've read from a boxer who fought both Fitzsimmons and Langford that he thinks Fitzsimmons would have won and is a better fighter. That's saying something...many ole timers think Bob was #1 P4P...Ali is one of my favorites, but I feel that he gets far more credit than deserved. Though I do think he might have to go right above Dempsey, now.

I've made many changes in my list!! Chavez didn't make top 20 cut. I've really reworked my list quite a bit and will repost when I'm more certain and give it a little more time. But I have Duran at 11 and Leonard at 15

Ali loved BIG puncher's LISTON/FRAZIER/FOREMEN/SHAVERS they are 4 of the BIGGEST puncher's of all time bar none.......So I don't think Ali would lose much sleep over Bob and his punching power SRL must be given credit for his victorie's over Duran especially his 2nd one Duran quit that aint SRL problem it was his fault that Duran quit though ya know what I mean and no other fighter of their era could have had 1 fight in 5 year's and beat a all time great like Hagler and he Hagler wasn't over the hill either like some like to claim then around the same time[era] Duran who I thing WAS A LEGEND lost to men that wouldn't get a job as SRL sparring partner he was also destroyed by Hearns and was clearly out boxed by Benitez SRL had 2 KO victories over these 2 champ's[the 2nd Hearns fight I believe Hearns won ] was a draw and something that allways bothers me on a lot of list's like your's mate PEP is on it but what about SADDLER :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? YOUR LIST IS STILL GOOD THOUGH

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sure it is right in your view.
We should give credit for a fighter beating great fighters. Mayweather never beat a great fighter in his prime.
He could have done so and didn't.
Yes he won the 2nd fight against Castillo. Doesn't change the fact that he clearly should lost the first one. If it does, then we can pretend that Leonard never lost to Duran since he won the rematch.

And he had a lot of trouble against a past his prime De la Hoya. He could have fought him earlier when DLH was closer to his prime.
He could have fought Marquez earlier as well.

Robinson did not fight guys who were 30 pounds bigger like Moore and Charles, but he fought a ton of good competition. Do we really need to go through who he beat? He had a ton of great competition. Sometimes he could take a fight with one legend because he was busy fighting another. I can guarantee you if there was only 1 or 2 other great fighters out there when Robinson fought that Robinson would have fought them. Mayweather did not.

Who you beat is important. How many WBS titles you won is not.

Yes, who you beat is important.
Also the longevity is important.
The division dominance is important.
Beating the VERY BEST OF YOUR ERA is important. Mayweather did that.
World Championship fights is important. It means that you're the best. Mayweather won 25 of them in 5 weight classes. That's remarkable!
Mayweather was THE TOP DOG for a decade and a half. Every boxing fan paid to see him get beat, and he won. That's greatness. You mentioned that he should have fight Oscar De La Hoya.
De La Hoya was already a welterweight when Floyd made his mark at 130. When Floyd went to 135lbs, Oscar was already a 154pounder.
How can he fight someone 19 pounds heavier?

The great Juan Manuel Marquez wasn't a marquee fighter in his prime until he fought the great Manny Pacquiao. Plus, by 2004, Mayweather was already testing the 140pounders. Marquez would've been too small. And even at that, I don't see him beating Pretty Boy Floyd. Floyd was two levels or maybe 3 against everybody.

Mayweather was also dominant in 2 weight classes: 130 and 147. He is a top ten all time in both divisions. How many fighters are top ten in two classes? Not many. You could count it with your fingers.

He didn't beat a Henry Armstrong, or a Roberto Duran, a Willie Pep or a Sugar Ray Leonard. Maybe he didn't even beat an Alexis Arguello, Ruben Olivares or a Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles. But, he didn't beat TOMATO CANS nor teachers, nor policemen nor Tijuana taxicab drivers. He beat the best of his time and that's what matters. The very best.

Actually longevity is not that important. If one guy beat more quality oponents in 5 years than a nother guy does in 20, that is more impressive.
Maywesther could have fought De layoa at a catch weight earlier, which is what he did later.
He did not beat the best fighter of his era when they he was near his prime. That is what is important and what you continue to ignore.
He waited until Pacquio was shot before taking him on. It's no more impressive than Marciano beating Joe Louis. So no, he did not do all that he can do.

It is one thing if there is 10 great opponents around and you only take on on 7 or 8.
It is totally different if there is only or two great fighters and you don't take them on. He beat some good fighters. So did hundreds of other guys.

He never fought a great fighter when they were still great and he could have.
He did not beat the best around when they were still at their best.
He still had way too much trouble with De la hoya. A top 10 fighter should have beat him a lot easier at that stage of DLH career. (Interesting that you don't have much to say about this fight.)
He lost to Castillo, a run of the mill good but nowhere near great fighter.

He is not top 10. No way.

elmersalsa wrote:A guy that beat the very best of his era cannot be criticized lower than others that beat some great ones. Mayweather beat the very best of his time. Period. Even if he beats a prime great like Manny Pacquiao, still, he would've been criticized. Let's give the man his due. I believe he is a top ten fighter by anybody standards. He has been the best fighter for a decade and a half. The ONLY KNOCK I got against him was that he should have much more fights. This guy DOMINATED ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER HE FACED. Was it pretty? No. Meaningful? Yes. He had the longevity, he won 25 fights that mattered at 5 weight divisions, he never lost, and retired undefeated champ.

I have never cared about his career. He was too boring for me to watch. Somebody should have stepped up and beat him. Maybe he was ahead of his time or his competition wasn't all that to begin with, or a combination of the two.

But he beat the best, when they were no longer the best. He was scared to step up to the plate and truly ask himself, am I one of the greatest? And as for long career, well he also only had 49 fights, that doesn't sound like too long a career when u judge him by time spent in the ring. Ketchel has 64 fights before dying at age 24. His name says it all, money. He is more of a sale out than a great fighter. It's no wonder boxing is dead when this is it's shining star. U can't be mad at him for boxing in a dead era but he never even bothered to step up to the greats in their prime so all he is is a big mystery. Who knows how great he truly is. Put em in the ring with Henry Armstrong and then I'll have an idea or at least Chavez (or pep)

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:

JohnnyCross wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:JohnnyCross...........That's a great list But Bob Fitzsimmon at 6th and Ali 9th that's crazy and Julio Cesar Chavez Sr at 14 Leonard ranked 20th
that's big of ya and I loved Duran but he is not 8 spots above Leonard

It's hard to judge a Fitzimmons, you understand. Mostly based off reports, research articles, and old timers who saw him as well a bit more modern a fighter. He seemed like a beast. I know his style of boxing is ancient and likely not good against newer fighters, but his punching praise is unbelievable. He probably hit harder than Ali weighing like 50-60 lbs less..I've read from a boxer who fought both Fitzsimmons and Langford that he thinks Fitzsimmons would have won and is a better fighter. That's saying something...many ole timers think Bob was #1 P4P...Ali is one of my favorites, but I feel that he gets far more credit than deserved. Though I do think he might have to go right above Dempsey, now.

I've made many changes in my list!! Chavez didn't make top 20 cut. I've really reworked my list quite a bit and will repost when I'm more certain and give it a little more time. But I have Duran at 11 and Leonard at 15

Ali loved BIG puncher's LISTON/FRAZIER/FOREMEN/SHAVERS they are 4 of the BIGGEST puncher's of all time bar none.......So I don't think Ali would lose much sleep over Bob and his punching power SRL must be given credit for his victorie's over Duran especially his 2nd one Duran quit that aint SRL problem it was his fault that Duran quit though ya know what I mean and no other fighter of their era could have had 1 fight in 5 year's and beat a all time great like Hagler and he Hagler wasn't over the hill either like some like to claim then around the same time[era] Duran who I thing WAS A LEGEND lost to men that wouldn't get a job as SRL sparring partner he was also destroyed by Hearns and was clearly out boxed by Benitez SRL had 2 KO victories over these 2 champ's[the 2nd Hearns fight I believe Hearns won ] was a draw and something that allways bothers me on a lot of list's like your's mate PEP is on it but what about SADDLER :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? :?? YOUR LIST IS STILL GOOD THOUGH

That's silly man I never meant to imply that Bob could beat Ali, not gonna happen. But Bob weighed 160 lbs and his upper body looked like a heavy weights on top of chicken legs almost. Imagine he was Foreman's size, then he mighta had the punch to knock out Ali though he has a strong chin. I am very borderline on Sandler being top 20. He is real great I currently have him at 21 but my list is tentative. Glad you think it's fairly accurate though this thread has helped shape it




