BoxRec

So am I to understand that nobody has come along and listed a better resume than Floyd's in 2 pages here? I thought Saad or somebody would've knocked this out by now. I'll put up a list here shortly if nobody else has beaten me to it.

When you consider WHO he beat, and equally important, HOW (easily) he won,
Floyd is without comparison in the modern era.

Some of those guys from the 60's on back were just different.

gilgamesh wrote:So am I to understand that nobody has come along and listed a better resume than Floyd's in 2 pages here? I thought Saad or somebody would've knocked this out by now. I'll put up a list here shortly if nobody else has beaten me to it.

I will repeat : Lennox Lewis was a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather; LL has a better resume, too......If you compare their opponents without prejudices, you will see that I am right.....

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:So am I to understand that nobody has come along and listed a better resume than Floyd's in 2 pages here? I thought Saad or somebody would've knocked this out by now. I'll put up a list here shortly if nobody else has beaten me to it.

I will repeat : Lennox Lewis was a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather; LL has a better resume, too......If you compare their opponents without prejudices, you will see that I am right.....

Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali Klitschko....Enough....

Lewis definitely doesn't. In fairly recent times Duran & Leonard. I'd rate whitaker over Floyd I think. Hopkins is arguable. And obviously Langford, greb, Robinson, Armstrong & Charles. Hearns too.

ValMar wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:So am I to understand that nobody has come along and listed a better resume than Floyd's in 2 pages here? I thought Saad or somebody would've knocked this out by now. I'll put up a list here shortly if nobody else has beaten me to it.

I will repeat : Lennox Lewis was a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather; LL has a better resume, too......If you compare their opponents without prejudices, you will see that I am right.....

Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali Klitschko....Enough....

The tyson fight was pretty pointless considering how washed up he was.

Ill give him holyfield, vitali, briggs, and revenge against the people who beat him. Im not sure how he stacks against floyd though ill need to do some research and make another post.

In the last 30 years, all weight classes...? Hmm...maybe b hop? Wladmir? Still wouldnt put them significantly "above" floyd but theyre two of the only people who can compare. Sugar ray leanard has a heck of a resume, although there were some big fights he could have made that he didnt for whatever reason.

All time? Easily Ali, Joe louis, ray robinson, larry holmes. Henry armstrong deserves mention. Maybe greb.

ValMar wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:So am I to understand that nobody has come along and listed a better resume than Floyd's in 2 pages here? I thought Saad or somebody would've knocked this out by now. I'll put up a list here shortly if nobody else has beaten me to it.

I will repeat : Lennox Lewis was a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather; LL has a better resume, too......If you compare their opponents without prejudices, you will see that I am right.....

Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali Klitschko....Enough....

Holyfield was well past his prime, Tyson was completely shot. Danny Williams needed 4 rounds less to KO the same version of Tyson. And no, Lewis wasn't better boxer than Floyd and neither was Holyfield, though the later had better list of wins than Floyd IMO. But losses should also be considered, and Floyd's has zero losses in his record.

Lennox > Mayweather

In a p4p sense, the top 10 fighters at 147 should be ranked higher than any heavyweight.
In every heavyweight golden era, look at what th 147 pound division was doing.
Always the most skilled and most competitive.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What an awful list, Dempsey over Floyd is hysterical.

Any idea why Joe Louis fluctuates so much on these kinds of lists?
Not even top 10 while Ali is #2.

can only assume those backing Floyd for top spot are quite young because if mayweather was TBE I doubt I would be following the sport

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I will repeat : Lennox Lewis was a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather; LL has a better resume, too......If you compare their opponents without prejudices, you will see that I am right.....

Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali Klitschko....Enough....

Holyfield was well past his prime, Tyson was completely shot. Danny Williams needed 4 rounds less to KO the same version of Tyson. And no, Lewis wasn't better boxer than Floyd and neither was Holyfield, though the later had better list of wins than Floyd IMO. But losses should also be considered, and Floyd's has zero losses in his record.

Do you want to say that all Floyd's opponents were in their's primes when they were fighting against him ?

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali Klitschko....Enough....

Holyfield was well past his prime, Tyson was completely shot. Danny Williams needed 4 rounds less to KO the same version of Tyson. And no, Lewis wasn't better boxer than Floyd and neither was Holyfield, though the later had better list of wins than Floyd IMO. But losses should also be considered, and Floyd's has zero losses in his record.

Do you want to say that all Floyd's opponents were in their's primes when they were fighting against him ?

No, almost all Floyd's best opponents except of Marquez (whom he cheated at the weigh in) were past their prime. But Pac, Oscar, Mosley and Cotto weren't nowhere near as far from their primes as Tyson was in 2002.

jockpunk wrote:I'd say Manny does.

LOL ......Floyd schools Manny and someone thinks Manny has a better resume with his 6 losses and pair of draws. I get amazed how some minds work. Floyds 49-0 is impeccable. He is streets ahead in terms of opposition quality.

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote: Holyfield was well past his prime, Tyson was completely shot. Danny Williams needed 4 rounds less to KO the same version of Tyson. And no, Lewis wasn't better boxer than Floyd and neither was Holyfield, though the later had better list of wins than Floyd IMO. But losses should also be considered, and Floyd's has zero losses in his record.

Do you want to say that all Floyd's opponents were in their's primes when they were fighting against him ?

No, almost all Floyd's best opponents except of Marquez (whom he cheated at the weigh in) were past their prime. But Pac, Oscar, Mosley and Cotto weren't nowhere near as far from their primes as Tyson was in 2002.

Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali on one side....And Pac, Oscar, Mosley (Cotto) on another side....If you have to choose between these two groups ???
I would always (absolutely always) choose the first group, without any dilemma...

1. Sam Langford
2. Harry Greb
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Roberto Duran
7. Archie Moore
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Benny Leonard
10. Willie Pep

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:So am I to understand that nobody has come along and listed a better resume than Floyd's in 2 pages here? I thought Saad or somebody would've knocked this out by now. I'll put up a list here shortly if nobody else has beaten me to it.

I will repeat : Lennox Lewis was a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather; LL has a better resume, too......If you compare their opponents without prejudices, you will see that I am right.....

A top welterweight is ALWAYS a better boxer than a top heavyweight. HWs just can't move that well.

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Do you want to say that all Floyd's opponents were in their's primes when they were fighting against him ?

No, almost all Floyd's best opponents except of Marquez (whom he cheated at the weigh in) were past their prime. But Pac, Oscar, Mosley and Cotto weren't nowhere near as far from their primes as Tyson was in 2002.

Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali on one side....And Pac, Oscar, Mosley (Cotto) on another side....If you have to choose between these two groups ???
I would always (absolutely always) choose the first group, without any dilemma...

The resumes both go deeper than just those biggest names. Floyd has a deeper resume than Lennox because there are a lot more high level guys on it. If you wanted to make the case that Lennox has a bigger single win than anything on Floyd's resume I could see a case being made for that. If you think he has a better total resume, I just don't see it.

leonard beat a peak hearns, that trashes anything mayweather did

Lennox wrote:

jockpunk wrote:I'd say Manny does.

LOL ......Floyd schools Manny and someone thinks Manny has a better resume with his 6 losses and pair of draws. I get amazed how some minds work. Floyds 49-0 is impeccable. He is streets ahead in terms of opposition quality.

I don't agree that Manny has a better resume but I can see the point. It's like Duran and Leonard. Head to head, Leonard won but you can make a case for Duran having a better resume when you add everything he done before and after. he was already a HOFer before he even fought Leonard.

gilgamesh wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Boxing Writer wrote: No, almost all Floyd's best opponents except of Marquez (whom he cheated at the weigh in) were past their prime. But Pac, Oscar, Mosley and Cotto weren't nowhere near as far from their primes as Tyson was in 2002.

Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali on one side....And Pac, Oscar, Mosley (Cotto) on another side....If you have to choose between these two groups ???
I would always (absolutely always) choose the first group, without any dilemma...

The resumes both go deeper than just those biggest names. Floyd has a deeper resume than Lennox because there are a lot more high level guys on it. If you wanted to make the case that Lennox has a bigger single win than anything on Floyd's resume I could see a case being made for that. If you think he has a better total resume, I just don't see it.

+1 This post, nails it, its not even close, FW was a number 1 by all magazines in 6 weight classes not just a 6 weight #world# champion, He beat more number 1s, 2s, 3s than anyone, he had very few fights against average opposition. He is 49-0, he is 33-0 against top 50 opponents (no one has ever been better) 21-0 against top 5 fighters (no one has ever been better) same with top 10s, 20s 30s, here are the opponent rankings for the 49 fights (W == not top 100 and ? I have not sorted yet but they are between 28-70 rankings)
W W W W W W W W W ? ? W ? ? W ? ? 1 3 18 22 15 19 ? 2 53 4 1 4 26 2 7 9 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 4 1 4 2 4 6 2 22

Lennox wrote:

jockpunk wrote:I'd say Manny does.

LOL ......Floyd schools Manny and someone thinks Manny has a better resume with his 6 losses and pair of draws. I get amazed how some minds work. Floyds 49-0 is impeccable. He is streets ahead in terms of opposition quality.

schooled

Floyd got his ass kicked by Maidana. He didn't even beat a single ATG in their prime.

I prefer Lewis, you prefer Floyd. I can not be convinced the opposite. I will rather rewatch Lennox's fights than Floyd's.
HW is "king's division" for me, and always will be...BTW, Lennox is a genuine gentleman, Floyd mistreats women. I know it is off topic, but I have to say....

ValMar wrote:I prefer Lewis, you prefer Floyd. I can not be convinced the opposite. I will rather rewatch Lennox's fights than Floyd's.
HW is "king's division" for me, and always will be...BTW, Lennox is a genuine gentleman, Floyd mistreats women. I know it is off topic, but I have to say....

I'd rather rewatch Lennox's fights over Floyd's for the most part as well. Doesn't mean he was a more accomplished fighter though. Whether or not Floyd mistreats women has f*ck all to do with his ability in the ring.

I don't rematch either of their fights often. I mean if researching fights is your barometer than neither of them are in the top 200. Floyd's resume dwarfs Lewis. The only heavyweights in history that I could debate over Floyd are Ali, Louis, holyfield & Holmes.

Floyd has some big names on his resume but all of them where conveniently placed there carefully by Floyd and his handlers, never really facing the best in their prime. Some of them were before their prime but most of them were well past their prime when Floyd was able to notch them into the tree as wins. See, that's Floyd's career in a nutshell and why he'll never be on any all time great list i ever give credence to. Not only did he fight them after their prime, he fought them with distinct advantages in every possible way from where it was fought, how it was fought, what gloves they used against him and what is most damaging, he was able to take PED's and ilegal infusions when he was strictly against his opposition taking them.

He's a magic trick and a one trick pony. That's all he is and all he'll be remembered as. Never fought a number one contender in years holding the belt. PUNK to the end. GOOD RIDDANCE