Is Mayweather in your Top 10 ATG? Name your Top 10.

[BIG GUNZ]

I would personally put him in the top 10 due to his skill level being unbelievable. He can never be considered the best ever though or in the top 5 due to his lack of opponents he beat while they were in their primes. How many great fighters has he beat when they were in their prime? Maybe just Corrales & Hatton?

[Larry the boss]

He had an amazing career and left him mark in the boxing world..history will be very kind to Mayweather

[Larry the boss]

[DeadLikeMe]

Far and away the greatest fighter of his generation

[Steven Mccowan]

Just because they may beat him in a fight doesnt mean theyre better fighters. If that was the case, well then....

Just because they were better doesnt mean they were better? I just talking fights and fighters. Not business decisions during careers

[solo20]

top 30- 50 but number one MONEY MAKER top 10 fighter laughs

[SkillspayBills]

Let's put it this way. Floyd is the vast consensus greatest fighter of his generation, right? How many boxing generations have their been?

[Johnny2x2x]

Let's put it this way. Floyd is the vast consensus greatest fighter of his generation, right? How many boxing generations have their been?

This is an important point, you only fight in your era. In this era, fighters fight twice a year once they establish themselves. In this era training camps are a certain length and there are teams of experts around a fighter getting them ready for each opponent. There is also a lot of film study and there are no surprises on fight night. Due to modern medicine, today's fighters are better conditioned and stronger than fighters from other eras.

How would Floyd have done in the 70s or 80s when training wasn't as advanced and preparation wasn't as thorough? Who knows, but he did seem to be a guy that adjusted well on fight night. 15 rounds vs 12 rounds is also a consideration. All you can do is be the best of your era and Mayweather is clearly the best of the last 25 years+.

As I've said before, sports evolves, athletes improve dramatically over time. Why do people think boxing is different from any other sport? We acknowledge that today's football and basketball players would absolutely destroy their counterparts from the 1970s and earlier, why is boxing different?

Today's boxers are better trained, have better nutrition, have a team of doctors and trainers around them getting them to their absolute peak, and are training for strength and athleticism in ways pasty fighters could not imagine. They also have film to look at to prepare. There is zero evidence that boxing isn't just like every other sport in that today's athletes in the sport would dominate and embarrass those from 30 or more years ago. And while Floyd also had all these benefits, he also fight 48 opponents that all had these benefits too.

[TyrantT316]

It's easier to fight over whether he is #1, in the top 5 or top 10. However what I see a lot of is guys listing their top 5 fighters, then casually saying something like "..but I have Floyd in the 30's or 40's". If you're casually saying you have Floyd in the 30's o 40's, then it sounds like you haven't conducted a comprehensive review.

I know there are writers and researchers out there who have put together a truly comprehensive list based on research, facts, fan opinion, their own opinion and even wrote out reasons why.

My problem isn't necessarily just saying "he's in my top 10, or my top 20, or my top 30. However, for a fighter like Floyd, if you're placing a great fighter "somewhere in the top 30's or 40's" then I think it's worth seeing your list.

I was born in 1983. Got into boxing in 1995. Spent a lot of time watching current and past fights, boxing history specials on fighters and fights via youtube as well as reading many articles and opinion pieces. Naturally those types of things shape your mindset. I didn't watch Robinson, Salvador Sanchez, Marciano, etc in their primes. I don't know what it feels like to have judged their career and opponents. We can look at a fighter of today and dissect their career and opposition, however many just go by what we've read. That Robinson was great. That Willie Pep was awesome. We run with that norm simply the same way we accept everything in the school history books. However yes we have some, but limited clips of some of those fighters.

It's difficult to determine and act as if making these lists are based all on facts. It's not that easy. What IS easy is coming to/accepting a consensus that certain fighters are great and certain fighters are not. Mayweather is great. It's just a matter of what level you see him on. However, I don't think we should be "casually" throwing out that fighters in their opinion are rankied in their 30's, 40's, 50s. Because that suggests that you actually have 30, 40, 50 guys that you've thought up somewhere that logically fill out and justify your ranking.

Let's keep it to specific top 5's, top 10's, top 15's or even 20's. Anything beyond top 20, feels like it's just a matter of whether you like the fighter or not rather than having a true list.

That's just me.

[TyrantT316]

This is an important point, you only fight in your era. In this era, fighters fight twice a year once they establish themselves. In this era training camps are a certain length and there are teams of experts around a fighter getting them ready for each opponent. There is also a lot of film study and there are no surprises on fight night. Due to modern medicine, today's fighters are better conditioned and stronger than fighters from other eras.

How would Floyd have done in the 70s or 80s when training wasn't as advanced and preparation wasn't as thorough? Who knows, but he did seem to be a guy that adjusted well on fight night. 15 rounds vs 12 rounds is also a consideration. All you can do is be the best of your era and Mayweather is clearly the best of the last 25 years+.

As I've said before, sports evolves, athletes improve dramatically over time. Why do people think boxing is different from any other sport? We acknowledge that today's football and basketball players would absolutely destroy their counterparts from the 1970s and earlier, why is boxing different?

Today's boxers are better trained, have better nutrition, have a team of doctors and trainers around them getting them to their absolute peak, and are training for strength and athleticism in ways pasty fighters could not imagine. They also have film to look at to prepare. There is zero evidence that boxing isn't just like every other sport in that today's athletes in the sport would dominate and embarrass those from 30 or more years ago. And while Floyd also had all these benefits, he also fight 48 opponents that all had these benefits too.

I agree. Greats from yesteryear are revered. Many times it's because of their toughness or them being pioneers in the early stages of their sport's history. Sometimes it's a sport that has been around for a while, but then evolution in stat tracking emphasized a great athlete in the 1980s on. Etc...etc..

However it's possible that today's athletes would beat those of yesteryear 7/10 times simply because of training, advancements, evolution, etc. However that doesn't automatically mean today's fighters are greater. Same visa versa. Just because today's athletes may be better physically, that doesn't automatically mean today's are better.

You have to consider what they've done in their era. When a particular sport had a "golden/glory-age", it can't be duplicated. At some point people were probably saying Leonard/Duran/Hagler/Hearns weren't as great as those before them. Now it's a crime to say anything negative about them. Then people thought it was crazy to even compare the likes of Barrera/Morales/Pacman/Marquez to them. Overtime those 4 will be looked at with more respect.

Many of us simply didn't following boxing back in the day and many of us weren't even born. So I find it a little difficult to act like we know it all just by name dropping the Pep, Sanchez, Robinson, etc. I don't doubt their greatness at all based on studying boxing. Yet I don't actually KNOW their greatness because I didn't witness or following boxing in their time because I wasn't even born.

It's easier for me and others to judge Mayweather's greatness for his generation and depend on those who have studied and/or witnessed multiple generations to rank him. But ultimately, what I've experienced and witnessed is Boxing over the past 25 years. What I know-of is Boxing before I was born. But let's not act like we're all practicing and professional boxing scholars, but rather opinionated fans with more knowledge than the casual.