WHY is FLOYD NOT the greatest boxer of all time?

[STREET CLEANER]

People don't compare pac to the goats. They say pac is the goat

How is that? He got KOed three times.

[STREET CLEANER]

8 world titles in 8 divisions and scaring Mayweather to duck him for six years is Goatness. Floyd only fought Pac because the head of CBS Showtime forced him into it. Otherwise Floyd intended to duck Pac forever.

The 8th title was a circus fight that neither earned the right to fight for it. Let's not forget all the excuses for Pac: afraid of needles, giving blood will make him smaller, we are going to build a stadium for the event, etc.

To my recollection Floyd approached Manny in a live basketball game and that started negotiations and they had to leave Bob Arum out of it.

[hugh grant]

How is that? He got KOed three times.

Being koed doesn't make you not goat! Obviously pac wasn't at his best on the night, or gave you 4 chances to beat him, and pac having fear of being robbed (which is something floyd never needed worry about with home advantage) inadvertently got him koed. That's not a barrier to being goat.
Its obviously pac doing thing others haven't done before is going to be pac s selling point,

[hugh grant]

CREDIBLE????? And most CREDIBLE lists don’t have Floyd or Manny top 10 and all of them have Floyd rated higher than Manny.

So only lists where pac isn't top ten and below floyd is credible? I see, you are trying to invent a game only you can win? Gotcha.

[DeeMoney]

Well, lets look at it and discuss (and not just spew the bias so many fans do).

Depends on how you measure greatness. If you measure it in regards to resume (essentially taking all the positives and subtracting the negatives) he won't add up to a lot of pre 1980s fighters, and definitely a lot of pre WWII fighters because people just don't fight as much. Heck SRR had longer win streaks than some fighters total careers. So maybe we have to contextualize it and compare it relative to their era.
Now Floyd gets no negative marks because he never lost, but there are two points to that. First, a lot of fighters don't lose while in their prime, but then do lose when at old age, should we hold that against them? I don't think so, but its a discussion point. Secondly, and more saliently, who did he beat and how good were they at the time? This is important when measuring resumes- winning simply means you were better than one other fighter on a given night but if they were not very good then how much credit do you earn.

For example: From 2012-17 Luis Ortiz went undefeated (Hey Pretty Good) 14-0 with a couple no contests. During a roughly same length of time, from 1973-1977 Muhammad Ali went 15-1. Okay, based on your argument Luis Ortiz was greater- I mean he didn't lose, so he must be. Except when you look at who they beat it doesnt really seem that way. Ortiz's best win was either against Bryant Jennings or Malik Scott, with a couple fights against fighters making their debut or with losing records. Conversely, Ali has 7 wins against HOFers during this time, with his one loss coming against a HOFer. Even if we give Ortiz a nod for fighting in a less busy era, he doesnt have as good of a showing, despite not having a loss.

Now even if you think Ali should've had an extra loss in there, I doubt you would say that Ortiz was greater than Ali in that stretch. And if you can't say Ortiz was greater during that stretch, then, well simply having an '0' for any period doesnt hold up as equating to greater then, or for that case greatest. As for Floyd, he does have a lot of big names, but many of them are past prime. So while he is absolutely an ATG I think by this measure he just doesnt hold up, even when comparing to his era and then transposing it to other eras.

Of course, simply looking at resume isn't fair either- not every fighter gets the same opportunities. If Ali had been the exact same fighter in the ring (and I hope the focus here is in the ring greatness) but fought in the 1930s instead of Joe Louis, he would never have had the opportunity to build as great of resume. So we have to look at the fights themselves, see how well the fighter did. To that extent, you could argue that Floyd was the greatest defensive fighter ever. And if you want to argue him as being the best based on what you see on film, then thats an argument to have. However, I think there are some fighters who were consistently better based on what they brought to the ring. Not many, but there are some.

[hugh grant]

Well, lets look at it and discuss (and not just spew the bias so many fans do).

Depends on how you measure greatness. If you measure it in regards to resume (essentially taking all the positives and subtracting the negatives) he won't add up to a lot of pre 1980s fighters, and definitely a lot of pre WWII fighters because people just don't fight as much. Heck SRR had longer win streaks than some fighters total careers. So maybe we have to contextualize it and compare it relative to their era.
Now Floyd gets no negative marks because he never lost, but there are two points to that. First, a lot of fighters don't lose while in their prime, but then do lose when at old age, should we hold that against them? I don't think so, but its a discussion point. Secondly, and more saliently, who did he beat and how good were they at the time? This is important when measuring resumes- winning simply means you were better than one other fighter on a given night but if they were not very good then how much credit do you earn.

