BoxRec

Ezzard wrote:

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.

And you think Floyd has disappointed in this regard? A fighter who started at 130 and went on to beat the ATG 154 champ?

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.

Boxing as we know it is at most 120 years old, hence "best of the past 10-15 years" should put Floyd most definitely into the top 20 -- unless you believe the past 10-15 years had been a particularly poor era of boxing (which I don't).


PS: btw, Withaker also falls into the past 15 years (albeit not 10)

Judah, and DLH were not near the top of anyone's PFP list when Floyd fought them . . .Hatton was arguable top 10. Corrales was but was clearly weight drained and proved to be a good and exciting, yet far from the fighter he showed the promise of becoming. It's like you're throwing out hindsight. Floyd has beaten ONE fighter who you could call "great" . .Oscar . . in a controversial SD when Oscar was 34 and hadn't fought in a year.
Sorry Ring magazine?? Their rankings have been crap for years . . Mayweather was top 5 PFP after he beat Corrales (but no way in hell at that time you could argue ranking him number #1) but slipped and only this year has been a justifiable top ranking.

Hatton, Chavez, Castillo (and I have their series as 1-1), Judah, Corrales are/were all good fighters, but an all-time great resume . . .plluueeeze. Compare his resume to someone like Tommy Loughran or Saddler and it's not even close. Boxing has MANY fighters with better resumes than Floyd Mayweather Jr.

dempseyfire wrote:Judah, and DLH were not near the top of anyone's PFP list when Floyd fought them . . .Hatton was arguable top 10. Corrales was but was clearly weight drained and proved to be a good and exciting, yet far from the fighter he showed the promise of becoming. It's like you're throwing out hindsight. Floyd has beaten ONE fighter who you could call "great" . .Oscar . . in a controversial SD when Oscar was 34 and hadn't fought in a year.
Sorry Ring magazine?? Their rankings have been crap for years . . Mayweather was top 5 PFP after he beat Corrales (but no way in hell at that time you could argue ranking him number #1) but slipped and only this year has been a justifiable top ranking.

Hatton, Chavez, Castillo (and I have their series as 1-1), Judah, Corrales are/were all good fighters, but an all-time great resume . . .plluueeeze. Compare his resume to someone like Tommy Loughran or Saddler and it's not even close. Boxing has MANY fighters with better resumes than Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I guess you suffer from the of boxing historian's disease to always discount the presence. In the late 1960s, Nat Fleischer didn't rank Ali with Louis, Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano.

We'll talk again in 20 years.... :)

P.S.: btw, I'd be interested in Sandy Saddler's top 6 opponents and how you think they measure up to Mayweather's. OK, you can spare #1. But 2-6, please.

Mayweather hasn't won 20 world title fights, he's won 18. Maybe 19 if you count Augustus, but his title wasn't on the line in that fight. Realistically the Gatti, Judah and De La Hoya fights shouldn't count as title fights, either, so its more like 15.

Anyway, I hardly see the justification for criticizing Mayweather's career moves. There have only been a couple of fighters who he could have fought who he hasn't that I think in hindsight would have been worth him fighting; Casamayor, Mosley, and Cotto. The first two aren't happening now, but there's a good chance I think of the third happening. So what's Mayweather done wrong? He didn't clean out enough weight classes? That's sort of irrelevant, there have been plenty of top champions in the past 30 years who leaped up and down weight classes. What was Floyd supposed to do, unify with Leonard Dorin? Gatti knocked Dorin out in two rounds. Sometimes its better to move up in weight. The other rocky career move was his tenure at 147 prior to the Hatton fight. But that's not really his fault either. He moved up to 147 in the anticipation of fighting Judah in a big fight for the undisputed Welterweight title, and Judah screwed up. So he fought Judah and Baldomir to try and set up the Oscar fight; and it happened.

Calling the De La Hoya decision controversial is absurd. Oscar was hardly shot, either, and he had all the advantages. Floyd, like most of the top fighters of recent years, will be remembered more for an accumulation of wins than for any one big win. But the Oscar win was close to that level, and he might still fight Cotto. I agree that comparing him to the top 20 or even top 40 P4P fighters of all time is a non-starter. He'll never be on that level. But he is a great fighter, and all things considered he deserves a bit more respect than some give him.

And yes, I had Mayweather P4P king before the Oscar fight, though he was hanging by a thread. Pacquiao had lost to Morales and I thought Marquez, and Mayweather had beaten Corrales and Castillo who at the time were big names in the sport and the dominant names at Lightweight. The way I saw it, Mayweather had beaten his two top contemporaries. Then Jones and Hopkins fell off with their losses. So I went with Mayweather, though I had my doubts at times. The Oscar fight sealed his position.

I agree Pundit. Sandy Saddler did beat Flash Elorde and Paddy DeMarco, who were excellent fighters and who beat him also, but he really padded his record with alot of wins over bums and stiffs.

pundit wrote:Boxing as we know it is at most 120 years old, hence "best of the past 10-15 years" should put Floyd most definitely into the top 20 -- unless you believe the past 10-15 years had been a particularly poor era of boxing (which I don't).


PS: btw, Withaker also falls into the past 15 years (albeit not 10)

That's not really a correct way of looking at it. Each decade didn't have one candidate but several who qualify for top twenty of all time. The 80's had maybe eight guys who could arguably be put over Mayweather, and that's one decade. I think a win over Cotto might get him closer to that Whitaker/Hagler/Leonard level, but we'll see if that happens, and even then I still would rank them ahead, certainly Leonard.

And yes, compared to the 50s or the 80s I don't think this era is particularly strong, though not weak.

I Feel Fine wrote:

pundit wrote:Boxing as we know it is at most 120 years old, hence "best of the past 10-15 years" should put Floyd most definitely into the top 20 -- unless you believe the past 10-15 years had been a particularly poor era of boxing (which I don't).


PS: btw, Withaker also falls into the past 15 years (albeit not 10)

That's not really a correct way of looking at it. Each decade didn't have one candidate but several who qualify for top twenty of all time. The 80's had maybe eight guys who could arguably be put over Mayweather, and that's one decade. I think a win over Cotto might get him closer to that Whitaker/Hagler/Leonard level, but we'll see if that happens, and even then I still would rank them ahead, certainly Leonard.

And yes, compared to the 50s or the 80s I don't think this era is particularly strong, though not weak.

Example A:
Put Floyd at Welterweight in the mid 1980s and he has a helluva time (Brown, Taylor, McGirt, Honeyghan, Curry, Starling) . . hell, I'm not even 100% confident of Floyd beating a peak Camacho.

dempseyfire wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

pundit wrote:Boxing as we know it is at most 120 years old, hence "best of the past 10-15 years" should put Floyd most definitely into the top 20 -- unless you believe the past 10-15 years had been a particularly poor era of boxing (which I don't).


PS: btw, Withaker also falls into the past 15 years (albeit not 10)

That's not really a correct way of looking at it. Each decade didn't have one candidate but several who qualify for top twenty of all time. The 80's had maybe eight guys who could arguably be put over Mayweather, and that's one decade. I think a win over Cotto might get him closer to that Whitaker/Hagler/Leonard level, but we'll see if that happens, and even then I still would rank them ahead, certainly Leonard.

And yes, compared to the 50s or the 80s I don't think this era is particularly strong, though not weak.

Example A:
Put Floyd at Welterweight in the mid 1980s and he has a helluva time (Brown, Taylor, McGirt, Honeyghan, Curry, Starling) . . hell, I'm not even 100% confident of Floyd beating a peak Camacho.

Curry, Starling, Honeyboy are early 80s, Taylor and McGirt late 80s. You are mixing to eras. In any case, I don't believe the current batch -- Mayweather, Hatton, Mosley, Cotto, Judah -- is weaker.

Of the folks listed, PBF versus prime Curry would have been mouthwatering, but then Curry had a short prime, while PBF fights at the highest level for 7, 8 years now.

dempseyfire wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

pundit wrote:Boxing as we know it is at most 120 years old, hence "best of the past 10-15 years" should put Floyd most definitely into the top 20 -- unless you believe the past 10-15 years had been a particularly poor era of boxing (which I don't).


PS: btw, Withaker also falls into the past 15 years (albeit not 10)

That's not really a correct way of looking at it. Each decade didn't have one candidate but several who qualify for top twenty of all time. The 80's had maybe eight guys who could arguably be put over Mayweather, and that's one decade. I think a win over Cotto might get him closer to that Whitaker/Hagler/Leonard level, but we'll see if that happens, and even then I still would rank them ahead, certainly Leonard.

