Attention Mayweather fans.......

[ßringer]

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

That's actually one of the better lists I've seen for a top 50, rather than top 100...However there's a lot I disagree with, Mike Tyson being 50 for example. He can't be any higher than 100 because his only accomplishment was being the youngest Heavyweight Champion in the history of the sport, and his best opponet was Spinks.

Tyson came up short against both of the better Heavyweights of his era in Holyfield and Lewis. De La Hoya doesn't belong in the top 100 I don't think but if he were I couldn't see him any higher than 90-something. Hopkins, as much as I love him is not deserving of top 50 either, neither is Morales.

[Lazy Liberal]

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.

Damn, i forgot Bernard. Hopkins-Jones jr,Wright,ODLH,Trinidad

[-Hyperion-]

That's actually one of the better lists I've seen for a top 50, rather than top 100...However there's a lot I disagree with, Mike Tyson being 50 for example. He can't be any higher than 100 because his only accomplishment was being the youngest Heavyweight Champion in the history of the sport, and his best opponet was Spinks.

Tyson came up short against both of the better Heavyweights of his era in Holyfield and Lewis. De La Hoya doesn't belong in the top 100 I don't think but if he were I couldn't see him any higher than 90-something. Hopkins, as much as I love him is not deserving of top 50 either, neither is Morales.

nor barrera...

roy is unbelievably low compared to some other guys who are worse than him...

[boxingfan4life]

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 and true. I've saying that all along but the floyd fans will never accept it. Denial is a powerful thing.

[ßringer]

nor barrera...

roy is unbelievably low compared to some other guys who are worse than him...

Yeah, and Barrera too. I'm glad someone like Teddy ranks him so highly because let's face it, I'm in love with the man, lol. But I'd put him somewhere in the 70's or 80's, and Morales would be directly under him. I think Roy will always be ranked on that list low because his best competition was Toney and Hopkins, without those two I doubt he'd make the list.

Roy and Floyd are a lot alike, sometimes I even call Floyd "lil Roy".

[boxingfan4life]

That's actually one of the better lists I've seen for a top 50, rather than top 100...However there's a lot I disagree with, Mike Tyson being 50 for example. He can't be any higher than 100 because his only accomplishment was being the youngest Heavyweight Champion in the history of the sport, and his best opponet was Spinks.

Tyson came up short against both of the better Heavyweights of his era in Holyfield and Lewis. De La Hoya doesn't belong in the top 100 I don't think but if he were I couldn't see him any higher than 90-something. Hopkins, as much as I love him is not deserving of top 50 either, neither is Morales.

I have to disagree with the hopkins comment. I mean he is a great intelligent fighter that has made history in the sport. I mean his 20 defenses and the first man to hold all the major titles simoutaneously should get him up there. Also at the the age of 42 he has proven to still be successful. He is a future hall of famer and will be remembered as the one the best middle weights to ever box. Well you know more about the sport than I do so can you give some feedback on my response.

[ßringer]

I have to disagree with the hopkins comment. I mean he is a great intelligent fighter that has made history in the sport. I mean his 20 defenses and the first man to hold all the major titles simoutaneously should get him up there. Also at the the age of 42 he has proven to still be successful. He is a future hall of famer and will be remembered as the one the best middle weights to ever box. Well you know more about the sport than I do so can you give some feedback on my response.

I can certainly see your point, believe me I love Hopkins and I'm always very proud of him. Being the only man to unify his division since 87 I believe (when hagler did it) certainly warrants accolades, as well as high profile wins over Oscar, Tito, Tarver and Wright (p4p#2 at the time of their fight). I just wouldn't rank him that high, I'd put him at 51, right at the start of the second half of the list. Still, I won't be mad if he makes it to the top 50, Hopkins is a big reason why I started watching boxing. I've been watching him since I was 6 or 7.

[boxingfan4life]

I can certainly see your point, believe me I love Hopkins and I'm always very proud of him. Being the only man to unify his division since 87 I believe (when hagler did it) certainly warrants accolades, as well as high profile wins over Oscar, Tito, Tarver and Wright (p4p#2 at the time of their fight). I just wouldn't rank him that high, I'd put him at 51, right at the start of the second half of the list. Still, I won't be mad if he makes it to the top 50, Hopkins is a big reason why I started watching boxing. I've been watching him since I was 6 or 7.

Okay thats fair enough. I would still rank him the way the analysist did though. I thought it was pretty accurate. Appreciate the intelligent response. We need more like you on the forum.

[ßringer]

Okay thats fair enough. I would still rank him the way the analysist did though. I thought it was pretty accurate. Appreciate the intelligent response. We need more like you on the forum.

I do what I can to keep the intelligence pool afloat while keeping nuthuggers in check, it's not an easy job but someone has to do it and I've elected myself.

[Guest]

I always remember the poster who said that Floyd pissed over Sugar Ray Robinson because Floyd had the "0" on his record, and SRR had never UD'd Carlos Baldomir.

Anyway, great thread from a Classic member.