Lets say this really is it for Floyd where do you rank him All time?

30-40 range nothing has changed .No big wins to speak of to get him past that range and with the news he's been doping it's even worse ..

Exactly,imo where ever you rank Whitaker i have to put Floyd there or honestly a few places ahead... The difference between the 3 is that Floyd took better care of his body and dedicated himself. Duran let himself get out of shape in between fights and lost some fights he shouldn't have and we all know about Whitaker's drug use. Still those are the 3 best fighters that I've ever seen and they have the resumes to back it up. You expressed an opinion I've always had man! They are also the best well rounded fighters I've ever seen. I used to get into these lists but recently I just lost interest. It's no disrespect to the black and white fighters (I still watch those with footage) but if I haven't seen you fight I have to rely on other people's opinion of you to form my own.

I don't rank guys who I didn't really see in their prime. IMO I haven't seen 5 better fighters than him since I started watching boxing. As for this thread, I think between 10-20 is about right. I think PBP, Larry and Dr. Tenma are correct that he should be right around Sweet Pea, maybe a little ahead.

Top 10-20. As time goes on, he'll be looked upon a hell of a lot more favourably, and I believe you'll see him in top 10 lists. Yep 100%. I think even some of his biggest critics will look back and give him far more credit than now.

I would have ranked him top 20 but with recent drug questions and cover ups his career is tainted.

from 10-20 he's the best of his era...he fought and beat all the relevant dudes in and around his weight class...what more can he do?!?...really nothing left for him to prove...he's proven that he'll find a way to win no matter what....he shuts down offensive fighters with his defense and is very accurate with his offense...he's the best of his era and probably the most hated as well so you can't really take the things and the way people rank him too serious....a lot of bitterness gets directed and Floyd from his salty critics but to floyd fans the only relevant fighters are the ones he fought. if you didn't fight floyd you aren't relevant to them even if you are ranked #1 for 3 years. the lengths they go to in order to defend his ducking and stalling fights is sickening.

from 10-20 he's the best of his era...he fought and beat all the relevant dudes in and around his weight class...what more can he do?!?...really nothing left for him to prove...he's proven that he'll find a way to win no matter what....he shuts down offensive fighters with his defense and is very accurate with his offense...he's the best of his era and probably the most hated as well so you can't really take the things and the way people rank him too serious....a lot of bitterness gets directed and Floyd from his salty critics

People talk about him being the best defensive fighter "ever", but 90% of his defense isn't even carried out in the pocket. Dodging punches in range is far more impressive than just ducking and running. I wouldn't even put him top 20 for "defensive" fighters. he's had some fights where he stood there and made people miss but a lot of his fights are just him clinching as defense or bending below the waist as defense. both things are illegal. he also pushes the other guy in the face and i think some people even count that as a punch althoguh that's clearly illegal as well. it's not a punch first of all and hitting with the inside of the glove is illegal but this isn't even hitting its pushing/touching with the inside.

he has no memorable fights so he will fade from memory pretty soon. in the future his type of point and clinch fighting probably will be looked down on and i could see him being seen as a fraud if he's looked back on.

forreal tho, boxing is prolly the only sport where a historian is actually a legit title. The sport is so deep prolly the only the hardcore 70+ year old fans could this question with the most credibility.

Cool story bro. But Pac was 2 weeks short of his 20th birthday when he was his first world title at 112 lbs. Floyd was younger than that when he turned pro at 131 lbs. So no, not even close. At all. Good point, I got nothing on that.

To be fair to Floyd, when he was the age that Pac turned pro he was fighting in the amateurs at the same weight class (aka strawweight). They've gone up basically the same amount of weight. But yeah I think top 10 is a bit of a stretch. Cool story bro. But Pac was 2 weeks short of his 20th birthday when he was his first world title at 112 lbs. Floyd was younger than that when he turned pro at 131 lbs. So no, not even close. At all.

Top 10-20. As time goes on, he'll be looked upon a hell of a lot more favourably, and I believe you'll see him in top 10 lists.

floyd is undoubtedly the best to ever last them up but even with his easy schooling of the second best fighter of his era, his resume isn't all that great compared to most fighters ranked in the top 5(maybe even top 10). his top 5 wins are pacquiao, JMM, Corrales, hatton and cotto. not horrible, but unless canelo ends up reigning ala bhop at 160 in the future, or cotto dispatches of ggg, it's going to be difficult to put him in the top 5.

Well I've been told I must believe in the tooth fairy if I think Floyd should fight GGG 4 divisions above where Floyd won his first title. But apparently beating Pacquiao 8 divisions above where he won his first title in Pac's 3rd decade as a pro is enough to bump up Floyd to a top 10 ATG. Not by anyone I would ever take seriously though. To be fair to Floyd, when he was the age that Pac turned pro he was fighting in the amateurs at the same weight class (aka strawweight). They've gone up basically the same amount of weight. But yeah I think top 10 is a bit of a stretch.

There are legends in this sport for a reason. Fighters that none of watched fight live but yet we know and talk about for a reason. Floyd will not go down in history as an Ali, Marciano, or Tyson. He won't go down as a sugar ray or a Duran. He will be remembered yes, but not in the light as these legends have.

I can safely say that floyd is so much better compared to Lance Armstrong. What Lance Armstrong did was accomplish something nobody else in history has, its like smashing Joe Louis title defense record by 8 defenses. Thats what he did. Its like what Federer did with his grand slams. Floyd had the potential to do it. He just managed his career to safely and avoided all the risks that would have put him in that category. What hurts him is that all of his fights, while he won them comfortably on rounds, the actual rounds themselves were impressive either stylistically in terms of boxing performance, like someone like Rigondeaux, or Calderon can do, or flashy like Roy Jones would do. He left so much on the table, which is kinda sad, because he could have put together a resume that would have him in contention for the top 5 of all time, but he just wasnt willing to.

I have him in top 10-20, but would rank him around #13 or so. Best defensive fighter ever, yes, but imo, there are better than him. Had he fought the best boxers in the world while he was younger, and not dodged some till later, then I would rank him top 5. Eh, I dont know about best defense ever, very good no doubt, but Id still pick Whitaker above him. Rigondeaux also has better defensive numbers for his career to date than Floyd has. Just saying.

Well I've been told I must believe in the tooth fairy if I think Floyd should fight GGG 4 divisions above where Floyd won his first title. But apparently beating Pacquiao 8 divisions above where he won his first title in Pac's 3rd decade as a pro is enough to bump up Floyd to a top 10 ATG. Not by anyone I would ever take seriously though.

I can only rank guys I've actually seen and whose era I can evaluate. That's the last 20 years. I'd put Floyd at #3 behind Lennox Lewis and Roy.