Marciano 49-0 vs. Mayweather 49-0.

[Anthony342]

Hmmm, ok...

I never said that.

You said he Floyd holds the record for the least amount of top fighters faced which is nothing but garbage, Floyd may have the record for most #1 ranked fighters beaten in the division being fought in, if he doesn't he is definitely near the top. In boxing history. So, yeah.

You then try and justify that by saying he is "heavily criticised" by historians which again is nothing but nonsense. I'll ask again, who are these historians?

Floyd is held in very high regard and amongst the ATG's by historians, fighters, ex-fighters, trainers etc etc. He is clearly extremely highly regarded by people actually in Boxing.

And I never meant where any opponent was ranked at the time, so I figured if you were going to put words in my mouth, then I would return the favor.

Anyway, what I meant was, Floyd never beat an ATG opponent in their prime. And yes, it's not entirely his fault, but it still counts against him. For his talent, Floyd should always be highly regarded. I said he had good wins, but not great, career defining ones. Ali has Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Foreman. Leonard has Benitez, Hearns. So who on that level does Floyd have? Nobody, that's who. Pacquiao would come the closest, but that happened years past the sell by date.

[Anthony342]

Pac was legendary yes, but i never felt Floyd needed him on his win sheet just because Bob Arum said so. I could never get why Antonio Margarito was used as a name for Floyd to fight and it flipped into he was afraid of someone who's best legit win was maybe Kermit Cintron???



Having Floyd all time in your top 100 is not debatable. I think having him number 1 is a personal preference but anything past top 20 is disingenuous.




His crucifixion is based on his stance of Floyd and the historians slandering him and his fight choices.

Fact is people bring up Antonio, Paul or Pac to throw his career off as if those were names he necessarily needed.

Antonio was another plodder. I would've loved to see the fight. I know Zab was a fight he took off the strength of agreeing to, but i would've loved to see him fight Zab, Carlos, Oscar, Hatton.....and then instead of retiring, fight the winner of Antonio v Cotto. Lets say instead of him retiring, he faces Shane as Antonio and Cotto fight. Then fights the winner. Maybe instead of a Marquez fight he faces Cotto even though we saw him lose, or maybe even Paul

I doubt he gets much credit either way. It would've always been a he didn't fight this guy or that guy.

No it wouldn't have been. At least not to the degree it is now. And not by anyone who knows about and follows boxing. I would give him more credit for sure. I still give him credit for his great talent and some of the guys he did fight, so there's no need to lump me in with the haters out there. I like Floyd and agree he deserves to be ranked highly, just could've been even higher if those fights had happened, regardless of why they didn't. You wanna go top 20? That's fine with me.

[IronDanHamza]

And I never meant where any opponent was ranked at the time, so I figured if you were going to put words in my mouth, then I would return the favor.

Anyway, what I meant was, Floyd never beat an ATG opponent in their prime. And yes, it's not entirely his fault, but it still counts against him. For his talent, Floyd should always be highly regarded. I said he had good wins, but not great, career defining ones. Ali has Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Foreman. Leonard has Benitez, Hearns. So who on that level does Floyd have? Nobody, that's who. Pacquiao would come the closest, but that happened years past the sell by date.

Ok but you said Floyd holds the record for least top fighters beaten which is totally ridiculous.

You also said he is heavily criticised by historians. Are you going to name these historians or just keep dodging the question?

Floyd isn't as great as Muhammad Ali or Sugar Ray Leonard not that many people are so citing them as the standard is one many won't march. Floyd is generally considered amongst the Top 20 ATG's which is the upper echelon of ATG's which speaks for itself.

[Anthony342]

If he can't show it then don't say it.

"Heavily criticised by historians" his statement, not mine.

It's garbage. Totally baseless. Don't shoot me for calling out baseless claims.

If It's not baseless, name them. Simple.

Fair enough, sir:

"Mayweather could have been a legend, could have been, as he loves to say he is already, the best ever. If he fought the fights that were out there—if he had engaged Manny Pacquiao in a trilogy, if he had taken on Miguel Cotto earlier in his career, if he had picked apart Paul Williams, if he had challenged Tim Bradley—his resume would have been bulletproof. Instead, we spend too much time, waste too many column inches on the fights Mayweather didn't fight, of his baseless defenses of opponents everyone knew were not worthy."-Chris Mannix

"How will I remember Floyd Mayweather?...I’ll remember the flawless boxer (and by flawless, I mean, in terms of his record and his performances, not always his choice of opposition).-Greg Bishop

"How will I remember Floyd Mayweather? I’ll remember the many electrifying moments he brought us during his career: I’ll remember him in the second Pacquiao fight—September 2009, the real Thrilla in Manila—reinventing himself mid-bout as a brawler to beat Pacquiao to the punch again and again, pounding out a brutal split-decision victory to avenge his TKO loss in their first fight and set up the pair’s epic rubber match. I’ll remember him in the Paul Williams fight in ’07, Mayweather repeatedly braving the much bigger Williams’ firepower to pick the challenger apart on the way to a dramatic late stoppage. I’ll remember the decisive victories over Joel Casamayor, Antonio Margarito and, in his triumphant farewell, Amir Khan. Or maybe I’ll simply remember Floyd best for his extensive charity work and support for women’s rights.

