who's higher on your ATG list? Mayweather or Hopkins

[The Surgeon]

Mayweather.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

One thing to keep in mind is that floyd has never, and i mean never fought anyone as good as roy jones 93............

floyd would have an L

[GeneralZod]

I'll go B-Hop.

[Hop]

Close. Mayweather.

In questions/discussions of this 'species', two of the most difficult aspects are: 1) To what extent do you allow factors beyond the control of the athlete to be used against them? and 2) Is allowing a purely subjective element to enter in (i.e. the 'eye test') considered as valid or not?

My sport in high school was basketball. Here's a bit of a parallel: IMO the four very greatest basketball players of all-time were (in alphabetical order) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Earvin Johnson, and Michael Jordan. When we discuss who was the greatest, many use against Kareem the fact that he, for about a decade, had Magic as a teammate. Against Magic they 'dock him points' b/c he played all those years with Kareem. Bird was a part of one of the best NBA front lines in history, with Parish & McHale, both Hall of Famers. Finally, though Jordan's supporting cast was not as strong for many years, when Jordan's Bulls won many of their championships, most would not deny that the competition was not at the level of the Lakers or Celtics of the '80's (or even Dr. J's 76'ers). In other words, we quickly run into factors beyond their control. My point is that one has to go beyond wins, losses, stats, and even championships, I believe, and admit the 'discernment of the eye' to play a part. Yes, it's subjective, yet I feel it has its place.

When I seek to do this concerning the Hopkins/Mayweather question, I give Floyd the edge. It's not reducible to a formula, but ... there you have it. My post is probably already too long, so I'll stop there for now.

[Kagami Taiga]

One thing to keep in mind is that floyd has never, and i mean never fought anyone as good as roy jones 93............

floyd would have an L

whats the point of saying this when bhop lost that fight? u dont get credit for losses.

[Anomaly460]

whats the point of saying this when bhop lost that fight? u dont get credit for losses.

He's using it to validate that BHop fought stiffer comp,and that if Floyd had done the same (i.e. Forest, prime Mosley, or prime Pacquiao) he'd have a loss(es) as well. Like someone else said, Bernard fought every fight you'd want him to (sans Jones II when it mattered) and almost always came out victorious.

There are fights that could really move Floyd up the list though. The tragedy is he already believes he's the greatest ever, so we may never see them. In his defense, Canelo is a great start to turning that around.

Very slight edge to Bernard with Floyd able to leap up significantly in his last 4 or so fights.

[Cardinal Buck]

definitely Floyd

[chito]

the question is did bhop duck anyone during his prime?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

whats the point of saying this when bhop lost that fight? u dont get credit for losses.

the point is people will lean towards floyd because he is undefeated, but hasnt had the challenges that hopkins faced,,, ala jones in 93, or a prime undefeated tito, or pavlik, or tarver, or calzaghe

so that is why i brought it up,, floyd has no one on his resume like a jones 93 or tito 01,,,,

corrales isnt the same caliber of fighter that tito or jones was,,, he is more like pavlik,,,,

JLC comes close, but still not a tito or jones level of fighter,,,,


So that is why i brought it up,,,,,
Hopkins took harder challenges than floyd,,

[InSaiyan]

too close to call.