Attention Mayweather fans.......

[Allucard]

The reason why so many of us here on boxingscene.com do not label Floyd Mayweather Jr. as an all time great is because most of us have been watching this sport for more than 2-3 years. All time great is an elite position that only a small percentage of fighters have ever achieved. Getting established as an all time great means that you've made a permanent mark on the sport, and that without your presence the sport would not be what it is today.

There's only one way to become an all time great, and that's to constantly fight the best opponets possible. Pick any all time great off any list and I guarantee you they not only fought the best in their era, but they have victories over other established greats. I also guarantee you that if you removed them from the history of the sport, the sport would not be the same afterward.

I don't think anybody who's been watching this sport for over 3 years (or over the age of 18) could make a compelling argument as to why mayweather is an all time great. He is the greatest of his era, that much is for sure and nobody can take that away from him. But who has he beaten who is a shoe-in to the list of the greatest fighters ever to lace up the boots?

De La Hoya? He lost in every big match he ever had and was a far more sucessful businessman than boxer. Castillo, or Corrales? While both men are tough as nails and have my utmost respect, nobody could logically argue that either of them were some of the best to ever do it. Gatti? The man was always a C level bar brawler with little in the way on actual boxing talent and he won't even make the hall of fame, same goes for Carlos Baldomir. Zab Judah? Exciting prospect that never had the mental toughness to fully commit himself to an opponet who didn't "spark" him.

Do I need to pull out Hernandez, Mitchell, Corley, etc...? Bottom line is this, Mayweather is the greatest of his era and that much will always be his. But unless he beats Hatton, Cotto, Mosley and Williams there's no way to make an argument for him being an all time great. The only way for him to be an all time great is to wipe out his the entire division of all logical competition. Because none of his opponets were ever on anybody's list to be an all time great, because none of them (aside from De La Hoya's win over a deflated and old Chavez) ever beat another all time great.

Accept it for what it is: the truth. Stop calling us "haters" and whatever other lame **** you like to throw around, we're veterans of the sport and we call it like it is. I'm sorry if this is unacceptable to you but in time you'll forget all about it.

Good point. I'd like to add some things though. Floyd has always tried to make it as an all time great, fighting all champions (but the lmw cause he was moving up) on his way up from 130 to 154. Why fight the champions? Because that's the best way to ensure you will be marked in the history. People's oppinion varies on who's best/when (prime) but if one's the champ, at least credit is to be given to whoever takes the belt (unless the belts are handed to one's opponents, which they were not in the case of Floyd). If he beats Ricky Hatton and then Shane or Cotto he will definitely be considered an all time great in my book. As of now, he is certainly the best of his era but not all time great.

[Steak]

The reason why so many of us here on boxingscene.com do not label Floyd Mayweather Jr. as an all time great is because most of us have been watching this sport for more than 2-3 years. All time great is an elite position that only a small percentage of fighters have ever achieved. Getting established as an all time great means that you've made a permanent mark on the sport, and that without your presence the sport would not be what it is today.

There's only one way to become an all time great, and that's to constantly fight the best opponets possible. Pick any all time great off any list and I guarantee you they not only fought the best in their era, but they have victories over other established greats. I also guarantee you that if you removed them from the history of the sport, the sport would not be the same afterward.

I don't think anybody who's been watching this sport for over 3 years (or over the age of 18) could make a compelling argument as to why mayweather is an all time great. He is the greatest of his era, that much is for sure and nobody can take that away from him. But who has he beaten who is a shoe-in to the list of the greatest fighters ever to lace up the boots?

De La Hoya? He lost in every big match he ever had and was a far more sucessful businessman than boxer. Castillo, or Corrales? While both men are tough as nails and have my utmost respect, nobody could logically argue that either of them were some of the best to ever do it. Gatti? The man was always a C level bar brawler with little in the way on actual boxing talent and he won't even make the hall of fame, same goes for Carlos Baldomir. Zab Judah? Exciting prospect that never had the mental toughness to fully commit himself to an opponet who didn't "spark" him.

Do I need to pull out Hernandez, Mitchell, Corley, etc...? Bottom line is this, Mayweather is the greatest of his era and that much will always be his. But unless he beats Hatton, Cotto, Mosley and Williams there's no way to make an argument for him being an all time great. The only way for him to be an all time great is to wipe out his the entire division of all logical competition. Because none of his opponets were ever on anybody's list to be an all time great, because none of them (aside from De La Hoya's win over a deflated and old Chavez) ever beat another all time great.

Accept it for what it is: the truth. Stop calling us "haters" and whatever other lame **** you like to throw around, we're veterans of the sport and we call it like it is. I'm sorry if this is unacceptable to you but in time you'll forget all about it.

His ppv with De La Hoya broke the record books in buys, that will probebly be a permanent thing...who knows when another huge matchup will be able to reach 2.2 million buys?

you could argue against his record being ATG material, depending on how you rate records and how much you need to accomplish to be considered an ATG, so thats fine...

but do you mean you need a unbelievable record AND be a huge icon? because in that case, Jack Dempsey aint an ATG and neither is Pernell Whitaker. Jack Dempsey was a HUGE icon, but lets face it, his record is mediocre compared to real ATGs. and Whitaker had an outstanding record, but he wasnt incredibly famous, as far as I know...
________
Ipad games

[Boxinguru]

Usually we have to wait to a boxer's career is officially over to accurately access his legacy. I'm prob. one of the biggest Mayweather Fans (not nut-hugger) out there, and while I consider Floyd to be a GREAT fighter I agree he has not YET done enough to be considered an legend. I admit after the castillo fight(s) & before the Judah fight he was fighting suspect/sub-par competition building his condfidence & at the same time displaying his skill set. An undefeated record means nothing in my opinion if you truly haven't face anyone of any substance. I'm not saying Floyd hasn't fought anybody, (5 belts, 3 legit 5 weight classes says a lot!!!)but he is definitely moving in the right direction now. IMO if he convincingly beats Hatton & the winner of Mosley/Cotto he has done enough for me. I'm not sure what it would take to silence all the critics but surely fighting the best oppostion is one way to shut them up! He's only 30 & he's still got good yrs ahead of him, so let's just wait it out & see what happens.

[-Hyperion-]

[/B]


I have NO PROBLEM with someone withholding the label of "great" from PBF.

But when people say that "PBF has a boring style", then I DO KNOW that you have been watching boxing for only two years.

Because if you had actually SEEN any fights before Baldomir or "The World Awaits", you would know that PBF was a smart aggressor with a very good KO rate.

So, actually, I just make a mental note of the people who say that. It lets me know who the newbies are to the sport.

I agree, besides Baldomir, theres not one single boring Floyd Mayweather fight...The world awaits it was Oscar who made the fight though....so props goes to oscar, i hope Floyd regains formercondition vs Hatton and makes it at least an exciting ass kicking...

dont think he is in the level of the greatest guys, though...

[Trevbutler]

I'm sure its been said before. But I think a lot of people base their decisions on him being an "all time greatest" by his boxing ability. And you cannot do that. I look on boxrec and do not recognize some of the names of the people he has fought. I'm a pretty big boxing fan, but I'll admit I dont watch all the ppv's as I dont have the money. Nor do I know all boxers and their records and who they've fought. But I have a pretty good knowledge of which boxers out there right now are really good.

Look at it like this. Lets say FMJ beats hatton in december and retires. And they label him as one of the all time greats, or an all time great of boxing as a whole. 20 years after he retires your son starts watching boxing and getting into it and watching some classic fights and learning some history on boxing. They may recognize Floyd, but if they watch some of his fights, what names are they going to recognize among his opponents that will make them say, "yeah he really is good!"? DLH? Yeah he beat him, but it was no where near a shutout. Zab Judah? 20 years from now who is going to recognize his name as someone that was up there at the top but got beat by the best ever?

Ali is considered one of the best ever by a lot of people. He was retired way before I started watching boxing. But when I see one of his fights on classic I know who he is fighting. The guys he fought to be an all time great were not just "might be's" or one hit wonders that got a shot at him.

I'll end this by saying that Floyd has more talent than anyone out there right now in my opinion. But I do not believe that he has done enough with it yet to even come close to being considered all time great. Have him fight Cotto, Mosley, and hell, even Cintron then I might reconsider. You should have to beat all of the other bests that are out there to be considered elite.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

ESPN's Top 50 list. May, 2007

The final list from Teddy Atlas, Joe Tessitore, Brian Kenny and Dan Rafael

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
18. Archie Moore
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Julio Cesar Chavez
25. Marcel Cerdan
26. Joe Frazier
27. Ezzard Charles
28. Jake LaMotta
29. Sandy Saddler
30. Terry McGovern
31. Billy Conn
32. Jose Napoles
33. Ruben Olivares
34. Emile Griffith
35. Marvin Hagler
36. Eder Jofre
37. Thomas Hearns
38. Larry Holmes
39. Oscar De La Hoya
40. Evander Holyfield
41. Ted "Kid" Lewis
42. Alexis Arguello
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Pernell Whitaker
45. Carlos Monzon
46. Roy Jones Jr.
47. Bernard Hopkins
48. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
49. Erik Morales
50. Mike Tyson

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

I don't put Oscar above any of the other active fighters on that list.

[ßringer]

Alright, I just woke up, let's get cracking....

I see the guy in the top 100 of all time.. top ten nah, twenty nah, maybe some day..

When I hear ALL TIME GREAT though, I think of the top 10 or 20 boxers..
The rest are still legends but not greats..

