Is Mayweather the greatest ever... really that farfetched ???

Look at the top 10 list...............

Robinson - drew with Brimm at 27...Basora.....24...........Lost to the ordinary Lamotta....and was outboxed by the crouching Turpin twice..only a desperate rally saved him from a cut stoppage and a second owning!!.......The ring even carries an article in 1952 of him avoiding a rubber match with Turpin !!! with evidence to back it up.........all this before the age of 30 !!!..

When he was Mayweather's age he was being beaten twice by Pender and losing to Gene Fullmer...Forget Maxim..

This is not to knock the great Man....only to point out that these guys weren't always great.........By the way these losses don't harm Robinson....It's only Oscar who's losses count against him!!

Don't see anyone on Robbo's welter record Mayweather wouldn't beat..and Floyd was a 130er..........

Robinson perhaps fought slightly more p4pers than Floyd and won undisputed titles but the fact remains he was human.........and he could be beat!!........He also avoided Turpin..

But hey Robbo is a worthy choice..no doubts!!

Look at Ali - By the age of 29 he'd been beaten by Frazier...and lost to Norton at least twice in most peoples opinion.........(ALi is my number 1) At Floyd's age he was losing to an amateur in Leon Spinks..........

Not many p4pers in Ali's list...........Frazier, Foreman..maybe Liston......

Think Floyd's record matches up pretty well with Leonard's.............Losing to the lightweight Duran.........in his prime is a black mark for Ray in my opinion..........

Fact is how many fighters reign supreme at 36 years of age like Floyd and how many have been at the top of their sport for 15 years ????

Louis ten year reign is enough for top 10 status for him.........A laughable place that Floyd can't achieve in most eyes..

Fact is Mayweather isn't likable and it counts against him but more careful analysis shows that he does have a claim to be the best...However the older fighters like Robbo get... the more people forget the bad things they did and the poor performances.....

I'd pick Mayweather to beat Robbo and Leonard............Hearns would be my main concern.....

Not enough credit is given to Floyd being the best at 36 an unheard of age for number 1 p4p status...

For me Mayweather being the greatest ever isn't that farfetched...there is a case to be made....

Some interesting points but the entire agenda is to put Mayweather on icon status in the sport of boxing, I have to disagree and it's really farfetched.

You make it well too, not to say often, Truss!

As you know, I have Floyd just inside the top 10 all-time, which means that I am necessarily splitting hairs a bit here. However, what would ultimately keep me from putting Floyd up with guys like Robbo, Armstrong, Greb and Charles is probably the willingness to coast that he has shown in the latter part of his career. I agree with you that Robbo and the rest were human, and therefore beatable, and duly exhibited human frailties. I don't think that it's possible to argue that they often took the comfortable path, though (Robbo v Burley maybe excepted). If Floyd had fought his entire career as he fought at 130, that is to say demolishing every challenge before moving on, he'd have a pretty strong case for the top slot.

The frustrating thing is that although Floyd, in my opinion, had the beating of every possible contemporary between 135 and 147, he didn't seem that bothered to demonstrate it. Getting top dollar for minimum activity became Floyd's abiding concern, rather than specifically establishing a legacy. Result - a raft of impressive performances, but only at a rate of one every year at best in recent times. He could, and should, have done more to establish his case beyond doubt. I doubt that he cares overmuch, since his career has been a marvel as he has chosen to lead it, but just a little more ambition would have put Floyd into the argument for the best of all time.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Some interesting points but the entire agenda is to put Mayweather on icon status in the sport of boxing, I have to disagree and it's really farfetched.

Don't tell me my agenda.....

People are more than welcome to disagree,,,

Me I have Ali at the top........I'm saying it's only the fact he isn't liked and modern that stops people assessing his claims properly..

People do remember the past too fondly at times..

Great claims...He is a unique specimen to be at the top 15 years and unbeaten...whatever your cherry picking opinions.......

Unfounded as they are...........

Captain......Your opinion is just as welcome ..........and well made..

I think age in boxing is two fold, there is their actual age and their fighting age with the frequency Robinson, Greb and Armstrong were fighting makes their fighting age a fair bit higher.

I feel like this has been done to death over the past few months but i'll add my opinion anyway.

