Floyd is #7 All time according to a "fair and objective site"

All just opinion that can't be proven one way or the other. If you think Mayweather is the best boxer to ever put on gloves then to you he is and you are correct. If you think he has no place in the top 1000 boxers in history then that's the right answer for you.

Before anyone accuses me of being biased......I was one of the biggest Pacquiao fans on this site and went hard on those Floyd fans back in the day. However Floyd not only beat but dominated Juan Manual Marquez, Ricky Hatton, Oscar De La Hoya, Canelo, Cotto and other top fighters. He also had a clear win over Pacquiao, who I consider a top 15 ATG. All that being said.....people suck off old fighters on this site to sound cool. Mayweather is better than Hearns, Haglar, Leonard and Duran. Not only that, putting hate aside....he has had a better career than most want to admit. I have him top 5 All-time, and this is from someone who doesn't like him as a person or a fighter.

Most likely to me, 35-45.. But that's just estimation after a 10 minute think! What I do know is that right now, I most certainly would not have him above Bernard Hopkins on my ATG list Then your list would have absolutely no credibility.

Floyd is defiantly top 10. After a few years pass, I'm sure he will be top 5 or top 3 on the ATG list. IMHO 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Henry Armstrong 3. Willie Pep 4. Floyd Mayweather Jr. 5. Muhammad Ali

Seems fair. Seems objective. Tiger at #9. I love that. :lol1: I saw that too. #CredibilityCemented

Why no poll Larry. Who cares about a dumb site. Find out what we think. Someone already did. There should be aaster. Moag said top 30-40

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p615/ace22/1234_zpsuy1r9yg6.png according to Freedom this is a fair and objective site....http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=688577 i don't care about that site.... i give you more credibility than them..so where is floyd at all time, larry?

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p615/ace22/1234_zpsuy1r9yg6.png according to Freedom this is a fair and objective site....http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=688577 Stop with this dumb nonsense. 90 percent of everyone here thinks he is a cheater . no way he is top 10 .gtfoh Mods delete this thread already and make master thread with a poll. No one cares about another site

How does your list look? Most likely to me, 35-45.. But that's just estimation after a 10 minute think! What I do know is that right now, I most certainly would not have him above Bernard Hopkins on my ATG list

If Mayweathers "top 10-15 in your book" then I'd be curious to know how many fighters "Are in your book"... How does your list look?

So Tunney basically caught a ban in his zeal defending Boxrecs fairness and objectivity. Said website has Mayweather #7 all time. If that is not 100 percent self ownage then what is it???lol

Using just boxrec alone as a source though

Joe Calzaghe must be top 10 then.

Floyd > Archie Moore Floyd > everyone

The point is its not fair and it's not balanced. It's terrible and illogical hence why Floyd is considered #1 WW of all time. He tried to use it to support his argument when the very same "fair and objective" ranking system (laughable) has Floyd #7 of all time, something he doesn't agree with and is now making excuses for. Very easy to follow. Follow up question, suppose I made a scoring system that gives everyone +1 point for win, -1 for loss. The results will be stupid, but the scoring is nevertheless absolutely consistent and is fair in that it treats everyone identically. Now being "fair" and "consistent" isn't proof that the rankings are good. BoxRec is equally fair and consistent as my above hypothetical scoring mechanism, but that alone doesn't it make it any more or less good a rating system. (You'd have to argue that the particular way the scoring is performed has value, which Freedom did not do.)

Floyd's somewhere in the top 10-15 in my book. I'd have to sit down and really think about this list. There's really been a lot of great fighters throughout history... If Mayweathers "top 10-15 in your book" then I'd be curious to know how many fighters "Are in your book"...

I like boxrec's division rankings a little bit but pound for pound they always are odd to say the least. But really that can be said of any pound for pound list considering the vast amount of criteria anyone can use.

The point is its not fair and it's not balanced. It's terrible and illogical hence why Floyd is considered #1 WW of all time. He tried to use it to support his argument when the very same "fair and objective" ranking system (laughable) has Floyd #7 of all time, something he doesn't agree with and is now making excuses for. Very easy to follow. I'm not saying whether it is correct or defendable, only that it is consistent and fair. How does it treat any boxers differently than any other boxers? What is unfair about an incorrect, but consistent objective scoring? A scoring system can be "terrible" and "illogical" but STILL be "fair" and "consistent". The fact that Floyd is #7 on their p4p atg list or #1 atg WW is absolutely not proof that it is not fair or not consistent. It scores everyone using the same exact methodology. All this proves is that the scoring methodology happened to have Floyd higher than one might anticipate.

ken overlin isn't even top 100 on their list. Ezzard Charles lost to Marciano twice yet Charles > Marciano? bull**** list.

Marquez at #31 all time P4P? I can dig that list :boxing: