A top 20 to argue about nicely

by captain carrantuohil Fri 17 May - 12:57

First topic message reminder :

I suspect that Truss and az are just about the biggest Mayweather fans on the board and they have long maintained that Floyd doesn't receive anything like his due.

I thought that I might try to see where FMJ would fit in to my list of the top 20 boxers ever, bearing in mind that the bulk of his career is now done and not much, barring a Roy Jones-style meltdown, is likely to change his legacy significantly. It's in no way set in stone, this list, but I wanted to attempt some sort of collection of my thoughts right now and would welcome any sane comments that might help the process.

1) Robinson 2) Armstrong 3) Greb 4) Ali 5) Charles 6) Jofre 7) Fitzsimmons 8) Langford 9) Mayweather 10) Benny Leonard 11) Tunney 12) Ray Leonard 13) Whitaker 14) Arguello 15) Roy Jones 16) Duran 17) Monzon 18=) Saddler & Pep 20) Moore

Obviously, there are plenty of good candidates out there who don't appear here, but as I say, this is just an attempt to set Floyd in some sort of global and historic context.

by azania Mon 20 May - 22:20

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He isn't rational Az............

Apparently Bolt is 15th on his sprinters list and Woods is 22nd on his golfing one..one place below Dwight Eisenhower!!

Simple lunacy.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 20 May - 22:21

I'll debate anybody but when someone marks Mayweather down for two reasons....

He's been inactive and has never fought anybody......

.......and has Fitz at 6 and Louis at 9........

What's the point !!

by captain carrantuohil Mon 20 May - 22:25

Manos, I certainly agree that the failure to make the Pacquiao fight is the one most likely to count against Floyd in the long run. Without remotely wishing to reheat the nauseating argument about where blame lies for this failure, I remain enormously frustrated that Floyd didn't just say: "Enough, we'll make the fight because this win will be my Leonard-Hearns moment, my Greb-Tunney masterpiece".

No doubt he had his reasons for sticking to his guns, but Pacquiao represented the one truly elite opponent among his contemporaries that Floyd could have gunned down. The frustrating thing is that I've never had a moment's doubt that Floyd would have done a substantial number on Manny, simply measuring up to the Filipino so well from a stylistic viewpoint.

Despite this, I feel that Mayweather's longevity is what really earns him the edge over SRL for me. The fact that he has turned out only once a year in recent times is a red herring - the truth is that like Mr O'Sullivan at snooker, he's good enough to do it. In many ways, it adds to FMJ's lustre that he can practise his trade so infrequently and still excel at it.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 May - 22:37

captain carrantuohil wrote:Manos, I certainly agree that the failure to make the Pacquiao fight is the one most likely to count against Floyd in the long run. Without remotely wishing to reheat the nauseating argument about where blame lies for this failure, I remain enormously frustrated that Floyd didn't just say: "Enough, we'll make the fight because this win will be my Leonard-Hearns moment, my Greb-Tunney masterpiece".

No doubt he had his reasons for sticking to his guns, but Pacquiao represented the one truly elite opponent among his contemporaries that Floyd could have gunned down. The frustrating thing is that I've never had a moment's doubt that Floyd would have done a substantial number on Manny, simply measuring up to the Filipino so well from a stylistic viewpoint.

Despite this, I feel that Mayweather's longevity is what really earns him the edge over SRL for me. The fact that he has turned out only once a year in recent times is a red herring - the truth is that like Mr O'Sullivan at snooker, he's good enough to do it. In many ways, it adds to FMJ's lustre that he can practise his trade so infrequently and still excel at it.

I would agree that hes good enough to fight once a year and beat pretty much anyone up to 154lbs. But his attitude really bothers me because I dont think hes fighting once a year against the biggest challenges available. Personally I find the Pacquiao fight a major hole regarding his claims to a top ten spot. Not only was Pacquiao the fighter that could really have been the centrepeice of his legacy, but the he just really didnt seem bothered about making the fight happen. Had he made real concerted effort or sacrifice and Pacquiao refused then I would be less dissatisfied. But really I dont think he was willing to make any sacrifice and in fact he came up with roadblocks to potentially derail the fight. I wouldnt place all the blame on him by any means but I just dont think he wanted the fight which is almost as bad as the fight not happening. When you add that to his mini retirement when the division offered an unbeaten Cotto and now the suggestion that an Alvarez fight would only happen at 147lb (effectively rendering the fight off limits or else forcing Canelo to drain heavily), well I just feel his it adds up and starts to look like Mayweather just isnt interested when there is a fighter out there that poses a real risk. Thats not something befitting of top ten greatness and its makes you wonder if Duran or Leonard were actually around now would Mayweather has been willing to face them at all.

by TheMackemMawler Mon 20 May - 22:50

In hindsight did Manny not get a bit too much credit for beating a weight drained Cotto and a plodding Margo thus making a Paccy-Floyyd fight not that important after all?

The result of such a fight is not difficult to predict....Mosley timed Manny, JMM timed Manny, Mayweather would time Manny and KO him.

It's similar to marking down RJJ for not fighting Collins. Unfair. The result is obvious thus doesn't effect Roys standing.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 May - 22:56

I think there are major differances between Jones/Collins and Mayweather/Pacquiao though.

Jones had beaten and continued to beat fighters better than Collins, Collins had little chance of winning and he wasnt an all time great. I find it very difficult to believe Jones avoided Collins out of any real worry of losing, although Collins can probably feel aggrevied not to get the fight.

You could say with hindsight, that Pacquiao wasnt that big a threat. I still think he was although I would have to pick Mayweather to win the feeling among many at the time was that it was going to be a very tough challenge. If Mayweather felt it would that easy then I cant see why he suddenly imposed the drug testing and wouldnt accept 50/50. Likewise now with Alvarez, if Mayweather felt it was an easy win I dont think he would be demanding it at 147.

by TheMackemMawler Mon 20 May - 23:11

Maybe at the time, like us, Mayweather thought the fight would be closer than the reality. If so, then he's probably kicking himself for losing out on a fight he now knows he would have won comfortably.

by TheMackemMawler Mon 20 May - 23:12

...though in spite of this, it's a bit harsh marking him down for failing to take a fight we know he would have won easily.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 May - 23:24

TheMackemMawler wrote:...though in spite of this, it's a bit harsh marking him down for failing to take a fight we know he would have easily won.

Id have to disagree with that last comment. I think Mayweather would have won, but say around the time Pacquiao had a wonderful performance against Cotto, I cant say with any real confidence Mayweather would win easily. Id see it as close fight.

I also really disagree that he shouldnt be marked down too heavily for not making more effort to make the fight. It was the biggest selling fight in history. It was seen as a really great fight for the ages and it would have really for the first time in a long time to take boxing off the back pages and into the mainstream. I find it almost unforgiveable it didnt get made due to two guys that just didnt seem to want it. Although whether history will remember it differently Im not sure.

Mayweather doesnt appear to have leaned from it either as the new star on the block Alvarez, another mega fight albeit not quite the same significant as Pacquiao, presently seems not to be high on the agenda. Over the last number of years Ive just been lead to the impression that when there is a fighter out there that could trouble Mayweather or pose a big risk, he tends to look for reasons not to make the fight.

by Strongback Mon 20 May - 23:59

I can't really reconcile peoples opinions in terms of Louis being out of the Top 20 and Ali is No.4. There's something wrong there considering many historians have Louis as joint No.1 HW with Ali or simply No.1 HW. Head to head it is Ali's speed and mobility versus Louis' punching ability and stalking/cutting off the ring. Louis can drop his right hand and Ali was sometimes blind to the left hook. To me its a pick em and I just can't see why Ali is seen as so much better. Ali has the better resume but Louis would be favourite against Ali's opponents. Not much in it for me or for that matter the vast majority of boxing historians whose lists can be searched on the web.

Mayweather is an all-time great talent but played it so safe I can't see a place for him in the Top 20. People have a tendency to dislike SRL but he did take the fights and has the wins. He was also a tremendous talent the equal of Mayweather in my eyes. We have rarely seen Mayweather tested since the Castillo fight and that isn't just down to his talent but also includes a nice dollop of careful match making. I have Mayweather and Roy Jones Jr as about the same neither making my Top 20.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 21 May - 0:04

For the last time.....Who gives a F**k If he played it safe or didn't.......

The fact is his record is full of quality...and his longevity is amazing.......

and it's these two things that matter...........

by Strongback Tue 21 May - 0:22

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For the last time.....Who gives a F**k If he played it safe or didn't.......

The fact is his record is full of quality...and his longevity is amazing.......

and it's these two things that matter...........

I'm sorry but its not full of "prime" quality which is why Corrales and Castillo are still seen as Floyd's best wins.

Beating a punched out quarter version of Mosley doesn't really mean anything.

by PPVxHOTTY Tue 21 May - 0:25

Its all opinions end of the day, personally id put Mayweather in 10-15 place ATG, if he takes on Canelo at 154 and beats him then I will have to place him 5-10. As for being tested strongback, the aim of boxing 'is to hit and not get hit' he's mastered that art, my point is his opponents have been hitting 'testing' others yet when it comes to Floyd they can't touch him, this is credit to Floyd.

