Comments Thread For: Ellerbe: Mayweather Will Go Down as Greatest Ever

[NearHypnos]

If he were to say...Beat Cotto...Beat Pac, Beat Canelo (if Canelo went on to be freakishly good)..Beat Martinez. Catch weight beats Ward/Bute winner (if winner goes on to be as good as expected)..then he's an ATG. Even then..greatest ever? Come on, Ellerbe..you been rubbing that chest too much.

But even then..it's hard to say. He's a heavy favorite against everybody and he'd only lose favor due to size, NOT skills against Ward/Bute (which is practically improbably) and POSSIBLY Martinez.

[Fighting Pride]

He ducked and dodged the greatest fighter he came across in his career, the FOTD, 4 years in the same division, who was the only still prime future ATG he encountered. Infact he has never beaten a prime ATG. I can see many people not having him in their top 50 in respect to the ATGs who did seek out and take on other greats.

[Jack Napier]

yeah right :laugh:
Floyd was at his best at 130-135
he's not even the best 130 or 135 lber of all time
no way he's GOAT, no current fighter will achieve that status

[NearHypnos]

He ducked and dodged the greatest fighter he came across in his career, the FOTD, 4 years in the same division, who was the only still prime future ATG he encountered. Infact he has never beaten a prime ATG. I can see many people not having him in their top 50 in respect to the ATGs who did seek out and take on other greats.

Neither has the Fotd...

Anyway...

Like Jack said. If you can think of someone better than him at each respective weight..then you can't be an ATG. The best he can do is beat the biggest names in reach and hope for the best.

[Reloaded]

yeah right :laugh:
Floyd was at his best at 130-135
he's not even the best 130 or 135 lber of all time
no way he's GOAT, no current fighter will achieve that status

Yeah and that status is nothing but an opinion , dont mean sheeeeeeet !

[bojangles1987]

And that's what you've been reduced to, huh? Name calling and no intelligent response. Voice your opinion with some adult words. I'll be a moron, the fact still remains, you guys go to extreme lengths to discredit a fighter, but white wash past greats resumes as if it only consisted of three fights. Like I stated, without GOOGLE you guys couldn't name more than 5 fighters that the past greats fought to make them great. If you don't think he's the greatest of all time, fine. But to say he's not in the conversation is just crazy. You guys are highlight fans. Only the cream of the crop in a generation seems to exist to you guys. While you continue to act like SRL fought Hearns, Hagler, and Duran for 40 fights, I'll continue to be a true boxing fan. It's the unsung cats like Julian "The Hawk" Jackson, John "The Beast" Mugabe, Michael Nunn, Azuma Nelson, Simon Brown, etc that are the shoulders the greats stand on. So continue to dismiss an already steller resume filled with world champions just because they're not Hagler or Hearns. He's fought his fair share of good/great opponents just like all the all time greats have. Be a fan of Boxing and not Boxers. The kid is good and it lowers people perception of your boxing knowledge when you're in a boxing discussion forum and after reading hundreds of opinions, all you can muster is calling someone a moron. Step your game up.

Ah f*** it, now I don't care if you're trolling, you got to me.

I'm not even sure what the hell you are trying to say here. Are you saying that guys who beat very good fighters are the best fighters ever, but beating ATGs doesn't make you an ATG? Because Sugar Ray Leonard has a whole bunch of very good fighters to go along with 4 ATGs on his resume. Hell, his very good competition, not even his best wins, are better than Floyd's best wins, and Sugar Ray Leonard isn't even the greatest of all time, hell he's the bottom half of the top 10. Do you think boxing began in the 70s or something?

You might want to look at the fighters who are considered to be in the top 5 or 10 fighters ever, and check out who they beat. These are fighters with multiple ATG fighters, many with multiple fights against those ATGs, along with their fights against very good opposition who they had to fight to get title shots, because back then you couldn't avoid real opposition and get a paper title the way so many young boxers today do.

Floyd's resume is absolute crap compared to the best fighters ever. It's the simple truth. He doesn't have one win against an ATG fighter anywhere close to their prime, and his only win against an ATG is Juan Manuel Marquez, who he gets more credit for now than he did at the time but still isn't a great win.

So no, Floyd Mayweather at this point should NEVER, EVER, be in the conversation for greatest fighter of all time. Everything he has done in his career has been done by many others, who also managed to put multiple wins against ATGs on their resumes at the same time. It was only 9 years ago that Roy Jones Jr. was looking every bit as unstoppable as Floyd, for more than a decade, and had two ATG fighters to his credit.

So again, shut up. You are a moron, shut up.

[v.cassiusali@ya]

the greatest coward ever..! a fighter who never runs out of excuses to fight pacquiao...that is chicken floyd mayweather...

he's not even in the shadow of hagler, or leonard or hearns or duran...

he's a total shame to great black fighters...if he's that great as he think he is, why don't he fight pacquiao? beat him, knock him out in a single round and prove to the world that he is indeed the greatest fighter ever...but the fact is that he's afraid to fight pacquiao, a "one-dimentional" fighter...he has all the advantages against pacman but he's scared to fight the man? is that a profile of the greatest...?certainly not...

[The Big Dunn]

Ah f*** it, now I don't care if you're trolling, you got to me.

I'm not even sure what the hell you are trying to say here. Are you saying that guys who beat very good fighters are the best fighters ever, but beating ATGs doesn't make you an ATG? Because Sugar Ray Leonard has a whole bunch of very good fighters to go along with 4 ATGs on his resume. Hell, his very good competition, not even his best wins, are better than Floyd's best wins, and Sugar Ray Leonard isn't even the greatest of all time, hell he's the bottom half of the top 10. Do you think boxing began in the 70s or something?

You might want to look at the fighters who are considered to be in the top 5 or 10 fighters ever, and check out who they beat. These are fighters with multiple ATG fighters, many with multiple fights against those ATGs, along with their fights against very good opposition who they had to fight to get title shots, because back then you couldn't avoid real opposition and get a paper title the way so many young boxers today do.

Floyd's resume is absolute crap compared to the best fighters ever. It's the simple truth. He doesn't have one win against an ATG fighter anywhere close to their prime, and his only win against an ATG is Juan Manuel Marquez, who he gets more credit for now than he did at the time but still isn't a great win.

So no, Floyd Mayweather at this point should NEVER, EVER, be in the conversation for greatest fighter of all time. Everything he has done in his career has been done by many others, who also managed to put multiple wins against ATGs on their resumes at the same time. It was only 9 years ago that Roy Jones Jr. was looking every bit as unstoppable as Floyd, for more than a decade, and had two ATG fighters to his credit.

So again, shut up. You are a moron, shut up.

I think champ cw makes a good point about the standard you are holding floyd too. I'm already on record as saying floyd can't be the best ever. But your standard is ridiculous.

For EXAMPLE, you give credit to SRL for fighting Duran, when he did so in large part because he was smaller and he and BOb were waiting to let the Hearns fight get bigger. Respectfully, you would never point this out. But when floyd essentially does the same thing you criticize him for it. No, floyd wasn't lucky enough to be born at a time when he could fight Hearns, Duran, and Hagler. But SRL made Hearns wait almost 2 yrs to fight, made Hagler wait 5, and then made hearns wait 8 yrs for a rematch. Respectfully, where is the criticism for this? If you kill floyd for fighting cotto 4 yrs "late" then where is the criticism for SRL? The counter argument is well SRL fought Benitez, Duran, etc. so its ok. But floyd fought Corrales, Hernandez etc. (obviously not as good as Duran and Benitez but) does he get the same pass.

WHile I agree with your points about resume lets say floyd had fought evryone you wanted him to. He still wouldn't have a Hearns, Hagler, Lamotta, Robinson, ARmstrong on his record.

As long as you hold every fighter to the same standard I have no problem with where you rate floyd. But when you give guys you like a "pass" or justify their actions and then don't do the same for all fighters it makes it uneven.

[Oh you out son]

Who gives a **** about what historians think? If he beats Pacquiao and Martinez I will rate him as the greatest of all time. With his boxing skills and abiltiy (unparalleled by anyone in the history of the sport), and if he beat Pac and Martinez his resume would be good enough at that point still undefeated. Mayweather would be the G.O.A.T

[bojangles1987]

I think champ cw makes a good point about the standard you are holding floyd too. I'm already on record as saying floyd can't be the best ever. But your standard is ridiculous.

For EXAMPLE, you give credit to SRL for fighting Duran, when he did so in large part because he was smaller and he and BOb were waiting to let the Hearns fight get bigger. Respectfully, you would never point this out. But when floyd essentially does the same thing you criticize him for it. No, floyd wasn't lucky enough to be born at a time when he could fight Hearns, Duran, and Hagler. But SRL made Hearns wait almost 2 yrs to fight, made Hagler wait 5, and then made hearns wait 8 yrs for a rematch. Respectfully, where is the criticism for this? If you kill floyd for fighting cotto 4 yrs "late" then where is the criticism for SRL? The counter argument is well SRL fought Benitez, Duran, etc. so its ok. But floyd fought Corrales, Hernandez etc. (obviously not as good as Duran and Benitez but) does he get the same pass.

WHile I agree with your points about resume lets say floyd had fought evryone you wanted him to. He still wouldn't have a Hearns, Hagler, Lamotta, Robinson, ARmstrong on his record.

As long as you hold every fighter to the same standard I have no problem with where you rate floyd. But when you give guys you like a "pass" or justify their actions and then don't do the same for all fighters it makes it uneven.

I'm holding Floyd to the standard of what the best fighters of all time did, because that's the conversation we are having. There's a reason so many people, myself included, feel there is no possible way a modern fighter can even approach the fighters considered in the top 10 all time, let alone the greatest. The evolution of the sport does not allow it, they don't fight as much and they don't fight nearly as much top competition.

I give credit to Leonard for beating Duran, because Duran is an ATG that had beat the crap out of Leonard already. Hagler waited because Leonard retired with a detached retina that might have been career ending. And Leonard gets killed for those fights, all the time, even though he actually fought them, and as much as I disagree with the Hagler fight he holds victories over them.

Let's consider Floyd in the conversation for greatest fighter ever, without holding him to the standard those men are held at, because that's being unfair. Do you all realize how ridiculous that sounds?