Attention Mayweather fans.......

[The Troll]

He is the greatest of his era, that much is for sure and nobody can take that away from him. .

He hasn't beat the best of his contemporaries, he cant be the 'greatest of his era' without doing that.

[pbftxrs316]

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.

i've been around boxing my whole life and i boxed for 8 years so you have some nerve to label who has been watching boxing for how long and explaining why floyd haters hate him and don't put him in an all time list. i've watched the srr fights and srl fights and hagler, marciano, ali, marciano, louis, and tyson as well as many other fighter's careers. floyd mayweather jr is an all time great because of just his skills alone. he's an all time great because of what he's accomplished in only a little over 10 years. he's 5 time would champion and 5 different weight classes. he's beaten hall of fame worthy fighters like a genero hernandez and oscar de la hoya and even corralles. that's says a lot. it's a new generatiion in boxing, like any other generation that preceeded the one before it. floyd mayweather will beat hatton, mosley, and cotto when they fight.

you saying him being the best of his generation already puts him as an all time great.

[Fox McCloud]

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.

I personally think it should be a mix of the two things. Seriously... Manny Pacquiao has accomplished a lot, but I don't think he should ever be P4P #1... he is basically a one dimensional fighter, and I don't think he could hang with someone like Winky Wright if they were the same size.

[FightNight 2007]

did oscar fight the best opponents possible? I can tell you don't know what the **** you're talking about



oscar beat two ATG's in sweet pea nad chavez. are you saying becoming a six division champ and defending your titles over 17 times does not contitutue ATG status duran had 12 title defenses in 119 fights and was 1-4 against his ATG in his era, what **** are you smoking if you're saying oscar is not ant ATG but duran is.





5 titles in 5 weight classes becoming the ring champ at 130, 135, and 147 while remaining undefeated all before the age of 30! please name three fighters in the top ten ATG list who has accomplished as much as floyd by the age of 30



duran was 1-4 against the ATG of his era oscar was 2-4. You have yet to make sense in anything you have posted. ****ing newb





in their weightclass find 5 better fighters and you might have a point.




zab, gatti, and baldomir were on top of their game when they faced floyd. baldomir was onm a 7 year win streak, and zab was 1 win removed from the undisputed 147 championship. Gatti was coming off a 5 fight win streak, you seriously need to get with the program.



hernandez was the ring champ at 130, the man to beat so to speak. corley was the former wbo champ and mitchell was also the fromer 140 wba champ. who else was there for floyd to fight at 140 besides these two.




to be the greatest fighter of your era and not be on a person's ATG list means that person has to be a a ****ing idiot, or a racist which do you perfer




floyd fought 70% of his fights at 130, the fact that he is facing the best 140lber in his fisrt title defense at 147 means nothing to a **** wad like yourself. if floyud beats hatton he will have beaten the best fighter at every weightclass from 130-147.

130: genaro hernandez
135: Jose Luis Castillo
140: ricky Hatton:
147: Carlos Baldomir




you are a hater what other 130lb fighter is fighting 160lbers like oscar and baldomir. please name one in my lifetime

I find it funny how he(OP) had nothing to say about Duran doing terrible against ATG.

[Steak]

the problem is, Mayweather is the only fighter who has gone so much up in weight and still remained dominant with no losses while fighting the top opposition...only other guy is Whitaker and imo hes at the very least a top 20 p4p ATG.

thats what makes things difficult when ranking Mayweather...he hasnt faced the level of competition other HOF fighters have, but on the other hand, he hasnt lost to them either, which counts for a lot in some people's minds and less in others.
guess its just the way ya look at it.

btw if ****ing Jack Dempsey's and Jack Johnson's records are enough to make you an ATG, Floyd most certainly is one.
________
Toyota 3s-gte engine

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

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.

Anorak.

I have SRR as my number one fighter. But here is my question:

HOW DO WE KNOW?? I'm in my 30s. I have seen (honestly) a FEW fights from SRR. By contrast, I have seen about 15-20 PBF fights, prolly 30 ODLH fights, and 20ish Shane fights.

Do I really have enough PERSONAL info to say that SRR was much better than those guys? That is the problem with comparing across eras.

[Fox McCloud]

Anorak.

I have SRR as my number one fighter. But here is my question:

HOW DO WE KNOW?? I'm in my 30s. I have seen (honestly) a FEW fights from SRR. By contrast, I have seen about 15-20 PBF fights, prolly 30 ODLH fights, and 20ish Shane fights.

Do I really have enough PERSONAL info to say that SRR was much better than those guys? That is the problem with comparing across eras.

Bert Sugar is about the only person who can really give a good account of how fighters match up, because he is about the only one who is old enough to have seen Mayweather and Robinson fights live. He says Robinson is the best, I'm going with it.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

Bert Sugar is about the only person who can really give a good account of how fighters match up, because he is about the only one who is old enough to have seen Mayweather and Robinson fights live. He says Robinson is the best, I'm going with it.

But everybody tends to have a preference for fight styles. Maybe his preference doesn't align with yours.

For example, I have Pernell over SRL because I like fighters who can defend. I think SRL's offense was often crappy.

Merchant has seen alot. And Mike Tyson is a real boxing historian. Cus had Mike watching old tapes EVERY night.

[HeysusChristus]

Bert Sugar is about the only person who can really give a good account of how fighters match up, because he is about the only one who is old enough to have seen Mayweather and Robinson fights live. He says Robinson is the best, I'm going with it.

You'd think so but he is blinded by nostalgia. He don't think much of any fighter post 1990.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

You'd think so but he is blinded by nostalgia. He don't think much of any fighter post 1990.

Heysus... welcome to the jungle.

I find that MOST of the old guys think that way. They'll tell you that Joe Louis would beat Lennox Lewis (example). Lennox Lewis is huge. Joe Lewis was a cruiserweight. At best.