My top 20 greatest all time IF YOU DONT AGREE I WILL EXPLAIN

Yeah Floyd is an amazing talent no doubt. I reckon he is closing in on the top 20, but the top 10 will probably forever be locked by fighters fighting before 1980. Good shout JC Chavez BTW. Your Duran argument is a must read for new fans of the sport as well. While the quantity is certainly there, the quality is good, but lacking nonetheless for the ATG heights he is probably well and truly capable of. That's the one problem with ****ty eras. You can never say with any degree of certainty just what would happen when they get in against someone of equal capabilities. I think we can agree that Floyd would probably handle it as well as any, but we still don't truly know. We've seen him hit, struggle (very arguably lose a fight already), get hurt and rocked and all against just decent opposition. What happens when he fights someone who can hit him like Mosley did, but follow it up for twelve rounds and adjust themselves to keep landing rather than folding the moment Floyd adjusts? All legitimate questions we will never see answered sadly. The one and only fighter of similar standard in the same division...well, we all know what happened there. I can't ever see him reaching the top 10, though his skill level is worthy, like Jones. They just don't have the necessary wins and Jones has the two greatest wins out of both, BHop and Toney being greater than any wins of Floyds. Man, the Chavez revision is weird and slightly amusing. Is it because of Jr? Is it because so many of his old detractors still go on about the taxi driver résumé that new fans actually believe it now, or is it the Whitaker robbery and Oscar/Tszyu losses? People forgotten that he had fought nearly 100 fights before then and already amassed one of the greatest, record breaking championship runs and resumes of all time? If you think that the WBO didn't get recognised as a legitimate title until 2004 and the IBF until the late 80's and early 90's, and Chavez was active and beat most of his opposition through the 80's and 90's, to have beaten 16, from memory, champions is a pretty staggering feat for that time and much more than anyone else of the time. 16 champions is outstanding today with an extra title or two available and apart from Mayweather, I think only Pac probably has a similar amount of active fighters. People rave today about someone doing a quarter of what Chavez did. I think people have either forgotten just how dominant and good he was or they don't even know and just assume. To still have the records for most successful consecutive defenses of world titles ever (27), most title fights ever (37), most title-fight victories ever (31) and he is after Joe Louis with (23) for most title defenses won by knockout (21). Of course he still also has the longest undefeated streak in boxing history, 13 years and 87 fights or whatever it was until the loss to Whitaker. All this against opposition like champions Jose Luis Ramírez, Rafael Limón, Rocky Lockridge, Meldrick Taylor, Roger Mayweather, Lonnie Smith, Sammy Fuentes, Héctor "Macho" Camacho, Juan Laporte, Edwin Rosario, Greg Haugen, Tony López, Giovanni Parisi, Joey Gamache and Frankie Randall. He lost to Tszyu, his only legitimate KO loss, Oscar, Whitaker, and Randall and at the very end Wiley and wise. Most guys probably don't even remember someone like Haugen, a tough rugged champion, and yet he himself was able to beat well known names like Vinny Paz, Camacho, Ray Mancini etc and Chavez literally toyed with him before eventually blowing him out when he felt like it. I guess it gives an understanding of the level some of the 'unknown' lesser champions he fought were at when they are beating guys like Mancini, Macho and prime Paz.

