Floyd Mayweather GOAT?

[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?

[Sugarj]

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.

[TBear]

No, lol.

........................

[Allucard]

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.

I think Floyd has a better resume than say Roy Jones. Again direct comparison is useless and the reason old timers still stand as the best there was. It's unfair if you think about it. Fighters just can't fight as often and with all the things we know about brain damage there is no way things are going back in those regards. I didn't even mentioned the marketing every big fight requires and that also takes time. But what i can honestly tell you is Floyd is the best I've seen fighting. The most complete, the best technique. I think he's better than hearns, duran and leonard and I saw all those guys fighting. All great, all more incomplete than Floyd is. Apart from a 1 punch KO power at these higher weights, Floyd has it all.

[Sugarj]

I think Floyd has a better resume than say Roy Jones. Again direct comparison is useless and the reason old timers still stand as the best there was. It's unfair if you think about it. Fighters just can't fight as often and with all the things we know about brain damage there is no way things are going back in those regards. I didn't even mentioned the marketing every big fight requires and that also takes time. But what i can honestly tell you is Floyd is the best I've seen fighting. The most complete, the best technique. I think he's better than hearns, duran and leonard and I saw all those guys fighting. All great, all more incomplete than Floyd is. Apart from a 1 punch KO power at these higher weights, Floyd has it all.

I only mentioned Roy Jones in respect of talent, not resume.....not that Roy Jones's resume is in any way poor.

I rate Mayweather as one of the best I've ever seen too. But I don't think he is quite as fast or as good at combination punching as Roy Jones, Meldrick Taylor, Ray Robinson or Ray Leonard. I'm not convinced that he was/is as defensively sound as prime Whitaker and he has never shown workrate like prime Duran. But yes, Floyd is pretty complete package.

I personally would have liked to have seen him matched with a much taller, rangy fighter in their prime. I don't think that he would fare too well with prime welterweight Hearns over 12 rounds. Matches with prime Vernon Forrest or prime Paul Williams might have been more interesting than you'd expect.

The most talented fighter with the best skill set that I've ever seen is Roy Jones jnr 1994-2000.

[SBleeder]

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.

Most people who think today's fighters are greater than past fighters haven't seen any of the past fighters. They hide behind the fiction that today's athletes are somehow products of a tremendous macro-evolution of the human species. Paqtards and Tysontards are guilty of the same thing.

[IronDanHamza]

I speak to a lot of younger guys who think Mayweather is the greatest fighter ever.

Him, along with Roy Jones and a few others they know of like Ray Leonard and Ray Robinson.

It boils down to just being ignorant. They don't know about the past and aren't prepared to learn. Pretty stupid IMO

But the majority of people who consider Mayweather to be the greatest fighter of all time, base it off his skills. That, along with the fact he's the first or one of the first ATG's they have witnessed.

[NChristo]

[LoadedWraps]

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?

You can tell your friend it's just not true.

You really can't compare anyone in this era, or in recent memory to fighters of the 30's, 40's and 50's because there was a much higher talent pool back then, the average boxer was higher skilled and better conditioned and more seasoned than today, and back then you couldn't be a protected fighter, cherry picking and ducking and all this nonsense that goes on today. I always feel like I am beating a dead horse on this issue, but you just can't call anyone today the GOAT, not even close. Mayweather's talent is amazing, he is truly gifted, and in my opinion ( and most others opinions that are knowledgeable on the subject) he is the best in this era, arguably the best in the last 40 years or so, but much more than that? He would have to prove it. And at this rate and this age that won't happen. Floyd and Manny fight about once a year, twice tops. Try defending your title once a month. Exactly.

[Sportofkings]

Your friend doesnt know **** about boxin........