I have Mayweather inside the top ten but that is based more on his talent rather than his record which while impressive could be far better. I'm not concerned with the use of hindsight to downplay the significance of a Pacquiao fight or one with Cotto or Mosley a few years earlier. Going from Hernandez at 130lbs to possibly Alvarez at 154lbs is very impressive, add into that he'd had been the man in four of the five divsions and you have a clearly great boxer.

To really be considered to be the greatest he needed the fight with Pacquiao, again I don't care for the reasons he didn't happen all i'm concerned about is the fact it didn't. Beating a fellow great at the peak of his powers would have been one of the all time great wins and comparable to almost anyone.

He has a long long list of very good wins but not a single great win as far as i'm concerned, Corrales and Hernandez being very very close. He is for money only behind Arguello at 130lbs and a head to head is a very tricky proposition too, how the shoulder roll defence holds up against the laser guided straight punches is an intrigue.

Without Pacquiao he's not troubling Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Greb, Fitzsimmons and Charles as far as i'm concerned, he's about as close to breaking into that company as possible. On any given day I could have him at 7 or about 12 but no higher or lower.

You don't have to add your opinion..You can always p**s off and patronise someone else.. .....ghosty

Anyone else who thinks it's been done to death...Please don't feel you have to do me any favors..

Great fighter but would not have him in the top ten, but would just about squeak in the top 20. If the Castillo fight had been judged correctly he would have a loss on his record and i suspect he would not be rated so highly without his precious 0.

What is the point of making a statement like that...when you don't tell us who's above him ??

I've said quite a few times that, while Robinson was utterly amazing, his position as the unqestionable all-time number one does get force-fed a little too often and a little too aggressively in some quarters, in my eyes. He may well be the greatest of the lot, but it's not by the huge margin that is often reported for my money, so when people feel that they can put forward a realistic case for someone else, I try to be all ears.

I guess there is a difference between being the 'best' and the 'greatest' first off. In terms of who the best pure boxer is in history, then Mayweather is an automatic consideration. I appreciate that we don't have much footage of Robinson at his Welterweight zenith, but we do have plenty of him as a Middleweight hovering around the age of 30, so close enough to his peak and still in the same ballpark as his optimum weight, and just watching that should be enough to dispell the idea that he was in a different league to Floyd in terms of style, all-round ability and skill set. Ray definitely punched harder, had a better punch output and possessed a superior body attack, but there are plenty of other areas (hand speed, chin, jab etc) which are very evenly contested, and in terms of defence and inside fighting, Mayweather is certainly the better of the two. It'd be difficult to pinpoint a fighter who has a better ring IQ than Floyd, too, although there are certainly a few contenders.

That's 'best'. But I think 'greatest', in addition to all of that, has an extra, almost indefinable side to it. Having great ability is one thing, but maximising your ability = greatness. Seeking out the toughest available challenges = greatness. Being able to win when most of the deck is stacked firmly against you = greatness. Doing certain things, even if they were only now and again, which by rights just shouldn't have been done at that time = greatness.

Now I'm not saying that Ray, for instance, was perfect in these areas or beyond reproach, because he wasn't. But he probably still shades Mayweather in these areas all the same.

If results like the draws with Brimm and Basora, as well as the early loss to La Motta, had cropped up regularly on Robinson's record in his peak years, then sure, we could maybe read a bit more in to it. But the guy was fighting a dozen or so times per year, often with no footage available of his opponents to study beforehand. Mayweather, on the other hand, has usually never had to fight different men any less than three months apart since reaching world title level, with far more opportunity to study his man. Even then, we saw how perilously close he came to being 43-1, rather than 44-0, due to that first fight against Castiilo. 43-1 would still be remarkable, don't get me wrong, but considering the advantages he's had over Ray in that respect, it just goes to show how extraordinary Ray's 131-3-2 record was before his first retirement. Anything from his comeback (1955) onwards ain't really reflective of Robinson at his best, considering all the miles those fights would have put on the clock.

I think Robinson showed us everything he had and the absolute ceiling of his talent - as captain alludes to, I don't think I could say the same about Mayweather with one hundred percent conviction. You say that Robinson "avoided Turpin" for instance. Well he fought him twice, albeit a third one would have been nice. Not sure how you can then be so offended, as you have been quite a few times in the past, when people accuse Floyd of avoiding Manny. Fighting a man twice, and being circumspect about the possibility of a third, is better than never fighting a man at all.

I just wish that, at some point, Floyd had really laid down that 'take on all comers' gauntlet, cleared out a division in the proper sense and given us something to watch a bit more regularly, rather than appearing so infrequently, usually having made sure that everything leading in to the fight is in his favour, as he has done over the past few years. I'm not in the slightest one of these people who try to claim that Mayweather is some kind of phoney who has never beat a top class fighter, because that's nonsense. But the idea that he's put money before being the greatest boxer he can possibly be isn't unfounded at all - and even the man himself said, "I don't fight for a legacy - I fight for the cheque. I'm in the cheque cashing business."

In Floyd's defence, who knows what he might show us in the future? In three years time this debate might have a totally different feel to it. I mentioned earlier Robinson's abillity to win when he really shouldn't have done, by rights, or his ability to do the mind-bendingly unexpected. See his fights against Fullmer and Basilio for examples of all of this. Mayweather, in part due to his own greatness, hasn't been faced with such adversity, but then again, Robinson wasn't faced with it all that much in his absolute prime, either. But what happens if Mayweather, with his skills clearly diminished and his age nudging the 40 barrier, manages to do something similar against all odds? You can't put it past him, and if he does, then it's a great boost to his credentials.

As great as Mayweather is, and as much as Robinson's status is perhaps not scrutinised closely enough, I don't think there's quite enough evidence on Floyd's part to put him above Ray as things stand now. Maybe he's missed his chance to make it happen, or maybe that chance will present itself again in the future, but I still think that Mayweather is one of a great group, whereas Robinson is a bit closer to being one of a kind.

Because its Sunday evening and i dont need to write a list out to have an opinion mate. I think he is a definite great and you make some valid points but for me nowhere near the greatest of all time i have him about the same level overall as Pacquiao and he bottled out of a fight when both of them were at their best which will forever leave me wondering if he was even the best of his own era. Funny if he had got the deserved defeat to Castillo he might even gone on to have had a better record i terms of names and bigger fights because he would not have spent so long avoiding fights with men who would possibly have threatened his undefeated record. As i say for me great but not the greatest.

hogey wrote:Because its Sunday evening and i dont need to write a list out to have an opinion mate. I think he is a definite great and you make some valid points but for me nowhere near the greatest of all time i have him about the same level overall as Pacquiao and he bottled out of a fight when both at their best which will forever leave me wondering if he was even the best of his own era.    

But any wally Hogey can say Mayweather is top 10/20...

Not that you're a wally far from it....

I'll say Whittaker is top 70..........how about that....and Ali top 25..

Chris when I have a couple of days free I'll read your opinion!!

Spot on as usual Chris

Robinson had the deck stacked against him in two big ways pre retirement, Angott and Maxim, it's easy to forget how close he was to being a four weight world champion. The refusal of Angott in the first instance to defend his lightweight title against Robinson in their two fights which Ray won comfortably. Then there is his tilt against Maxim where he comprehensively outboxed the far bigger man before succumbing to the heat, that is of course to Maxims eternal credit but such small margins.

If you wrote: Is-Mayweather a Top 10 great really that far fetched........

............then the article might have some credence to it.



Maybe you should move off Mayweather for a while...........you haven't written an article on Lennox in a while.

Lots of good responses and then the cheap, no good liar tries to ruin it.......Nothing but disdain for your opinions..

Good analysis chris...........However you're too dismissive of Robbo's draws considering the fact Mayweather has Castillo chucked at him all the time..

Fighting regularly should be a positive not a negative

Trying to make meaningful comparisons when the sport and how it is consumed have changed so much is near on impossible. If Ray was around now he would be unbeaten, fighting once or twice a year on PPV,, and rarely against the best opponents, who would be too busy defending their own " world titles". likewise if Floyd had been around in the fifties, he would fight more often, frequently his fights wouldn't have been on TV, and he would have picked up a few loses and draws, and he would have had to fight the best around to earn a decent crust. You can only be the best of time, and both were. to try and compare their standing in history by breaking down their records as you have here Truss is far too simplistic to give a meritable conclusion.

Not sure Robbo doesn't struggle with Oscar.............

After all turpin found him out...and Lamotta beat him

So your argument doesn't necessary wash..and Jones jr beats him at 160/168 for me..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lots of good responses and then a  p***k....Go away.

Good analysis chris...........However you're too dismissive of Robbo's draws considering the fact Mayweather has Castillo chucked at him all the time..

Fighting regularly should be a positive not a negative

Don't be so bad tempered.  As captain says Floyd has taken the path of least resistance for a long period.

Is there another example in history of the p4p No.1 and No.2 campaigning in the same weight class and not fighting?

I don't think anybody buys the argument that Floyd has fought more p4p fighters.  At least Freddie Roach was truthful when asked about Hatton after Manny knocked him out "If I'm honest I have to say Ricky wasn't any good.  

As for the argument about Ali not having many p4p opponents tell me this how many Top 10 ATG  divisional champions has Floyd beaten

These apparent p4p fighters Floyd has fought are not really all that.

He doesn't have a great win on his ledger, just a couple a good ones. The best fighter ever wouldn't duck and dive the way Floyd has. I'd probably have him top 20 if I were to entertain this mythical p4p list.

Well freddie Roach is always objective.....about Floyd..

Hatton was a great win at the time..........Guerrero was a great win......Oscar was a great win........

Is Honeyghan's win diminished on here...Because Curry lost to Mccallum.........Nope...Is Leonard's rematch win over Duran sullied by Benitez beating Duran ???................ you don't like Floyd...

Interested in more objective opinions..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Interested in more objective opinions..

So are we.

Sorry Truss but none of those are great wins especially Hatton and Guerrero neither of whom were ever anything special.

Okay..now off you go..

Oscar is a great win...........If he isn't then Hearns isn't for Hagler.....

Hatton wa special before Mayweather..................Just like Hearns was before Hagler...Might as well say Hagler's win was s**t because Hearns lost to barkley..

Hatton was a good win, nothing more. To compare him to Hearns is a little desperate.

Roach was talking about Hatton in general and how easily Pacquiao beat him.

Ricky was never a p4p fighter if people actually looked at the Top 10 fighters in the world were at that time.

Are you counting fighters that were actually p4p when they fought Mayweather?  How many of these guys will go down as Top 20 ATG's in their divison.  An old Shane maybe and a geriatric Oscar.  Show some integrity will you?

I remember half of 606 picking Hatton to beat mayweather.........

Soon as Floyd wins...Hatton is garbage......

Trend has continued ever since........

15 years unbeaten at the top and all some can say is he's cherry-picked..

Dear oh dear..........That's the respect....that makes calamity...so long life..

Strongy I'm not interested Mate......Your opinion will change in a minute and you'll deny everything...

Hearns was a special fighter in his peak years, De La Hoya was a borderline great fighter who was years past his best and quite inactive. Lets not start to make silly comparisons.

Hatton was never special, his toils with Urango and Collazo showed as much, all he had was wins over ancient versions of Tzuyu and Castillo, nowhere near enough for greatness.

15 years at the top... Bla bla bla.

Finish the sentence Trussy - hard work ...?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:15 years at the top... Bla bla bla.

Finish the sentence Trussy - hard work ...?

I don't expect anything better from you Mate..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:15 years at the top... Bla bla bla.

Finish the sentence Trussy - hard work ...?

I don't expect anything better from you Mate..

Not quite, the answer I was looking for is... Dedication.

Any other fighter been at the top 15 years unbeaten ???

At least five p4pers on his record too........Alvarez makes six !!

Manny doesn't factor in............JMM always said Floyd was better..

He should know..

You've outserved your purpose on this thread Lumbering..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I remember half of 606 picking Hatton to beat mayweather.........

Soon as Floyd wins...Hatton is garbage......

Trend has continued ever since........

15 years unbeaten at the top and all some can say is he's cherry-picked..

Dear oh dear..........That's the respect....that makes calamity...so long life..

Strongy I'm not interested Mate......Your opinion will change in a minute and you'll deny everything...

List out the ATG Top 20 divisional greats Floyd has beaten.   Its not that hard to do that for ATG's like Ali, Robbo Leonard, Duran etc.


Who were the 5 p4p'ers Floyd has beat anyone? lets have a look at this and decide how great these wins are.


Canelo would not be Top 10 if he wasn't a Golden Boy fighter going into a massive p4p.

JMM is hardly likely to be objective regarding Manny now is he Truss. Bit like Roach with Floydy.

You keep puking up this 15 year line and all these p4p fighters on his record. It's starting to stink.

JMM has fought them both.........He's beat Manny so surely he'd want to make that win look better ??..By bigging it up ..

He rates Floyd higher...end of...

You said on the 606 rivalry thread you hate Americans..........

So your opinion is irrlevant as you have an interest in slapping Floydy down..

Louis fights bum of the month for ten years and loses to all the top heavies he faced.......albeit past his best..

Yet he's top 10 on most lists..

These guys moan about an 15-year unbeaten guy with five p4pers on his record..

dear oh dear oh dear oh dear..

Put Maywether in 5oz gloves and fight every 6 weeks like Robbo then compare.

It's proposterous to believe anyone would have him anywhere near the greatest of all time.

Cheers Rodders

Yes and you love everything American, just not quite enough to live in the country.

And you need to look at the context around the statement and stop being such an over sensitive yank.

Rodders you have Louis higher than Ali....

No doubt Dempsey knocks out Holy too..

I've got Ali at 27 now..He didn't wear 5oz gloves..

Mayweather I agree didn't do bum of the month... His was more average fighter followed by 1 year retirement.

Sure Dempsey can K.O Holy, Bert Cooper almost did why can't Dempsey ?

Would you fancy a live De La Hoya at Welterweight to do Floyd ? I would.

Cheers Rodders

Seriously do you think Louis record is better than Floyd's.........

Did Louis lose to the best heavyweights he fought ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis fights bum of the month for ten years and loses to all the top heavies he faced.......albeit past his best..

Yet he's top 10 on most lists..

These guys moan about an 15-year unbeaten guy with five p4pers on his record..

dear oh dear oh dear oh dear..

Louis fought the best of his era. Floyd patently hasn't.


Floyd has fought one all time great in Marquez who jumped two divisions for the payday and was all over the shop in a fight that looked more like a sparring session.

Oscar isn't great !!....Just go away.

These are the names on which Mayweathers legacy will be built

Juan Manuel Marquez
Shane Mosley
Ricky Hatton
Jesus Chavez
Carlos Hernandez
Phillip N'dou
Genaro Hernandez
Angel Manfredy
Diego Corrales
Arturo Gatti
Oscar De La Hoya
José Luis Castillo



Good, but greatest of all time? not when there were better opponents out there.


This obsession is worrying, I think it's more than wumming.

Go away now......

Oscar idsn't a great according to you..so you're a d**k..

and no Guerrero on the list !!! or Cotto........... .......................  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oscar isn't great !!....Just go away.

Did you watch the fight?

Oscar was decrepit by the time the fight came about. He was only able to fight for 6 rounds and over those initial 6 rounds he was 4-2 up until his old limbs and lungs gave up.

Must have been someone else who'd just slaughtered Mayorga..

Leonard is now 30 on my list...........Because Duran was a lightweight and Hagler looked decrepid.......

so both weren't alltime greats...when he beat them..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

and no Guerrero on the list !!! or Cotto........... .......................  

When it comes to opponents to value a fighter by Guerreo won't be in the reckoning. Cotto deserves to be in for his quality but again by the time he fought Floyd he had been well exposed by Manny who beat him up easier than Floyd did.

Gatti and Manfredy are on your list but Guerrero and Cotto aren't opponents to value..

Are you really that dumb...

enough now.

Having reviewed extensive footage of Robinson fighting at welterweight and greb at middleweight from my own personal fight footage vault, I can confirm that I am none the wiser.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Must have been someone else who'd just slaughtered Mayorga..

Leonard is now 30 on my list...........Because Duran was a lightweight and Hagler looked decrepid.......

so both weren't alltime greats...when he beat them..

Watch the fight, read the analysis. There's been thousands if not millions of words written on this fight.


If I took your view I would say Tommy and Curry were rubbish because they got beaten by fighters lower ranked.


Leonard is up there for who he beat: Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran, and Wilfred Benitez.