Does Everyone Have Floyd Mayweather In Their Top 20 All Time

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 12 Dec 2007, 06:46

Mayweather's career is a prime example of how boxing history is becoming so confusing, what with all the division hopping etc. As an example De La Hoya IMO at 140 would have beaten him 10 years ago, yet the records will forever show that Mayweather beat him

I think it's becoming more and more ridiculous to start even comparing today's fighters against the fighters of days gone by as you're comparing apples and pears

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Dec 2007, 07:19

I agree that Floyd needed to clean out one division because then we could have really compared him to others.

I think he's highly skilled but essentially agree with Terry on how he'd do against the fab 4...

bollox is right in that it's hard to make comparisons based on the way careers have changed but we've still got to do the best we can.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 12 Dec 2007, 09:07

Ezzard wrote:I agree that Floyd needed to clean out one division because then we could have really compared him to others.

I think he's highly skilled but essentially agree with Terry on how he'd do against the fab 4...

bollox is right in that it's hard to make comparisons based on the way careers have changed but we've still got to do the best we can.

i think in some ways it was easier for fighters in the 50's 60's and 70's at least they only had to beat one fighter to be the real champion

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Dec 2007, 10:38

p4p1 wrote:
Ezzard wrote:I agree that Floyd needed to clean out one division because then we could have really compared him to others.

I think he's highly skilled but essentially agree with Terry on how he'd do against the fab 4...

bollox is right in that it's hard to make comparisons based on the way careers have changed but we've still got to do the best we can.
i think in some ways it was easier for fighters in the 50's 60's and 70's at least they only had to beat one fighter to be the real champion

Easier to beat a true champion (and often several dangerous top contenders pre-title) than a couple of B or C grade titleholders??

I don't think so.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 12 Dec 2007, 10:46

Easier to beat a single A fighter, than 2 B-'s and an A.

Basically when you beat the weaker champs, it's like beating the top contenders.

In the end it's really the same, only MORE SANCTIONING FEES

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 12 Dec 2007, 10:53

Tantum wrote:Easier to beat a single A fighter, than 2 B-'s and an A.

Basically when you beat the weaker champs, it's like beating the top contenders.

In the end it's really the same, only MORE SANCTIONING FEES

Except that there were a LOT more fighters back than, and many more quality contenders. It's an entirely different sport now that boxing has been relegated to near obscurity.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 12 Dec 2007, 11:09

dempseyfire wrote:
p4p1 wrote:
Ezzard wrote:I agree that Floyd needed to clean out one division because then we could have really compared him to others.

I think he's highly skilled but essentially agree with Terry on how he'd do against the fab 4...

bollox is right in that it's hard to make comparisons based on the way careers have changed but we've still got to do the best we can.
i think in some ways it was easier for fighters in the 50's 60's and 70's at least they only had to beat one fighter to be the real champion
Easier to beat a true champion (and often several dangerous top contenders pre-title) than a couple of B or C grade titleholders??

I don't think so.

Well probably not, but this doesn't describe PBF's career fairly. Castillo, Corrales, De la Hoya, Hatton were all considered his principal peers by the time he fought them; and to some extent this holds for other PBF opponents too. PBF vs. Chico was the much anticipated unification fight at 130. PBF Castillo was the man at 135 vs. the man at 130. PBF DLH was the man at 154 vs. the man at 147. PBF Hatton was the man at 147 vs. the man at 140. If there would be only one title with only one champ, these fights would all have been fights for the one and only title. Add in PBF vs. Baldomir for that matter.

This is big stuff, and I believe we are at risk of belittling these achievements only because they happened only recently. History will judge PBF quite fondly on this.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Dec 2007, 11:57

pundit wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:
p4p1 wrote: i think in some ways it was easier for fighters in the 50's 60's and 70's at least they only had to beat one fighter to be the real champion
Easier to beat a true champion (and often several dangerous top contenders pre-title) than a couple of B or C grade titleholders??

I don't think so.
Well probably not, but this doesn't describe PBF's career fairly. Castillo, Corrales, De la Hoya, Hatton were all considered his principal peers by the time he fought them; and to some extent this holds for other PBF opponents too. PBF vs. Chico was the much anticipated unification fight at 130. PBF Castillo was the man at 135 vs. the man at 130. PBF DLH was the man at 154 vs. the man at 147. PBF Hatton was the man at 147 vs. the man at 140. If there would be only one title with only one champ, these fights would all have been fights for the one and only title. Add in PBF vs. Baldomir for that matter.

This is big stuff, and I believe we are at risk of belittling these achievements only because they happened only recently. History will judge PBF quite fondly on this.