It depends on what you think the meaning of the word is..
How do you describe all time great status?

I'd say the top 50 on the "All Time" list is more suitable than top 100, because as the numbers get lower there are a few guys I disagree with. Tyson being a prime example, he got there for being the youngest Heavyweight Champion ever but lacked a solid record of quality opponets, and the talent of a guy like Mayweather.

how can oscar be considered one of the greatest when he lost most of his big fights floyd has never lost at all and besides shane mosley he has fought every other big name boxer in his division hatton cotto and williams just became big name fighters. two or three years ago nobody would of wanted to see floyd and williams fight

Oscar cannot be considered one of the greatest of all time for having failed against Mosley, Trinidad and Mayweather. That said he has a damn good record, fought a lot of good competition and is one of the best of his era. Certainly not as talented as Floyd, but has a better overall career record.

The "owned" Gif automatically makes the guy who uses it the loser in any argument.

Kid clearly didn't know who he was ****ing with. And I concur.

Floyd is a great fighter, but there's a difference between a great fighter and an all-time great fighter.

Floyd's career isn't finished, but at the moment he's not an all-time great.

I second that.

I have NO PROBLEM with someone withholding the label of "great" from PBF.

But when people say that "PBF has a boring style", then I DO KNOW that you have been watching boxing for only two years.

Because if you had actually SEEN any fights before Baldomir or "The World Awaits", you would know that PBF was a smart aggressor with a very good KO rate.

So, actually, I just make a mental note of the people who say that. It lets me know who the newbies are to the sport.

There's no reason to call his style boring, he's hitting without getting hit. If anything people should label him smart, but you also have to understand the vast majority who watch this sport want fights, not actual boxing matches. That's why "Fight of the Year" always goes to ring wars instead of technical matchups. Floyd was amazing around the 130lbs mark, that was his best career division and his KO power was solid back then. oving up in weight he lost the power to KO guys around 140-154lbs, which is easily understandable. He's a very small guy fighting in much bigger divisions.

being p4p is based off of ability fetishes from those who rate more than accomplishment, but with those combined Floyd has made and earned #1 p4p. That doesnt make you an all time great though, they are two seperate things.

Agreed.

well buddie, im 21 in may and ive been watchin boxing since i was about 5? so thats alot more than 3 years, so i must be a vet like you? lol anyway the comment you made sayin


Quote:
unless he beats Hatton, Cotto, Mosley and Williams there's no way to make an argument for him being an all time great.

Would there for make me think that you are saying that Hatton, Cotto, Mosley and Williams are all-time greats?

No, Hatton, Mosley, Cotto and Williams are all legit challengers. To a certin degree the court of public opinion thinks some of them can trouble, even beat Mayweather. I know I'd certainly pick Mosley to beat Mayweather, not sure about the rest though. But with young undefeated KO artists, the public always wants to see them fight the best opponet possible, and Mayweather is that guy.

His ppv with De La Hoya broke the record books in buys, that will probebly be a permanent thing...who knows when another huge matchup will be able to reach 2.2 million buys?

you could argue against his record being ATG material, depending on how you rate records and how much you need to accomplish to be considered an ATG, so thats fine...

but do you mean you need a unbelievable record AND be a huge icon? because in that case, Jack Dempsey aint an ATG and neither is Pernell Whitaker. Jack Dempsey was a HUGE icon, but lets face it, his record is mediocre compared to real ATGs. and Whitaker had an outstanding record, but he wasnt incredibly famous, as far as I know...

The PPV buys for De La Hoya/Mayweather were astronomical, thanks partly to Mayweather's trash talking and partly due to Oscar's business savy. That will go down in History, but undr "promotions" not "great matches". Dempsey was an amazing fighter and I believe he earned his right to be on the list. Sweet Pea could be argued but while he wasn't very known to the general public, he had a legion of fans in this sport who were diehards.

Usually we have to wait to a boxer's career is officially over to accurately access his legacy. I'm prob. one of the biggest Mayweather Fans (not nut-hugger) out there, and while I consider Floyd to be a GREAT fighter I agree he has not YET done enough to be considered an legend. I admit after the castillo fight(s) & before the Judah fight he was fighting suspect/sub-par competition building his condfidence & at the same time displaying his skill set. An undefeated record means nothing in my opinion if you truly haven't face anyone of any substance. I'm not saying Floyd hasn't fought anybody, (5 belts, 3 legit 5 weight classes says a lot!!!)but he is definitely moving in the right direction now. IMO if he convincingly beats Hatton & the winner of Mosley/Cotto he has done enough for me. I'm not sure what it would take to silence all the critics but surely fighting the best oppostion is one way to shut them up! He's only 30 & he's still got good yrs ahead of him, so let's just wait it out & see what happens.

