How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

by Pedro147 Mon 16 Sep 2013, 12:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

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?

by hazharrison Mon 16 Sep 2013, 5:33 pm

Rowley wrote: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?

Exactly my point. Ray may as well have not bothered and retired undefeated.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 16 Sep 2013, 5:35 pm

You miss my point.........You mark Mayweather down for Manny..

I judge mayweather on his fights.........

Just like Leonard wouldn't be where he is without the fighters mentioned...

How anyone can say he's not beaten anybody...Is perverse..

and you should know better Haz..

by hazharrison Mon 16 Sep 2013, 5:37 pm

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!!!

We already went through the Spinks thing a while back. There isn't any evidence to support your theory that Hagler ducked Spinks, nor that a Hearns rematch was a viable proposition.

by hazharrison Mon 16 Sep 2013, 5:41 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You miss my point.........You mark Mayweather down for Manny..

I judge mayweather on his fights.........

Just like Leonard wouldn't be where he is without the fighters mentioned...

How anyone can say he's not beaten anybody...Is perverse..

and you should know better Haz..

He's beaten solid opposition and his consistency is remarkable but quite how that gets him into anyone's top five of all time (if they're being honest) is baffling. Why would you rate Ali over Marciano if you rate Floyd over Leonard?

by Pedro147 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 8:06 am

John Nelson's column on Sky Sports:

I know people will scoff when it comes to putting Floyd top of the tree and they will side with Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard or Muhammad Ali, but I will put him up there.

That is a big statement and a big shout, so people will ask for reasons why.

At the age of 36, Mayweather has beaten the very best in the world and did just that against Saul Alvarez. But Alvarez wasn't just beaten; he was supposed to be the new coming but ended up being well and truly schooled.

There really no-one out there who can cause Floyd Mayweather any problems and test him, because he has taken everyone on. He has gone against youth, he's gone against speed, he's gone against popularity, he's gone against power, any form of fighter and he has beaten them all.

Nobody else had found a way to beat Alvarez in 43 other fights, yet Mayweather did just that. At ease.

He has beaten everyone who's been put in front of him. So what if he doesn't knock everyone out, including Alvarez? I am a boxer and I love the purist form of the game - hit and don't get hit - and he puts unbelievable shows of that on, while winning.

When Ali came on the scene he was criticised for being boring and it's only now that we look back and realise just what he brought to the table. For this generation Floyd Mayweather is everything boxing epitomises.

Alvarez found that out because he came out and did everything possible to break down Mayweather and you have to give him credit for that in itself.

Floyd told us that he was getting hit a lot on the arms by the lad, so what did he do? Well he stepped back a bit - out of range - halfway through the fight. He adjusted, he adapted and he changed his gameplan to control Alvarez, almost like a matador controlling a bull.

Mayweather's speed was as good as ever, if not better. He is no spring chicken and the timing is probably the first thing that goes, but don't forget he is not only remarkably talented and wise, he is remarkably light.

He went in at 146lbs and Alvarez was around a stone heavier so he should have had the power and the strength and the will to get at the smaller guy. But not only did Floys barely waste a hit, he was barely hit either. Defensively he is on a different planet.

So who does Mayweather take on next? Well they are talking about Danny Garcia but I think he would make mincemeat of him. Then there is Amir Khan in the UK and I do think Khan's speed might cause Floyd some problems... for about two or three rounds.

There really is no-one out there who can cause him any problems and test him, because he has taken everyone on. He has gone against youth, he's gone against speed, he's gone against popularity, he's gone against power, any form of fighter and he has beaten them all.

The closest who came to beating him was of course Oscar de la Hoya. But he chose Floyd, Floyd didn't choose him. And he still got beat.

The man they call Money simply does not get enough credit. It's because of his attitude, some of the things he says, but mainly his confidence. People see him as arrogant, but it is simply confidence, nothing less.

And when you are as good as Floyd Mayweather and have dealt with everyone that has been put in front of you, you should be brimming with confidence every time the bell goes.

Especially when you are the best boxer the world has ever seen.

by hazharrison Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:28 pm

http://www.queensberry-rules.com/2013-articles/september/weekend-afterthoughts-on-floyd-mayweather-s-all-time-status-judge-c-j-ross-same-and-more.html

"Mayweather's historical standing. Talking about this risks the rage of Mayweather's devoted fans, but we're going to do it anyway. Back in 2009, I interviewed a few boxing historians about where Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao fell all-time. Pacquiao got as high as the 20s, Mayweather as high as the 30s, with most putting him at closer to 50-70. Since 2010, Mayweather has done some excellent work. Saturday against Canelo, he delivered one of his best-ever performances against one of his most threatening-ever opponents. With the win he became junior middleweight champion, his fourth lineal championship in his fourth divisions, equaling a feat that only Pacquiao had accomplished in boxing history. That said, Pacquiao did it first and better, since the four championships spanned a greater number of divisions and for the most part came against better opposition. He also has beaten the better overall opposition; if you put his 10 best wins up against Mayweather's 10 best wins, Pacquiao comes out ahead for me. The gap is closing, as Mayweather's competition has improved after a long stretch of good-not-great wins and as Pacquiao's has dropped off some, not to mention that big knockout loss in Pacquiao's last fight. The biggest reason I still wouldn't have Mayweather in my top 20 is because his resume doesn't include a lot of names from a pretty prime era of welterweights and junior welterweights -- it doesn't matter why, or whether you think it wasn't his fault, because not having the names hurts his resume no matter what's to blame. And while Mayweather forecasts right now as a fighter who could stick around for a couple more years at this elite level, something harder to say about Pacquiao, the gap could be harder to close because there's nobody yet on the immediate horizon who offers the kind of challenges that Mayweather might've taken and overcome during that period where he's missing names. If you believe Mayweather belongs in the top 20, and he's not there for me yet, look over these two sample lists and specify who you'd bump down to make room for him."

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:30 pm

I prefer Pedro's article..

by Strongback Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:34 pm

hazharrison wrote:http://www.queensberry-rules.com/2013-articles/september/weekend-afterthoughts-on-floyd-mayweather-s-all-time-status-judge-c-j-ross-same-and-more.html

"Mayweather's historical standing. Talking about this risks the rage of Mayweather's devoted fans, but we're going to do it anyway. Back in 2009, I interviewed a few boxing historians about where Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao fell all-time. Pacquiao got as high as the 20s, Mayweather as high as the 30s, with most putting him at closer to 50-70. Since 2010, Mayweather has done some excellent work. Saturday against Canelo, he delivered one of his best-ever performances against one of his most threatening-ever opponents. With the win he became junior middleweight champion, his fourth lineal championship in his fourth divisions, equaling a feat that only Pacquiao had accomplished in boxing history. That said, Pacquiao did it first and better, since the four championships spanned a greater number of divisions and for the most part came against better opposition. He also has beaten the better overall opposition; if you put his 10 best wins up against Mayweather's 10 best wins, Pacquiao comes out ahead for me. The gap is closing, as Mayweather's competition has improved after a long stretch of good-not-great wins and as Pacquiao's has dropped off some, not to mention that big knockout loss in Pacquiao's last fight. The biggest reason I still wouldn't have Mayweather in my top 20 is because his resume doesn't include a lot of names from a pretty prime era of welterweights and junior welterweights -- it doesn't matter why, or whether you think it wasn't his fault, because not having the names hurts his resume no matter what's to blame. And while Mayweather forecasts right now as a fighter who could stick around for a couple more years at this elite level, something harder to say about Pacquiao, the gap could be harder to close because there's nobody yet on the immediate horizon who offers the kind of challenges that Mayweather might've taken and overcome during that period where he's missing names. If you believe Mayweather belongs in the top 20, and he's not there for me yet, look over these two sample lists and specify who you'd bump down to make room for him."

