Is Floyd Mayweather a definitive top 20 P4P all timer?

This a reasonable rating from someone who'd be amongst those of the posters who I'd expect to give an absurd one...ie Ramon, Musze...broadwayjoe

Although he's still better than anyone on this forum will give him credit for.

 

In terms that you can understand.

"Talented" guitar player for example. The more talented the guitar player, the more ability he'd have. The more ability he has the more "who beats who" he would have in a "Guitar standoff"...assuming you guitar loving fuckers have such a thing! :: Now he may not have the career achievements (number of albums, number of #1s, awards etc) but he (Cdogg187) may be considered better than a great one (Eric Clapton) by a guitar connoiseur such as yourself for example.

The point is...you know what I mean by "talent" so stop being pedantic, motherfucker. :kick:

 

Floyd was 'afforded the opportunity', he just lost interest in it some time around battling with Jose Luis Castillo.

 

That's bullshit. He could've shot a fireball out of his hands in the midst of a 100 fight win streak and the typical douchbags would've said he loses close and clear to Ray Robinson.


Basically whenever someone likes boxing the most, or grows up with boxing is the time where they think all the fighters are absolutely outstanding and demi-gods and everyone else afterward can't hold a candle to them.

It shows with this board particularly with the comical level of pessimism in the GD. Pretty much everyone here dismissive every fighter, even world titlists as "shite" and whatever the story is. No one can win in a scene like this. It's really not a surprise at all these days why no one really give a shit about boxing these days.

 

If Floyd had knocked over the pins in front of him at 140 and 147 from 2004 onward he'd UNQUESTIONABLY be top 20 and in very strong contention for top 10. Instead, the path of least resistance/hustling.

 

He gets the indifference from most here because he was capable of achieving that very feat and becoming a true contemporary great.

Now he carries around wads of bills and wonders why he gets little respect.

 

not getting the chance to beat cotto when he was still undefeated hurts mayweather jr's legacy for sure. same as if he never gets to fight pacquiao. other than that i dont really see any guys who wouldve enhanced his standing much more.

 

A dominant win over Margarito would have been nice back in 2006.

 

mayweather jr obviously wanted no part of margarito and if that fight had happened i suspect it would have been a very lackluster performance by him. a lot of movement, an extremely dull fight. largely criticized by media and fans. dont really see that helping his legacy much.

 

and/or a victory over Paul Williams right after the Margarito fight...Quintana had more balls than Floyd....and won/lose for it...

 

losing to williams certainly would not have helped mayweather jr.'s legacy

 

Yeah he probably thinking the same thing....

You will probably say he didn't fight Margarito or Cotto...because of Arum...but most likely Mayweather didn't want to risk 0....

 

if you are able to read you can scroll up a few posts and see i said he clearly avoided margarito. he wanted no part of margarito. to say he avoided cotto is laughable.

 

I've never been anything but realistic about Floyd Mayweather

I have called him one of the 3 or 4 best 130 pounders who ever lived on numerous occasions

 

I don't think thats fair at all, it's really a vague generalization that attempts to lump about 15 different points of view into one.

Boxing being in a pretty sorry state overall should be readily apparent to anyone knowledgeable about it. It's not a romanticism... If there were a romanticism, it would be completely and totally era specific.

In other words, a guy who thinks the 1990s was great would piss on the 1970s, or a guy who rates the 1950s very high would dismiss the 1980s, etc...

I'm 33, I grew up primarily on 1990s boxing and I thought it was a terrific decade... I'm not 65 years old... the fact is that the game has been in a steep decline over the last 10 years, it seems so shockingly obvious to me that I am still amazed that people poo-poo this and insist that things are better than they have ever been and that Tim Bradley would have eaten Antonio Cervantes for breakfast and Sergio Martinez would knock the shit out of Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler, etc. ...

Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to say that something like all-time rankings are unchangeable and no one will dare place a modern fighter on there... Pernell Whitaker was/is on numerous people's lists and he threw his first punch in the pros more than two decades after Sugar Ray Robinson threw his last... Roy Jones was on many people's lists and he was among the kings of the sport into the early 2000s... there was always the possibility for fighters to prove themselves and earn that recognition

Honestly, if Floyd had fought and beaten the guys who were seen as the real threats to him 4 or 5 years ago, he'd be in my top 20, and I think that is true of a lot of folks here... The issue of ranking Floyd in an all-time sense (which is really difficult to do for ANY active fighter) is to me totally and utterly separate from the issue of the decline of professional boxing... Floyd's chances were there, as Hut said "the pins in front of him" , and he maneuvered his way around them instead of knocking them down and it counts against him because it SHOULD, at least if we are going to determine his overall greatness in a historical context... that said, the biggest pin of all is still out there...

 

Talent don't pay the bills.

He is a remarkable talent, that's true. He doesn't seem to believe that, however.

 

To get him inside the top-20 boxers of all-time? LOL.

 

If he beats Pacquiao, yes. Accomplishments are relevant, and they're part of the measuring stick for talent. If Pacquiao wasn't available, it's a different story - but he is.

 

Id love to see that top-20 with Mayweather in it as though he had beaten Pacquiao, if you have the time.

 

Floyd mayweather would jizz on anyone from 130-135 on anyone's top 20 list besides maybe duran, in the ring. On accomplishments he doesn't have the merits to be top 20 P4P in history but he would fuck up most guys ahead of him, and by fuck up i mean win 11-1.

 

Just as he did with Castillo --- a fighter leagues ahead of the twenty best boxers of all-time. LOL.

 

ESPN rated Mayweather, Hopkins and RJJ within 45-50.

Basically they just put them on so they didn't catch shit from people who watched modern boxing.

 

LOL a fighter didn't blow out another fighter. He sucks.


You're beloved Sandy Saddler lost to scrubs. Point?

 

He broke both hands and won, then ina return fight destroyed him, how exactly is that helping Barnie "would get KO'd in 3 rounds by Kofi Jantuah" Ross' case?

 

Nobody said Barney Ross or Sandy Saddler would beat most of the 20 best boxers of all-time 11-1 over twelve rounds.

If they did, Id be giving them a reality check on Ross & Saddler. This is no different, & certainly, no less absurd.

 

Remind me when I inferred he sucked.

Remind me when Ive ever shown a soft-spot for Sandy Saddler.

Remind me the last time you quoted me without either misrepresenting what I said, or flat making something up.

 

its absurd to think Harry Greb could beat Bernard Hopkins in 500 tries. Its absurd to think Brnie Ross would last 5 rounds with Arguello or chavez, this nis just the way it is

 

He can beat Gene Tunney but not Bernard Hopkins?

LOL.

 

<CITE class=kvm>www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwQv-NOIcQ8</CITE>
<CITE class=kvm></CITE>
<CITE class=kvm></CITE>

 

This guy is fucking deluded.