Edit: my problem with Leonard is similar to that of Floyd, except Leonard is at least arguably top 10 cause of the quality of his opposition. But it remains that he Leonard was a little guy. Little guys should fight close to 100 times to Test em long enough. Take Tyson, his first 37 fights were display of amazing raw talent against top quality opposition but Tyson is remembered for what happened later on in his career as well. When in fact if Tyson would have made it another 12-14 more fights undefeated and retired people would be saying he was the greatest. No one is bothering to mention him in top 20 tho, and that's cause he fought enough for us to understand that he isn't . Of course Leonard is the man especially for what he did to Duran who just really punked out and he is one of the greatest. So Leonard has a clean legacy but not as strong as an Armstrong or Duran or a few others too. Leonard's still alive if it was 40 fights by the age of 28 and he died I could never hold it against him and would assume his greatness to continue. But since it was a choice he didn't earn that benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't blame ketchel for a short career and he still fought 64 times by age 24 so yeah I might put ketchel over Leonard, just gotta look into it a bit more

JohnnyCross wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:A guy that beat the very best of his era cannot be criticized lower than others that beat some great ones. Mayweather beat the very best of his time. Period. Even if he beats a prime great like Manny Pacquiao, still, he would've been criticized. Let's give the man his due. I believe he is a top ten fighter by anybody standards. He has been the best fighter for a decade and a half. The ONLY KNOCK I got against him was that he should have much more fights. This guy DOMINATED ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER HE FACED. Was it pretty? No. Meaningful? Yes. He had the longevity, he won 25 fights that mattered at 5 weight divisions, he never lost, and retired undefeated champ.

I have never cared about his career. He was too boring for me to watch. Somebody should have stepped up and beat him. Maybe he was ahead of his time or his competition wasn't all that to begin with, or a combination of the two.

But he beat the best, when they were no longer the best. He was scared to step up to the plate and truly ask himself, am I one of the greatest? And as for long career, well he also only had 49 fights, that doesn't sound like too long a career when u judge him by time spent in the ring. Ketchel has 64 fights before dying at age 24. His name says it all, money. He is more of a sale out than a great fighter. It's no wonder boxing is dead when this is it's shining star. U can't be mad at him for boxing in a dead era but he never even bothered to step up to the greats in their prime so all he is is a big mystery. Who knows how great he truly is. Put em in the ring with Henry Armstrong and then I'll have an idea or at least Chavez (or pep)

Well, tell me what fighter he didn't step up in his prime? You're right about he didn't had enough fights, and that's one of the knocks I got against him. Was this a poor era in boxing? Absolutely! Was he a great talent? Absolutely! Is he the best that he claims to be? Not at all. Is he top ten? Absolutely! Look at his body of work. Look how long he stayed on top. Look how many titles he won. He beat all the very best of his era. Not only he beat them, he dominated them with ease. He fought in 5 weight classes and beat the best of every class. Were those guys something to be awed about? No. Were they tomato cans? No. Were they very good at least? Yes!

Let's give this all time great his due. At least give him his due at the top ten. I don't buy what he says about he is the greatest fighter ever, but, at least I could buy he was better than the great Muhammad Ali. I COULD BUY THAT.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I'm sure it is right in your view.
We should give credit for a fighter beating great fighters. Mayweather never beat a great fighter in his prime.
He could have done so and didn't.
Yes he won the 2nd fight against Castillo. Doesn't change the fact that he clearly should lost the first one. If it does, then we can pretend that Leonard never lost to Duran since he won the rematch.

And he had a lot of trouble against a past his prime De la Hoya. He could have fought him earlier when DLH was closer to his prime.
He could have fought Marquez earlier as well.

Robinson did not fight guys who were 30 pounds bigger like Moore and Charles, but he fought a ton of good competition. Do we really need to go through who he beat? He had a ton of great competition. Sometimes he could take a fight with one legend because he was busy fighting another. I can guarantee you if there was only 1 or 2 other great fighters out there when Robinson fought that Robinson would have fought them. Mayweather did not.

Who you beat is important. How many WBS titles you won is not.