Oh, wait—none of those things happened.

I guess that’s what I’ll think of when I look back at Mayweather’s career: the moments this gifted, disciplined, well-schooled, ring-smart fighter could have given us. That we never saw him really tested, really at the limit, is due largely, of course, to his business-first approach (and, like it or not, who can really fault him for that?), but also to his skill-set. Was Mayweather—the preeminent boxer of his era—a genuine all-timer? Absolutely. At least in the sense that, were he magically transported to any other era in boxing history, he would have held his own. He’d have had to fight differently and more often, take more chances and more punishment, but he’d have been a contender and probably a champ."-Richard O’Brien

"Mayweather could make his case as a top-five fighter if he continues to fight -- for the record, Mayweather could make the case that he's the No. 1 pay-per-view attraction of all time. At this point, though, his resume just isn't good enough to make this (#1 all-time) ranking a reality."-Josh Katzowitz

"If there is a criticism of him, it's that he didn't face his toughest opponents when they were at their peaks, and that pushes him down a bit on an elite list like this. And while he is an underrated offensive fighter, I think his offense is a bit less than the men I perceive above him."-Kevin Iole

[Anthony342]

Ok but you said Floyd holds the record for least top fighters beaten which is totally ridiculous.

You also said he is heavily criticised by historians. Are you going to name these historians or just keep dodging the question?

Floyd isn't as great as Muhammad Ali or Sugar Ray Leonard not that many people are so citing them as the standard is one many won't march. Floyd is generally considered amongst the Top 20 ATG's which is the upper echelon of ATG's which speaks for itself.

Not that ridiculous, since he beat 0 all time greats at their best. Good, fairly solid opponents, yes. Top 20, I would agree with that as well. Resume is lacking. Oh and I just answered that other question in another post a few minutes ago. I don't really know if these guys would be considered top historians, possibly someday, but their opinions seemed solid and not really biased IMO, so I figured I'd quote them.

And maybe heavily was too strong a word, so I'll revise that to say criticized somewhat.

[billeau2]

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson "See? This guy gets it."

All this back and fourth is part of the process lol. when we look at history from a vantage point of competion, life gets very interesting:

There was a guy who was nuts... He said that he could occasionally predict the location of jupiter's moons based on some crazy force of attraction. He kept speaking out against the church causing problems and asking for trouble. Eventually the church had no choice but to convict him as a heretic. That guy was Galileo and most people would have found him to be crazy at that time.

The physicist who had the most longevity, for hundreds of years, was flat out wrong about most of what he declared, yet his work sufficed up until after the medieval times. That man was Aristotle.

And... While my friend Anthony puts the kabosh on the paranormal.... how about a theory that disease is caused by little creatures...and that our body produces our own little men to fight back...? Pasteur turned out to call it, as this is what happens with Germs apparently. Now isn't this theory stranger than ghosts, and spacemen? lol.

And finally in the political rhealm...You are an academic, when a fresh faced group of young men propose to you a system where the government would sponser your work, and encourage cultural pride and self responsability in addition to a nice paycheck....these "brownshirts" at the time were National Socialists paving the way for a new political dynamo known as "HItler."

I get a chuckle when I think about how level headed men must be... when we consider hindsight. This last occurance haunted many great German thinkers like Heidegger... who was forced to apologize, as were many others during the **** regime.

BUt how could they know? well....there are always signs. For example, Hegel was teaching at the same university as Schopenhauer and all the students went to the popular Hegal. hegal turned out to be a horrible force for philosoophy, and schopenhauer was a decent thinker who paved the way for Nietzche. A perceptive individual perhaps would have noticed that Arthur Schopenhaeur should not have had 3 students in his class, while Hegel had upwards of 60!

[Bravado]

Fair enough, sir:

"Mayweather could have been a legend, could have been, as he loves to say he is already, the best ever. If he fought the fights that were out there—if he had engaged Manny Pacquiao in a trilogy, if he had taken on Miguel Cotto earlier in his career, if he had picked apart Paul Williams, if he had challenged Tim Bradley—his resume would have been bulletproof. Instead, we spend too much time, waste too many column inches on the fights Mayweather didn't fight, of his baseless defenses of opponents everyone knew were not worthy."-Chris Mannix

"How will I remember Floyd Mayweather?...I’ll remember the flawless boxer (and by flawless, I mean, in terms of his record and his performances, not always his choice of opposition).-Greg Bishop

"How will I remember Floyd Mayweather? I’ll remember the many electrifying moments he brought us during his career: I’ll remember him in the second Pacquiao fight—September 2009, the real Thrilla in Manila—reinventing himself mid-bout as a brawler to beat Pacquiao to the punch again and again, pounding out a brutal split-decision victory to avenge his TKO loss in their first fight and set up the pair’s epic rubber match. I’ll remember him in the Paul Williams fight in ’07, Mayweather repeatedly braving the much bigger Williams’ firepower to pick the challenger apart on the way to a dramatic late stoppage. I’ll remember the decisive victories over Joel Casamayor, Antonio Margarito and, in his triumphant farewell, Amir Khan. Or maybe I’ll simply remember Floyd best for his extensive charity work and support for women’s rights.

