Thread: is it possible for Mayweather to retire the greatest ever?

ok then, lets just say he goes on to beat Mosely, Pac, Berto, Kahn ( if he keeps progressing) Williams, would that make him the greatest ever?

If not what would he have to do??

What he SHOULD have done was fight Mosley, Cotto and Margo when the division was on fire. Khan and Berto ain't great wins, Shane would be good and so would Williams. He will fight Shane I think, he is pushing 40 now.

Mosley wouldn't fight him, Cotto hadn't proven himself as a WW, and Margarito before Cotto would have given Mayweather the same amount of respect as beating Baldomir did, and now that he has cheated it would have been even less. I think now that Pacquiao has risen to such heights, Mosley who has risen to his heights, and Cotto who is now forgiven for his one loss(because Antonio cheated no doubt) is still deadly and could have MOsley and Pacquiao under his belt imo there is more for Floyd to build his legacy on. If Berto continues to improve, and if Clottey beats name fighters that could only increase Floyd's legacy, but I doubt he would fight Clottey who just isn't a big enough draw.

The thing about he "should" have fought this guy or the other guy is that nobody will ever be satisfied with nobody. Even if Mayweather faced all the guys who are now on top and beat them, there will always be the typical "Oh, but wait, if he fought legendary X, he would have lost". Mayweather keeps showing how great he is so far, how many clear flaws can we name? Sure, some will argue he fought a small guy recently but he has also fought big guys. But still, big or small guys, he still shows how his defense is close to perfect. The last time I saw someone with a defense comparable to his is Pernell Whitaker but Floyd now only has the defense, he can punch.

Love him or hate him, he's a talented boxer in all areas.

Originally Posted by Chino

The thing about he "should" have fought this guy or the other guy is that nobody will ever be satisfied with nobody. Even if Mayweather faced all the guys who are now on top and beat them, there will always be the typical "Oh, but wait, if he fought legendary X, he would have lost". Mayweather keeps showing how great he is so far, how many clear flaws can we name? Sure, some will argue he fought a small guy recently but he has also fought big guys. But still, big or small guys, he still shows how his defense is close to perfect. The last time I saw someone with a defense comparable to his is Pernell Whitaker but Floyd now only has the defense, he can punch.

Love him or hate him, he's a talented boxer in all areas.

I would never slag him off if he fought the to Welters, he fought some great guys south of 140 and I have nothing but respect for that. He just ain't fought prime hungry guys for a long time. I want him to get beat for one reason........that's all he goes on about "I'm undefeated, he has losses why should I fight him blah blah" I just want to see what he would replace the "undefeated" thing with.

The greatest fighter ever is such a subjective issue. However, if he beat those fighters you mentioned he would absolutely deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the fighters we perceive as the best ever.

Yeah, its such a subjective topic.

Personally I dont like appointing a G.O.A.T. I class fighters in different catagories, with All Time Great being the top class.

Putting everything aside, who ducked who, ect ect, and looking at Floyd purely on ability alone, his name deserves to be mentioned with any fighter who ever lived. How many times do you see virtuoso talented, combined with outstanding physical gifts, an incredible mind for fighting and discipline like you see with Floyd?


You gotta enjoy guys like Floyd, Pacquaio, Hopkins, Roy Jones, ect ect, real modern day greats, because with the decline in boxing's popularity you're going to see fewer and fewer of them.

If he beate the winner of Cotto-Pac, then Mosley, then Williams---yes.

As a big fan I'd have to say no. Greatest ever requires a lot. All Time Great? I think he is already but he could definately improve his resume

For anyone that says "it wouldn't matter who he fought, there would still be people who doubt him", well that's party true, but i'm mostly entirely sick of that arguement...

ANYONE will earn respect and credibility by taking the toughest fights for them and trying to grow and challenge themselves....

There are fighters out there who take the attitude in their career that if I can do it, I will.. And if I can't, I will damn well try.... By that I mean conquering one thing, then going on to the next... I give Floyd all the credibility he deserves and I think he is brilliant.. Best defensive fight I have really seen...

But he's met his challenges at 147, and it's STILL argued that he avoided the best guys at that weight... If you don't agree with that, then you obviously believe he has done what he needs to do at 147 to prove himself... If that is the case, try taking on someone at 154, etc....


The thing is, greater challenges, greater challenges... THAT is what makes a fucking greatest of all time!!! If ANYONE can fucking say that Marquez was the greatest challenge Floyd could realistically take, then you are pulling your own dick... I don't expect him to step up to middleweight in one go or anything... But there have been fighters of the past that you COULD NOT refuse that they took fights that where a GIANT risk to their career... Challenging fights...


Floyd loves to be called "Money" mayweather and that is how he chooses his fights and hence that's how he'll be remembered..... I never take anything away from him that he hasn't earnt, and he has dealt with every challenge in front of him with flying colors... But he's hit the level of safety in fights that he's comfortable with to make the money he wants, and that's where he's staying...