Exactly. Mayweather hasn't even retired yet so all this talk of "greatest of all time" is really an exercise in monotony, I'm just pointing out to the newbies how tough it is for one to even be considered for that list by Historians.

I agree, besides Baldomir, theres not one single boring Floyd Mayweather fight...The world awaits it was Oscar who made the fight though....so props goes to oscar, i hope Floyd regains formercondition vs Hatton and makes it at least an exciting ass kicking...

dont think he is in the level of the greatest guys, though...

Mayweather being boring is just something haters pull out of their ass, the guy used to excite the hell out of me in the 130lbs division. Since then he excites me in a very different, technical aspect that I've really gotten into.

I'll end this by saying that Floyd has more talent than anyone out there right now in my opinion. But I do not believe that he has done enough with it yet to even come close to being considered all time great. Have him fight Cotto, Mosley, and hell, even Cintron then I might reconsider. You should have to beat all of the other bests that are out there to be considered elite.

The greatest of all time got their status by dominating other fighters people thought were unbeatable. Mayweather's case is certainly budding but he's not there yet, simple as that.

[typeone]

The reason why so many of us here on boxingscene.com do not label Floyd Mayweather Jr. as an all time great is because most of us have been watching this sport for more than 2-3 years. All time great is an elite position that only a small percentage of fighters have ever achieved. Getting established as an all time great means that you've made a permanent mark on the sport, and that without your presence the sport would not be what it is today.

There's only one way to become an all time great, and that's to constantly fight the best opponets possible. Pick any all time great off any list and I guarantee you they not only fought the best in their era, but they have victories over other established greats. I also guarantee you that if you removed them from the history of the sport, the sport would not be the same afterward.

I don't think anybody who's been watching this sport for over 3 years (or over the age of 18) could make a compelling argument as to why mayweather is an all time great. He is the greatest of his era, that much is for sure and nobody can take that away from him. But who has he beaten who is a shoe-in to the list of the greatest fighters ever to lace up the boots?

De La Hoya? He lost in every big match he ever had and was a far more sucessful businessman than boxer. Castillo, or Corrales? While both men are tough as nails and have my utmost respect, nobody could logically argue that either of them were some of the best to ever do it. Gatti? The man was always a C level bar brawler with little in the way on actual boxing talent and he won't even make the hall of fame, same goes for Carlos Baldomir. Zab Judah? Exciting prospect that never had the mental toughness to fully commit himself to an opponet who didn't "spark" him.

Do I need to pull out Hernandez, Mitchell, Corley, etc...? Bottom line is this, Mayweather is the greatest of his era and that much will always be his. But unless he beats Hatton, Cotto, Mosley and Williams there's no way to make an argument for him being an all time great. The only way for him to be an all time great is to wipe out his the entire division of all logical competition. Because none of his opponets were ever on anybody's list to be an all time great, because none of them (aside from De La Hoya's win over a deflated and old Chavez) ever beat another all time great.

Accept it for what it is: the truth. Stop calling us "haters" and whatever other lame **** you like to throw around, we're veterans of the sport and we call it like it is. I'm sorry if this is unacceptable to you but in time you'll forget all about it.

Good post!

[Lazy Liberal]

The final list from Teddy Atlas, Joe Tessitore, Brian Kenny and Dan Rafael

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
18. Archie Moore
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Julio Cesar Chavez
25. Marcel Cerdan
26. Joe Frazier
27. Ezzard Charles
28. Jake LaMotta
29. Sandy Saddler
30. Terry McGovern
31. Billy Conn
32. Jose Napoles
33. Ruben Olivares
34. Emile Griffith
35. Marvin Hagler
36. Eder Jofre
37. Thomas Hearns
38. Larry Holmes
39. Oscar De La Hoya
40. Evander Holyfield
41. Ted "Kid" Lewis
42. Alexis Arguello
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Pernell Whitaker
45. Carlos Monzon
46. Roy Jones Jr.
47. Bernard Hopkins
48. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
49. Erik Morales
50. Mike Tyson

Chavez is too high on the list, he get's too much credit for the amount of fights he had. He beat solid fighters at 130 and 135 but after that he fell off. His only post 135 wins of any mention was the miracle he pulled against Taylor and Camacho. He is still very good and deserves respect. Regarding Oscar, you could re arrange any of the fighters based on what you look for and what you like. Oscar fought more high profile and accomplished fighters than the other guys , in my opinion. Jones -Hopkins,Toney. Oscar-trinidad,chavez-whitaker-hopkins,mayweather.Barrera-morales,pacquiao,marquez. Mayweather-ODLH. I know you are going to say ,"yea he fought them but he choked in his big fights". In my objective opinion ,and basing it on his official losses on his record, I can honestly say that his legit losses are 1st Mosley fight,Hopkins and probably mayweather by a point.