For example: From 2012-17 Luis Ortiz went undefeated (Hey Pretty Good) 14-0 with a couple no contests. During a roughly same length of time, from 1973-1977 Muhammad Ali went 15-1. Okay, based on your argument Luis Ortiz was greater- I mean he didn't lose, so he must be. Except when you look at who they beat it doesnt really seem that way. Ortiz's best win was either against Bryant Jennings or Malik Scott, with a couple fights against fighters making their debut or with losing records. Conversely, Ali has 7 wins against HOFers during this time, with his one loss coming against a HOFer. Even if we give Ortiz a nod for fighting in a less busy era, he doesnt have as good of a showing, despite not having a loss.

Now even if you think Ali should've had an extra loss in there, I doubt you would say that Ortiz was greater than Ali in that stretch. And if you can't say Ortiz was greater during that stretch, then, well simply having an '0' for any period doesnt hold up as equating to greater then, or for that case greatest. As for Floyd, he does have a lot of big names, but many of them are past prime. So while he is absolutely an ATG I think by this measure he just doesnt hold up, even when comparing to his era and then transposing it to other eras.

Of course, simply looking at resume isn't fair either- not every fighter gets the same opportunities. If Ali had been the exact same fighter in the ring (and I hope the focus here is in the ring greatness) but fought in the 1930s instead of Joe Louis, he would never have had the opportunity to build as great of resume. So we have to look at the fights themselves, see how well the fighter did. To that extent, you could argue that Floyd was the greatest defensive fighter ever. And if you want to argue him as being the best based on what you see on film, then thats an argument to have. However, I think there are some fighters who were consistently better based on what they brought to the ring. Not many, but there are some.

Floyd never lost, yet most think he lost at least 3 times? Yes, floyd has some nice names on resume, most of whom were slightly past prime like you said. But are you telling me calzaghe didn't have some nice names too, and nobody is saying calzaghe is goat, or even better than hopkins or RJJ.
Saying floyd is best defensive fighter is just an.observation and opinion. But then people are going to be curious as to why floyd couldn't fight ggg, or in 8 divisions, or fight and best champs at 46 years of age if he's so good defensively? No point boasting about defensive greatness and thinking beating a 70 fight former light flyweight in 8th weight class is proof and evidence of defensive greatness? Fight ggg, and don't get knocked out, whilst losing to ggg will show me your defensive skills are legit
Too many excuses

[DeeMoney]

Floyd never lost, yet most think he lost at least 3 times? Yes, floyd has some nice names on resume, most of whom were slightly past prime like you said. But are you telling me calzaghe didn't have some nice names too, and nobody is saying calzaghe is goat, or even better than hopkins or RJJ.
Saying floyd is best defensive fighter is just an.observation and opinion. But then people are going to be curious as to why floyd couldn't fight ggg, or in 8 divisions, or fight and best champs at 46 years of age if he's so good defensively?
Too many excuses

As to the points you elude to in your last paragraph. Some people put more emphasis on weight class climbing than others. I rank Hagler and Monzon fairly high on my atg list- and they stayed at Mw their whole career. I dint put as much emphasis on weight class climbing, but thats where a difference of opinion comes in- we all are defining ATG and GOAT with different criteria.
Similar with late age performances. I rate Ali ahead of Foreman, and Hearns ahead of Hopkins, yet in both cases the latter had better longevity. We are all defining things differently

[hugh grant]

As to the points you elude to in your last paragraph. Some people put more emphasis on weight class climbing than others. I rank Hagler and Monzon fairly high on my atg list- and they stayed at Mw their whole career. I dint put as much emphasis on weight class climbing, but thats where a difference of opinion comes in- we all are defining ATG and GOAT with different criteria.
Similar with late age performances. I rate Ali ahead of Foreman, and Hearns ahead of Hopkins, yet in both cases the latter had better longevity. We are all defining things differently

I think you need to do things that others haven't done. Floyd's got some nice names on resume, and so has calzaghe. That in itself isn't going to make people think you are candidate for goat. Pacs got even more nice names on resume. Plus he's climbed more divisions, had longer career than you. Best champs at 46 years old

[just the facts]

So only lists where pac isn't top ten and below floyd is credible? I see, you are trying to invent a game only you can win? Gotcha.

Every legitimate list (ESPN, Ring, etc) has Floyd rated ahead of Pac. That’ll happen when one fighter scores a lopsided win over the other. Oh I forgot, you’re the Dbag who once posted that wins/losses mean little.

[STREET CLEANER]

Being koed doesn't make you not goat! Obviously pac wasn't at his best on the night, or gave you 4 chances to beat him, and pac having fear of being robbed (which is something floyd never needed worry about with home advantage) inadvertently got him koed. That's not a barrier to being goat.
Its obviously pac doing thing others haven't done before is going to be pac s selling point,

I thought he won the Horn fight but he lost the 3rd Marquez fight.

Pac got KOed by lesser fighters.