Now the dust has settled

Now its becoming clear that Floyd Mayweather isn't coming back out of retirement, where does everyone place him as an ATG?
What should we make of his career?

Top 5 ability wise and top 15-20 record wise.

I think he Is deserving of top 10, though if someone placed him around 20 odd I'd tink that's ok.

Don't know enough about the past fighters

But if we go on from when I started watching boxing (My era)

Then he is #2 I have Pacquiao as #1 but wouldn't argue which way around you have them
Skill wise one of the best I have seen

You couldn't help yourself lol.

Well if I just said I have mayweather as the second best fighter I have ever seen what do you think would have happened....

GGG is the beat!!

Uh oh here we go

Naw, Floyd is possibly the best in the past 20-25 years.

The longer he stays retired, the better he will be thought of.

Even though overall I rate Floyd higher, I still think Pac would of beat him in 2010.

Would have been very interesting directly post Hatton when the fight should have happened Manny would have carried a lot of momentum into the fight

Would of won on work rate. Though I think Floyd would of had his measure for the rematch.

Or Floyd might if have won with a bit to spare like last year. Them slow mo videos are biased and pathetic.

99% of experts scored it for Floyd.

He has had an incredible career and will possibly be ranked higher than any other modern fighter going forward. Hard to place him above the greats of the past though due to a lack of prime big names on his record (compared to the older guys, not the modern ones).

For me he is probably ranked somewhere between 10-15 ATG - meant as a compliment and not an insult.

10-15 is a compliment. Top 20 is too. Plenty of great fighters in boxing history.

I definitely have him as the best of this era, albeit marginally. A shame really because like already mentioned, he should have fought Manny around the time he was making a mess of cotto and margarito and I feel he would have won, and left no doubt that he was the undisputed best of his era.

I'd say he's probably high between 10-15

He's a remarkable talent there is no doubt but I think personally his record is underwhelming given how good he is

He stayed up eaten but it's easier to do so against poor opposition

Think his best win is between Corrales, Castillo 2, Manny or ODLH. Not top 10 worthy

The manny win was a spectacle but imo it made me fancy Manny more (I've always thought Floyd would win) as Manny showed glimpses of what he could do to Floyd but was 6 years off his prime with a style that ages quicker

His talent is amazing but not top 10 for me

Very good post. I have a feeling Manny would of beat him originally.

I don't usually do lists as I end up disappearing up my own back side trying to compare fighters from wildy different eras, many of whom I have only seen on grainy old film, however i have given this some thought. I have made a few considerations to try and level out the generational differences, such as; If he had fought in the 30s -60s he would have had more fights, more often, and more likely against his closest rivals. I don't lay all the blame for him not fighting the biggest names at the right times, but at the same time it does effect his standing. He may have had a few trilogies in the mix, and thus the chance to truly show how good he was, alas , he didn't. I have also considered what factors make a great fighter,and to what extent he matches them. In terms of ability, he's right up there, statistically he has a great record and reasonable opposition, and good longevity. On the minus- no great fights or rivalries, Ali needed his Frazier, Leonard his Hearns and Duran. Floyd missed his chances of such rivalries, whether it was by bad luck or design. He never dominated a division or really cleaned one out, picking up belts and moving on doesn't compensate for that IMHO. Have considered that most historians an real fans don't really considered being undefeated as being a key factor- hell, Robbo had a lot of losses, it's more how you fought that counts -e.g. most see his performance against Maxim as plus not a minus.
So given all this my guess is he'll be in the top 30, may even scrap a  top twenty in some peoples eyes. Of the modern era, he's just behind Whittaker, whose domination at Lightweight, and proper reign at welter see him get the nod,  and RJJ, whose shear brilliance also give him an edge.
Lastly I think although Floyd was probably the better fighter, Manny pips him in the ratings, as a result of his rivalries with Morales, MAB and JMM, which gave him the platform to display greatness, whereas with Floyd, we can only guess what may have been if he had participated in such series against the likes of Cotto, Williams etc at the right time.

You explain yourself well mate. I don't personally agree with your opinion, but you definitely express it well. Fair dues!

Thanks Adam, with these sort of things is hard to argue with people- it's just opinions at the end of the day. As I said I find it very difficult to make meaningful comparisons between some eras. How can you start to compare a Bob Fitz Simmons with an RJJ? I have absolutely no idea how many boxers there were back then compared to now, or how in how many countries. I know Bob was recognized as as three weight champion, but I have no real idea of the depth of quality in the sport back then. I know that when you watch films that seem to be shot at one frame per second it's bloody hard to judge!
I think there also a tendency to look favourably on the boxers whose prime coincides with your own-I'm in my mid 40's- so the likes of Tyson, the team of '84 etc all get pretty favourable treatment from me!