Btw TS, Duran started at bantamweight, not featherweight. He beat his first HOfer at featherweight in Ernesto Marcel, but fought future champion Carlos Mendoza at bantamweight. As for Floyd and his lineal titles as a reason for being above Duran and so high, I guess Duran wouldn't have beaten Hernandez (maybe top 20 at 130), Castillo (maybe top 30 at 135), Baldomir (unrated at 147) and Canelo (unrated at 154) and was incredibly lucky instead to have had to fight Marvin Hagler (top 3-5 at 160), Tommy Hearns (top 1-3 at 154), Sugar Ray Leonard (top 2-3 at 147), Buchanan (top 15-20 at 135) and De Jesus for his. That's not even going into the fact that he has one of the very, very greatest wins in the history of boxing, arguably the greatest. As for your banal, typical excuse of Ray Leonard fought the wrong fight, as usual, that's just some bad Legendary Nights parroting. The original game plan, by Dundee and Leonard was to fight as he normally did. Revisionist history now has people thinking that Leonard normally fought as he did in the rematch and as he did against Hagler. Those two fights were the exceptions, and the first Duran fight the rule. He had never fought like that in his pro career and the way he fought Duran in the rematch was the first, and one of the only times, he ever fought like that with so much movement, very little engagement off the backfoot. He fought 95% of his career as he did against Duran in the first fight and as it was thought Duran was slightly past it heading into it, they expected his youth, massive size and reach advantage, natural strength and punching power at 147 would prevail. Dundee also wanted Leonard to target Duran's body and back him up because they knew he was ageing and blew up in between fights and thus thought that they would wear him down and overpower him. They expected to be able to hit him with the jab easily, but Leonard had it taken away in the first two rounds with a series of slip and counter right hands over it which hurt him and stopped him throwing it as much. Because he lost, people suddenly started in with all the typical excuses you hear now. Anyway, I am probably one of the very few people that agree that Mayweather is one of the best of all times and rates very highly as such, but the excuses you use to have him in the top 10 and above someone like Duran is absurd. You say you base your list on resume plus skill, dominance, and longevity. Duran beat better fighters and has a greater resume over as much and more weight divisions, dominated one division better and longer, and showed off an equally high level of skill against fighters of greater skill, though in a different style. What he did lack was Floyds consistency and longevity at the top after 30, though that is also due to Floyd not going above 154 and a great lack of talent overall in today's era, along with Duran's lack of discipline and fat ass. If the hardest guys Duran had had to fight at 147-154 was Hatton, Judah, Cotto and Canelo, instead of HOFers Carlos Palomino, Ray Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Cuevas etc he wouldn't have lost either. If he also only moved from 130-154 (though only a few fights at 154) rather than 118-168 it would have been different, but that's what he did, so it's not. A moot point either way. Apart from two fights, both against HOFers who he also has wins over, all his losses came after 30 and at 154 and above. Considering he is only a natural lightweight of 5'7" and really never belonged any higher than 140-147 at most, it's not surprising. Anyway, I admire anyone that does these lists, but resume always comes first and foremost. Who you beat is everything. The other stuff builds on that, but cannot replace it. It's why guys like Ricardo Lopez will never be rated truly high. Dominance, longevity, great skill, everything....except the résumé. http://cdn.arwrath.com/6/67739.gif

That may have something to do with he fact he was busy fighting the best available competition who were actually competing in his division. Fighters actually better and more accomplished, I might add. But even still, Pryor was offered a career high purse to fight Leonard in 1981, and he rejected it. So there goes your argument. Yep. Pryor never fought above 140 until his ill-fated comback; Leonard never fought below 147 in his career.

Leonard didnt fight Aaron Pryor who begged for a fight, That may have something to do with he fact he was busy fighting the best available competition who were actually competing in his division. Fighters actually better and more accomplished, I might add. But even still, Pryor was offered a career high purse to fight Leonard in 1981, and he rejected it. So there goes your argument. And if Leonard's win over Hagler was the result of perfect timing, what you call Mayweather fighting De La Hoya, Mosley and Cotto well beyond their best years? None of those guys were universally considered to be the absolute best in the sport, and no intelligent beings were predicting Floyd to be destroyed by any of them. And more importantly: none of them are anywhere near as great as Hagler was.

