Is Floyd Mayweather a definitive top 20 P4P all timer?

the relevance (and irony) is in you, of all people, mentioning the race card.

 

You tell me what relevance Mayweather has to those comments, or where in my posts with Farrod he was entitled to respond with a race-card comment, Neil.

Thats not an unreasonable request. Perhaps youd just like to make your outstanding daily contribution to this forum - a fishnets gag (it gets funnier every day) - & just be on your way?

You are among the least readable members here, yet you are telling me to fuck off. Please.

 

Since when did you turn into an insignificant pc clown ?

 

my words shall always hold more significance than yours, dino bravo.

 

Show some respect for the former World's Strongest Man.

:nono:

 

::

 

Nice to see that things went well with this thread.

 

a smashing success

 

I'm speaking hypothetically.

Obviously if he stays the course, only fights once a year and never against Pacquiao, then he won't creep much further than wherever he currently rates in an AT sense.

But speaking based on the fact that the potential fights that surround him, yes there is plenty to add to his already great resume.

Not sure why you laugh it off.

 

I agree with this... but if you think about it, in a lot of ways you just described the Baldomir fight, or at least the second half of it when he became a one-handed fighter. I guess the lineal welterweight title being at stake added more to his legacy than would've been the case with a win over Margarito... but fighting and beating both prior to facing DLH would've silenced at least those who bitched about his penchant for cherry picking.

That said, it's not wrong to say that Arum is at least partially to blame for the fight never happening. Had he let Floyd face Cotto when he wanted, I think Floyd would've eventually given in and faced Margarito somewhere down the road. Instead, Arum shoved Margarito's name down his and everyone else's throat, bringing him up every time Floyd or anyone else called out Cotto.

 

No Squash playing homo's word is worth anything.

 

Has anyone rose noticed the constant drumbeat of a khan-mayweather fight, by pac stablemate khan himself?

What's that about?

 

I'm not interested in Floyd facing anyone moving up in weight, even if it's Khan, who is at the least the second best guy at 140.

 

you seem more familiar with the game than me.

 

ortiz can hardly get below 160lbs at camp.

 

I hate threads like this and usually stay out of them. All-time arguments get people so riled up, and the classic (but nauseating) "Old School vs. New School" argument always rears it's head. But after what .... 9 pages already? And lunatics somehow seeing racism as a component? I agree with Jake's first take.

Floyd may well be one of the top 20 most talented fighters ever. But that is a really, really tough call because "talent" is not something you can measure with a measuring stick of some sort. However, I think you can make a very good argument for it.

But on the resume thing - come on. Floyd does not have a top 20 all time resume, no way. No way. At least let's agree on that, shall we? And although I agree that it is unlikely, it is still at least fathomable that he could get his career fight resume to top-20 status. Pac for sure would need to be on there. Then maybe 3 good "twilight years" fights, where he beats something like a Khan or Bradley (or both), maybe a solid up-and-comer at welter, and then like a Sergio Martinez up higher.

Yeah, I know, it won't happen, it's Floyd "Duck Dodger!" Mayweather, but until his skills erode, you can't say that he couldn't do it.

But right now, no way. Not top 20 all-time in resume, probably top 20 all time in talent, but debatable.

 

I'm just sayin, ever since May called out Pac, Khan all of sudden can't keep Floyds name out of his mouth...smokesceen?

Or am I just a conspiracy theorist.

 

That's exactly where I was going with the post you quoted. Wasn't trying to pretend that his next four fights are Ortiz, Khan/Bradley, Pacquiao and Sergio. Just saying that given what's out there and that he's not too far removed from his prime, there's still time for him to add to his resume - IF he wants it. So, thank you for getting that. You and I see this the same way.

But that's not what we're debating and yes you're 100% correct in the reality that everyone on this thread knows Floyd's resume RIGHT NOW doesn't warrant ATG Top 20 consideration. "Even" Sly knows it, which is why he threw the "based on talent" disclaimer.

 

I don't know, jake

there are guys here hwo have him top 5, as insane as that is

 

Anyway...

In my personal opinion Floyd is undoubtedly Top 20 all time PERIOD, not just talent. I hold proven talent in higher esteem than most idiotic elitist "historians" do.

Floyd's not undefeated over a long career because he hasn't fought anyone, he's undefeated because he was the best in his era in the weight classes he competed in (FIVE to remind y'all).

