Originally Posted by Anthony342
I started this thread because I have this friend that says that Floyd Mayweather is pound for pound the best boxer of all time. In case you're wondering, he's never seen a Sugar Ray Robinson fight and has seen very little of Ali or Sugar Ray Leonard. He's pretty much mostly seen guys from when he was growing up from the '80s to today, guys like Tyson, Holyfield, De La Hoya, all the way up to the best of today. When I tried to disagree with him, he said I was just a hater. When I couldn't get him to listen to reason, I finally said that maybe I'd agree with him if Mayweather ever beats Pacquiao, Andre Ward, Sergio Martinez and maybe a guy like Carl Froch. I say Floyd is the best from his debut in 1996 until probably around the time he beat Ricky Hatton, so I say the best of his era, but not all time, maybe even the best from 1996 to today.
So anyway, do you agree with him that Floyd is the best of all time? Why or why not?
One of the main reasons is because its hard to compare Floyd to fighters of the past that simply were so much more active and proved themselves more often (and often repeatedly!) against other all time great fighters. Floyd has looked superb for over a decade, but his activity level is very low.
I personally think Floyd is one of the pound for pound 'most talented' guys to have ever laced them up. But when you compare his record to that of Robinson, Charles, Moore, Pep or even Ali you realise that it is nigh on impossible for him to ever be considered the best of all time.
Has your friend seen much of prime Roy Jones Jnr (1993-2003)? On the talent front I'd give Roy the edge over Floyd.
On a head to head front I'm not confident that Floyd would beat prime Whitaker/Duran at lightweight or prime Hearns/Robinson/Leonard at welterweight.