Yeah, I was surprised by the inclusion of fighters like Benny Leonard, Canzoneri, Chocolate etc, not to speak of Jones and Floyd, yet the exclusion of Gans, Moore and McLarnin in particular. Though somewhat inconsistent, he still holds, unarguably, one of the greatest resumes over many divisions in the history of the sport. Arguably better than anyone else in that respect. Yeah Floyd is an amazing talent no doubt. I reckon he is closing in on the top 20, but the top 10 will probably forever be locked by fighters fighting before 1980. Good shout JC Chavez BTW. Your Duran argument is a must read for new fans of the sport as well.

Yeah, I was surprised by the inclusion of fighters like Benny Leonard, Canzoneri, Chocolate etc, not to speak of Jones and Floyd, yet the exclusion of Gans, Moore and McLarnin in particular. Though somewhat inconsistent, he still holds, unarguably, one of the greatest resumes over many divisions in the history of the sport. Arguably better than anyone else in that respect. I rate only Greb and Langford's resumes higher than McLarnin's.

Mayweather Jr is Top 10-15 All time imo. The skills, the dominance, the overall body of work. 17 years of excellence in the ring. My grandad was shocked watching the Canelo-Floyd fight. 37 years old and looked 21. My grandad had so much respect for his conditioning and dedication to his craft.

You say you underrate Burley because you haven't seen much of him and then you rank Greb at no. 4 even though no footage exists. Odd. Other points: Not having arguably the greatest ever LW in Joe Gans on the list is inexcuseable. Jimmy McLarnin and Archie Moore, are a couple more that absolutely should be there. I think that having Whitaker and particularly Jones Jr. and Floyd in the all-time top 20 is terrible. Yeah, I was surprised by the inclusion of fighters like Benny Leonard, Canzoneri, Chocolate etc, not to speak of Jones and Floyd, yet the exclusion of Gans, Moore and McLarnin in particular. Though somewhat inconsistent, he still holds, unarguably, one of the greatest resumes over many divisions in the history of the sport. Arguably better than anyone else in that respect.

Missing Archie Moore and Joe Gans.

Btw TS, Duran started at bantamweight, not featherweight. He beat his first HOfer at featherweight in Ernesto Marcel, but fought future champion Carlos Mendoza at bantamweight. As for Floyd and his lineal titles as a reason for being above Duran and so high, I guess Duran wouldn't have beaten Hernandez (maybe top 20 at 130), Castillo (maybe top 30 at 135), Baldomir (unrated at 147) and Canelo (unrated at 154) and was incredibly lucky instead to have had to fight Marvin Hagler (top 3-5 at 160), Tommy Hearns (top 1-3 at 154), Sugar Ray Leonard (top 2-3 at 147), Buchanan (top 15-20 at 135) and De Jesus for his. That's not even going into the fact that he has one of the very, very greatest wins in the history of boxing, arguably the greatest. As for your banal, typical excuse of Ray Leonard fought the wrong fight, as usual, that's just some bad Legendary Nights parroting. The original game plan, by Dundee and Leonard was to fight as he normally did. Revisionist history now has people thinking that Leonard normally fought as he did in the rematch and as he did against Hagler. Those two fights were the exceptions, and the first Duran fight the rule. He had never fought like that in his pro career and the way he fought Duran in the rematch was the first, and one of the only times, he ever fought like that with so much movement, very little engagement off the backfoot. He fought 95% of his career as he did against Duran in the first fight and as it was thought Duran was slightly past it heading into it, they expected his youth, massive size and reach advantage, natural strength and punching power at 147 would prevail. Dundee also wanted Leonard to target Duran's body and back him up because they knew he was ageing and blew up in between fights and thus thought that they would wear him down and overpower him. They expected to be able to hit him with the jab easily, but Leonard had it taken away in the first two rounds with a series of slip and counter right hands over it which hurt him and stopped him throwing it as much. Because he lost, people suddenly started in with all the typical excuses you hear now. Anyway, I am probably one of the very few people that agree that Mayweather is one of the best of all times and rates very highly as such, but the excuses you use to have him in the top 10 and above someone like Duran is absurd. You say you base your list on resume plus skill, dominance, and longevity. Duran beat better fighters and has a greater resume over as much and more weight divisions, dominated one division better and longer, and showed off an equally high level of skill against fighters of greater skill, though in a different style. What he did lack was Floyds consistency and longevity at the top after 30, though that is also due to Floyd not going above 154 and a great lack of talent overall in today's era, along with Duran's lack of discipline and fat ass. If the hardest guys Duran had had to fight at 147-154 was Hatton, Judah, Cotto and Canelo, instead of HOFers Carlos Palomino, Ray Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Cuevas etc he wouldn't have lost either. If he also only moved from 130-154 (though only a few fights at 154) rather than 118-168 it would have been different, but that's what he did, so it's not. A moot point either way. Apart from two fights, both against HOFers who he also has wins over, all his losses came after 30 and at 154 and above. Considering he is only a natural lightweight of 5'7" and really never belonged any higher than 140-147 at most, it's not surprising. Anyway, I admire anyone that does these lists, but resume always comes first and foremost. Who you beat is everything. The other stuff builds on that, but cannot replace it. It's why guys like Ricardo Lopez will never be rated truly high. Dominance, longevity, great skill, everything....except the résumé.