And yes, compared to the 50s or the 80s I don't think this era is particularly strong, though not weak.

Example A:
Put Floyd at Welterweight in the mid 1980s and he has a helluva time (Brown, Taylor, McGirt, Honeyghan, Curry, Starling) . . hell, I'm not even 100% confident of Floyd beating a peak Camacho.

You may be underestimating Mayweather a bit there, I think he would be champion in the post-Leonard 80's even if he struggles with those guys, and I would favor him to beat those guys. But, that said, I think your point is definitely valid and I don't think Floyd would be a Welterweight champion in most eras, I think in most eras Floyd would have to stay at 135-140, but this era is weak enough where he can become Welterweight, and even unified Welterweight champion.

I Feel Fine wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:That's not really a correct way of looking at it. Each decade didn't have one candidate but several who qualify for top twenty of all time. The 80's had maybe eight guys who could arguably be put over Mayweather, and that's one decade. I think a win over Cotto might get him closer to that Whitaker/Hagler/Leonard level, but we'll see if that happens, and even then I still would rank them ahead, certainly Leonard.

And yes, compared to the 50s or the 80s I don't think this era is particularly strong, though not weak.

Example A:
Put Floyd at Welterweight in the mid 1980s and he has a helluva time (Brown, Taylor, McGirt, Honeyghan, Curry, Starling) . . hell, I'm not even 100% confident of Floyd beating a peak Camacho.

You may be underestimating Mayweather a bit there, I think he would be champion in the post-Leonard 80's even if he struggles with those guys, and I would favor him to beat those guys. But, that said, I think your point is definitely valid and I don't think Floyd would be a Welterweight champion in most eras, I think in most eras Floyd would have to stay at 135-140, but this era is weak enough where he can become Welterweight, and even unified Welterweight champion.

I don't see him beating Cotto and Williams. Time will tell.

Right now many people are caught up in the hysteria of Saturday's fight. I didn't watch it. I won't give my money to"Money". From what I've seen in replays of his fights and when they've been on HBO(I know I pay for HBO) he looks awesome. But let him retire first. If Aaron Pryor had retired after Arguello II,many of us would be asking the same question. Belong in top 20 all time? Top 20 is pretty exclusive company.

He's 30. He's at an age when he's getting close to losing those instincts(it just happens automatically),and he'll have to think more about what he's going to do in there. Maybe he'll retire now. As much as I'd like to see him knocked on his ass,I'd like to see him quit while he still has his faculties. He's got his money and his health.

I'm looking forward to watching the replay Saturday.

pundit wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

MEISINGER wrote: 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.

And you think Floyd has disappointed in this regard? A fighter who started at 130 and went on to beat the ATG 154 champ?

That's just it, he beat 1 ATG 154lb champ, a past-prime one by a slim-margin at that, it's not like he won an Undisputed or Lineal or Ring title in beating DLH. PBF winning an ABC belt at 154 is about the same as DLH winning an ABC belt at 160.

pundit wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

MEISINGER wrote: 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.

And you think Floyd has disappointed in this regard? A fighter who started at 130 and went on to beat the ATG 154 champ?

You mean Oscar De La Hoya??? an all-time great???

Maybe an all-time great in East L.A. or an all time great in boxing promotions.

He could be an all-time top 20 because he has the talent to be one. But to call him an all-time top 20 great now it would be too much adulation. He is not even on my all-time top 100 greatest fighter list yet. Neither Oscar De La Hoya nor Felix "Tito" Trinidad are in the top 100 in my view.

It is funny how a guy of this era, wins so many alphabet titles and now we want to call him "great". Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran or Henry Armstrong or the legends of the past would have had so many titles just like PBF if they would have been fighting today.

I rank Marco Antonio Barrera, Roy Jones, Jr and Bernard Hopkins over PBF right now. But PBF got a chance to surpass them if he keeps beating the best, at their very best.

"You mean Oscar De La Hoya??? an all-time great???

Maybe an all-time great in East L.A. or an all time great in boxing promotions. " - Elmer

You're right. De La Hoya is not close to being an all-time great fighter. He has not beaten enough world champions & has ducked all the best fighters right throughout his career. He also wouldn't beat Ken Buchanan.