I don't agree. Yes, Floyd-Chico was a big fight at the time. But Corrales went on to be a weak-jawed, limited (yet exciting) fighter. That's not Floyd's fault, but it can't be ignored while you are perusing the record.

Oscar was A man at 154, a division that a few years earlier has been stacked but saw all of it's top fighters desert it for higher (Winky, Quartey, Ouma) or lower (Mosley) weight classes. It was a wasteland, made clear by the fact that Oscar had won his trinket from Mayorga, who himself won it from Piccarillo . . .not very impressive. Oscar had been in semi-retirement ever since the Hopkins fight.

IKSRTFO · Post by **IKSRTFO** » 12 Dec 2007, 17:14

Tantum wrote:Easier to beat a single A fighter, than 2 B-'s and an A.

Basically when you beat the weaker champs, it's like beating the top contenders.

In the end it's really the same, only MORE SANCTIONING FEES

I agree. PBF beat DLH and Hatton, no way he beats someone like a Forest, Cotto, Clotty, Magarito, or Williams who pose a real threat.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 12 Dec 2007, 18:08

IKSRTFO wrote:
Tantum wrote:Easier to beat a single A fighter, than 2 B-'s and an A.

Basically when you beat the weaker champs, it's like beating the top contenders.

In the end it's really the same, only MORE SANCTIONING FEES
I agree. PBF beat DLH and Hatton, no way he beats someone like a Forest, Cotto, Clotty, Magarito, or Williams who pose a real threat.

Add in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 12 Dec 2007, 18:50

The Great John L wrote:
Tantum wrote:Easier to beat a single A fighter, than 2 B-'s and an A.

Basically when you beat the weaker champs, it's like beating the top contenders.

In the end it's really the same, only MORE SANCTIONING FEES
Except that there were a LOT more fighters back than, and many more quality contenders. It's an entirely different sport now that boxing has been relegated to near obscurity.

more fighters?
not according to the nysac.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Dec 2007, 19:00

MEISINGER wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
Tantum wrote:Easier to beat a single A fighter, than 2 B-'s and an A.

Basically when you beat the weaker champs, it's like beating the top contenders.

In the end it's really the same, only MORE SANCTIONING FEES
Except that there were a LOT more fighters back than, and many more quality contenders. It's an entirely different sport now that boxing has been relegated to near obscurity.
more fighters?
not according to the nysac.

Link??? No-one in boxing will argue there are more fighters now than 40-50 years ago. It's an obvious answer.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 12 Dec 2007, 19:31

dempseyfire wrote:
MEISINGER wrote:
The Great John L wrote: Except that there were a LOT more fighters back than, and many more quality contenders. It's an entirely different sport now that boxing has been relegated to near obscurity.
more fighters?
not according to the nysac.
Link??? No-one in boxing will argue there are more fighters now than 40-50 years ago. It's an obvious answer.

september of 2007 bolopunchboxinghour had a trivia question requarding most licensed boxers.
stats were given by lisa bindell of the nysac
the number of current licensed fighters who have had a sanctioned fight
in the last 12 months.
2007=13,580 fighters

most people guessed the 1940-50's
the most licenses on file world wide at that time 6,335

sorry to dispute your thoughts but these stats are verifiable through the nysac and lisa bindell

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 12 Dec 2007, 21:00

pbf = mayweather?

edit: i know its mayweahter, but what does P B F actually stand for?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 12 Dec 2007, 21:08

His fighting nickname or alias is, "Pretty Boy Floyd."

Hence, PBF.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Dec 2007, 07:12

pundit wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:
p4p1 wrote: i think in some ways it was easier for fighters in the 50's 60's and 70's at least they only had to beat one fighter to be the real champion
Easier to beat a true champion (and often several dangerous top contenders pre-title) than a couple of B or C grade titleholders??

I don't think so.
Well probably not, but this doesn't describe PBF's career fairly. Castillo, Corrales, De la Hoya, Hatton were all considered his principal peers by the time he fought them; and to some extent this holds for other PBF opponents too. PBF vs. Chico was the much anticipated unification fight at 130. PBF Castillo was the man at 135 vs. the man at 130. PBF DLH was the man at 154 vs. the man at 147. PBF Hatton was the man at 147 vs. the man at 140. If there would be only one title with only one champ, these fights would all have been fights for the one and only title. Add in PBF vs. Baldomir for that matter.

This is big stuff, and I believe we are at risk of belittling these achievements only because they happened only recently. History will judge PBF quite fondly on this.

