Does Everyone Have Floyd Mayweather In Their Top 20 All Time
Posted: 09 Dec 2007, 18:47
He definitely deserves serious consideration. [/quote]
I don't believe so - I think his career is going the way of Roy Jones Jr. He was never in divsiions when other true top notch guys where there (while in thier primes too).MEISINGER wrote:yes i have him in my top 20.
when he retires for good history will be very kind
to floyd jr.
Oscar and Trinidad were 147 when Floyd was 130, Mosley ran like hell to keep at least a weightclass away. Roy collected belts to continually fight crap mandatories, Floyd had 5 WBC belts and an IBF belt he gave up a week later.meade95 wrote:I don't believe so - I think his career is going the way of Roy Jones Jr. He was never in divsiions when other true top notch guys where there (while in thier primes too).MEISINGER wrote:yes i have him in my top 20.
when he retires for good history will be very kind
to floyd jr.
Corrales and Castillo still remain his best wins to me....Over guys in their primes, in their best divisions....(and there can be a case made that Castillo actually beat him in their first match-up).
We're only talking about seven pounds (or roughly three kilos) though, mate. I don't think that's a dent in a fighter who weighed in at 145lb. (approx. 70+kg)meade95 wrote:No.
PBF is a hell of a fighter / talent........But to me his best win is still years ago Vs D. Corrales. Where he truly faced a guy in his prime...at his best weight...and beat him....
His second fight with Castillo was another big win....
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).
You dope, at those lighter weights it does make a difference!!Goodnight, Irene wrote:We're only talking about seven pounds (or roughly three kilos) though, mate. I don't think that's a dent in a fighter who weighed in at 145lb. (approx. 70+kg)meade95 wrote:No.
PBF is a hell of a fighter / talent........But to me his best win is still years ago Vs D. Corrales. Where he truly faced a guy in his prime...at his best weight...and beat him....
His second fight with Castillo was another big win....
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).
Then you are a dope too.Goodnight, Irene wrote:I think the difference is overstated. You often hear people talking about a mid-range (in terms of weight) fighter who has moved up one to two weightclasses as though it's the equivalent to ageing ten years.
I'm not disputing there are peak weights for fighters. Of course there are. But often when a fighter has his best win or gives a great performance at a single weight it can be misconstrued as being his ideal division, when other, more complex factors may well be in play.
Personally, I don't think beating Hatton when he is a few kilos heavier than he was previously makes much of a dent in knocking him out, if at all.
NOPE! Approximately 2.2lb to 1kg. 145lb is 65.9kg, not 70kg+!Goodnight, Irene wrote:
meade95 wrote:
No.
PBF is a hell of a fighter / talent........But to me his best win is still years ago Vs D. Corrales. Where he truly faced a guy in his prime...at his best weight...and beat him....
His second fight with Castillo was another big win....
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).
We're only talking about seven pounds (or roughly three kilos) though, mate. I don't think that's a dent in a fighter who weighed in at 145lb. (approx. 70+kg)
yes so many other fighters have one 5 world titlesEzzard wrote:Great fighter, yes, but top 20 no way. Too many others achieved more.
I agree with you, but it just takes a bit of time until the dust settles and we can place a fighter with confidence on the pfp list.Seamus wrote:He definitely deserves serious consideration.
He's the leading boxer of our time and has been for the past few years. Now pro-boxing is about 120 years old. Do the numbers: how many folks coul dhave lead the pfp rankings for 3, 4 years since? Right, at most 30 or 40. How many folks will likely have done this? Surely far fewer, as there aren't many fighters leading the pfp list for several years. Assuming our era isn't much weaker overall than previous eras, simple caclulus suggest that PBF is top 20 pfp all time.dempseyfire wrote:Oh God no.
Think about HOW MANY great great fighters have fought in the past 100 years, and the resumes they've accumulated.
Now look at Floyd's career.
He's top 100 . . somewhere from 80-100.