Oh, wait—none of those things happened.

I guess that’s what I’ll think of when I look back at Mayweather’s career: the moments this gifted, disciplined, well-schooled, ring-smart fighter could have given us. That we never saw him really tested, really at the limit, is due largely, of course, to his business-first approach (and, like it or not, who can really fault him for that?), but also to his skill-set. Was Mayweather—the preeminent boxer of his era—a genuine all-timer? Absolutely. At least in the sense that, were he magically transported to any other era in boxing history, he would have held his own. He’d have had to fight differently and more often, take more chances and more punishment, but he’d have been a contender and probably a champ."-Richard O’Brien

"Mayweather could make his case as a top-five fighter if he continues to fight -- for the record, Mayweather could make the case that he's the No. 1 pay-per-view attraction of all time. At this point, though, his resume just isn't good enough to make this (#1 all-time) ranking a reality."-Josh Katzowitz

"If there is a criticism of him, it's that he didn't face his toughest opponents when they were at their peaks, and that pushes him down a bit on an elite list like this. And while he is an underrated offensive fighter, I think his offense is a bit less than the men I perceive above him."-Kevin Iole

See this is why, your argument dies in the context of these people you are citing.

Like what? Amir Khan? Tim Bradley???

[Anthony342]

Yes. Or Keith Thurman, Paul Williams, Margarito after beating Cotto and younger versions of Cotto, Mosley. The argument that really dies is the one Mayweather himself poses, calling himself the best ever. I believe it was Ali who said if you;re undefeated, then you didn't fight everyone. Or "To be the man, you have to beat The Man" as Richard Fliehr so often said and he never did that. The bottom line is if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best, at their best. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[IronDanHamza]

Fair enough, sir:

"Mayweather could have been a legend, could have been, as he loves to say he is already, the best ever. If he fought the fights that were out there—if he had engaged Manny Pacquiao in a trilogy, if he had taken on Miguel Cotto earlier in his career, if he had picked apart Paul Williams, if he had challenged Tim Bradley—his resume would have be bulletproof. Instead, we spend too much time, waste too many column inches on the fights Mayweather didn't fight, of his baseless defenses of opponents everyone knew were not worthy."-Chris Mannix

"How will I remember Floyd Mayweather?...I’ll remember the flawless boxer (and by flawless, I mean, in terms of his record and his performances, not always his choice of opposition).-Greg Bishop

"How will I remember Floyd Mayweather? I’ll remember the many electrifying moments he brought us during his 19-year career: I’ll remember him in the second Pacquiao fight—September 2009, the real Thrilla in Manila—reinventing himself mid-bout as a brawler to beat Pacquiao to the punch again and again, pounding out a brutal split-decision victory to avenge his TKO loss in their first fight and set up the pair’s epic rubber match. I’ll remember him in the Paul Williams fight in ’07, Mayweather repeatedly braving the much bigger Williams’s firepower to pick the challenger apart on the way to a dramatic late stoppage. I’ll remember the decisive victories over Joel Casamayor, Antonio Margarito and, in his triumphant farewell, Amir Khan. Or maybe I’ll simply remember Floyd best for his extensive charity work and support for women’s rights.

Oh, wait—none of those things happened.

I guess that’s what I’ll think of when I look back at Mayweather’s career: the moments this gifted, disciplined, well-schooled, ring-smart fighter could have given us. That we never saw him really tested, really at the limit, is due largely, of course, to his business-first approach (and, like it or not, who can really fault him for that?), but also to his skill-set. Was Mayweather—the preeminent boxer of his era—a genuine all-timer? Absolutely. At least in the sense that, were he magically transported to any other era in boxing history, he would have held his own. He’d have had to fight differently and more often, take more chances and more punishment, but he’d have been a contender and probably a champ."-Richard O’Brien

"Mayweather could make his case as a top-five fighter if he continues to fight -- for the record, Mayweather could make the case that he's the No. 1 pay-per-view attraction of all time. At this point, though, his resume just isn't good enough to make this ranking a reality."-Josh Katzowitz

"If there is a criticism of him, it's that he didn't face his toughest opponents when they were at their peaks, and that pushes him down a bit on an elite list like this. And while he is an underrated offensive fighter, I think his offense is a bit less than the men I perceive above him."-Kevin Iole

I never knew Chris Mannix, Kevin Iole and Josh Katowicz were Boxing Historians.

Hardly "heavily criticized" either.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes. Or Keith Thurman, Paul Williams, Margarito after beating Cotto and younger versions of Cotto, Mosley. The argument that really dies is the one Mayweather himself poses, calling himself the best ever. I believe it was Ali who said if you;re undefeated, then you didn't fight everyone. Or "To be the man, you have to beat The Man" as Richard Fliehr so often said and he never did that. The bottom line is if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best, at their best. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

How do define "the man" because if you define "the man" as the Lineal Champion like most people do then Floyd has beaten "the man" numerous times.