As a ATG we will only realise how good he is when he leaves sport, I myself have given Floyd criticism over the years for his resume but when you look back at his performances he's just a genius.

by PPVxHOTTY Tue 21 May - 0:27

Strongback wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For the last time.....Who gives a F**k If he played it safe or didn't.......

The fact is his record is full of quality...and his longevity is amazing.......

and it's these two things that matter...........

I'm sorry but its not full of "prime" quality which is why Corrales and Castillo are still seen as Floyd's best wins.

Beating a punched out quarter version of Mosley doesn't really mean anything.

That same Mosley was coming off a devastating win against Margarito.

by Strongback Tue 21 May - 0:35

PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Strongback wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For the last time.....Who gives a F**k If he played it safe or didn't.......

The fact is his record is full of quality...and his longevity is amazing.......

and it's these two things that matter...........

I'm sorry but its not full of "prime" quality which is why Corrales and Castillo are still seen as Floyd's best wins.

Beating a punched out quarter version of Mosley doesn't really mean anything.

That same Mosley was coming off a devastating win against Margarito.

Margo was also shot at that stage. Mosley was done after Cotto beat him which never would have happened prime for prime.

Did you watch Mosley v Floyd? Shane tried to turn it into a friendly sparring session such was his lack of ambition.

by PPVxHOTTY Tue 21 May - 0:39

Yes I know what you mean and I said other day if Mosley didn't hijack Floyds post Marquez interview, the fight would never have happened. Floyd deserves credit though for adapting in that fight because Mosley did catch him.

by Strongback Tue 21 May - 0:50

Floyd decided to stand his ground in that fight for some reason, doesn't suit him as the Cotto fight also showed.

by sittingringside Tue 21 May - 1:37

At the end of the day, the difference between Sugar Ray Leonard (top 5) and Floyd Mayweather (top 15) is pretty clear for me. Aside from the Hearns, Duran and Benitez wins, Leonard beat Hagler at 160 where he is at the very worst top 5 all time. Floyd has never beaten an opponent with a decent argument for being top 10 in any given division. Hence, whilst he is an unbelievably good boxer, there is daylight for me between him and the likes of Leonard.

by Rodney Tue 21 May - 9:17

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For the last time.....Who gives a F**k If he played it safe or didn't.......

The fact is his record is full of quality...and his longevity is amazing.......

and it's these two things that matter...........

You really are a classless unsavoury child Truss, learn some manners. You missed the meaning of the title debate !!!

You're either telling folk to shut up or F off ! & you can't be bothered to put your own opinion on, I take it you can name 20 fighters throughout history ?

Honestly have a word with yourself.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 21 May - 9:35

1. Mayweather will be the first Man to be judged on who he didn't fight rather than he did......Jack Dempsey anybody??

2. He'll be marked down because of his inactivity even though said individual has Fitz at 6...who fought once in three years!!

3. He'll be marked down because he never beat anybody decent...even though said individual has Louis at 9.........

Love the criteria.....Aces!! thumbsup

by Rodney Tue 21 May - 9:38

Do you know anything about Fitzsimmons ???

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 21 May - 9:43

You don't get it........I have Fitz in my top 10 ............

point is you made a big thing about Mayweather's inactivity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hence I'm pointing out it doesn't hamper Fitz..........in your eyes

You understand????...comprende ?????

Forget it anyway..........looking at your list...........A guy will have to beat twenty top p4pers and reign for thirty years to get any credit these days from you.

by Rodney Tue 21 May - 9:46

If you read properly, I said I find it hard to rate mayweather as a top 20 guy as he manages to fight once a year and yet still misses key opponents. Fitz never did this and was recorded to have over 100 fights.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 21 May - 9:54

You have Louis at 9..............Who did he beat that were in the same league as.......

Marquez, Oscar, Guerrero, Castillo etc..............

and why no Leonard in your list...............Benitez, Duran twice, Hearns, Hagler, Kalule.plus titles from 147 -175 ???

That's four alltime greats..........

by Strongback Tue 21 May - 9:55

Looks like Trussy has a problem putting up a Top 20...........who would have thought it from the guy who has written more lists than the New York Stock Exchange.

by Strongback Tue 21 May - 9:57

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You have Louis at 9..............Who did he beat that were in the same league as.......