Mayweather has NOT been the number 1 PFP for 3-4 years. I'd say he deserved to be at number 1 starting at the Oscar fight. Give me a break . . Gatti was never a world-class fighter . .and the only reason Baldomir was Welterweight champ was that the previous champ (Judah) was crappy enough to have lost to him in the first place. Floyd hasn't actually established rule over a division (beating the champ plus the true top contenders) since he was fighting at 130 lbs.pundit wrote:He's the leading boxer of our time and has been for the past few years. Now pro-boxing is about 120 years old. Do the numbers: how many folks coul dhave lead the pfp rankings for 3, 4 years since? Right, at most 30 or 40. How many folks will likely have done this? Surely far fewer, as there aren't many fighters leading the pfp list for several years. Assuming our era isn't much weaker overall than previous eras, simple caclulus suggest that PBF is top 20 pfp all time.dempseyfire wrote:Oh God no.
Think about HOW MANY great great fighters have fought in the past 100 years, and the resumes they've accumulated.
Now look at Floyd's career.
He's top 100 . . somewhere from 80-100.
This is confirmed by a look at the Ring's list: I'd have no major trouble with PBF being ranked above Marciano, Dempsey (who are only there because they are heavyweights and white), Arguello, and maybe even Monzon and Saddler.
Excuses, excuses. Hatton started out at a higher weight than Mayweather, and Mayweather would probably be more natural to 140 himself.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).
No, because he moved up so fast.dempseyfire wrote:Mayweather has NOT been the number 1 PFP for 3-4 years. I'd say he deserved to be at number 1 starting at the Oscar fight. Give me a break . . Gatti was never a world-class fighter . .and the only reason Baldomir was Welterweight champ was that the previous champ (Judah) was crappy enough to have lost to him in the first place. Floyd hasn't actually established rule over a division (beating the champ plus the true top contenders) since he was fighting at 130 lbs.pundit wrote:He's the leading boxer of our time and has been for the past few years. Now pro-boxing is about 120 years old. Do the numbers: how many folks coul dhave lead the pfp rankings for 3, 4 years since? Right, at most 30 or 40. How many folks will likely have done this? Surely far fewer, as there aren't many fighters leading the pfp list for several years. Assuming our era isn't much weaker overall than previous eras, simple caclulus suggest that PBF is top 20 pfp all time.dempseyfire wrote:Oh God no.
Think about HOW MANY great great fighters have fought in the past 100 years, and the resumes they've accumulated.
Now look at Floyd's career.
He's top 100 . . somewhere from 80-100.
This is confirmed by a look at the Ring's list: I'd have no major trouble with PBF being ranked above Marciano, Dempsey (who are only there because they are heavyweights and white), Arguello, and maybe even Monzon and Saddler.
Corrales, Hernandez, Castillo, DLH, Judah, Hatton -- all fighters people ranked highly in their pfp lists at the time.It's all about who you beat. The accomplishments of Arguello, Monzon, and Saddler (and about 80 others) far exceed what Floyd has done.
People started putting Floyd high up in their pfp lists with the Corrales fight. This was six years ago. And Ring Magazine has him #1 since 2005, hence 2007 will his third year in the #1 spot. The last fighter who achieved this was: Pernell Withaker 1993-95.Placing him above Marciano and Dempsey, Arguello, and even with Monzon and Saddler . . . that is laughable!!! It still remains to be seen whether Floyd or Pacquao will be the top fighter of THIS era. If Manny beats Marquez, he is clearly ahead.
If Floyd beats Cotto or Williams, then you can have an argument for putting him top 40-50.
Those titles would not have existed 50 years ago. What matters is who you fight.MEISINGER wrote:yes so many other fighters have one 5 world titlesEzzard wrote:Great fighter, yes, but top 20 no way. Too many others achieved more.
gone undefeated and have won over 20 world title fights
Totally agree.I Feel Fine wrote:Excuses, excuses. Hatton started out at a higher weight than Mayweather, and Mayweather would probably be more natural to 140 himself.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).
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.