Would you put him in a p4p top 20?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 Dec 2007, 10:54

MEISINGER wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:
MEISINGER wrote: more fighters?
not according to the nysac.
Link??? No-one in boxing will argue there are more fighters now than 40-50 years ago. It's an obvious answer.
september of 2007 bolopunchboxinghour had a trivia question requarding most licensed boxers.
stats were given by lisa bindell of the nysac
the number of current licensed fighters who have had a sanctioned fight
in the last 12 months.
2007=13,580 fighters

most people guessed the 1940-50's
the most licenses on file world wide at that time 6,335

sorry to dispute your thoughts but these stats are verifiable through the nysac and lisa bindell

So in the 1940s there were only 6,000 boxers in the world?? How did the NYASC have access to "world-wide" info?? That's a load of bollucks.

What's the definition of a "licensed" fighter? Amateur fighters must get licensed now too.

Something is fudging the math. Particularly b/c before the age of computers I doubt the NYASC saved all of their files pre-1980s in some huge library. You often can't even get access to federal court material from 15-20 years ago . . but the New York State Athletic Commission preserved everything nice and intact so they know all of their stats from 50 years ago??!! If you believe that I know a bridge etc. etc.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 13 Dec 2007, 11:05

This is totally ridiculous and not even worth arguing. Anyone who would say that there are more pro boxers now than there were 30+ years ago is either very young, very naive, or both. I’ve personally watched the steep decline of the sport in public stature and participation. We actually had boxing as part of our public school gym classes in junior high school, and it was quite common across the country. Now you it’s nearly impossible to even find boxing gyms outside of major US cities.

There used to be live fight cards just about weekly where I live in the 70’s, now we’re lucky if there is one every 2-3 months. And my experience while traveling on vacation and business supports similar situation in most areas of the country. Boxing isn’t dead, but it’s decline has been quick and very steep.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Dec 2007, 11:22

The Great John L wrote:This is totally ridiculous and not even worth arguing. Anyone who would say that there are more pro boxers now than there were 30+ years ago is either very young, very naive, or both. I’ve personally watched the steep decline of the sport in public stature and participation. We actually had boxing as part of our public school gym classes in junior high school, and it was quite common across the country. Now you it’s nearly impossible to even find boxing gyms outside of major US cities.

There used to be live fight cards just about weekly where I live in the 70’s, now we’re lucky if there is one every 2-3 months. And my experience while traveling on vacation and business supports similar situation in most areas of the country. Boxing isn’t dead, but it’s decline has been quick and very steep.

There are some attempts in the UK to get boxing put back in some schools.

They threw boxing out and yet society continued to become more violent.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 13 Dec 2007, 11:52

dempseyfire wrote:
MEISINGER wrote:
dempseyfire wrote: Link??? No-one in boxing will argue there are more fighters now than 40-50 years ago. It's an obvious answer.
september of 2007 bolopunchboxinghour had a trivia question requarding most licensed boxers.
stats were given by lisa bindell of the nysac
the number of current licensed fighters who have had a sanctioned fight
in the last 12 months.
2007=13,580 fighters

most people guessed the 1940-50's
the most licenses on file world wide at that time 6,335

sorry to dispute your thoughts but these stats are verifiable through the nysac and lisa bindell
So in the 1940s there were only 6,000 boxers in the world?? How did the NYASC have access to "world-wide" info?? That's a load of bollucks.

What's the definition of a "licensed" fighter? Amateur fighters must get licensed now too.

Something is fudging the math. Particularly b/c before the age of computers I doubt the NYASC saved all of their files pre-1980s in some huge library. You often can't even get access to federal court material from 15-20 years ago . . but the New York State Athletic Commission preserved everything nice and intact so they know all of their stats from 50 years ago??!! If you believe that I know a bridge etc. etc.

those are the stats used for a trivia contest on the bolopunchboxinghour
sorry if you do not agree.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 13 Dec 2007, 12:13

Ezzard wrote:
pundit wrote:
dempseyfire wrote: Easier to beat a true champion (and often several dangerous top contenders pre-title) than a couple of B or C grade titleholders??

I don't think so.
Well probably not, but this doesn't describe PBF's career fairly. Castillo, Corrales, De la Hoya, Hatton were all considered his principal peers by the time he fought them; and to some extent this holds for other PBF opponents too. PBF vs. Chico was the much anticipated unification fight at 130. PBF Castillo was the man at 135 vs. the man at 130. PBF DLH was the man at 154 vs. the man at 147. PBF Hatton was the man at 147 vs. the man at 140. If there would be only one title with only one champ, these fights would all have been fights for the one and only title. Add in PBF vs. Baldomir for that matter.

