Comments Thread For: Measured Against All Time: Floyd Mayweather Jr.

[Fists_of_Fury]

I have Usyk higher on the ATG list.

Do you smoke crack by chance?

[Oregonian]

Definitely NOT the best ever, truthfully he couldn't carry Ali's gym bag for him and had the audacity to put Ali down publicly, techincally very smart, tremendous skills but Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, and a Duran from Montreal would have figured him out and night night...

——
Floyd is the greatest boxer ever! After Ali and Ray Robinson.

[crisantonio917]

Definitely NOT the best ever, truthfully he couldn't carry Ali's gym bag for him and had the audacity to put Ali down publicly, techincally very smart, tremendous skills but Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, and a Duran from Montreal would have figured him out and night night...

[OhMightyThanos]

Mayweather is arguably the best technical boxer ever. That is fair and legit. With that said, In his last 15 fights, he has only 3 KO's: 1 against an 0-0 fighter in Conor MacGregor; a controversial KO over Victor Ortiz, and a legitimate KO over Ricky Hatton. Also two wins were majority decisions and one split decision. My point is that when you look at other fighters in contention for "the greatest fighter of all time," you see fighters who have losses on their records, but have far more decisive victories. I think that is precisely the line where boxing fans are reluctant to bestow the title of "the greatest" to Floyd despite the 50-0. I think boxing aficionados want to declare that kind of "greatness" RESOUNDINGLY, not reluctantly or at least without any hesitation. It is the way Floyd reached 50-0 that fans have difficulty with. Floyd was a great strategic fighter with tremendous speed and very respectable (and underrated) strength. I think the word that nails what Floyd was in the ring is "prudent." Prudent to not put himself in vulnerable situations. Prudent to settle for a decision. Prudent to just control the distance. And more power to him for protecting his health and achieving so much at the same time... in boxing of all sports. God bless him. The problem for "blood thirsty" fans is that it is not the "warrior" mentality. Sweet science, yes. Gladiator, less so.

[fistic flow]

He was no Nigel Rafferty

Ha, a mate of mine fought him back in the day. Watched him scuffle through many a Midland show

[wrecksracer]

The problem with saying you fought x number of champions these days is that there are 4 belts, which wasn't the case prior to the 80s. Half those guys Floyd faced wouldn't have had belts prior to the 80s. Not picking on Floyd, but the term "champion" is watered down when you consider guys like Victor Ortiz and Robert Guerrero were belt holders. Also, Castillo and Corrales, two of his significant victories.....these guys aren't in the HOF. Good victories at the time, but historically? Anyway, Floyd was the top guy at his time, but I would have liked to see him challenge himself more. Cassamayor, Tszyu, Pac 5 years earlier, Cory Spinks, even a guy like Tim Bradley would have been better than Victor Ortiz or Robert Guerrero.

[Amir Imam]

TBE.. It’s going to be hard to duplicate a resume like this.

Mosley, Pacquiao, De La Hoya, Alvarez, Corrales, Hatton, Judah, Cotto, Hernandez, Gatti,
10-0

[rrayvez]

Mayweather is like Ali who said he was "The Greatest" so many times that now most people believe it. Mayweather had 50 wins, no defeats, but there are fighters like Julio C Chavez, Ray Robinson and others who had many more that 50 fights in a row with no losses. May would have given any of the best in history a fight, but to say he could beat them all is a stretch. Also, fighters now have many advantages like nutritionists, better training methods, etc. So many great fighters in history would cause problems for Floyd and some would very likely beat him. Enough said.

I don’t consider Mayweather to be the best ever or even the best in any weight class he’s fought in, but your undefeated record argument is skewed. Who you beat needs to be taken into consideration more than the undefeated record or streak. For all of Chavez wins, he was literally still facing novice level boxers on a consistent basis when he was a world champion with 50, 60, and 70 plus wins. He only beat 2 fighters who became hall of famers. Quite different than mayweathers quality of opposition in 50 fights.

[archiemoore1]

Mayweather was truly great in the ring. But he called himself TBE, and not everyone agrees with his personal self assessment. Unfortunately without the benefit of film, a lot of past greats are only known to us by what was said about them through word of mouth. Its impossible to say who the best ever was. I will say that guys like for example, Charley Burley who fought between welterweight and middleweight, fought and knocked out a heavyweight in a sanctioned match with no type of clause or special conditions attached. Mayweather would never take such a risk in the 1st place. So what is greatness? It depends on what greatness means to each person. It could mean who earned the most money, sold the most PPV's, who had the biggest fanbase online, or it could mean who took the biggest risks and fought the toughest opposition. How many of Mayweather's opponents would've done well in the 20 or even 15 round era? It's a legit question. Greatness can mean many things and so the best ever title is more how Mayweather feels about himself. Its very subjective, not absolute truth

[Tibburon245]

Mayweather is like Ali who said he was "The Greatest" so many times that now most people believe it. Mayweather had 50 wins, no defeats, but there are fighters like Julio C Chavez, Ray Robinson and others who had many more that 50 fights in a row with no losses. May would have given any of the best in history a fight, but to say he could beat them all is a stretch. Also, fighters now have many advantages like nutritionists, better training methods, etc. So many great fighters in history would cause problems for Floyd and some would very likely beat him. Enough said.