Which of These Two Fighters do You Have Ranked Higher All-Time RIGHT NOW?

Sunday bump of peace.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--PLstm6AK--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1230817198265337236.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Mayweather.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5BHkXE3m--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1230817198326254740.jpg

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Sports/GTY_Floyd_Mayweather_Jr_ml_150430_4x3_992.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--aPA48Ty9--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1230817198265337236.jpg

I'm baffled at how anybody has the Gaul to say that neither of them are Top 20 ATG's... I just hope Pacquiao doesn't overdo it and rack up a bunch of losses now, especially by getting cheated out of a win, which is a possibility.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/30/10/2818462400000578-0-image-a-55_1430386275828.jpg

http://a.espncdn.com/media/motion/2015/0428/dm_150423_Mayweather_Critics1061/dm_150423_Mayweather_Critics1061.jpg

I would say PAC should be ranked higher. PACs x3 jmm, x2morakes, x2 Barrera, x3 Bradley, that's 10 wins alone with just 4 opponents who are top notch which is already a fifth of fkoiys career. But Floyd's done well by winning this poll. I'm sure Floyd was loosing it right up until recently. I suppose he clawed it back by PAC getting koed by jmm and his win over pac Bradley also beat Pac.

http://www.canadastarboxing.com/images/fighters/floyd-mayweather-2014-SHO.jpg

No one had ever stopped Morales or even knocked him down. And that was a solid version of him. Maybe past it, but not by much. He'd just come off beating two champions in a new weight class and fighting the third hard fight with Barrera which was, as all three were, very close. The Morales victories are solid. He beat him TWICE officially. Point made. He also fought Marquez at 126 and 130 where Marquez was much more effective. He fought a prime fighter who most believe will be a HOF fighter three times. Floyd never fought a prime HOF fighter period. Well, he might have gotten credit and he might not have. We'll never know now. Bottom line, as far as legacies, Floyd played it smart but in the end, he did all of this to himself. He plays it safe by his own admission and then expects fans to say he's the best ever. How? Did all of the past greats take the safest route? No. They took on those fights which were distinct threats to them and many of them did it over and over. Floyd never did. He's an excellent businessman and a great fighter, but he never took on a great opponent in their prime. Pacquiao fought everybody and came all of the way up from flyweight. Flyweight. He moved up way beyond where he started and kept looking for the toughest fights which he got and most of which he won. Had Maayweather fought him in 2010, things would be different and Floyd's respect from fans would be way higher. He was averse to risk-taking. Why do you think he played the villain? Because fans won't root for a safety first guy. Maybe safe and maybe smart, but in the end, fight fans, like all people, follow courage. Ward took on Froch. That was prime for prime and it definitely showed courage. Morales and Barrera faced each other. Trinidad and DLH faced each other. Jones and Toney faced each other. Win, lose or draw, they still manned up and took the hard fights against guys in their primes. Floyd simply did not. Just look at all of the ledgers of past great fighters. How many of them fought prime guys? Damn near ALL of them. Having the "0" is fine and looks pretty on paper, but records don't tell the story. In the end, I quote Braveheart. "Men don't follow titles. They follow courage." "Floyd, our people both noble and common respect you and if you would just lead them to a prime fight, they'd follow you. And so would I." But he never did. Mayweather will have a few prime HOF down the line but anyway many of Floyd past prime wins are equal/better than beating prime Bradley e.g. Mosley, Pacquiao himself, Cotto. It's easy to say in hindsight that Floyd didn't take risks but I prefer to look at how the fights were perceived beforehand. After witnessing the before and afters of his fights with Mosley, Canelo and Pacquiao in particular I realised he wouldn't get full credit by some no matter what he did. Pacquiao for example you would dismiss as a typical past prime win, yet you voted that same Pacquiao to beat Floyd so it must have been a big risk otherwise why did you and so many others pick him? I mean, Floyd may have been a slight favourite betting wise but in reality it was pretty much 50/50 based on who fans were picking. Ok Ward fought Froch and that was a very good win, but I would say that a 2015 Pacquiao is still better than any version of Froch. Floyd is clearly greater than all those other guys you mentioned except Jones which is close, so it just goes to show a prime vs prime ATG matchup is great but it's about the overall body of work and CONSISTENCY.

I would say PAC should be ranked higher. PACs x3 jmm, x2morakes, x2 Barrera, x3 Bradley, that's 10 wins alone with just 4 opponents who are top notch which is already a fifth of fkoiys career. But Floyd's done well by winning this poll. I'm sure Floyd was loosing it right up until recently. I suppose he clawed it back by PAC getting koed by jmm and his win over pac

Haha. It's amazing how a poster can read so many reasons for my argument, give it no credence and pick three words I said out of two paragraphs and slam the whole thing. Amazing. Nice Briggs sig though. Ha. Lol ok so lets go through some of the other points on your post..... Morales in the first fight wasn't prime but still a good version, which he lost anyway and then beat him twice at 130 after he was schooled at 135. He didn't beat Marquez 3 out of 4 times officially. He fought a prime Bradley three times, ok and? the 2nd one was a good win and it didn't need to go any further so I don't see the point of glorifying them fighting three times when it was some obvious recycled Bullshit. He beat the hell out of Margs at 150 after Mosley beat the hell out of him and he was coming back from a ban, if Floyd fought that exact version of Margs (at 150 after being destroyed by Mosley) he wouldn't get any credit and you know it.

i didn't know i could be tagged in a thread :lol1:

Really, I have to go with Pac. He fought Morales when Morales still had a lot left, had one close fight and then took him out twice- something never done before. He took down an admittedly older Barrera by still, he dominated him twice, the second fight right before Barrera all but beat Marquez. And of course, Marquez. He beat him 3 out of 4 and I know a lot of people don't agree with that. Still, the first two fights were close and he dropped him more than anybody else has and at the ending of the fourth fight, a blown up Marquez wasn't in the best shape. Pac had done some clear damage and of course, Marquez wouldn't give him a fifth fight. Pac also took on a prime Bradley three times and beat him pretty much every time. He fought a prime Rios and beat him like he owned him. He beat the hell out of Margarito and Cotto. The guy fought everybody and didn't care what point they were at in their careers. That's exceptional. Mayweather didn't fight many prime guys. You could say Hatton. Maybe Cotto, although that was after the Pac pummeling. Guerrero maybe but it's Guerrero. Ortiz, but it's Ortiz. DLH, Mosley, Pac were all past it. Even past it, Pac faced Bradly three times. Why didn't Mayweather ever fight Bradley? Would have been way better than Berto, Guerrero or Ortiz. I have to go with Pac. :rofl::rofl: Funny how you say 'but it's ortiz, Guerrero etc' but then try to big up 'prime' Rios like he was some force to be reckoned with.

Both have controversial wins difference many controversy wins are only with one guys if not mistaken Wait....what?

Both have controversial wins difference many controversy wins are only with one guys if not mistaken

Bumped, for NSB.

How is he a former fighter of the decade? Won't that title always stick with him lmao Good point. I added "former" because it was the last decade, not the current one, but I get your point, and yea, the title is forever.