Is Mayweather the best fighter ever?

http://i59.tinypic.com/2zzrl79.jpg

If Mayweather decided all the sudden to fight Pacquiao and took him to school, and maybe Golovkin, then we can try this thread again.

being the "best fighter ever" has nothing to do with health, promotion etc. no he is not the best fighter ever. He is not even the most successful fighter ever. I would say that would be Mike Tyson.

Oh hell no.

Unfortunately judging by the way you talk you know very little about boxing especially it's history. At least thats how you come across. There is nothing wrong with that people start somewhere, but what I mean is what do you expect some people's response to be when you start a question eluding to one person? As a side note I'm not eluding to TS, but when I was talking to my friends today we were discussing all young uns these days once they know a bit about something they automatically think they're experts on it

Now before some of you guys start hyperventilating, I'm not asking if he is the greatest fighter ever, there's a difference. To judge greatness there are other criteria like greatness of opposition etc. I'm talking about all the things that encompass being a successful fighter. Things like: .raw talent .skill .promotion and business sense .making money .self preservation and of course .winning fights I don't think anyone in history has been more successful at fighting. Discuss. Please no nonsense (Yes I know there's going to be posts about "ducking" and other gay sh1t but even if that were true, it doesn't disprove my point of being a "successful fighter" as per the criteria above^^^) With all due respect, this is such a retarded post and I am referring to the post itself and not so much the poster. Being the best fighter has nothing to do with all the elements you listed with the exception of one. An ideal topic would have been if he is the most talented, the most skilled, the most marketable, or the best in terms of those criteria you listed. Being the best at something and achieving greatest often goes hand in hand. So after saying all of that, I think Floyd is a great fighter but certainly not the best fighter ever like you stated or the best of his era. Those things are judged solely on ring achievements. Too many question mark surrounds his career in terms of missing too many fighters and the timing of when his best fights have taken place at least at welterweight. He is undefeated and he makes a lot of money in his fights but I don't know how that makes him the best ever. That label often goes hand in hand with the quality of opposition at the weight one has been dominant in. He is probably the most talented fighter especially defensively but skillwise, Roy Jones in his prime remains the most skilled fighter I have ever seen in my lifetime.

:haha::haha: As do all Floyidiots Fighter spends his best days wondering how he can convert the masses of boxing fans into raging retards like him. http://i61.tinypic.com/2lbfi29.jpg They're like Mormons, sent out in pairs to boxing forums to get more suckers into the flock as soon as they are old enough to gain access to the internet. Cunts, racists and spastics.:nonono:

He's one of the most talented fighters of his generation. But in the later stages of his career he's squandered that talent because he's so focused on remaining undefeated, although Cotto and Maidana were solid opponents and good wins. I still have faith that a Pac fight will get made and I still think it would be one of the most significant fights of all time. Only from a name standpoint and because of all of floyd's longtime avoidance, doping accusations, bad blood etc. In reality it will be about as significant as Leonard-Duran 3.

This thread should have been titled - 'I want to lick floyd's starfish....who's with me?':nonono: :haha::haha: As do all Floyidiots Fighter spends his best days wondering how he can convert the masses of boxing fans into raging retards like him. http://i61.tinypic.com/2lbfi29.jpg

This thread should have been titled - 'I want to lick floyd's starfish....who's with me?':nonono:

Trust you to completely ignore the topic and turn this into an "atg" debate. "Is Mayweather the best fighter ever?" The guys mentioned are clearly better fighters... Perhaps If you said... Is Mayweather the best business man ever in boxing Which in that case I'd of said 100% yes, yes he is.

Now before some of you guys start hyperventilating, I'm not asking if he is the greatest fighter ever, there's a difference. To judge greatness there are other criteria like greatness of opposition etc. I'm talking about all the things that encompass being a successful fighter. Things like: .raw talent .skill .promotion and business sense .making money .self preservation and of course .winning fights I don't think anyone in history has been more successful at fighting. Discuss. Please no nonsense (Yes I know there's going to be posts about "ducking" and other gay sh1t but even if that were true, it doesn't disprove my point of being a "successful fighter" as per the criteria above^^^) Is this some kind of sick joke?:puke:

But those things don't apply to what this thread is about. The definition of "best fighter" in this thread is outlined in the original post. so you decide that skill is relevant but power isn't at your whim ... gotcha

From recent not that long ago years there is people who are ahead of Floyd Bhop Roy Jones Sugar Ray Leonard Lennox Lewis Larry Holmes I'd rate him on equal terms with the likes of Joe Calzaghe and rating him just above the likes of Evander Holyfield and the Mike Tysons of the world. There is plenty that deserve to be ahead of Floyd Mayweather Jr, you could be there for a while but he no doubt will get a high positioning in the meaningless list of records which mean absolutely nothing. Trust you to completely ignore the topic and turn this into an "atg" debate.

A better thing for you to do if you are talking about best fighter is to remove the promotion, money making, and self preservation options and replace them with options that actually relate to fighting ... things like speed, power, chin, stamina, heart, ring iq etc. But those things don't apply to what this thread is about. The definition of "best fighter" in this thread is outlined in the original post.

From recent not that long ago years there is people who are ahead of Floyd Bhop Roy Jones Sugar Ray Leonard Lennox Lewis Larry Holmes I'd rate him on equal terms with the likes of Joe Calzaghe and rating him just above the likes of Evander Holyfield and the Mike Tysons of the world. There is plenty that deserve to be ahead of Floyd Mayweather Jr, you could be there for a while but he no doubt will get a high positioning in the meaningless list of records which mean absolutely nothing.

Fair enough but keep in mind that he doesn't need to be the best at every one of those things to be the best overall. A better thing to do would be to point out which fighter you think is better (by being better at the majority of those things listed) A better thing for you to do if you are talking about best fighter is to remove the promotion, money making, and self preservation options and replace them with options that actually relate to fighting ... things like speed, power, chin, stamina, heart, ring iq etc.

Now before some of you guys start hyperventilating, I'm not asking if he is the greatest fighter ever, there's a difference. To judge greatness there are other criteria like greatness of opposition etc. I'm talking about all the things that encompass being a successful fighter. Things like: .raw talent .skill .promotion and business sense .making money .self preservation and of course .winning fights I don't think anyone in history has been more successful at fighting. Discuss. Please no nonsense (Yes I know there's going to be posts about "ducking" and other gay sh1t but even if that were true, it doesn't disprove my point of being a "successful fighter" as per the criteria above^^^) self preservation? loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool in that case he is the greatest

No. The best way to know how good a fighter is is based on their performance against their best competition. Other fighters are just as dominant against better competition than Floyd has fought.

.raw talent ... NO .skill ... NO .promotion and business sense ... MAYBE .making money ... YES .self preservation and of course ... (What does this mean? Cherry Picking/avoiding certain fights? Making opponents fight at catch weights/with pillows?) .winning fights ... NO Fair enough but keep in mind that he doesn't need to be the best at every one of those things to be the best overall. A better thing to do would be to point out which fighter you think is better (by being better at the majority of those things listed)