Yes, who you beat is important.
Also the longevity is important.
The division dominance is important.
Beating the VERY BEST OF YOUR ERA is important. Mayweather did that.
World Championship fights is important. It means that you're the best. Mayweather won 25 of them in 5 weight classes. That's remarkable!
Mayweather was THE TOP DOG for a decade and a half. Every boxing fan paid to see him get beat, and he won. That's greatness. You mentioned that he should have fight Oscar De La Hoya.
De La Hoya was already a welterweight when Floyd made his mark at 130. When Floyd went to 135lbs, Oscar was already a 154pounder.
How can he fight someone 19 pounds heavier?

The great Juan Manuel Marquez wasn't a marquee fighter in his prime until he fought the great Manny Pacquiao. Plus, by 2004, Mayweather was already testing the 140pounders. Marquez would've been too small. And even at that, I don't see him beating Pretty Boy Floyd. Floyd was two levels or maybe 3 against everybody.

Mayweather was also dominant in 2 weight classes: 130 and 147. He is a top ten all time in both divisions. How many fighters are top ten in two classes? Not many. You could count it with your fingers.

He didn't beat a Henry Armstrong, or a Roberto Duran, a Willie Pep or a Sugar Ray Leonard. Maybe he didn't even beat an Alexis Arguello, Ruben Olivares or a Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles. But, he didn't beat TOMATO CANS nor teachers, nor policemen nor Tijuana taxicab drivers. He beat the best of his time and that's what matters. The very best.

Actually longevity is not that important. If one guy beat more quality oponents in 5 years than a nother guy does in 20, that is more impressive.
Maywesther could have fought De layoa at a catch weight earlier, which is what he did later.
He did not beat the best fighter of his era when they he was near his prime. That is what is important and what you continue to ignore.
He waited until Pacquio was shot before taking him on. It's no more impressive than Marciano beating Joe Louis. So no, he did not do all that he can do.

It is one thing if there is 10 great opponents around and you only take on on 7 or 8.
It is totally different if there is only or two great fighters and you don't take them on. He beat some good fighters. So did hundreds of other guys.

He never fought a great fighter when they were still great and he could have.
He did not beat the best around when they were still at their best.
He still had way too much trouble with De la hoya. A top 10 fighter should have beat him a lot easier at that stage of DLH career. (Interesting that you don't have much to say about this fight.)
He lost to Castillo, a run of the mill good but nowhere near great fighter.

He is not top 10. No way.

Well, tell me a fighter that was in his prime and Mayweather didn't fight him? Other than the great Manny Pacquiao, I don't see nobody else. I never understood why he never took on Pacman earlier. But, aside from that, he whupped EVERY NOTORIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER OF HIS ERA. That's remarkable.

The two knocks I got against him was: Not enough fights. He should have at least have more than 49 in 19 years as a pro. And two, he should have fought the Pacman earlier. Other than that, he was great.
My other question would be, would I like to pay to see him fight over the likes like Ali, Duran, Leonard, Marvelous or The Hitman? No. Not at all.

I want to see what fighter was in his prime and PBF didn't meet him.

There weren't that many great fighters around. So it would have been easy to fight the one great opponent out there when that fighter was still in his prime. He didn't do it. He waited until he was shot. That win means nothing. Not taking him on earlier counts against him.

Why do you keep ignoring the DLH fight? This fight speaks volumes. He barely beats a faded version of DLH. Not hard at all to imagine a prime De la Hoya beating him. Given that you don't even have De la Hoya in your top 100, that should really hurt Mayweather's case. But you keep ignoring it, as if it did not happen. It did. A Top 10 ATG should win that fight easy. Mayweather couldn't.

The first Castillo fight counts against him. He really lost, only to be saved by the judges. He was in his prime, no excuse for that fight.

Mayweather does have several wins over good, solid fighters. Do you really think that there are less than 10 fighters in the history of the sport who also beat several fighters of that quality?

Ambling Alp II wrote:There weren't that many great fighters around. So it would have been easy to fight the one great opponent out there when that fighter was still in his prime. He didn't do it. He waited until he was shot. That win means nothing. Not taking him on earlier counts against him.

