Where does Mayweather rank realistically on an all time list?

[-Kev-]

I know you are struggling to believe that he is not TBE in everyone's mind.

But NEWSFLASH, he is not the real deal TBE.

Look you are not smart enough to come to grips with it. But I know from history and watching boxing since the 80's Floyd is 20th.

You think telling me to name the 19 guys before him will get me to stumble? You are crazy Larry.

Just realize your God is not TBE and is 20th at best. His era and his record of who he fought puts a cap on how high he can go in the rankings and 20th is his cap.

TBF, if you are going to participate in such a thread, and say there's 19 fighters ahead of Floyd, and you get questioned about who are those 19...it's offensive if you're full of it in the first place. AKA, you don't even know who those 19 are, you're just throwing out a number to be edgy and cool.

Just my take. I wasn't following boxing in the 1900s-1950s so i'm out of place here among you fans who know of such fighters of the past. But in the end this is a discussion board and people will want you to elaborate on such claims, especially since it's hard to actually compile an ATG list because of the reason I gave I couldn't do it.

[chrisJS]

He's top 50. I'd say closer to 50 than top 10, but probably around 35-40. He has a collection of good wins and obviously the talent and longevity (maybe got some illegal help there but whatever) but what he lacks that other sure shot top 10-20 guys have is a great signature win or two or three. Floyd doesn't really have one. Some of that is his careful match selection and some is timing. Whatever it is, he simply doesn't have that win that jumps out.

But obviously he as a ton of depth to his resume and a ton of skill and the only fight he arguably (for me clearly) lost (Castillo), he won the return clearly. That's consistency no matter what you want to say to bring him down.

[True-Boxing-Fan]

People are blinded by the buzz at the time. When Pacquiao was on that run people used to talk about him at a top 4 all-time guy too.

The thing is, it's unbelievable to be regarded as one of the 30 or so best fighters to ever do it. But fans of those guys seem to regard it as an insult. It's not saying they're not great, just that their actual achievements don't stack up with the very top tier.

I find it hard to imagine any guys from this era ever doing that to be honest. They don't fight often enough, and they don't fight top competition often enough either.

I agree with everything you said.

Looks it's not a knock one bit to say Floyd is 20th or that manny is around 25-30.

But in these time in boxing it's damn near impossible to stack up against the more deep eras of boxings past. The competition is just not the there and is not the same as others.

[BIG GUNZ]

i don't have the definitive answer but for starters, whether you stay in one division or jump divisions, definitely clean out the divsion you are in and become undisputed/lineal, fight everybody that would be considered a part of your era in their prime, prime for prime, don't wait guys out until they lose a step or get ko'd, like guys are doing who are the old dogs...line these guys up, fight 'em and beat em one by one...you don't have to go undefeated, but definitely if you lose, avenge the loss decisively, and by the end of the career, not only will you have the names on your resume, but the names will be prime, and hopefully some of the guys you beat, go on to hof or atg careers themselves, so there is little room for debate....leave no f**king stone unturned....oh and when you get to the top, you gonna fight a bum mandatory every here and there, but sure as s**t leave the cherrypicking to an absolute minimum...

i like the work that thurman is putting in...he on the right path...

When I was reading this I was thinking of Thurman. Than saw that you mentioned him too. So yeah, if he can also beat Brook, Spence, Pacquiao & Bradley than he would easily be considered an ATG & a Hall of Famer. I know Pacquiao isn't really prime anymore but he's still one of the top 3 welterweights currently. And Bradley is still a top 5 welterweight.

[Larry the boss]

All i am saying is how can you state a persons ranking if you have no list?

[-Kev-]

That's how I feel also. I sometimes watch old fights but I got into boxing when I was like 16-17


I watched before but I started really following in my late teens.

Yeah, I envy those who can watch no footage of boxers but are some how able to say who belongs where in top 100 fighters of all time, going to list fighters from when their great, great grandfather was a boy. Googling "Top 100 boxers of all time" is all people need nowadays. I need more than that.

[True-Boxing-Fan]

I never said he was the best nor ranked him..you ranked him at number 20 but cant name 19 ahead of him??? seems like you are the one with the issue here

No issue here I know where I'd put him, and if i was going to actually take the time to make a list i know Floyd would be about 20th. Maybe if I made that list he may be worst. But I know he's around 20th.

[KingTito]

I can understand putting him in the top 20-25.

[-Kev-]

All i am saying is how can you state a persons ranking if you have no list?

Forget it. Without a computer/smartphone, most people will be caught stuttering and being full of **** lol if you ask them about the ATG's and specifics on why, and who that ATG beat, etc, they wouldn't know, or vaguely remember what they read before on boxrec. But most people are full of ****

My pops is in his 60s, he's a hardcore boxing fan, more than me...like he watches little irrelevant fights, has a pic with Don King, another one with Joan Guzman, and another one with Duran. He has a gold chain he says he won by betting on Duran with a Mexican dude. My point is, my pops can only go back as far as the 1950s, VAGUELY (with no help of smartphones/computer). So how are these dudes my age gonna compile a list of 100 ATG's and know where to put Floyd???

I just find it amusing.

[pasawayako]

IMHO around 60-70