This is big stuff, and I believe we are at risk of belittling these achievements only because they happened only recently. History will judge PBF quite fondly on this.
Would you put him in a p4p top 20?

I think it's too early to make a definitive call. But yes, bottom line is that I expect that in 20 years PBF will be top 20 in many ATG lists, or close to it. As I wrote further above, this is almost a statistical necessity, unless our era is judged much weaker than the history of boxing up to the 1990s.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Dec 2007, 12:41

pundit wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
pundit wrote: Well probably not, but this doesn't describe PBF's career fairly. Castillo, Corrales, De la Hoya, Hatton were all considered his principal peers by the time he fought them; and to some extent this holds for other PBF opponents too. PBF vs. Chico was the much anticipated unification fight at 130. PBF Castillo was the man at 135 vs. the man at 130. PBF DLH was the man at 154 vs. the man at 147. PBF Hatton was the man at 147 vs. the man at 140. If there would be only one title with only one champ, these fights would all have been fights for the one and only title. Add in PBF vs. Baldomir for that matter.

This is big stuff, and I believe we are at risk of belittling these achievements only because they happened only recently. History will judge PBF quite fondly on this.
Would you put him in a p4p top 20?
I think it's too early to make a definitive call. But yes, I expect that in 20 years PBF will be top 20 in many ATG lists, or close to it. As I wrote further above, this is almost a statistical necessity, unless our era is judged much weaker than the history of boxing up to the 1990s.

I don't get the argument... Just because the majority thinks he's the p4p best for a while doesn't really mean as much as who he fought. Floyd has lots of wins over very good opponents (DLH was very good at the stage in his career he fought Floyd).

If you go by this argument then you really should have Hagler, Jones, Hopkins and Floyd all in the top 20 too. There are only 20 fighters to pick and off the top of my head

Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Charles
Langford
Moore
Pep
Saddler
Wilde
Benny Leonard
Duran

make almost every top 20. if you include HWs then it becomes an even harder selection to justify.

How about ranking the last 30 years and seeing where he falls within that group.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 13 Dec 2007, 14:27

Goodnight, Irene wrote:His fighting nickname or alias is, "Pretty Boy Floyd."

Hence, PBF.

ah thx

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 13 Dec 2007, 14:33

I doubt that I rank Mayweather much higher than many of Mayweather's critics here. In terms of how Floyd compares to the other greats in boxing history, we probably have about the same idea. But I think the language being used to describe Mayweather is a bit harsh.

First of all, to sort of borrow pundit's sentiment, Mayweather has basically fought the best guys in his weight classes. Was Corrales the best Jr. Lightweight opponent for him at the time? Yes. Was Castillo the best Lightweight opponent for him at the time? Yes. Was Hatton the best Jr. Welterweight? Yes. Sure, he didn't fight him at 140, but that's not really important in my mind. What would have been different at 140? Mayweather is probably more natural to 140 himself, and he was probably faster there. Anyway, Mayweather hasn't beaten the better Welterweights around yet, fine. But while I agree with dempseyfire that "wasteland" is probably the best way to describe the Jr. Middleweight division, the fact remains that Oscar was indeed the best guy there, and it was Mayweather's fifth weight class.

I think its a bit wrong to try to impose this kind of standard on Mayweather that says he has to spend all of his time in one weight class, when the fact is that the respected fighters of his generation for the most part jumped up and down weight classes, and were respected for doing it. If you're Mayweather, and for your whole life you heard about how great Ray Leonard and Roy Jones were for jumping up to new divisions and taking new belts, wouldn't you assume that applies to you as well? I know there's a difference between moving up to fight Oscar and moving up to fight Hagler, but that was the landscape Mayweather was dealing with. It's a bit better than moving

The fact is Mayweather did, for the most part, clean out a weight class, anyway. Or came close to it, and left a big mark there. I think most people would regard him as a top ten all time Jr. Lightweight, though I could be wrong there. And this is important for another reason; stop comparing Mayweather to Leonard and Hearns. Mayweather is not a Welterweight, he started out at 130 and is probably more natural to 135 and 140. Mayweather isn't big enough to knock around Welterweight opposition the way Leonard and Hearns did. Compare him to Arguello and Chavez and Duran and Whitaker. He's not as good as those guys. But at least its a fair comparison.