You say you underrate Burley because you haven't seen much of him and then you rank Greb at no. 4 even though no footage exists. Odd. Other points: Not having arguably the greatest ever LW in Joe Gans on the list is inexcuseable. Jimmy McLarnin and Archie Moore, are a couple more that absolutely should be there. I think that having Whitaker and particularly Jones Jr. and Floyd in the all-time top 20 is terrible.

Outside of Floyd at #10. Not a horrible list. But Chavez Sr. Arguello, Hopkins & Floyd have no business anywhere near a top 20 ATG list. But a Floyd win over Pacquiao before he proves himself to be completely shot could change all of that. Still wouldn't be in the top 10 though. Even if he beat a peak Manny Pacquiao. Regarding Hopkins, if cleans out Light Heavyweight & becomes undisputed while either 50 or pushing 50 (as absurd as it seems, it's highly possible). I don't see how you can't have a spot for him the top 20. Chavez Sr nowhere near a top 20 list? What has happened to him recently? He has become someone people love to slag off as an overrated hype job recently, especially on this forum. Based on everything that makes you rate high as an ATG, Chavez does better than most. He is undoubtedly worthy of a spot between 10-20. He rates highly in every single area. He beat a lot of champions. More than most today, and this was without the amount of titles available today. He has numerous HOFers and great fighters on his résumé and ducked no one. He has won titles in multiple divisions, dominated one division, reigned for many years, was p4p and has records for all sorts of championship fights. Most defenses, most titles fights etc etc. You need some pretty clear bias to say he doesn't anywhere near a top 20.

I knew this list would have Floyd in a silly position when I saw the thread title. Having Floyd above Duran and SRL is simply unjustifiable.

people have to make lists with arbitrary criteria in order to place floyd so high. if you made a list based on the most important thing in boxing resume floyd would be nowhere near the top. skill? completely subjective and dependent on competition. anyone looks great against guys they hand pick. longevity? ottke, calzaghe, john, cuenca, grigorian. all these guys had longevity. that means they are great fighters? also retiring for long stretches and barely fighting surely has an advantage over past eras where guys who fought 4-5 times a year. dominance? once against dependent on your competition. not very hard to dominant when you are only fighting the guys that you want to fight. if pac fought 20 margaritos in a row he would be the most dominant fighter of all time! you can't be one of the greats of all time if you refused to fight the best of your time. Bhop is the GOAT :usa2:

You got burley twice. And floyd isnt top 30 alltime glad someone noticed...i meant to put Jimmy McClarnin right there i think at 18...one of my all time favs....bet half the fools on here have to boxrec or youtube him after they read this

