BoxRec

ATG:
Top 10?
10-20?
50-100?

Still the best of his generation?

Still the best of his generation and also a dead-cert all-time-great, since it’s fairly common for past-their-prime veteran fighters to lose to vastly inferior skilled relative novices during the final stages of their career.

It drops him a few notches, but he'd still be the best of the 21st century so far.

Enlightened-One wrote:Still the best of his generation and also a dead-cert all-time-great, since it’s fairly common for past-their-prime veteran fighters to lose to vastly inferior skilled relative novices during the final stages of their career.

It's fairly common, but hardly anyone in boxing including the fans believe that McGregor has a chance. Perhaps the MMA fans believe in McGregor more. People are betting on McGregor to win and McGregor does not seem to be a big underdog based on the betting odds.

RScarf1 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:Still the best of his generation and also a dead-cert all-time-great, since it’s fairly common for past-their-prime veteran fighters to lose to vastly inferior skilled relative novices during the final stages of their career.

It's fairly common, but hardly anyone in boxing including the fans believe that McGregor has a chance. Perhaps the MMA fans believe in McGregor more. People are betting on McGregor to win and McGregor does not seem to be a big underdog based on the betting odds.

People are stupid

You don't un-accomplish anything by losing a fight.

squiggy wrote:You don't un-accomplish anything by losing a fight.

Exactly what I was thinking. It's what Mayweather did in previous fights that will dictate his rating, not this fight.

If Mayweather loses to McGregor I'll post a video on here of me attempting to teabag myself

Still easily an ATG and the best of his generation, but he'd become easier to knock and the loss would be an ugly spot on his resume. I'd also worry about how it would make the sport look...

squiggy wrote:You don't un-accomplish anything by losing a fight.

Ask Roy Jones and Mike Tyson about that.

Losses definitely impact general perception, and I have a hard time believing that Floyd's reputation wont be damaged if he loses to an 0-0 boxer.

crusader wrote:Losses definitely impact general perception, and I have a hard time believing that Floyd's reputation wont be damaged if he loses to an 0-0 boxer.

They do, but less so amongst people who are much into the sport.

Roy Robinson lost lots of fights in his latter years, but he's still rated as one of the greatest fighters who ever lived.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

crusader wrote:Losses definitely impact general perception, and I have a hard time believing that Floyd's reputation wont be damaged if he loses to an 0-0 boxer.

They do, but less so amongst people who are much into the sport.

Roy Robinson lost lots of fights in his latter years, but he's still rated as one of the greatest fighters who ever lived.

Had Roy Jones not lost to Tarver and just retired, he would be considered top 10.

I think it's also a bigger deal when the losing boxer has previously won all their fights. Floyd obviously has a tremendous resume either way, but IMO having a perfect record is a significant part of his reputation, and losing would change the aura around him. It would also make it easier to visualize losses in the hypothetical head to heads that boxing fans love...

Unless he kept fighting on, at which point age would become even more of a factor, the last bout on our minds would be an embarrassing loss to a guy with no pro boxing matches or notable amateur achievements...I have a hard time believing that this wouldn't impact how he's assessed, even if it shouldn't.

I don't care about this popular perception issue that apparently bothers some people. Tyson isn't such an important example in my opinion, but RJJ can get knocked out a hundred more times and I'll still rank him the second greatest of my lifetime until he is passed on that list by someone else achieving more than he did.

Sure, I mean if it's only about wins to someone, then obviously a loss to even the poorest possible opponent is irrelevant.

By the way, Roy was an amazing talent, but would you really put him that high on the achievement list?

He'd rate the same as he does today. It might give some perspective to those that overrate him a bit now, but this isn't a Jones/Tarver situation. Floyd is 40+ years old. He won't lose a second of the fight, but if he twisted his ankle and lost he'd still be top 20-30.

squiggy wrote:I don't care about this popular perception issue that apparently bothers some people. Tyson isn't such an important example in my opinion, but RJJ can get knocked out a hundred more times and I'll still rank him the second greatest of my lifetime until he is passed on that list by someone else achieving more than he did.

Mayweather, Holyfield, Pac and Whitaker have already achieved more than Roy did.

Mayweather has.

If Mayweather loses, then it means McGregor is a tremendous talent and/or got lucky and/or Mayweather got old and/or did not take him seriously.

I don't think this diminishes Mayweather, because it is just a money grab for a retired 40 year old.

Stuarty30 wrote:If Mayweather loses to McGregor I'll post a video on here of me attempting to teabag myself

McGregor please, spark him

squiggy wrote:Mayweather has.

All of them have, Evander most certainly has. You're right about him carrying on too long not having an affect on his legacy. His legacy just doesn't measure up to those other guys.

crusader wrote:Sure, I mean if it's only about wins to someone, then obviously a loss to even the poorest possible opponent is irrelevant.

By the way, Roy was an amazing talent, but would you really put him that high on the achievement list?

I do, and I have this dorky statistical methodology I made up in which, indeed, he ranks 2nd in my lifetime behind FMJ. I might post about it someday when I feel like opening myself to merciless ridicule. RJJ rates that high for being both a divisional champion and top rated divisionally on Boxrec for a ridiculously long time, winning more than 20 title fights, and having wins over Hill, Hopkins, and Toney. I never came up with a way to make that system adjust for his having faced numerous soft-touch opponents, but... I do sometimes have a life, what can I say.

Roy is definitely top 50 imo. I have a numerical thing too, though not quite as complicated. Holyfield was an undisputed champion in 2 divisions that fought everyone you could think of that he should of. Roy did that never. At his best, he seemed as untouchable as anyone I've ever seen. That much I agree with.

I know what you're saying, I just really enjoy the illusion of objectivity about these things. Which is what drew me to Boxrec rankings in the first place.