Why do you keep ignoring the DLH fight? This fight speaks volumes. He barely beats a faded version of DLH. Not hard at all to imagine a prime De la Hoya beating him. Given that you don't even have De la Hoya in your top 100, that should really hurt Mayweather's case. But you keep ignoring it, as if it did not happen. It did. A Top 10 ATG should win that fight easy. Mayweather couldn't.

The first Castillo fight counts against him. He really lost, only to be saved by the judges. He was in his prime, no excuse for that fight.

Mayweather does have several wins over good, solid fighters. Do you really think that there are less than 10 fighters in the history of the sport who also beat several fighters of that quality?

I do not see the Oscar-Floyd fight as close at all.
Floyd darn near double the amount of punches landed and controlled the fight.
I scored it 9-3
Espn had it 8-4
Go to the old thread on the fight and see that most people thought along the same lines.

And as for the Castillo fight.All atg's had fights that went their way by the judges but the fans saw it
different.The fact of the matter is the rematch was total domination by Floyd.Is that not what a champ does? Does he not rematch and take on the challenge when people doubt he won?
Floyd did that.And proved who the better fighter was with no doubt.

I did not think either that DLH was a domination by Floyd. I thought it was pretty close call, Floyd* didn't really hurt him. Floyd kept putting up his arms and covering up. Even for that fight, Mayweather waited years to fight an older DLH well past his prime- one of the only two great fighters of his era. The other fighter he ducked as well until till he was more into singing and politics than boxing. Floyd is a mystery, he might have been a great one. But I really doubt it. He had good d and fast hands but his good d didn't rely on amazing foot work like a pep or ali, and his punches hardly hurt anyone ever....I can name you 15-20 reasons why he's not top 10. There's too many people that did way more amazing things than win his first 49 fights in a dead era and barely beat a faded version of Manny and DLH. Yes! I don't think he did much to deserve the win against Manny neither. It was not domination....Manny never got hurt. They should go 70 rounds like the old days so that time doesn't save someone from staying pretty, I wonder what Floyd would do then. Ali, Duran, Leonard, Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, Louis, Langford, Dempsey and Greb are far greater than Floyd (though I would also put people like Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Benny Leonard, Ketchel, Joe Gans, Monzon, Moore, Sandler, Ross, Tunney and Charles as Far greater than him too-- -- hope I don't regret saying that..after the first or second wave of absolute greats, I might consider Floyd. I would have him in the 30s - 40s range). Look at Ali's competition and he always found a way to win


And I mean 30s or 40s so 30-50s might be correct way of typing it

I had him winning 7-5. There were people who thought he lost. There were several clsoe rounds; it was not a great fight. It's not hard at all to imagine DLH winning the fight if they were both in their prime.

Yes he did win the rematch against Castillo, and was obviously a better fighter, no question about it.
However, the first fight happened. A rematch doesn't erase that.
It may seem like nitpicking, but when you are comparing a guy to the Top 10 in the history of the sport, you have to count it. He is not certainly top 10, and not top 20. Top 30 is arguable, but even then it's dubious. You really have to think what you are saying when you rate a guy that high and really look at the other fighters.

BBC had DLH-Mayweather a draw.

The great Floyd Mayweather, Jr, like him or not, is a top ten great.
He beat 23 world champions
He beat 10 lineal world champions
He fought for 19 years and was on top for 17 of them
He beat the very best of his era
He retired undefeated champ
He fought in 5 weight classes and was champion in 5 weight classes...Remarkable
He got a record of 25-0 in world championship bouts
He is a top ten all time great at two weight classes: 130 and 147lbs
He was the best fighter in the world for a decade and a half
He beat at least, 5 hall of fame boxers: Manny Pacquiao, Oscar De LaHoya, Shane Mosley, Juan Manuel Marquez and Arturo Gatti
He beat 2 all time top 100 great boxers: Juan Manuel Marquez and Manny Pacquiao

From here to 50 years, his name will still be mentioned. Just like Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Harry Greb. His name will always be associated with these greats or any other all time great to come.

And none of that means much.
There are 4 titles at 17 weight classes. That's potentially 68 "champions". A title doesn't mean jack. Has not for for a long time. Who you beat is what counts. At one time, there was one title at 8 weight classes.
At one time there were 8 champions. Even in the 1970s, there were only two titles.

The best wins were over fighters who were all past their best. Doesn't count for much.
He was not the best figher for a decade and a half. No way.
He is not one of the top 10 welterweights of all time. No way.