Marquez, Oscar, Guerrero, Castillo etc..............

and why no Leonard in your list...............Benitez, Duran twice, Hearns, Hagler, Kalule.plus titles from 147 -175 ???

That's four alltime greats..........

Only Castillo is considered one of Floyd's best wins. You might as well write Ali off for being beaten by Berbick.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 21 May - 9:59

Strongback wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You have Louis at 9..............Who did he beat that were in the same league as.......

Marquez, Oscar, Guerrero, Castillo etc..............

and why no Leonard in your list...............Benitez, Duran twice, Hearns, Hagler, Kalule.plus titles from 147 -175 ???

That's four alltime greats..........

Only Castillo is considered one of Floyd's best wins. You might as well write Ali off for being beaten by Berbick.

by hazharrison Tue 21 May - 11:45

captain carrantuohil wrote:Sorry for the late reply, Haz. Mayweather narrowly eclipses Leonard for me for a couple of reasons. I should emphasise that it is a slight case of splitting hairs, but that's the nature of the beast when you're trying to compare truly great fighters.

Essentially, Leonard was a wonder at one weight and, barring the Hagler performance, actually no better than pretty good overall above that weight. To my eye, Mayweather was almost as much of a wonder at super-feather, albeit lacking foes of the quality of Benitez, Duran and Hearns against whom to prove it. Above super-feather, though, hardly anyone has got within hailing distance of Floyd at a further three weights (I'm discounting light-middle at the moment), with the exception of Castillo in their first fight. In his prime, at his best weight, Leonard lost to Duran in a way that, although memorable, was also not particularly smart. Duran was a great lightweight and pretty good at 147, but Leonard still ought to have beaten him in Montreal, rather than get dragged into a machismo contest. I just can't imagine Floyd making that kind of mental error, however good the opposition.

The second point I would make is one of longevity. We are basically judging Ray on a remarkable 5-6 year stint at 147, plus one fight at middle. Floyd's been doing this at the highest level, and various weights, against opponents who haven't exactly been awful, for about twice as long, and he still looks as good as ever. Ray Leonard in his 30s was largely a pitiful sight, one which I prefer to forget, but if we're comparing him with Mayweather, it isn't fair to do so utterly.

Briefly on Joe Louis, in heavyweight terms, he's a colossus, but I'm afraid I don't generally think that much of that division over the years. Phenomenal record, but I can't bring myself to say that his achievements were superior to any of those I listed in the top 20. I regard Joe as a day's march behind Ali, albeit just as far ahead of the rest of the division, and that doesn't lead me to place him any higher than about 25 in a comparison with equally great fighters from other divisions.

Leonard did lose at his best weight and in his prime but he lost to one of the greatest fighters of all time in his greatest performance of all time. I'm not sold on the idea that Leonard could have boxed Duran any other way than he eventually managed that night. He was forced to hold his ground to compete with Duran at his fevered best -- Duran stuck so close to him that Leonard could only land with any accuracy after the referee split them.

On longevity: Leonard aged more quickly due to the fact he engaged in 15 round wars with other legendary fighters. You can't take part in those kind of battles and last as long as Floyd has (or indeed Bernard Hopkins). If Leonard had avoided Hearns at welterweight, Hagler at middleweight and then boxed everyone else in the safety-first manner he did Duran in their rematch, would he have been as feted a fighter as he is today?

I myself would place far more emphasis on the challenges a fighter overcame -- the feats they accomplished -- while establishing dominance at the weight they campaign at. Leonard conquered welterweight (besting Benitez, Duran and Hearns) and eventually middleweight (against Hagler).

Mayweather, while a supremely gifted fighter, chose a different route. The Pacquiao debacle (regardless of whose fault it was) hurts both men and he missed other challenges along the way (welterweight was a brilliant hunting ground for him around 2007). Leonard himself is not exempt from criticism in terms of the calculating manner he picked his fights (Duran rematch, Hagler, Hearns rematch) but Floyd is far ahead of him in that regard. Since the Corrales fight I don't remember him being in a contest he wasn't heavily favoured to win.

I wouldn't have him anywhere near a top ten.

by captain carrantuohil Tue 21 May - 11:54

Respect your opinion, haz, and the way in which you articulate it. I suspect, we shall slightly continue to disagree on this one, but what you say is still food for thought.

by hazharrison Tue 21 May - 11:59

I do, however, think there's a case to be made for Floyd being the most successful fighter of all time (if you go by the axiom that prize fighting is about hitting and not getting hit while making as much money as you can).

by Sponsored content

A top 20 to argue about nicely

A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely

Re: A top 20 to argue about nicely