The fact is Mayweather is a great fighter because he came up from 130 and was able to conquer opposition at the higher weights. Can you imagine his contemporaries like Corrales or Castillo moving up to 154 to fight De La Hoya? He would brutally knock them out. Being able to move up in weight and beat the best there shows you are a top P4P fighter. As for Oscar, I think of him as a borderline great. But the idea that he was somehow shot is wrong. And he had a lot of advantages over Mayweather. 154 I think is clearly more natural to Oscar than it is to Mayweather.

Anyway, I agree that Floyd isn't a top 20 P4P fighter. I probably have him closer to top 50-55. I think you can make that point without having to bash Mayweather and refuse to give him credit for anything. And his career isn't over yet, I don't think. For all we know Mayweather might fight until he's 40, or he might never fight again. But for all we know he might still have years to go in his career to help or even hurt his legacy. And some of you are just assuming that he would lose to Cotto, and are even using that as if that were somehow a legitimate argument in a discussion about his legacy to date. Fact is Floyd would likely be the favorite there, but that's sort of irrelevant to this discussion, don't you think? The fight hasn't happened yet.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 Dec 2007, 14:51

I Feel Fine wrote:I really disagree with the tone of this thread. What's interesting is that I doubt that I rank Mayweather much higher than dempseyfire, for example. In terms of how Floyd compares to the other greats in boxing history, we probably have about the same idea. I just think the language being used to describe Mayweather is a bit harsh.

First of all, to sort of borrow pundit's sentiment, Mayweather has basically fought the best guys in his weight classes. Was Corrales the best Jr. Lightweight at the time? Yes. Was Castillo the best Lightweight at the time? Yes. Was Hatton the best Jr. Welterweight? Yes. Sure, he didn't fight him at 140, but that's not really important in my mind. What would have been different at 140? Mayweather is probably more natural to 140 himself, and he was probably faster there. Anyway, Mayweather hasn't beaten the better Welterweights around yet, fine. And while I agree with dempseyfire that "wasteland" is probably the best way to describe the Jr. Middleweight division, the fact remains that Oscar was indeed the best guy there.

I think its a bit wrong to try to impose this kind of standard on Mayweather that says he has to spend all of his time in one weight class, when the fact is that the respected fighters of his generation for the most part jumped up and down weight classes, and were respected for doing it. If you're Mayweather, and for your whole life you heard about how great Ray Leonard and Roy Jones were for jumping up to new divisions and taking new belts, wouldn't you assume that applies to you as well?

The fact is Mayweather did, for the most part, clean out a weight class, anyway. Or came close to it, and left a big mark there. I think most people would regard him as a top ten all time Jr. Lightweight, though I could be wrong there. And this is important for another reason; stop comparing Mayweather to Leonard and Hearns. Mayweather is not a Welterweight, he started out at 130 and is probably more natural to 135 and 140. Mayweather isn't big enough to knock around Welterweight opposition the way Leonard and Hearns did. Compare him to Arguello and Chavez and Duran and Whitaker. He's not as good as those guys. But at least its a fair comparison.

The fact is Mayweather is a great fighter because he came up from 130 and was able to conquer opposition at the higher weights. Can you imagine his contemporaries like Corrales or Castillo moving up to 154 to fight De La Hoya? He would brutally knock them out. Being able to move up in weight and beat the best there shows you are a top P4P fighter. As for Oscar, I think of him as a borderline great. But the idea that he was somehow shot is wrong. And he had a lot of advantages over Mayweather. 154 I think is clearly more natural to Oscar than it is to Mayweather.

Anyway, I agree that Floyd isn't a top 20 P4P fighter. I probably have him closer to top 50-55. But I would rank him about on par with Jones and Hopkins. But he is a great fighter. And his career isn't over yet, I don't think. For all we know Mayweather might fight until he's 40, or he might never fight again. But for all we know he might still have years to go in his career to help or even hurt his legacy.

I'm taking that tone b/c a lot of the media and some fans after the Hatton fight, like in this thread, are going overboard and saying Floyd is top 20 PFP of all time, which is ridiculous. I wouldn't rank him on par with Jones Jr yet . . Roy beat two HOFs while they were young, Toney and Hopkins, and an older, past it HOF McCallum. Floyd has beaten ONE HOF, an inactive 34 year old Oscar which I honestly believe could have been scored a draw fairly. No, it's not Floyd's fault Castillo, Corrales, Baldomir wern't great fighters, but when judging fighters from different eras, the playing fields will just not be equal. And it's not always the older eras being better . . .the late 1970s Light HWs, for example, was a stronger crop than the Light HWs of the late 1960s.

As for Floyd's size, I think he's a natural 140 lber. His frame was very noticeably bigger than Hattons' . . . he could've never stayed at lightweight.