What does it take to be TBE?

Throughout boxing history, we have had many all-time greats. Plenty of super gifted athletes and bright PPV stars. Some have come and gone and even retired undefeated. But what does it really take to be the best ever? Who holds that title? Who has claimed to be the best ever?

A few come to mind like Ali(Self Proclaimed the Greatest) but one person that comes to mind who claims to be the best ever and believes his own hype that he is better than Ali, Robinson, Louis, Leonard, Duran, Armstrong is Floyd Mayweather. But for the most part, this claim by him and his supporters is a completely baseless and false narrative driven.

And here is why...To be considered TBE you have to set yourself apart from the rest of the pack. Let me start off by saying that Floyd was arguably the best defensive welterweight that ever laced them up and a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But to say he's the TBE is reaching.

Three things a fighter must-have on a resume to be TBE.....

1) Do things that haven't been done before

2)Beat All-Time greats- preferably in or close to their prime(BTW Prime is not always defined by age but by physical/athletic abilities which deteriorate over time)

3)Fight the Best available opposition

Now based on this... here is why Floyd is not TBE

1)Did Floyd duck fights? We know that he fought the loser of Zab Judah vs Baldomir but ducked Baldomir. We know Baldomir had the style to give him problems. Floyds struggled and arguably lost his first fight with Castillo who had a similar style to Baldomir. Floyd Also struggled with Maidana another hard-nosed-in-your-face Argentinian.

2)Floyd always contradicted himself. He claimed he fought the best. Yet before he fought Gatti he called Arturo a c level paper champ. But went ahead to fight him anyways. Never fought Kostya Zoo but could've fought him instead. Zoo was still one of the best 140. He could've fought Cotto who at the time was undefeated and prime at 140. Now he did fight Cotto but 7 years later when Cotto was past his prime after Cotto had been knocked out by Pacquiao and Margarito. Now is that fighting the best available opposition?

 

Mayweather Jr whipped that scumbag baldomir easily

 

Even Though REED Disagrees, (Hopefully) Dude Meant Margarita...




REED

 

You gotta be a Mexican born and raised in Panama.

 

It would also help to have hard hands. Perhaps rock-like.

 

Floyd's a great fighter but far from TBE. In fact, I'm not even sure he's in the top 20. Too many kiddos are impressed by his 0 but:

1- he arguably lost a couple of fights
2- he avoided fighting the best or the high risk low reward kind of guys throughout his career (especially after he moved to ww but even in the lighter weights fights vs Cassamayor, Freitas or Johnston would have been more interesting than most of the guys he fought).

 

A couple fights

 

Floyd is definitely top 20.

 

Maybe, and I might even see a case to have him in the lower top 10, depending on how much weight you put on the 0; but with the way he avoided Pacquiao, I cannot justify it. Furthemore, I will admit that it s hard for me to rate fighters from earlier era as I'm my knowledge of those years is quite limited. Same thing for lower weights.

Still, amongst recent fighters, I'd have Jones, Pacquiao and Hopkins over him. SRL and Duran are pretty much a given imo. Then you have guys like Spinks,Chavez, Holyfield and Hearns who I don't think it's clear cut at all. Earlier, Moore, Greb, Charles, SRR, Saddler, Leonard, Williams, Saddler, Pep and Armstrong; are all fighters I could see above Floyd (some clearly). And there's a ton I'm forgetting.

For an ATG, Floyd resume is pretty thin imo. The only win that really stands out (once again, in an ATG perspective) is vs Canelo (but the weight clause drags it down a lot imo and Canelo wasn't really Canelo yet) and maybe Corrales/Hatton/Cotto. Playing tag vs old versions of ODLH and Pac does not cut it. I do realise it might be a bit harsh but I don't recall a fighter as highly rated who blatantly ducked for so many years his main adversary (not to mention all of the other top guys he never fought during his prime). And even then, being top 20-30 of all time is still a hell of an accomplishment considering boxing's deep history.

 

Its barely impossible to rate fighters historically since the game changed so much, moreso than in most sports imo.

Still, i dont think pbf as a case for best ever, especially since he avoided a lot of the top ww with his "retirement"

 

Agreed. Boxing is the lone sport where you could make a legit case that no top-3 or top-5 athlete has participated in it since 1965.

Also, according to most, no fighter who has peaked after 1990 deserves to be in top-10 and even top-20 is questioned.

As you said, what this mainly demonstrates is that rating fighters historically is pretty much impossible

 

Roy Jones TBE?

Roy never became undisputed at 168. The way he got starched by Tarver makes it hard for me to take him seriously as TBE. I keep hearing Milk Dud saying you got any excuses tonight Roy lmao.

 

Who is TBE? Duran who got starched by hearns?

 

Jones isn't close to having the career credentials, but at 168 he was unbelievably good, and if you'd define TBE as "the most difficult guy to beat by a fighter his size" then Roy can't be far off.

I don't quite agree with your reasoning. "Undisputed" means very little since that depends more on the corrupt sanctioning bodies than on the abilities of the fighter.

Also, the loss to Tarver happened when Roy was old, past his best division and weakened by the weight loss, it was a Leonard - Norris moment more than anything

 

Hearn > Tarver

Horrible comparison.

 

I believe the point was that a single result, especially under certain circumstances, doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Floyd is much closer to being the best ever than he is the greatest IMO.

 

You seem new

 

I get his point but I'm putting a spin on it. Duran started his career at lightweight. So a past his prime Duran getting ktfo by one of the most devastating punchers of all time is not as bad as Roy getting starched by a former crack head in Tarver. Add to the fact that he never made the Darius fight and became undisputed. Hard to think of Roy as TBE.

 

I don't see any serious boxing fans calling PBF TBE.

 

Duran actually started his career at like, 119lbs.

 

Nor do I. I think most people know the true TBE is between Robinson and Duran.

 

Homicide Hank would get quite a lot of first place votes too.

 

I'd have him either fifth or forth. Maybe sixth. Dunno. Charles should be higher IMO, maybe Whitaker and Floyd too. Not too many who're better.

 

Going by the film we have, I think Charles was better than Armstrong, but I have Armstrong ranked as greater.

 

Agreed. Although there's not much in either case IMO.

I forgot about Pep, he's just as impressive as Floyd and Whitaker IMO. Leonard too.

Moore, Hagler, Gavilan and Napoles all have cases for top ten as well.

 

And if you include the oldies, Sam Langford and Bob Fitsimmons are up there, as is Harry Greb

 

I remember Kellerman used to rate Willie Pep higher than Whitaker.

 

In the footage we have of Langford, he hardly jumps off the screen as one of the best ever. Looks good, definitely. Not as good as PBF. Fitzsimmons looks absolutely awful, and I suspect Greb's style would look terrible too.

 

Fitzsimmons looks like a homo.