When you beat the guy is very important. Pac and Mosley were shot by the time he fought them. Those wins mean absoutely nothing.
Gatti? Wow. He was not great in his prime. He was past his best by the time Mayweather fought him.
Marquez was past it too.

Which bring us to De la Hoya. He was not shot but was past his best. And Mayweather had all kinds of trouble with him. In his prime De la Hoya probably beats him. And you don't think De la Hoya is even Top 100.

Camacho beat Duran and Leonard. Should we just ignore that they way past it? Is Camacho top 10?

Ambling Alp II wrote:And none of that means much.
There are 4 titles at 17 weight classes. That's potentially 68 "champions". A title doesn't mean jack. Has not for for a long time. Who you beat is what counts. At one time, there was one title at 8 weight classes.
At one time there were 8 champions. Even in the 1970s, there were only two titles.

The best wins were over fighters who were all past their best. Doesn't count for much.
He was not the best figher for a decade and a half. No way.
He is not one of the top 10 welterweights of all time. No way.

When you beat the guy is very important. Pac and Mosley were shot by the time he fought them. Those wins mean absoutely nothing.
Gatti? Wow. He was not great in his prime. He was past his best by the time Mayweather fought him.
Marquez was past it too.

Which bring us to De la Hoya. He was not shot but was past his best. And Mayweather had all kinds of trouble with him. In his prime De la Hoya probably beats him. And you don't think De la Hoya is even Top 100.

Camacho beat Duran and Leonard. Should we just ignore that they way past it? Is Camacho top 10?

This is Mayweather HATERISM. We are not gonna go far at this. You believe that Floyd is not top ten, fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I believe he is RIGHTFULLY inside the top Ten. Why? He beat all the best fighters of his era. I already gave my answers. Mayweather 50 years from now, like him or not, his name will be mentioned with the greats of their generation just like Pep, Duran, Ali, Robinson, Louis, Tyson and others. He did his work.

People poke holes in your arguments. Instead of countering or at least dropping the suject, you just keep saying the same silly things over and over.


Just because other people don't agree with you means mean doesn't mean it's "Haterism."
(Personally,there are guys I dislike more that I rate higher, there are many I like a lot more that I have below Maywether.)

You have serious flaws in how you rate fighters.

1. You put way too much stock in things like WBS titles and WBS title defenses.
-Your not taking into consideration the quality of the opponents when you do that.
-You are also favoring modern fighters this way. (There are are way titles in the 1990s and 2000s then way back)
2. In some cases (certainly this one) you are ignoring the stages of a fighters career.

3. To make matters worse, you are not at all consistent.
You don't have De la Hoya even in your Top 100. You don't give him much credit for beating Whitaker and Chavez. They were clearly past their best when he fought them. Going by how you rate Mayweather, those fights should be big wins. You would then certainly have to rate DLH well inside the top 100.
However, you can't stand DLH so he isn't in your top 100.

Tommy Burns had 11 title defenses. Going by the value that you sometimes put on title defenses, that should be a big deal. Burns should be right up their with the best heavyweights of all time. However, you really don't have any interest in Burns so you don't rate him highly.

I could give many more examples of where you do this.

You have to rate fighters using commonsense. The stages of fighters career matter.
The sheer amount of title defenses don't.
Most of all, be consistent. Use the same criteria all the time regardless of how much you like someone.

Wow, people go to some silly lengths to try to discredit Mayweather. I mean, if someone didn't have him as highly that's fine, but when it comes to playing the game of "Let's try to make this guy's resume look bad", people put in absurd amounts of effort to try to make a great body of work look bad.

Stopped Genaro Hernandez to win his first title
Beat a slew of contenders at 130 (Manfredy, Vargas, Chavez, Hernandez, etc)
Dominated Corrales
Moved up and had a tough fight with Castillo, who's pressure style was bad for him
Rematched Castillo immediately, beating him more clearly
Beats Sosa and N'Dou
Has his run at 140, his "weak" period, which would look great on anyone else's resume (Gatti, Corley, etc)
Beats Judah
Beats Baldomir, who had beaten Judah
Beats DLH clearly - on Oscar's terms (a fact that's never mentioned, that only works the other way around), some people and a judge are diagnosed with severe glaucoma.
Stops Hatton, who stopped Tszyu (But it doesn't count because Hatton was so slim and trim, clearly he was a 140 lb fighter, seven pounds negated the result)

