Why do people think Mayweather is the best boxer ever?

Something that puzzles me about boxing is how fighters like Mayweather call themselves the best ever as do a lot of boxing fans. Surely only a heavyweight can truly lay claim to being the best ever. Mayweather is is a midget compared to any heavyweight and frankly would get his head punched off by one. I find it weird seeing this tiny guy go around surrounded by huge bouncers declaring himself the best of all time. Anyone who does not fight in the heavyweight division is is protected by a handicap which basically proctects them from having to fight guys that would spark them out. The best in the world or the best ever is the guy that can beat everyone else. Not some guy who is protected by weight handicaps. The reason weight handicaps are there in their first place is to allow these guys to compete. The only reason Mayweather is even able to compete in boxing at all is because at some point in history they decided to start intoruducing protective weight handicaps to allow boxers who otherwise would not be the best to fight in protective weight classes safe from bigger men who would smash them to bits.

This has to be a WUM.

Mayweather isn't the best ever, but he's a damn good boxer. The reason there are weight classes is to stop people from potentially dying. He's in the top 5 of all time in his weight class. It's also more entertaining seeing the competition be based on skill and not size.

Wlad vs Mayweather? Yeah not interested....well actually, maybe I would be to see someone knock him the Frak out like the woman beating little bible basher deserves, but no - other than that it just wouldn't be good to watch someone potentially die in the ring. The world is a bad enough place without promoting more death.

therealquaid wrote:Something that puzzles me about boxing is how fighters like Mayweather call themselves the best ever as do a lot of boxing fans. Surely only a heavyweight can truly lay claim to being the best ever. Mayweather is is a midget compared to any heavyweight and frankly would get his head punched off by one. I find it weird seeing this tiny guy go around surrounded by huge bouncers declaring himself the best of all time. Anyone who does not fight in the heavyweight division is is protected by a handicap which basically proctects them from having to fight guys that would spark them out. The best in the world or the best ever is the guy that can beat everyone else. Not some guy who is protected by weight handicaps. The reason weight handicaps are there in their first place is to allow these guys to compete. The only reason Mayweather is even able to compete in boxing at all is because at some point in history they decided to start intoruducing protective weight handicaps to allow boxers who otherwise would not be the best to fight in protective weight classes safe from bigger men who would smash them to bits.

Are you arguing you need to be heavyweight champion of the world to be TBE? Mayweather is 1-0 vs. a 7 foot, 450lber if that helps solve your puzzle.

He has a point really.

Only a few true Flomos do.

But yes, either a WUM OP or just a retarded one......

i do see what he's getting at, i consider ali as the greatest boxer even if he's not p4p greatest. because lets face it p4p is all made up nonsense anyway that nobody can quantify. ali being the best heavyweight means he's best boxer as he would beat everybody in simple terms. you dont see sprinters saying they dont want to race bolt because he's got longer legs, or saying lomu was a cheat being bigger and quicker than everybody

of course the rules are brought in for safety, the other sports dont carry as much risk. but he still does have a point

I have Ali at number 1 also........Partly for the reason he beats everybody in history.......Also because he fought guys who were considered to be monsters and who were very intimidating.....Foreman and Liston being two examples.....

Chuck in the longevity too and the opposition..

When types like Norton and Patterson crap themselves it must take some belief to perform like he did..

This is boxing, not Danny Dyer's Hardest Men.

Have a Billy Conn article on the way.....

Your opinion will be most welcome..

therealquaid wrote:Something that puzzles me about boxing is how fighters like Mayweather call themselves the best ever as do a lot of boxing fans. Surely only a heavyweight can truly lay claim to being the best ever. Mayweather is is a midget compared to any heavyweight and frankly would get his head punched off by one. I find it weird seeing this tiny guy go around surrounded by huge bouncers declaring himself the best of all time. Anyone who does not fight in the heavyweight division is is protected by a handicap which basically proctects them from having to fight guys that would spark them out. The best in the world or the best ever is the guy that can beat everyone else. Not some guy who is protected by weight handicaps. The reason weight handicaps are there in their first place is to allow these guys to compete. The only reason Mayweather is even able to compete in boxing at all is because at some point in history they decided to start intoruducing protective weight handicaps to allow boxers who otherwise would not be the best to fight in protective weight classes safe from bigger men who would smash them to bits.

Without weight restrictions...........You'd never see anybody in a meaningful fight that wasn't 6ft 5 and 250.....

We'd miss out on a helluva talent.........

JabMachineMK2 wrote:This has to be a WUM.

Mayweather isn't the best ever, but he's a damn good boxer. The reason there are weight classes is to stop people from potentially dying. He's in the top 5 of all time in his weight class. It's also more entertaining seeing the competition be based on skill and not size.

Wlad vs Mayweather? Yeah not interested....well actually, maybe I would be to see someone knock him the Frak out like the woman beating little bible basher deserves, but no - other than that it just wouldn't be good to watch someone potentially die in the ring. The world is a bad enough place without promoting more death.

More chance of someone dying in the ring from a long and protracted beating or by dehydration than a one punch knockout..

I thought being an experienced fighter you'd know that..

If at similar weight levels. Would have thought a clear clock from Shavers could do serious serious damage if it landed on someone with the neck muscles of, say, a Galaxy.

... I shouldn't think anyone would pay to watch or allow a 118 pounder in with a 230 pounder unless they were sick in the head....No offence !!

169 Conn took plenty of swipes off 199 pound Joe who was a murderous combo puncher..

Always be risks and deaths...........But prolonged beatings and dehydration have done for more boxers than one shot kos..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:More chance of someone dying in the ring from a long and protracted beating or by dehydration than a one punch knockout..