The more outside opinions you bring in Haz the more you bring some reality to this board.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:36 pm

Strongback wrote:
hazharrison wrote:http://www.queensberry-rules.com/2013-articles/september/weekend-afterthoughts-on-floyd-mayweather-s-all-time-status-judge-c-j-ross-same-and-more.html

"Mayweather's historical standing. Talking about this risks the rage of Mayweather's devoted fans, but we're going to do it anyway. Back in 2009, I interviewed a few boxing historians about where Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao fell all-time. Pacquiao got as high as the 20s, Mayweather as high as the 30s, with most putting him at closer to 50-70. Since 2010, Mayweather has done some excellent work. Saturday against Canelo, he delivered one of his best-ever performances against one of his most threatening-ever opponents. With the win he became junior middleweight champion, his fourth lineal championship in his fourth divisions, equaling a feat that only Pacquiao had accomplished in boxing history. That said, Pacquiao did it first and better, since the four championships spanned a greater number of divisions and for the most part came against better opposition. He also has beaten the better overall opposition; if you put his 10 best wins up against Mayweather's 10 best wins, Pacquiao comes out ahead for me. The gap is closing, as Mayweather's competition has improved after a long stretch of good-not-great wins and as Pacquiao's has dropped off some, not to mention that big knockout loss in Pacquiao's last fight. The biggest reason I still wouldn't have Mayweather in my top 20 is because his resume doesn't include a lot of names from a pretty prime era of welterweights and junior welterweights -- it doesn't matter why, or whether you think it wasn't his fault, because not having the names hurts his resume no matter what's to blame. And while Mayweather forecasts right now as a fighter who could stick around for a couple more years at this elite level, something harder to say about Pacquiao, the gap could be harder to close because there's nobody yet on the immediate horizon who offers the kind of challenges that Mayweather might've taken and overcome during that period where he's missing names. If you believe Mayweather belongs in the top 20, and he's not there for me yet, look over these two sample lists and specify who you'd bump down to make room for him."

The more outside opinions you bring in Haz the more you bring some reality to this board.

Thank God your here then...So we can all wake up to the realisation that Floyd is a ducking....never beaten anybody... bum

I see the light...
I see the light
I see the light..............Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!

by Strongback Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:41 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Strongback wrote:
hazharrison wrote:http://www.queensberry-rules.com/2013-articles/september/weekend-afterthoughts-on-floyd-mayweather-s-all-time-status-judge-c-j-ross-same-and-more.html

"Mayweather's historical standing. Talking about this risks the rage of Mayweather's devoted fans, but we're going to do it anyway. Back in 2009, I interviewed a few boxing historians about where Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao fell all-time. Pacquiao got as high as the 20s, Mayweather as high as the 30s, with most putting him at closer to 50-70. Since 2010, Mayweather has done some excellent work. Saturday against Canelo, he delivered one of his best-ever performances against one of his most threatening-ever opponents. With the win he became junior middleweight champion, his fourth lineal championship in his fourth divisions, equaling a feat that only Pacquiao had accomplished in boxing history. That said, Pacquiao did it first and better, since the four championships spanned a greater number of divisions and for the most part came against better opposition. He also has beaten the better overall opposition; if you put his 10 best wins up against Mayweather's 10 best wins, Pacquiao comes out ahead for me. The gap is closing, as Mayweather's competition has improved after a long stretch of good-not-great wins and as Pacquiao's has dropped off some, not to mention that big knockout loss in Pacquiao's last fight. The biggest reason I still wouldn't have Mayweather in my top 20 is because his resume doesn't include a lot of names from a pretty prime era of welterweights and junior welterweights -- it doesn't matter why, or whether you think it wasn't his fault, because not having the names hurts his resume no matter what's to blame. And while Mayweather forecasts right now as a fighter who could stick around for a couple more years at this elite level, something harder to say about Pacquiao, the gap could be harder to close because there's nobody yet on the immediate horizon who offers the kind of challenges that Mayweather might've taken and overcome during that period where he's missing names. If you believe Mayweather belongs in the top 20, and he's not there for me yet, look over these two sample lists and specify who you'd bump down to make room for him."
The more outside opinions you bring in Haz the more you bring some reality to this board.
Thank God your here then...So we can all wake up to the realisation that Floyd is a ducking....never beaten anybody... bum

I see the light...
I see the light
I see the light..............Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!

I am just a conjuit for reality.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

by hazharrison Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:43 pm

Perspective!

