RING Magazine: "Mayweather Doesn't Crack the Top 25 Greatest Ever"

[The Gambler1981]

Thank you, sir. Much appreciated.

Sometimes the site disappoints me. I became a fan of boxing because I fell in love with certain fighters. That helped me truly love the sport and also to attempt to stay objective when it came to my favorites (I didn't always succeed!). But it seems a lot of guys aren't on here to discuss the sport or learn - they just wanna argue how great their hero is and make irrational arguments.

It's disappointing but I am starting to see some real fans come around. Hopefully that continues.

I disagree with you but you do actually have decent reasons unlike some of these boxing hacks. When you look at his record it is impressive in total (especially by todays standards), but that is my opinion and anyone can think anyway they like. Sure you can pick it apart but tell me a fighter thats record can not be picked apart like you did after the fact

[The_Italian]

i agree with the ring magazine regarding floyd not being in the top 25.

its far too stacked within the top 25 for him to crack it.

Thats where the ali's, marciano's, joe louis', joe fraizer's, etc. reign




In my opinion for floyd to claim a spot in the top 25 he'd have to finish a few guys off first. Like the welterweight division (margarito, cotto, williams, etc.) and even take a fight with the new p4p world champion; manny pacquiao and maybe even a few others.

THEN i'd put him top 25 because he'd be probably THEE BEST fighter in this generation...but there are too many questions he's left open by not fighting the true elite of the sport.

[IMDAZED]

I disagree with you but you do actually have decent reasons unlike some of these boxing hacks. When you look at his record it is impressive in total (especially by todays standards), but that is my opinion and anyone can think anyway they like. Sure you can pick it apart but tell me a fighter thats record can not be picked apart like you did after the fact

It's ok to disagree - as long as our points our valid. I have no problems with that. And you have to understand, I am a HUGE fan of Floyd (how can anyone NOT be?). Just love watching him fight - have his career collection at home and have been a fan since he wiped out Louie Leija on the Morales-Zaragoza undercard.

That said, his best wins to me are still Corrales & Castillo. He really has been about the money since he left 135. I don't blame him, he was SO underpaid for his talent. But, as a greater fan of the SPORT, I can't give him due that he doesn't deserve. I can think of 25 fighters who have a far better resume...and possibly 25 more.

It's not who you fight, it's when you fight them. Maybe if he fought Gatti at 130. Or Hatton at 140. Or Oscar at...you get the point. And while it's not his fault those fights didn't take place, I can't give him extra credit for them.

There's still a chance for Floyd to be the ATG I thought he would become. And I pray he returns. But just because I love him doesn't mean I will bestow him honors he doesn't deserve. Just can't do it.

[The Gambler1981]

.

My whole point with Floyd's greatness starts at 130 and to me he is one of the best ever in the history of that class. From there going up he did beat some pretty damn good fighters a few of whom will be in the hall of fame. I do not really feel he deserves extra credit i just feels he deserves normal credit for beating these guys. Hatton for example started at 140 so i give him full credit ( i had Hatton edging Collazo btw, although if that fight would have had another round Hatton may have been ****ed). If you break it down division by division his record does look worse but he in the end he beat a lot of quality guys.

He could have fought more guys and he could have done more, there is no doubt. In my eyes anyways who he beat in total is impressive, and who he did not fight does not really take away from that, to me anyways

[Fenom]

if floyd can't do it.. then it will be hard for any fighter in the future to ever do it...

they don't into account the changes that have taken place...
most fighters only fight a couple times a year nowadays.. and negotiations etc have changed the structure of everything...
its unfair to compare him to a fighter from decades ago really!
talent wise he has evrything... and he's shown no real weaknesses
his record is a perfect one
gotta be top 20

your avis completely taking all my attention from your post........i tried ot read it


i really did

[shadeyfizzle]

My whole point with Floyd's greatness starts at 130 and to me he is one of the best ever in the history of that class. From there going up he did beat some pretty damn good fighters a few of whom will be in the hall of fame. I do not really feel he deserves extra credit i just feels he deserves normal credit for beating these guys. Hatton for example started at 140 so i give him full credit ( i had Hatton edging Collazo btw, although if that fight would have had another round Hatton may have been ****ed). If you break it down division by division his record does look worse but he in the end he beat a lot of quality guys.

He could have fought more guys and he could have done more, there is no doubt. In my eyes anyways who he beat in total is impressive, and who he did not fight does not really take away from that, to me anyways

Im just curious as to who would have to fall out of the top 25 in your opinion in order for floyd to be placed within it

[The Gambler1981]

Im just curious as to who would have to fall out of the top 25 in your opinion in order for floyd to be placed within it

I feel a lot of older fighters are given to much credit, but i never said he was top 25 i said he was top 30, now i know you are not reading closely because i said that twice. It is opinion anyways so how could i be wrong?

[shadeyfizzle]

I feel a lot of older fighters are given to much credit, but i never said he was top 25 i said he was top 30, now i know you are not reading closely because i said that twice. It is opinion anyways so how could i be wrong?

Ok excuse me. Im working here. Gimme a break. Same question except top 30

[The Gambler1981]

I am off today and i am not making that list because it is pointless i can drop out whoever and not be wrong. 99.9% of boxers in history are not as good as Floyd or basically 1 out of 1000 dudes have been better. Ranking fighters accross eras in an inherently flawed thing so any list I made like that would just be 30 guys in whatever order, i would not rank them. If i made a list of the top 30 i might have 35 guys because I might have 5 guys that deserve to be 30. Also in my P4P all time list I would not include heavyweights because they are completely different, so I just rank HW against other HW.

I think it is impossible to really rank boxers unless you saw them with your own 2 eyes. I do not mean terrible old footage either.

[larryx]

he did say **** oscar and oscar does own the magazine!!!what a surprise **** the ring its a magazine and dont mean ****