Floyd, right now, rates higher than Hagler and many others who are highly touted.

Sure he hasn't fought guys that are legends of yesteryear but guess what...same woul dhave been said even if he had fought Cintron, Cotto, Margarito, Williams. Contemporary names NEVER sound as impressive as names of guys that have long since retired.

Titles in 5 weight classes, undefeated in 40 fights , names like Hernandez, Manfredy, Corrales, Castillo, Gatti, Judah, De La Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley on his resume would have been sufficient for any fighter in times past to reach the top 10 let alone top 20....

So most of y'all are blinded sheep following the boxing fashion of simply not giving a fighter his due respect until he has long retired.

I, however, recognized greatness when it is still active.

 

This part isn't completely true. In fact in the cases of Bernard Hopkins and Manny Pacquiao, for example, it's not true at all.

But think about where people were trying to place Roy Jones shortly after he beat John Ruiz. Would you argue that wherever he was regarded in an all-time sense at that point is the same as where he's viewed today, when his career is actually all but over?

Sometimes there's more to do, sometimes there's more to be seen to realize that perhaps a fighter wasn't as great as we assumed. That's generally why people wait until all is said and done.

Floyd deserves to be viewed as an ATG right now, even with plenty of time left on the clock. But "undoubtedly Top 20" is an incredible statement to make, especially considering some of the fights he's left on the table.

 

Sly, you don't even know 20 fighters whose careers ended before 1995, who are you to place him so high?

and some of those names are worthless IN THE CONTEXT where they occured

Mosley? please, beating ONE GUY like that would never in a million years put a guy "Top Ten without question"

that is retarded

 

Name 20 guys that you would rate ahead of him and I'll show you how I can tear alot of their resume to shreds based on the logic that you guys use on Floyd.

 

how can you tear to shreds resumes of fighters you know nothing about?

you won't even know who their opponents are!

The fact that everytime Hagler (for instance, and who I don't necessarily consider top 20) is mentioned you only bring up William "Caveman" Lee speaks volumes... no mention of Watts, Monroe, Briscoe, Hart, Finnegan, Seales and all of the other tough ass middleweights he beat BEFORE he was even champion, never mind his impressive, dominant title reign... If you can't even objectively view the resume of a guy THAT FAMOUS, how the hell can one expect that you would be able to do a proper analysis of Emile Griffith, Jose Napoles, Eder Jofre... or going back further, guys like Charles, Pep, Saddler... you don't even know who the guys are that they beat!

Seriously, if you don't know who Ernie Lopez, Curtis Cokes, Hedgemon Lewis, Mando Muniz were, how can you possibly rate them as opponents if you were discussing Jose Napoles, for example???

 

I bring up Caveman Lee all the time because his name amuses me and he was a bum. But I know of Watts and Briscoe obviously, who handed him his first losses which he reverse by KO later. Everyone knows Hagler's resume.

 

Briscoe didn't beat Hagler

 

Floyd is not top 20, and won't be top 20. he doesn't have the balls. Period.

 

im assuming sly meant willie the worm.

on the point. floyd is definitely near the top 20. i wouldnt even really argue against putting him in the top 10, OR only in the top 50 or so.

lists like these are subjective. floyd has fought most of the best, never lost and traversed several weight classes. it boggles my mind that someone like henry armstrong is a must top 10, when he was trash compared to mayweather jr.

whitaker has a similar resume to floyd, far inferior results yet makes several peoples top 10 lists?

whitaker: mcgirt twice (first fight very close), ramirez, mayweather, nelson, de la hoya, chavez, hurtado? intentionally leaving off tough gatekeepers like brazier, pineda.

mayweather: manfredy (def. ramirez, mcgirt level) corrales, both hernandez, chavez, castillo twice (first fight very close) gatti, judah (coming off loss however), de la hoya, undefeated hatton, marquez, and a surging mosely (throw revisionist history aside...the marg fight was a big win)

the resumes simply arent comparable. one guy dominated far more than the other guy (i know whitaker truly dominated until he started fighting top shelf opposition)

floyd fought better guys, just as long, and still hasnt lost. how exactly is whitaker justified over floyd?

 

LMAO at Manfredy being McGirt, Ramirez level

come on

 

:atu: