How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Debate has been great today with Floyd's next fight and analysis of the Canelo fight. It was also very interesting on hearing people's views on how Floyd would do against the top WW's from era's gone by.

In my opinion, as things stand, Floyd is in the top 10 ATG's of all-time. I know some might have him about 11-13. However between now and when he retires, how highly can he be ranked?

What would he need to do or who would he need to fight? I think after last weekend we're starting to realise how good he is and the gulf in class between him and the rest of the 147/154 guys. So is the competition there for Floyd to improve his standing?

No one around to improve his standing..

top 5 for me..but the top 4 are out of reach..

It's hard to say. Somebody would need to sit down with the books and do a thorough analysis of the all the top fighters careers.

One thing Floyd does not have is a win against an ATG. Every other fighter in the Top 10 and probably the Top 20 would have one of those.

In terms of ability very few fighters in the last 30 years would have Floyd's ability. In saying that there is more to being an ATG than having talent. In terms of big performances, when in the lions mouth, there are few if any to chose from..

On another boxing site I have seen some of the historical guys place Floyd outside the Top 30.

With a few wins against ATG's there wouldn't be much debate about Floyd's position in the Top 10.

Top 7 for me now. Up with the best of the best, no question.

As for his next moves. There is nobody around to really push him, Martinez maybe but hes not getting any younger and it certainly wouldnt be a fight for the casual. I think Mayweather's final 3-4 fights will now be against Khan, Garcia types. very good CV fillers that would help bolster if not greatly improve an already fantastic CV. These fights will also sell and make decent if not amazing numbers which no doubt will have an impact for Mayweather.

Quality of opponents might not be there for his remaining fights but combined with h is age they can go to cement his place. If it's right about his shoulder injury as well his win on saturday gets better

Def nailed on somewhere near the top for me.

As of now I don't see how he could get any higher, there's no one really that credible left for him, Martinez would get his head boxed off now, & there's people like Alexander & Bradley which would earn him another ton of money but as they'll all be looked at as forgone conclusions before the first bell's even rung then beating them will do nothing for his legacy.

Knocking on the door of top 4/5 ATG WWs for me. He just lacks those victories over truly ATG opponents. When you think about Ray Leonard and wins over Duran, Hearns, and Hagler - Floyd can't boast anything even remotely close. But, he has a long list of comprehensive victories over very good opposition, so he scores well on longevity, consistency, and dominance. He'd need to do something ridiculous to propel himself much further up in the ATG stakes.

Strongback wrote:It's hard to say.  Somebody would need to sit down with the books and do a thorough analysis of the all the top fighters careers.

One thing Floyd does not have is a win against an ATG.  Every other fighter in the Top 10 and probably the Top 20 would have one of those.

In terms of ability very few fighters in the last 30 years would have Floyd's ability.  In saying that there is more to being an ATG than having talent.  In terms of big performances, when in the lions mouth, there are few if any to chose from..

On another boxing site I have seen some of the historical guys place Floyd outside the Top 30.  

With a few wins against ATG's there wouldn't be much debate about Floyd's position in the Top 10.

get your books out and tell me how Louis with ten years of longevity, beaten and no p4pers on his list is ahead of Floyd on your list..

With 5 p4pers, unbeaten for 16 years......

You're a joke..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:It's hard to say.  Somebody would need to sit down with the books and do a thorough analysis of the all the top fighters careers.

One thing Floyd does not have is a win against an ATG.  Every other fighter in the Top 10 and probably the Top 20 would have one of those.

In terms of ability very few fighters in the last 30 years would have Floyd's ability.  In saying that there is more to being an ATG than having talent.  In terms of big performances, when in the lions mouth, there are few if any to chose from..

On another boxing site I have seen some of the historical guys place Floyd outside the Top 30.  

With a few wins against ATG's there wouldn't be much debate about Floyd's position in the Top 10.

get your books out and tell me how Louis with ten years of longevity, beaten and no p4pers on his list is ahead of Floyd on your list..

With 5 p4pers, unbeaten for 16 years......

You're a joke..

Mayweather's resume ain't anything to write home about. Louis was the first fighter to reach 25 defenses when there was only one belt. I remember reading he also has more defenses against Top 10 ranked opponents than any other fighter. Also the greatest fighter on the planet for 13 years. The greatest puncher of all time.

Louis' fame dwarfs Mayweathers.


You can't knock Louis for opposition and give Mayweather a free pass.

Louis fame does dwarf Floyd's..........That is a criteria now is it......

5 p4pers.........unbeaten and 16 years..

Who did louis beat Mate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand how people question Floyd on here but allow Calzaghe to get away with HOF status.

Bit hard to tell, but I suspect that overall Mayweather will be, for a lot of people, a kind of Leonard (Benny and Ray) or Duran type figure, on the cusp of an all-time top ten. Sometimes just inside it, sometimes just outside. Naturally, there will be some who'll have him threatening a top five, and some of his harsher critics will have him between 15 and 20 (can't for the life of me see how anyone could have him any lower than that, unless they're Oscar De la Hoya!), but in the middle of those two extremes is where I think a majority will go.

If we take Leonard (Ray) and Duran, they're kind of the first true pound for pound legends of the sport who many have misgivings about, for whatever reason. In Leonard's case, it's that his talent (top three of all time, arguably) is offset by the fact that he was inactive and didn't have a long, consistent career at world title level. In Duran's case, there's no qualms with his activity and longevity, more so the fact that he drifted between the sublime and the awful for about half of his career, and of course 'No Mas.'

And naturally, with Floyd, his mitigating factor will be the suspicion that he's been a bit too careful with his matchmaking since reaching superstardom, and of course missing out on the fight which would have propelled him beyond such criticism will be a stain on his record forever. Like Leonard, however, everyone will marvel at his outstanding talents.

Everyone canl wonder how Leonard-Hagler would have finished in 83..

At the end of the day you're marked on skill, longevity and record chris........

Fantasy fights don't matter unless someone has an agenda...

Turpin-Robbo 3 ????

Come on now Truss be senisble. If Leonard had not dealt with Hearns first time round he would not be anywhere near as high as he is on most people's records. Whether you like it or not when the number one and two boxer in the world operate in the same division for a good two year period and fail to fight it simply has to count against them both unless it can be demonstrated or proven beyond any reasonable doubt that one of them is beyond blame for the failure for it to happen, and that sure as hell is not the case when it comes to Manny and Floyd irrespective of what D4 may believe to the contrary.

Come on Truss, not this 'everyone has an agenda against Floyd!' nonsense again.

The article has asked for an opinion, and that's mine. I suspect that your appraisal of Mayweather is slightly (not loads, just slightly) more glowing than the majority of people's will be, but that's just me. I could be totally wrong ten years down the line. You can't just accuse someone of being blinded by a dislike for Floyd every time they throw the smallest criticism at him.

And again, you can complain about the lack of Turpin-Robinson III all you like. Has no relevance to Manny-Floyd, because the former pair did at least fight. Twice. Nary a fight between Mayweather and Pacquiao so far, so trying to make them out as the same thing is stretching it a bit.

You mention the term 'fantasy fight.' Well, it's to Floyd (and Manny's) shame that it has, so far, remained a fantasy fight - that's my whole point.

88Chris05 wrote:Come on Truss, not this 'everyone has an agenda against Floyd!' nonsense again.

The article has asked for an opinion, and that's mine. I suspect that your appraisal of Mayweather is slightly (not loads, just slightly) more glowing than the majority of people's will be, but that's just me. I could be totally wrong ten years down the line. You can't just accuse someone of being blinded by a dislike for Floyd every time they throw the smallest criticism at him.

And again, you can complain about the lack of Turpin-Robinson III all you like. Has no relevance to Manny-Floyd, because the former pair did at least fight. Twice. Nary a fight between Mayweather and Pacquiao so far, so trying to make them out as the same thing is stretching it a bit.

You mention the term 'fantasy fight.' Well, it's to Floyd (and Manny's) shame that it has, so far, remained a fantasy fight - that's my whole point.

Not suggesting you have an agenda......But I'm not for rating fighters on fights that didn't happen.........

Or else we can start hammering Riddick Bowe's achievements because Tyson was inside when he was champion..

Rank them on who they beat and who they didn't like everyone else..

Again though Truss it is a poor example. Manny was not in prison, he was in the exact same division, active at the exact same time. You can keep fishing for comparable situations but to the best of my knowledge having the universally accepted best two fighters in the world operating in the exact same weight class for a two year period and them failing to fight is an unprecedented situation in the sport. Given this the level of criticism people chose to throw at the fighters over this cannot be inconsistent with anything because it is a situation none of us have had to asess previously.

So floyd should take a pay cut ????????

You going to hold it against Vitali he can't agree a percentage with Haye ??

of course not.........

like it or not Manny is the only thing people can throw at Floyd.......so people chuck him.

Your first line ties up with my point about none of us knowing the reasons the fight did not happen. If it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the reason the fight did not happen was not Floyd's I would be happy to give him a pass. Would not hold it against Jackson for failing to fight Sullivan, but you, or indeed anyone else cannot prove it is not Floyd's fault.

Your interpretation is it was not Floyd's fault, but as everyone on here knows someone like D4 has a wholly different view. All I know is they were in the same division and on the same network and did not fight and I have to consider that when I rate them. Can promise you if someone comes on here proposing Manny should be in the top five I will make exactly the same argument.

Lewis didn't fight Bowe...........

Both are ranked now on their respective achievements..

There is no precedent to hold a fantasy fight against someone........

Otherwise Dempsey wouldn't be in top 5/10 in every heavy list..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis didn't fight Bowe...........

Both are ranked now on their respective achievements..

There is no precedent to hold a fantasy fight against someone........

Otherwise Dempsey wouldn't be in top 5/10 in every heavy list..

There has been so little quality opposition in the last 10 years any fighter wanting to build an ATG legacy needed to take on the best of whats available.

All the Top guys have fought ATG's.


Thinking about it Floyd had a great start in life having 2 world class trainers showing him how to fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis didn't fight Bowe...........

Both are ranked now on their respective achievements..

.

And both would be ranked higher with a win over the other on their record. Really don't know what is so difficult about this. Have no problem with the idea that you think Floyd has enough on his record to warrant a top five place without Manny but really cannot get how you can be so happy to dismiss it as something that does not matter or should not even be considered when deciding how to rank him.

Please don't pretend that the Floyd-Manny non fight isn't a stain on both their records. For whatever reason Floyd (assuming he'd win, which most of us think would happen) missed a real chance to enhance his legacy. Leonard took and won his super fights against Hearns and Hagler. Floyd missed his chance, but still beat a long, long list of really good opponents. But, when the dust settles, Floyds lack of signature ATG wins will be held against him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So floyd should take a pay cut ????????

You going to hold it against Vitali he can't agree a percentage with Haye ??

of course not.........

like it or not Manny is the only thing people can throw at Floyd.......so people chuck him.

It's not the only thing though is it you ignorant runt...

Strongy posted a list of the top ranked fighters at WW during Floyds time in the weight class and he really didn't find many of them. Sometimes you need to look at the common denominator... If you can be objective that is.

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis didn't fight Bowe...........

Both are ranked now on their respective achievements..

.

And both would be ranked higher with a win over the other on their record. Really don't know what is so difficult about this. Have no problem with the idea that you think Floyd has enough on his record to warrant a top five place without Manny but really cannot get how you can be so happy to dismiss it as something that does not matter or should not even be considered when deciding how to rank him.

Lewis is ranked on his record..Bowe is irrelevant...........Holmes ducked Page...........I'd have picked Page to beat Larry.........

It's not difficult..I'm suggesting people are ranked on their record.........

I'm suggesting we forget Manny when ranking Floyd because he's irrelevant..

Imaginary fight..Doesn't affect Floyd's ranking because they never fought..

Maybe because Bowe ducked Lewis so it's hardly his fault.

And maybe because Manny ducked Floyd.

azania wrote:And maybe because Manny ducked Floyd.

I used to think that, but in reality that was my opinion because I preferred Floyd so was not exactly being impartial. Both are equally as guilty.

But I'm not surprised that is your opinion.

Az should try to be more balanced like you.........

"Floyd is a ducker"

Why is that?

It is unlikely that he'll ever displace Ray Leonard, who is traditionally rated somewhere around 10th by most experts.

I do appreciate that Floyd is at a career high and so will have an inflated ranking by some (the same would have been true of Mike Tyson, Manny Pacquiao and Roy Jones when they were at their apex -- die hard fans of those men would have been just as giddy) but he can't be properly rated until his career is over.

The Pacquiao fight should be held against him, however, I have a fancy they'll meet down the line and Floyd will beat a faded rival in the same way Lewis beat Tyson in a fight that no longer means a whole lot (and in boxing, perspective and context are soon lost). I imagine at that point, there'll be threads asking whether Robinson could have hung with him.

Great fighter -- a phenom at super featherweight -- who has shown extraordinary consistency in defeating a series of good but not great opponents.

hazharrison wrote:It is unlikely that he'll ever displace Ray Leonard, who is traditionally rated somewhere around 10th by most experts.

I do appreciate that Floyd is at a career high and so will have an inflated ranking by some (the same would have been true of Mike Tyson, Manny Pacquiao and Roy Jones when they were at their apex -- die hard fans of those men would have been just as giddy) but he can't be properly rated until his career is over.

The Pacquiao fight should be held against him, however, I have a fancy they'll meet down the line and Floyd will beat a faded rival in the same way Lewis beat Tyson in a fight that no longer means a whole lot (and in boxing, perspective and context are soon lost). I imagine at that point, there'll be threads asking whether Robinson could have hung with him.

Great fighter -- a phenom at super featherweight -- who has shown extraordinary consistency in defeating a series of good but not great opponents.

How can I fight be held against him when they never fought..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Az should try to be more balanced like you.........

"Floyd is a ducker"

The thing is...if you don't go with the general consensus, then you're a WUM.

Floyd is a ducker who fought average guys.

Joke Louis is equal with Ali but fought sack all. Go figure.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It is unlikely that he'll ever displace Ray Leonard, who is traditionally rated somewhere around 10th by most experts.

I do appreciate that Floyd is at a career high and so will have an inflated ranking by some (the same would have been true of Mike Tyson, Manny Pacquiao and Roy Jones when they were at their apex -- die hard fans of those men would have been just as giddy) but he can't be properly rated until his career is over.

The Pacquiao fight should be held against him, however, I have a fancy they'll meet down the line and Floyd will beat a faded rival in the same way Lewis beat Tyson in a fight that no longer means a whole lot (and in boxing, perspective and context are soon lost). I imagine at that point, there'll be threads asking whether Robinson could have hung with him.

Great fighter -- a phenom at super featherweight -- who has shown extraordinary consistency in defeating a series of good but not great opponents.

How can I fight be held against him when they never fought..

Not the brightest are you.

Hagler over Floyd according to Haz who holds Manny against him..

Yet hagler avoided Spinks and forgot to give Tommy a rematch..

joke ain't it!!! 

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It is unlikely that he'll ever displace Ray Leonard, who is traditionally rated somewhere around 10th by most experts.

I do appreciate that Floyd is at a career high and so will have an inflated ranking by some (the same would have been true of Mike Tyson, Manny Pacquiao and Roy Jones when they were at their apex -- die hard fans of those men would have been just as giddy) but he can't be properly rated until his career is over.

The Pacquiao fight should be held against him, however, I have a fancy they'll meet down the line and Floyd will beat a faded rival in the same way Lewis beat Tyson in a fight that no longer means a whole lot (and in boxing, perspective and context are soon lost). I imagine at that point, there'll be threads asking whether Robinson could have hung with him.

Great fighter -- a phenom at super featherweight -- who has shown extraordinary consistency in defeating a series of good but not great opponents.

How can I fight be held against him when they never fought..

Not the brightest are you.

You're just a wum..A sad pathetic one line wum artist..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It is unlikely that he'll ever displace Ray Leonard, who is traditionally rated somewhere around 10th by most experts.

I do appreciate that Floyd is at a career high and so will have an inflated ranking by some (the same would have been true of Mike Tyson, Manny Pacquiao and Roy Jones when they were at their apex -- die hard fans of those men would have been just as giddy) but he can't be properly rated until his career is over.

The Pacquiao fight should be held against him, however, I have a fancy they'll meet down the line and Floyd will beat a faded rival in the same way Lewis beat Tyson in a fight that no longer means a whole lot (and in boxing, perspective and context are soon lost). I imagine at that point, there'll be threads asking whether Robinson could have hung with him.

Great fighter -- a phenom at super featherweight -- who has shown extraordinary consistency in defeating a series of good but not great opponents.

How can I fight be held against him when they never fought..

Not the brightest are you.

You're just a wum..A sad pathetic one line wum artist..

Bless

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler over Floyd according to Haz who holds Manny against him..

Yet hagler avoided Spinks and forgot to give Tommy a rematch..

joke ain't it!!! 

You have to be kidding me. Marvin s one of my favourite fighters. But to rank him above Floyd? Stupid. Haz may as well watch another sport.

There's little doubt that a win for Floyd over Manny in the few months after Manny destroyed Cotto would boost Floyd in most ratings. Doesn't matter the reasons for them not fighting - the fact that Floyd doesn't have that win makes his record not quite as rich as it might be.

But the case is they are holding it against him...rather than taking the record as read.......

How can you hold a fight that never happened against someone.....

He never lost..

So let me get this right Truss, if Ray Leonard had not fought Hagler Hearns and Duran it would still be perfectly acceptable for me to rank him exactly as highly as I do now because to do otherwise would be holding fights against him that never happened?

Mate I see your point....Just that people seem to hold Manny against Floyd....

My take is that you can't hold a fight against someone If they haven't fought...

Take a record as is.........If you think Floyd is 5 without Manny keep him 5........

Don't mark him down to 7 over a political development..

Maybe it's crosswires pal........I do see your argument...

I think it's me not explaining my point well enough...

Forget about Pacquiao.

Where are Floyd's wins against ATG's. The Top 10 fighter have them. Floyd's record has a flaw.

It suits his warped agenda Rowley, so yes it is acceptable.

For an apparently well educated man he seems to find this rather difficult to grasp.

I'm warped now please just leave it alone....

Still two lines instead of the usual one..Things are looking up....

He was offered the greatest challenge of his career and turned it down. While I can fully empathise with him drawing a line in the sand over testing, and whichever way both camps try to spin it, neither wanted to fight the other enough. It's all well and good outfinessing overmatched opposition (good, solid opposition nontheless) but he had the opportunity to achieve all-time great status and he snubbed his nose at it.

Hagler fought Hearns and Leonard. Ali fought Frazier and Foreman, Pep Saddler, Chavez Whitaker, Oscar Trinidad, Jones Toney, Barrera Morales etc etc.

Rating Floyd above men who took on their greatest rivals does them a disservice.

If you don't want a debate, for what reason are you a member of a forum? You're an idiot so it's not as if we have much to learn from you.

azania wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler over Floyd according to Haz who holds Manny against him..

Yet hagler avoided Spinks and forgot to give Tommy a rematch..

joke ain't it!!! 

You have to be kidding me. Marvin s one of my favourite fighters. But to rank him above Floyd? Stupid. Haz may as well watch another sport.

I clearly watch a different sport to the likes of you already.

So you don't rate Manny then..........either

I'm assuming you're suggesting he ducked Manny by your tone...

Hagler took on Leonard ???? He thought it was an easy fight against a decked off Howard three years out welter!!! and he avoided a Hearns rematch and Spinks..

Haz...love you Mate but don't chuck Hagler-Leonard at me as rebuttal..