Whaddya know, anyone can roll their eyes.

elmersalsa wrote:He could be an all-time top 20 because he has the talent to be one. But to call him an all-time top 20 great now it would be too much adulation. He is not even on my all-time top 100 greatest fighter list yet. Neither Oscar De La Hoya nor Felix "Tito" Trinidad are in the top 100 in my view.

It is funny how a guy of this era, wins so many alphabet titles and now we want to call him "great". Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran or Henry Armstrong or the legends of the past would have had so many titles just like PBF if they would have been fighting today.

I rank Marco Antonio Barrera, Roy Jones, Jr and Bernard Hopkins over PBF right now. But PBF got a chance to surpass them if he keeps beating the best, at their very best.

leonard won a few abc titles aswell

It's not all about who you fought it's also about abilty and I think there have been at least 20 fighters all-time in boxing that are better then Floyd.

Mayweather is an ATG. He could fight any fighter ever and give a good account of himself and win many of them.

He hasn't really ducked anyone either. There are maybe 2 fights he could have got but didn't and that's the same for almost anyone.

Please understand me saying he is not top 20 is not a put down. I'm simply holding on to the wins thast many other greats had.

There's no doubt that jumping up and downw eights with modern training and nutrition (plus other stuff) is far easier now than in days gone by. This doesn't diminish Floyd but puts it in to some kind of context by which we can make a comparison.

The win over Hatton puts a perspective on DLH who I feel in an underrated fighter now.

Ezzard wrote:The win over Hatton puts a perspective on DLH who I feel in an underrated fighter now.

I don't really see how you can say that, since ODH was just a bigger man than Ricky. Hence he did better vs Floyd because he didn't have to go in to fight with Floyd.

dempseyfire wrote:Judah, and DLH were not near the top of anyone's PFP list when Floyd fought them . . .Hatton was arguable top 10. Corrales was but was clearly weight drained and proved to be a good and exciting, yet far from the fighter he showed the promise of becoming. It's like you're throwing out hindsight. Floyd has beaten ONE fighter who you could call "great" . .Oscar . . in a controversial SD when Oscar was 34 and hadn't fought in a year.
Sorry Ring magazine?? Their rankings have been crap for years . . Mayweather was top 5 PFP after he beat Corrales (but no way in hell at that time you could argue ranking him number #1) but slipped and only this year has been a justifiable top ranking.

Hatton, Chavez, Castillo (and I have their series as 1-1), Judah, Corrales are/were all good fighters, but an all-time great resume . . .plluueeeze. Compare his resume to someone like Tommy Loughran or Saddler and it's not even close. Boxing has MANY fighters with better resumes than Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Agree completely! - The notion that PBF beat a prime DLH or Judah just isn't reality....Neither were at the top of their games...(not at all).

PBF biggest win to date...is Vs a prime Corrales at JLW. PBF was excellent that night. His second win Vs Castillo is another very good win (though it is debatable that he lost their first fight).....

I'm surprised some are calling DLH the best fighter ever at 154.

he was ordinary on his best night there.

Arbachakov wrote:I'm surprised some are calling DLH the best fighter ever at 154.

he was ordinary on his best night there.

I'm thinking it has a lot to do with LMW not really being a glamor dvision, kinda like SMW because historically most of the biggest stars at the weight were usually making a pit stop on their way to MW. Duran, Cuevas, Jackson, Hearns, etc. If you look at the All Time rankings for 154 here on Boxrec DLH is ranked #2 behind Sandro Mazzinghi. He's had several notable fights and wins at 154, more than just about any other fighter, and he didn't just skip up to MW after 1 or 2 fights, he built up to it then after he lost to Hopkins returned to LMW and defeated the feared Mayorga who had himself dropped down from MW and had recently shut out Piccirillo.

ringsider wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The win over Hatton puts a perspective on DLH who I feel in an underrated fighter now.

I don't really see how you can say that, since ODH was just a bigger man than Ricky. Hence he did better vs Floyd because he didn't have to go in to fight with Floyd.

True, but Oscar started in the same division as Floyd, is older and more worn out. I know many people whose opinions I respect who think Oscar won or got a draw. I think Floyd took it but it was very close.

Rewatching Floyd-Hatton I'm not so sure that it was as great a performance as I first thought. Hatton wasn't big enough or in the same league.