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:45 pm

Strongback wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Strongback wrote:
hazharrison wrote:http://www.queensberry-rules.com/2013-articles/september/weekend-afterthoughts-on-floyd-mayweather-s-all-time-status-judge-c-j-ross-same-and-more.html

"Mayweather's historical standing. Talking about this risks the rage of Mayweather's devoted fans, but we're going to do it anyway. Back in 2009, I interviewed a few boxing historians about where Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao fell all-time. Pacquiao got as high as the 20s, Mayweather as high as the 30s, with most putting him at closer to 50-70. Since 2010, Mayweather has done some excellent work. Saturday against Canelo, he delivered one of his best-ever performances against one of his most threatening-ever opponents. With the win he became junior middleweight champion, his fourth lineal championship in his fourth divisions, equaling a feat that only Pacquiao had accomplished in boxing history. That said, Pacquiao did it first and better, since the four championships spanned a greater number of divisions and for the most part came against better opposition. He also has beaten the better overall opposition; if you put his 10 best wins up against Mayweather's 10 best wins, Pacquiao comes out ahead for me. The gap is closing, as Mayweather's competition has improved after a long stretch of good-not-great wins and as Pacquiao's has dropped off some, not to mention that big knockout loss in Pacquiao's last fight. The biggest reason I still wouldn't have Mayweather in my top 20 is because his resume doesn't include a lot of names from a pretty prime era of welterweights and junior welterweights -- it doesn't matter why, or whether you think it wasn't his fault, because not having the names hurts his resume no matter what's to blame. And while Mayweather forecasts right now as a fighter who could stick around for a couple more years at this elite level, something harder to say about Pacquiao, the gap could be harder to close because there's nobody yet on the immediate horizon who offers the kind of challenges that Mayweather might've taken and overcome during that period where he's missing names. If you believe Mayweather belongs in the top 20, and he's not there for me yet, look over these two sample lists and specify who you'd bump down to make room for him."
The more outside opinions you bring in Haz the more you bring some reality to this board.
Thank God your here then...So we can all wake up to the realisation that Floyd is a ducking....never beaten anybody... bum

I see the light...
I see the light
I see the light..............Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!

I am just a conjuit for reality.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Seriously though kiddo...Every list on my top 10 thread had Mayweather above Louis apart from yours........Must have been thirty odd......

So why would posting articles convert anyone to reality......When you didn't face it on the Top 10 thread ??

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:47 pm

Perspective is a strange thing Haz.........You know damn well most observers have Mayweather over Hagler........

But you fail to see it.......

by Strongback Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:49 pm

I didn't have Floyd in my Top 10.

No defining fight no ATG win...............Lennox Lewis and Floyd

by spencerclarke Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:50 pm

Strongy where do you have floyd?

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:51 pm

What was Louis defining fight ????????..Your number 6

This guy is a joke..

by azania Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:52 pm

Bob Mee puts Archie Moore at number 2. So much for experts eh haz?

by azania Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:53 pm

I prefer the opinions of a recent boxer than a scribe who only laced his shoes for school and for prison.

by hazharrison Tue 17 Sep 2013, 1:56 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Perspective is a strange thing Haz.........You know damn well most observers have Mayweather over Hagler........

But you fail to see it.......

Define "most observers". From my experience opinion is split down the middle.

by hazharrison Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:03 pm

azania wrote:Bob Mee puts Archie Moore at number 2. So much for experts eh haz?

That's not as outlandish as Floyd in the top five.

by hazharrison Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:12 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What was Louis defining fight ????????..Your number 6

This guy is a joke..

Schmeling rematch.

by Lumbering_Jack Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:17 pm

What lineal title did Floyd win when he beat Alvarez at 152? Wasn't aware it was a weight division.

by Boxtthis Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:19 pm

Floyd is held back by his lack of signature wins. It's as simple as that. His dominance over very good opposition puts him high, but his lack of ATG victories keeps him from the very top.

So, we don't actually hold the Manny non-fight 'against him'. We simply hold the lack of signature wins against him.

But, this being a discussion board, the natural progression is to ask 'why is Floyd missing those signature fights?', which brings you to the Manny situation. Its simply an elaboration on the discussion after Floyd's record has been assessed 'as it is'.

Really, this argument is largely semantics.

by Strongback Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:20 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What was Louis defining fight ????????..Your number 6

This guy is a joke..