I thought being an experienced fighter you'd know that..

Not true, Tyson hitting someone like Amir Khan hard enough would almost decapitate him, he'd then hit the floor hard and die from blunt force trauma. It'd be like hitting a child with an iron bar.

Greg Haugen 135 ..Used to fight in strong man competitions in Alaska against 230 pounders as did many others...

You could get decapitated but more than likely you get knocked out or stopped by one blow.....Which is generally safer than an accumulation over an extended period of time..

Air travel is safer than road travel..........But it ain't much joy statistics like those If you crash into a mountain..

TopHat24/7 wrote:This is boxing, not Danny Dyer's Hardest Men.

I wouldn't want to spill Mo Teague's pint.

I understand the point. But its something you learn to understand and appreciate if you are to ever become a boxing fan.

I get why there are weight classes and they make sense. But to be the best ever, you need to be a heavyweight as it is the true weight class for determining who the best boxer is without any handicaps.

Mayweather might more accurately call himself the best ever boxer who doesnt box men that weigh more than 11 stone. Because if he did, he would not be the best whatsoever. He is too small to be the best boxer ever.

What a load of crap, arguments like this have no place in any combat sport.

Oh but they do.

I say this apropos of nothing but setting up duplicate accounts on here is against the house rules.

If its against the rules kick him off

Haven't accused anyone Truss, just mentioning it.

I raised this a while back. Mainly because pound for pound is a rather airy fairy notion. The best boxer is the world heavyweight champion. That's the big boss.

Doesn't disregard the ability of the smaller guys, but its not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Yup. Within the sport the distinctions can be made - can't really expect people outside of it to disregard that the best fighter is a small guy if you make his opponent a small guy as well.

Am I missing something here? If we agreed 'TBE boxer' is based purely on who could beat who disregarding weight then are we not giving more focus to their muscle capacity and strengh than their boxing ability? We might as well watch World's Strongest Man. Surely we are talking about boxing as a skill when we say TBE? For me it's not about who could beat who disregarding any handicaps as then boxing as a skill is almost entirely removed from any conclusion we make. 'Who is TBE boxer?' can no longer be the question if you can be a crap boxer but beat a much smaller yet brilliant boxer. The question becomes 'Who's the worlds hardest/toughest man?' Of course we all know who this is as he also happens to be the worlds bests looking and most successful property tycoon that posts on these boards.

DuransHorse wrote:Am I missing something here? If we agreed 'TBE boxer' is based purely on who could beat who disregarding weight then are we not giving more focus to their muscle capacity and strengh than their boxing ability? We might as well watch World's Strongest Man. Surely we are talking about boxing as a skill when we say TBE? For me it's not about who could beat who disregarding any handicaps as then boxing as a skill is almost entirely removed from any conclusion we make. 'Who is TBE boxer?' can no longer be the question if you can be a crap boxer but beat a much smaller yet brilliant boxer. The question becomes 'Who's the worlds hardest/toughest man?' Of course we all know who this is as he also happens to be the worlds bests looking and most successful property tycoon that posts on these boards.

Umm, this is how the Heavyweight division is. Mariusz Pudzianowski didn't do too well. So no, it's not just about muscle capacity.

Scottrf wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:Am I missing something here? If we agreed 'TBE boxer' is based purely on who could beat who disregarding weight then are we not giving more focus to their muscle capacity and strength than their boxing ability? We might as well watch World's Strongest Man. Surely we are talking about boxing as a skill when we say TBE? For me it's not about who could beat who disregarding any handicaps as then boxing as a skill is almost entirely removed from any conclusion we make. 'Who is TBE boxer?' can no longer be the question if you can be a crap boxer but beat a much smaller yet brilliant boxer. The question becomes 'Who's the worlds hardest/toughest man?' Of course we all know who this is as he also happens to be the worlds bests looking and most successful property tycoon that posts on these boards.

Umm, this is how the Heavyweight division is. Mariusz Pudzianowski didn't do too well. So no, it's not just about muscle capacity.

My point was that given enough of an size advantage then "TBE" would come down to exactly this. Boxing ability would be irrelevant as Valuev would beat Rigondeaux for reasons completely unrelated to boxing. This is why we look at p4p when rating boxers for their overall standing.

Right, but p4p doesn't make them better. It makes them relatively better. Acknowledging that they couldn't win on a level playing field.

Scottrf wrote:Right, but p4p doesn't make them better. It makes them relatively better. Acknowledging that they couldn't win on a level playing field.

It doesn't matter in a boxing context if it's not boxing that makes person A better than person B. I agree Wlad beats Mayweather but Wlad is not better at boxing, he is just bigger and stronger which is not what I am assessing him for. I am no Floyd fan and the 'TBE' stuff is really annoying but he is TBAT ( The Best Around Today ).

therealquaid wrote:Oh but they do.

Muppet

Yeah I ahte the TBE nonsense. Who would wear that crap??

I think it's a fair point. Note that Floyds excuse for knocking Ali Disney the list was that he had only fought at 1 weight. Well ok, but that weight division has no restrictions.. and there for can be the toughest as you have a more varied style of opponent who can still hit harder than any other division.

Floyd is great but not the best as he has not fought enough great fighters in their peake. Unlike many did I the old days..

 

Floyd is great but not the best as he has not fought enough great fighters in their peake.  Unlike many did I  the old days..[/quote]

Fair point.

Ali Disney only ever won Mickey Mouse belts.