Comes back and takes on a legend in JMM, dominates him (again, result doesn't count, few pounds, same way Hearns KO of Duran doesn't count)
Beats lineal Welterweight champion Mosley (which doesn't count, because Margarito didn't get to cheat against Shane)
Knocks out Ortiz when Victor forgets he's in a boxing match (admittedly not Floyd's greatest moment)
Beats Miguel Cotto, the number 1 junior middle in the world at the time
Beats a solid contender in Guerrero
Dominates Saul Alvarez
Beats Maidana and rematch (see Castillo about styles)
Clearly beats Manny Pacquiao, which doesn't count because Pac was 36, or two years younger than Floyd, in other words.
Goes out with a one-sided win over Berto, again, a good win for any other welterweight.

Seriously, how anyone looks at that and says "he didn't fight anybody" or something like that, well, it's just ridiculous. I don't even like the guy, but I guess that's the point. His resume would be lauded as absolutely glorious if he was more congenial.

Bobbyptsd wrote:Wow, people go to some silly lengths to try to discredit Mayweather. I mean, if someone didn't have him as highly that's fine, but when it comes to playing the game of "Let's try to make this guy's resume look bad", people put in absurd amounts of effort to try to make a great body of work look bad.

Stopped Genaro Hernandez to win his first title
Beat a slew of contenders at 130 (Manfredy, Vargas, Chavez, Hernandez, etc)
Dominated Corrales
Moved up and had a tough fight with Castillo, who's pressure style was bad for him
Rematched Castillo immediately, beating him more clearly
Beats Sosa and N'Dou
Has his run at 140, his "weak" period, which would look great on anyone else's resume (Gatti, Corley, etc)
Beats Judah
Beats Baldomir, who had beaten Judah
Beats DLH clearly - on Oscar's terms (a fact that's never mentioned, that only works the other way around), some people and a judge are diagnosed with severe glaucoma.
Stops Hatton, who stopped Tszyu (But it doesn't count because Hatton was so slim and trim, clearly he was a 140 lb fighter, seven pounds negated the result)

Comes back and takes on a legend in JMM, dominates him (again, result doesn't count, few pounds, same way Hearns KO of Duran doesn't count)
Beats lineal Welterweight champion Mosley (which doesn't count, because Margarito didn't get to cheat against Shane)
Knocks out Ortiz when Victor forgets he's in a boxing match (admittedly not Floyd's greatest moment)
Beats Miguel Cotto, the number 1 junior middle in the world at the time
Beats a solid contender in Guerrero
Dominates Saul Alvarez
Beats Maidana and rematch (see Castillo about styles)
Clearly beats Manny Pacquiao, which doesn't count because Pac was 36, or two years younger than Floyd, in other words.
Goes out with a one-sided win over Berto, again, a good win for any other welterweight.

Seriously, how anyone looks at that and says "he didn't fight anybody" or something like that, well, it's just ridiculous. I don't even like the guy, but I guess that's the point. His resume would be lauded as absolutely glorious if he was more congenial.

You are correct.If he had Oscar's fake personality he would be considered the 2nd greatest p4p of all time.
But Floyd was an asshole so he sucks according to the informed experts

I am not going to debate with certain people in this forum about the great Floyd Mayweather, Jr. I have already stated MY VIEW about him. And to me, LIKE IT OR NOT, he is a top ten great fighter of all time BY ANYBODY'S STANDARDS.

I haven't seen someone in my lifetime that dominated his opposition in such a fashion. With so much ease. I didn't see it in greats like Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran nor Sugar Ray Leonard not even Sugar Ray Robinson. Is Mayweather not likeable? He had his ego and all that. He was arrogant. But, he backed it up.

This guy is gonna be remember from here in 50 years. That's how great this guy is

Ambling Alp II wrote:People poke holes in your arguments. Instead of countering or at least dropping the suject, you just keep saying the same silly things over and over.


Just because other people don't agree with you means mean doesn't mean it's "Haterism."
(Personally,there are guys I dislike more that I rate higher, there are many I like a lot more that I have below Maywether.)

You have serious flaws in how you rate fighters.

