ESPN Ranks Floyd Mayweather As The Best Fighter Of The Last 25 Years

[IronDanHamza]

If you want to argue based on Longevity. Hopkins has beaten more great fighters in their prime, for an incredibly long time. Not only that, he has been at or near the top p4p for that entire time. Think about it.

Also, if you say the last 25 years, that brings in fighters like Pernell Whitaker, who was at his peak in 1994. Is Floyd better than Whitaker? Look what Whitaker did to his Pacquiao... JCC Sr. He fought him in his prime, and humiliated him.

Could Floyd have ever beaten Roy Jones Jr in his prime? No.
Did Floyd have a better Career? Its debatable. Welterweight hads more marquee names, it always has, but in terms of accomplishments of opponents. Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Hill, Tarver, plus a slew of other future and former champions. The same kind of resume Floyd had.

Only difference is Roy looked like most physically undefeatable fighter to ever step in the ring.

I'm trying to think of one great fighter Hopkins beat in their prime.

Floyd and Hopkins have been fighting at the championship level for near enough the same amount of time and Floyd has been consistently ranked higher than Hopkins P4P basically the entire time they've been on the list.

[IronDanHamza]

In terms of fundamentals Hokpins is better than both of them, as is Finito Lopez.

Both Mayweather and Jones were able to do things because of athletic ability. Being able to rely on a pull counter, is not fundamentally sound boxing. That is relying on reflexes and is an unothodox skill.

Roy had more unorthodox skills than Floyd, and he was able to get away with more because of that.

Either way, Roy still beat better opposition Prime for Prime. Toney Hokpins, McCallum, Virgil Hill.

Funny, so you consider McCallum a good win for Roy Jones?

[!! Shawn]

Roy was better all around but Floyd was the master of defense, strategy, adaptation, and ring smarts.

That is how he went undefeated

49-0 is not a walk in the park

Roy Jones did it if you don't count the BS DQ.

[megas30]

With sublime skill and a polarizing persona, Floyd Mayweather became the face of boxing and the world's highest-paid athlete, cementing him as our top pound-for-pound boxer of the last 25 years.

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id...oxers-25-years

I initially thought Roy Jones would be number one but I understand why they chose Floyd over him especially when discussing the past 25 years.

Fighter of the decade, doe.

[deathofaclown]

If you want to argue based on Longevity. Hopkins has beaten more great fighters in their prime, for an incredibly long time. Not only that, he has been at or near the top p4p for that entire time. Think about it.

Also, if you say the last 25 years, that brings in fighters like Pernell Whitaker, who was at his peak in 1994. Is Floyd better than Whitaker? Look what Whitaker did to his Pacquiao... JCC Sr. He fought him in his prime, and humiliated him.

Could Floyd have ever beaten Roy Jones Jr in his prime? No.
Did Floyd have a better Career? Its debatable. Welterweight hads more marquee names, it always has, but in terms of accomplishments of opponents. Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Hill, Tarver, plus a slew of other future and former champions. The same kind of resume Floyd had.

Only difference is Roy looked like most physically undefeatable fighter to ever step in the ring.

Well i'd agree a lot of that too. Which is why i said you could make a case for Jones if you talk about being the best in their absolute prime.

Hopkins had one of the most impressive careers in the history of the sport. You could make a case for him but the people compiling these lists probably look at things like losses to Jermaine Taylor and they probably don't consider fights or why the losses occurred or whatever, they probably just look at the record and see two losses to a guy like Taylor.

But it was obvious Floyd was going to get it by getting to near 40 years old without a loss while having a lot of HOF names on his record, from a distance without taking many things into consideration and thinking too deeply about it...that seems most impressive, if that makes sense. I'm not saying i 100% think he deserves it, but i can't say he doesn't deserve it either. You can make a good case both ways i think. But of course he was going to get it, he's still currently the biggest name in boxing. The same reason GGG is included, he's one of the current guys with a buzz around him. I'm a GGG fan but he hasn't earned that yet.

[!! Shawn]

Funny, so you consider McCallum a good win for Roy Jones?

Yes, considering that he gave James Toney a hard fight after that, and considering that McCallum was the Hokpins of his day. Criminally underrated, all around complete fighter. Nobody had an easy time with McCallum.

[BennyST]

Yep, I don't see the problem with that. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd have. Could just as easily go Roy, but I think I favour Floyd.

Frankly, I don't see how you could have anything else other than either one of these guys at the top.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes, considering that he gave James Toney a hard fight after that, and considering that McCallum was the Hokpins of his day. Criminally underrated, all around complete fighter. Nobody had an easy time with McCallum.

By "hard fight" you mean the only one of the 3 that Toney won comfortably mainly due to the fact that McCallum was clearly past it?

Roy Jones carried him for the entire fight seemingly out of respect for the aging fighter but that's a good win to you. Ok.

[!! Shawn]

Well i'd agree a lot of that too. Which is why i said you could make a case for Jones if you talk about being the best in their absolute prime.

Hopkins had one of the most impressive careers in the history of the sport. You could make a case for him but the people compiling these lists probably look at things like losses to Jermaine Taylor and they probably don't consider fights or why the losses occurred or whatever, they probably just look at the record and see two losses to a guy like Taylor.

But it was obvious Floyd was going to get it by getting to near 40 years old without a loss while having a lot of HOF names on his record, from a distance without taking many things into consideration and thinking too deeply about it...that seems most impressive, if that makes sense. I'm not saying i 100% think he deserves it, but i can't say he doesn't deserve it either. You can make a good case both ways i think. But of course he was going to get it, he's still currently the biggest name in boxing. The same reason GGG is included, he's one of the current guys with a buzz around him. I'm a GGG fan but he hasn't earned that yet.

Of course he will get it. But in 10 years it will look silly that he did, because p4p head to head there are atleast 3 fighters I am not sure Floyd could get past in the last 25 years.

#1) Roy Jones Jr.
#2) Pernell Whitaker.
#3) James Toney ( Imagine watching Floyd fight Toney ).
#4) Bernard Hopkins.

Then is we want to get into the smaller weights.

#1) Guillermo Rigondeaux not sure Floyd could get past him.
#2) Finito Lopez.
#3) I am not sure Floyd would have gotten past Chavez Sr... I mean look what Castillo did to him.

People are forgetting 25 years encompases Pernell Whitaker...

[BennyST]

Yes, considering that he gave James Toney a hard fight after that, and considering that McCallum was the Hokpins of his day. Criminally underrated, all around complete fighter. Nobody had an easy time with McCallum.

The hard (good) Toney fights were long before the Jones fight. Their third meeting, while still close, was when both weren't fighting that well and McCallum was well past his best.

It was sandwiched between his Griffin and Thadzi losses when he was still making his slow road back.