Floyd is P4P #2 ever after SRR?

[Humean]

No he didn't look good against Collins. Not in my mind.

I'd have given Calzaghe credit if he beat a prime Collins as it would be his best win. Which in my eyes speaks for itself. Because whilst definitely being a good fighter and a good win I don't think it would be that good of a win. For example, I think McCallum's win over Collins was a good win but it's not that good.

And Eubank lost twice. And it was 2 years prior to when Calzaghe fought him and no significant wins inbetween.

No I didn't say he wasn't of high quality in 1993. I said he was passed his best in 1993. He definitely wasn't of high quality in 1997 that's for sure.

It's not unimportant. Because he hadn't shown high quality in years up to that fight and hadn't looked impressive even longer.

It's really simple. Eubank had not looked impressive in years, years. The last time he "impressive" in your eyes was when he had two losing efforts to Collins which was two whole years prior. The last time he actually won something of note was even longer. He'd been struggling badly with fringe guys for quite a while up to that point. He had a week to prepare and was unranked at the weight.

I don't consider that impressive, nor "high quality", "damn good" or any other nice descriptive terms. It's not impressive.

I disagree that Eubank didn't look good against Collins and don't think that anyone could narrowly lose to Collins circa 1995 and be anything other than a high quality super middleweight at that moment in time. So when did he actually lose his high quality then if not 1993,1994? 1995? 1996? I'm not contending that Eubank was at his absolute peak against Calzaghe but he was clearly of high quality at that time and to say he wasn't just seems incredulous. You are even backtracking on the amount of credit you'd give Calzaghe if he'd beaten a prime Collins, from the 'world of credit' to merely 'a good win'. Your definition of an impressive win seems like it would be too narrow for almost any fighter to have.

[IronDanHamza]

I disagree that Eubank didn't look good against Collins and don't think that anyone could narrowly lose to Collins circa 1995 and be anything other than a high quality super middleweight at that moment in time. So when did he actually lose his high quality then if not 1993,1994? 1995? 1996? I'm not contending that Eubank was at his absolute peak against Calzaghe but he was clearly of high quality at that time and to say he wasn't just seems incredulous. You are even backtracking on the amount of credit you'd give Calzaghe if he'd beaten a prime Collins, from the 'world of credit' to merely 'a good win'. Your definition of an impressive win seems like it would be too narrow for almost any fighter to have.

I think losing to Collins twice shows what level you're at. What is so good about Collins?

Collins is a good fighter, beating him is certainly a good win because he's a good fighter but I just don't consider him that good. Seems to get overrated in time to me due beating faded versions of both Eubank and Benn who are big favourites here.

I would say Eubank lost his high quality when he was struggling with the likes of Close, Schommer, Rocchigiani and such, between the second Benn fight and the rest of 1994. He showed he clearly was not a high quality fighter anymore and then showed it again by losing twice to Collins and then definitely was 2 years (And nothing of note) later in 1997. I mean, the tape is there. It's easy to see how badly he was performing on a consistent basis. To say it's incredulous to consider him anything but "high quality" in 1997 is nothing short of ridiculous. Let's say he did perform well against Collins, taking him to a close loss is impressive. Let's consider that as fact for a second, he still went a whole 2 years of doing nothing of note. How is that high quality? It's not.

I'm not backtracking at all. I said if Joe beat a prime version of Collins I would give him the world of credit because I would. It would definitely be his best win IMO. Still doesn't mean it's some great win, it's not. Just because I'd give him a lot of credit and he'd deserve credit it doesn't make it a great win. They aren't hand in hand.

The last part is just not true at all and you getting to that conclusion based of me not considering beating Collins to be something that's overly impressive is just ridiculous aswell.

[theface07]

I'm not understanding what Klitschko can do to satisfy you. He fights all his mandatories, and the only people who call them out are Toney and Holyfield, who are broke and just looking for a payday.

Don't forget Shannon Briggs! That **** was hilarious when he interrupted the Klitschko press conference!
I'm not a fan of the Klitschko style either but the Heavyweight division is wack. There are a few up and comers who may be good but haven't really been tested yet including Wilder and the younger Anthony Joshua.
Vlad has a solid jab and is too big and too smart for the the bulk of Heavyweights who have been in contention to fight him. Perhaps one of the newer super heavyweights will take over his throne but he may retire before that happens.

[Ben Bolt]

I'm not understanding what Klitschko can do to satisfy you. He fights all his mandatories

I'm not a fan of the Klitschko style either but the Heavyweight division is wack […] Vlad has a solid jab and is too big and too smart for the the bulk of Heavyweights who have been in contention to fight him.

Maybe it's so, that the heavy division hasn't had much depth the last decade.
But – except for the 1970s to 90s, which were exceptional – that's how it always has been.

We can compare Wlad's reign with some other champions, ones that we never would question their greatness.
Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey for ex. had a few top rivals, but it wasn't much depth back then.
When Joe Louis dominated his era, we never reflect over the division's depth at the time. But, there was a reason for the "bum of the month"-idiom.

Not Joe's fault, as it today isn't Wlad's either. It's not up to them to apologize if it didn't turn up any challenger of their own calibre in their prime.

And, if we look back at the heavyweight era, the exclusive club of champions that never ducked anyone include quite a few. Wlad has definitely earned his membership into the club. That said, along with an outstanding record, 62-3 with 52 inside-the-distance wins (52! – that makes quite a remarkable KO percentage), I don't hesitate to call him one of the truly great heavy champs.

[MrTambourineMan]

Floyd isn't even the 72nd Best Ever, Never mind the 2nd best and even more laughably - The Best Ever. LMAO.

[RAV3N]

Floyd is missing the one most important ingredient for becoming a highly ranked ATG and that is a great resume, you fantasize all you want but he just doesnt have it.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Floyd is missing the one most important ingredient for becoming a highly ranked ATG and that is a great resume, you fantasize all you want but he just doesnt have it.

Yeah, pretty much this... He had a great chance to really be a top level atg but his resume just doesn't add up to it..

[slipcatchroll]

What missing fights did Floyd Mayweather Jr miss to raise his ATG status?

Would like to discuss what some posters think on this issue because it gets brought up a lot but I tend to disagree with some of the boxers mentioned like Maragarito or even Paul Williams.

Essentially the sub topic at hand is can any fighter this day and age and the foreseeable future top the likes of SRL, SRR, Duran, Ali in terms of greatness?

[Ray Corso]

Records & resumes are a part of deciding who is an ATG but not the end all.
The most important factor to me is their Methods and Techniques.
To understand that you need some actual experience and most important realize that theres right & wrong ways to learn and apply what you've learned.
a great example is the greatest boxer/fighter ever Sugar Ray Robinson. He had tremendous size and body type, he was extremely fast of hand and feet with power in both hands. His defense could be performed at a high level if he respected his opponents if not he's accept some shots to be able to end a fight early. His activity was very high in an era when the best fought everyone from contenders to "hometown hero's"! That was how it was done in the NO tv NO ppv era's. Activity decided your earning power and boxers who were exclusively counter/move counter/punch guys were not appreciate from the fans view who wanted to see action bouts.

There are no ATG today for me because no one has 75% of what it takes to qualify for me. It's very easy to be undefeated today when the sport has been shrunk down to a few good boxers who dominate the sport by molding their opposition on their own undercards or remaining in a "hometown" environment that becomes a safe heaven. No one is a true champ who takes time to be a "road warrior" of old.

ex;
Wlad is to be commended for dominating his division. Is the division a healthy one? No but that's not his fault. Does he have high quality Methods & Techniques? No he does not! He is a one dimensional fellow who only jabs and tries to place his right hand ala George Foreman. He doesn't work the body, he never fights inside or continues forward with pressure. He doesn't know how to tie one hand and fight with the other. He only grabs then leans on which is not a boxing technique. Bottom line he is a good competitor in a weak era who dominates but doesn't have the skills to compete against the ATG heavies.
Mayweather is a very small welter with minimal power and relies on his eye/hand and counter abilities to off set his opponents. He is not an offensive action fighter and in the days of "live boxing" would not be a main event draw because of his Methods!
Against the ATG welters he would be dominated rather easily because of my comments above. he is an excellent mind in the ring and can get over on all the so-called contenders of the day but he falls short as an ATG to me.
I'm not putting these young men down, in fact I give them credit for their standing in todays boxing scene but being an ATG to me is when you bring a full package of Methods & Techniques to the ring and you've employed them against other ATG and have won the majority of those bouts.
The fact that the Mayweathers and Calzaghe's of the world are undefeated tells me being undefeated is a personal accomplishment that doesn't have much to do with greatness in the history of the sport. Try and consider that the great Sugar Ray was 101--0 before his first loss! Seriously Mayweathers and Joe's undeafeated record looks pretty silly next to Sugarman. He has more undefeated wins in a row than they have fights combined!!!

ok that's enough of this. The word "great" is almost a generalization these days. Hell everyone that wins a BS belt is great!!! Ray Corso

[Public_Enemy]

I think Pacquiao in 2010 would've been the most important by far. Cotto would've been big as well at WW before he lost to Margarito.

I would've also liked to see Johnston and Casamayor at lightweight. He would've had a very good lightweight resume with those two wins.