1. You put way too much stock in things like WBS titles and WBS title defenses.
-Your not taking into consideration the quality of the opponents when you do that.
-You are also favoring modern fighters this way. (There are are way titles in the 1990s and 2000s then way back)
2. In some cases (certainly this one) you are ignoring the stages of a fighters career.

3. To make matters worse, you are not at all consistent.
You don't have De la Hoya even in your Top 100. You don't give him much credit for beating Whitaker and Chavez. They were clearly past their best when he fought them. Going by how you rate Mayweather, those fights should be big wins. You would then certainly have to rate DLH well inside the top 100.
However, you can't stand DLH so he isn't in your top 100.

Tommy Burns had 11 title defenses. Going by the value that you sometimes put on title defenses, that should be a big deal. Burns should be right up their with the best heavyweights of all time. However, you really don't have any interest in Burns so you don't rate him highly.

I could give many more examples of where you do this.

You have to rate fighters using commonsense. The stages of fighters career matter.
The sheer amount of title defenses don't.
Most of all, be consistent. Use the same criteria all the time regardless of how much you like someone.

It doesn't matter. It would not change my view in probably the second greatest boxer of the last 50 years behind the great Roberto Duran

Bobbyptsd wrote:Wow, people go to some silly lengths to try to discredit Mayweather. I mean, if someone didn't have him as highly that's fine, but when it comes to playing the game of "Let's try to make this guy's resume look bad", people put in absurd amounts of effort to try to make a great body of work look bad.

Stopped Genaro Hernandez to win his first title
Beat a slew of contenders at 130 (Manfredy, Vargas, Chavez, Hernandez, etc)
Dominated Corrales
Moved up and had a tough fight with Castillo, who's pressure style was bad for him
Rematched Castillo immediately, beating him more clearly
Beats Sosa and N'Dou
Has his run at 140, his "weak" period, which would look great on anyone else's resume (Gatti, Corley, etc)
Beats Judah
Beats Baldomir, who had beaten Judah
Beats DLH clearly - on Oscar's terms (a fact that's never mentioned, that only works the other way around), some people and a judge are diagnosed with severe glaucoma.
Stops Hatton, who stopped Tszyu (But it doesn't count because Hatton was so slim and trim, clearly he was a 140 lb fighter, seven pounds negated the result)

Comes back and takes on a legend in JMM, dominates him (again, result doesn't count, few pounds, same way Hearns KO of Duran doesn't count)
Beats lineal Welterweight champion Mosley (which doesn't count, because Margarito didn't get to cheat against Shane)
Knocks out Ortiz when Victor forgets he's in a boxing match (admittedly not Floyd's greatest moment)
Beats Miguel Cotto, the number 1 junior middle in the world at the time
Beats a solid contender in Guerrero
Dominates Saul Alvarez
Beats Maidana and rematch (see Castillo about styles)
Clearly beats Manny Pacquiao, which doesn't count because Pac was 36, or two years younger than Floyd, in other words.
Goes out with a one-sided win over Berto, again, a good win for any other welterweight.

Seriously, how anyone looks at that and says "he didn't fight anybody" or something like that, well, it's just ridiculous. I don't even like the guy, but I guess that's the point. His resume would be lauded as absolutely glorious if he was more congenial.

Floyd Mayweather, Jr in my view is the second best fighter of the last 50 years. Nuff said.

Thank you for you well thought out opinion.

See if you can follow this:
1. You are giving credit to Mayweather for wins when his opponents regardless of the stage of their career. (You specifically gave him credit for wins over Pac, DLH, Marquez, Moseley, and Gatti.)

2. Therefore, you have to hold it against a fighter if he lost regardless of the stage of his career. After all, it doesn't matter to you when the fight the happened.

3. Roberto Duran had 16 losses. This includes losses to people like Kirkland Laing, Robbie Sims and Pat Lawlor.

4. Therefore, by using your own logic, Duran should not be rated very highly at all. Certainly nowhere near the Top 20 of all time. Way too many losses; not mention embarrassing losses to fighters who were not that good.

If you think Mayweather is a P4P top 100, 50, 25, 10, or number 1 based on watching him fight then that's up to you. Maybe you have a point...maybe you don't...

If you try to argue it based on his record then he's clearly not top 20.