You got burley twice. And floyd isnt top 30 alltime

there are also 4 world champs in each division. at least. ortiz being champ in the leonard, duran, benitez, hearns era.....um yea there are no berto's there to beat. cotto being champ at 154 in the hearns, duran, benitez era....um yea there are no yuri foreman's there to beat. baldomir would still be lineal champ though lol! i dont count the WBO, but the IBF, WBC, and WBA were in existance in that era. Learn your boxing the WBO was around in their era too. Leonard held the WBC and unified with Hearns for the WBA. All the titles they won were not undisputed or lineal. Matter of fact their rematch was for the WBO belt at super middleweight Leonard won two titles in the same night WBC 168 and 175 title and the champion had to move down to defend his belt 7 pounds lower. They created a belt for Leonard. Lets not act like they all beat a murderers row for their titles. Leonard....Ayub Kalule at 154 and Donny Lalonde 168/175 were world class but definitely not all time greats or hall of famers Duran...154 Maurice Hope a novice in comparison to him, and 160 Iran Barkley who was no more than a middleweight Gatti Nobodies record is resume, but they are all modern era fighters and Mayweather has won more lineal titles than both and beaten more world champions and title holders. these are facts not my opinion.

top heavy resume isn't that a good thing? floyd doesn't have 1 win that rivals leonard's over benitez. not one. not even close. so if leonard's is top heavy then floyd's is bottom heavy. mayweather's pride won't even let him get in the ring with dangerous guys like pac or margarito. his game plan was don't fight them. bonus points i guess. losing to duran? he happens to be one of the best fighters of all time and floyd hasn't beaten anyone close to him. i mean he's 14 on your list.floyd should have lost to castillo and last time i checked duran was better than castillo. where's castillo on your list? haha titles and champions. and who were they? i noticed you didn't mention any names at all because most the guys floyd beat had no great standing in the sport of boxing unlike leonard's wins. floyd beat baldomir and canelo to become linear in those 2. aka weak. benitez beat all time great cervantes at 140, hall of famer palomino at 147 and all time great duran at 154. that is what you call a resume. and benitez is considered the 5th best out of all those guys. he isn't even in your top 20 yet floyd is because he took the easier path and you reward him. This aint no should have could have list...do you know the champions he beat or did you just start watching boxing 5 years ago? Lets be real, it quite rare for that two all time greats share the ring let alone be in the same weight class in the same era. Also, Margarito...lol Mayweather has beaten better and more proven fighters than him so he aint even worth discussing. He didnt fight Pacquiao but no fighter in history fought every good or great fighter in their era. What all time greats did Joe Louis beat? None, the era he fought in wasnt very deep, though he does get credit for his skill, dominance, and longevity. The only great fighter Pep beat was Saddler and thats in over 200 fights, Chavez never beat an all time great, outside of a washed up Barney Ross, Henry armstrong fought consistently good comp but in over a hundred fights he hardly faced all time greats. Outside of Ali there is no fighter in history that fought every top rated fighter available. The list goes on Sugar Ray Robinson is the highest rated fighter of all time and outside of Kid Gavilan he hasnt faced any prime all time greats either, the only fighters that even get mentioned is because they beat him like Lamotta, Basilio, and Fullmer and two of the guys beat him past prime. His biggest threat was Charley Burley they never fought, but Im not gonna let that detract from what he did in the ring, same goes for Louis, Jones and Mayweather. Leonard didnt fight Aaron Pryor who begged for a fight, Manny wasnt begging for a fight or push for one. Also, Leonard or any of the fab 5 never faced Mike McCallum in the 80's who was a champion at 154 and 160 til the early 90's. We can go all day. Whats the point.

Is this sh*t in a particular order? As in #1 being the best? If so i got more than one issue with this list. Edit* Matter fact scratch that where the fk is Hagler and Hearns? Thats what i wanna know.

Saw Floyd at number 10 and immediately stopped reading. Not even worth the bother.