Joe Louis fought every No.1 contender except one who was only in that postition for a couple of weeks.

Can's say Floyd fought everybody out there.

First to reach 25 defences when there was only one belt.

13 years the greatest fighter on the planet.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:26 pm

Schmelling wasn't a great fighter...and a great fighter wouldn't lose to Schmelling..

Schmelling is better than Oscar, Canelo and guerrero!!.......These guys are reaching

Let's dissect Strongy......

1. Mayweather isn't top 10 because he didn't beat a great fighter......Louis is at 6 !!!

2. Mayweather isn't top 10 because he didn't have a defining fight...

Louis is level with Ali at 6...Who had at least FOUR of them.......

With logic like that.........

by Lumbering_Jack Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:26 pm

Why did Floyd only fight between 2006 and 2012 only 1 or 2 first placed challengers?

I'm yet to hear a sensible answer to this one.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm

I'm not interesting in debating you..

by Lumbering_Jack Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm

You keep throwing Guerrero as a good win. He's only slightly better than multi weight champion Ricky Burns.

by Lumbering_Jack Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interesting in debating you..

Well sod off then.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:30 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Schmelling wasn't a great fighter...and a great fighter wouldn't lose to Schmelling..

Schmelling is better than Oscar, Canelo and guerrero!!.......These guys are reaching

Let's dissect Strongy......

1. Mayweather isn't top 10 because he didn't beat a great fighter......Louis is at 6 !!!

2. Mayweather isn't top 10 because he didn't have a defining fight...

Louis is level with Ali at 6...Who had at least FOUR of them.......

With logic like that.........

by Boxtthis Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:47 pm

Got a point about Louis. His record really isn't that good. It's baffling to see some people rate him above Ali.

by catchweight Wed 18 Sep 2013, 7:42 am

hazharrison wrote:

"Mayweather's historical standing. Talking about this risks the rage of Mayweather's devoted fans, but we're going to do it anyway. Back in 2009, I interviewed a few boxing historians about where Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao fell all-time. Pacquiao got as high as the 20s, Mayweather as high as the 30s, with most putting him at closer to 50-70. Since 2010, Mayweather has done some excellent work. Saturday against Canelo, he delivered one of his best-ever performances against one of his most threatening-ever opponents. With the win he became junior middleweight champion, his fourth lineal championship in his fourth divisions, equaling a feat that only Pacquiao had accomplished in boxing history. That said, Pacquiao did it first and better, since the four championships spanned a greater number of divisions and for the most part came against better opposition. He also has beaten the better overall opposition; if you put his 10 best wins up against Mayweather's 10 best wins, Pacquiao comes out ahead for me. The gap is closing, as Mayweather's competition has improved after a long stretch of good-not-great wins and as Pacquiao's has dropped off some, not to mention that big knockout loss in Pacquiao's last fight. The biggest reason I still wouldn't have Mayweather in my top 20 is because his resume doesn't include a lot of names from a pretty prime era of welterweights and junior welterweights -- it doesn't matter why, or whether you think it wasn't his fault, because not having the names hurts his resume no matter what's to blame. And while Mayweather forecasts right now as a fighter who could stick around for a couple more years at this elite level, something harder to say about Pacquiao, the gap could be harder to close because there's nobody yet on the immediate horizon who offers the kind of challenges that Mayweather might've taken and overcome during that period where he's missing names. If you believe Mayweather belongs in the top 20, and he's not there for me yet, look over these two sample lists and specify who you'd bump down to make room for him."

To be honest, there are several names on the sample lists that could easily be displaced by Mayweather in the top twenty.

Sample list top 20:

1.Robinson
2.Ali
3.Armstrong
4.Louis
5.Pep
6.Duran
7.Leonard
8.Johnson
9.Dempsey
10.Langford
11.Gans
12.Leonard
13.Greb
14.Marciano
15.Wilde
16.Tunney
17.Walker
18.Moore
19.Ketchel
20.Foreman

Not a very good sample list imo. There a much better argument to say Mayweather belongs in it that out of it.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 18 Sep 2013, 10:56 am

Dempsey at 9......That sample was obviously sent in by Katie Price..

by Sponsored content

How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?

Re: How highly can Floyd be ranked when he retires?