If Floyd retired today would you recognise him as an all-time great?

[realheavyhands]

plus many decisions are questionable

[Cletus Funk]

Talent wise, you could argue that he's maybe top 15. Accomplishment wise, he'd probably sc**** into the top 30-40 I guess.

[Jimislash]

He doesn't have a career defining moment like the all-time great do: Ali-Liston, Ali-Frazier, Ali-Foreman...Leonard-Duran, Leonard-Hearnes...these type of fights. He has all the talent in the world, but we haven't seen him face adversity. His best win was controversial. Mayweather needs to test himself. There are fighters out there who can do that. Mitchell and Baldomir are not the type of legend making fights that he needs to be an atg. He hasn't left enough of an impression to be considered an atg at this point in his career.

[DiegoFuego]

apparently you have to lose anywhere from 3-15 fights to end up in the top 10 greatest ever so I guess Mayweather doesn't make it. shame on him for being one of the greatest ever and never coming close to losing a fight.

[Kid Achilles]

No ****ing way is the best ever. All time great? Maybe. If he retires now he might crack the top 40 P4P or so. He's got a lot of work on his hands to even break the top ten. I would say its impossible for him to ever be #1. Isn't enough talent in boxing his era. Not fair you say? So what, what place does fairness have in objectively ranking champion fighters?

[Jimislash]

apparently you have to lose anywhere from 3-15 fights to end up in the top 10 greatest ever so I guess Mayweather doesn't make it. shame on him for being one of the greatest ever and never coming close to losing a fight.

A loss isn't always a condemnation on a fighter's reputation. Ali losing to Frazier did more for his legend than Mayweather beating Baldomir did. Why? Because he went out on his shield. He left everything he had and for that one night he was bested. This is not to say that everybody who has been in a war is great, or that all losses are legendary; however, nor does a perfect record make you a legend or an atg.

[Cletus Funk]

A loss isn't always a condemnation on a fighter's reputation. Ali losing to Frazier did more for his legend than Mayweather beating Baldomir did. Why? Because he went out on his shield. He left everything he had and for that one night he was bested. This is not to say that everybody who has been in a war is great, or that all losses are legendary; however, nor does a perfect record make you a legend or an atg.

Couldn't agree more. For example, you could argue that Duran's loss to Hagler was more significant than any win on Floyd's record.

[hollister]

apparently you have to lose anywhere from 3-15 fights to end up in the top 10 greatest ever so I guess Mayweather doesn't make it. shame on him for being one of the greatest ever and never coming close to losing a fight.

The fact still remains that there are still other fighters with more accomplishments than Floyd, and he doesn't seem intent on really trying to earn any respect, he simply demands that it be given to him like a spoiled child.

[nozorok]

He might just crack the top 50 if he faces Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Delahoya, SSM and does well.

[Guest]

apparently you have to lose anywhere from 3-15 fights to end up in the top 10 greatest ever so I guess Mayweather doesn't make it. shame on him for being one of the greatest ever and never coming close to losing a fight.

You're so full of **** it's unreal.

So Mayweather didn't come close to losing to Henry Brusselles, Arturo Gatti and (shot) Sharmba Mitchell, and is undefeated, so that makes him better than Ali who fought Liston, Frazier, Foreman... because Ali lost a few?

Jesus ****ing Christ in a blender!