The greatest of all time will be picking someone at 154 and calling them a bum to try to secure a fight that will put a giant star on their legacy...

I realistically think Floyd could do that.. And if he could, and with success,,,,,, but never does because he doesn't want that risk, or the money isn't good enough... The old "BIG RISK, LOW REWARD" shouldn't even be in the vocabulary of someone wanting to be considered greatest of all time.... The reward of the greatest of all time is they fought against the greatest that was within ANY reach of them.....


Of COURSE doesn't matter who a boxer is, there will always be critics and haters,,, and Floyd is no different.... But i'm sick of that sentence being thrown out in response to the fact there are fights that would really make him great, that he does not take because the are higher risk lower reward... in fact, they may not even be a risk, he may win easily, but if the MONEY aint there, he aint taking it....

I love him for what he's done and how he's won his fights, but sorry with his talent, he is coasting for cash and has been for his the last 5+ fights, IFFFFF he wants go down in history as one of the best ever...


THAT is my opinion of how the general view of him goes... Some fans will say he already is greatest of all time, some will say he's acheived nothing.... But overall he's gotta hang his fucking balls out there on the line for more than just money if he wants to go down in greatness in the eyes of everyone...

Originally Posted by Kel

Originally Posted by Chino

The thing about he "should" have fought this guy or the other guy is that nobody will ever be satisfied with nobody. Even if Mayweather faced all the guys who are now on top and beat them, there will always be the typical "Oh, but wait, if he fought legendary X, he would have lost". Mayweather keeps showing how great he is so far, how many clear flaws can we name? Sure, some will argue he fought a small guy recently but he has also fought big guys. But still, big or small guys, he still shows how his defense is close to perfect. The last time I saw someone with a defense comparable to his is Pernell Whitaker but Floyd now only has the defense, he can punch.

Love him or hate him, he's a talented boxer in all areas.

I would never slag him off if he fought the to Welters, he fought some great guys south of 140 and I have nothing but respect for that. He just ain't fought prime hungry guys for a long time. I want him to get beat for one reason........that's all he goes on about "I'm undefeated, he has losses why should I fight him blah blah" I just want to see what he would replace the "undefeated" thing with.

Hold on, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be) but you're a Joe Calzaghe fan right?

That tool STILL goes on about how he is undefeated on Strictly Come F'in Dancin and he fought NOBODY (Kessler is the exception - Hopkins beat him)

If there is anybody who cares about their undefeated streak and won't stop going on about it, it's JC. Yet, Mayweather suddenly becomes public enemy number 1 for being undefeated.

Also, I don't remember him ever saying "he has losses, why should I fight him" because he probably would have had a couple fights his whole career if that was the case.

He usually just says "there is no blueprint to beat me because I ain't been beaten"

In answer to the topic question - I highly doubt anybody would allow Mayweather to retire the greatest. People look back too fondly on the old guys like they were on a different planet to Floyd..

Shame really because I think he's just as good as SRL, Hearns, Duran in his own way. SRL was known for his slick combination, Hearns for his flicker jab and those ball n chain fists. Duran for his sheer animal instincts. Floyd should be known as a defensive master.

Styles make fights - I think he's pretty evenly matched against the ATG's

Oh and I'd pay good money to see him beat the hell out of Khan with Roach in his corner

Maybe he can do that when he's 40 odd and it'd be even funnier

Well, the all time best is purely just a personal opinion whether a person is keeping it real or not. For me, I think PBF is arguably the best talent I have ever seen. But if he beat the winner of Pac/Cotto and then a Mosley then I would say he has a great argument for being the best of all time. If he defeated those two fighters then he would have been the clear best at 147, the weight class he needs to put his domination to. If Williams can make 147 without draining then beating him would be an exclamation point,and a better win than anyone, that even the most denying hater can not argue.

Originally Posted by Althugz

Originally Posted by Kel

Originally Posted by Chino

The thing about he "should" have fought this guy or the other guy is that nobody will ever be satisfied with nobody. Even if Mayweather faced all the guys who are now on top and beat them, there will always be the typical "Oh, but wait, if he fought legendary X, he would have lost". Mayweather keeps showing how great he is so far, how many clear flaws can we name? Sure, some will argue he fought a small guy recently but he has also fought big guys. But still, big or small guys, he still shows how his defense is close to perfect. The last time I saw someone with a defense comparable to his is Pernell Whitaker but Floyd now only has the defense, he can punch.

Love him or hate him, he's a talented boxer in all areas.

I would never slag him off if he fought the to Welters, he fought some great guys south of 140 and I have nothing but respect for that. He just ain't fought prime hungry guys for a long time. I want him to get beat for one reason........that's all he goes on about "I'm undefeated, he has losses why should I fight him blah blah" I just want to see what he would replace the "undefeated" thing with.

Hold on, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be) but you're a Joe Calzaghe fan right?

That tool STILL goes on about how he is undefeated on Strictly Come F'in Dancin and he fought NOBODY (Kessler is the exception - Hopkins beat him)

If there is anybody who cares about their undefeated streak and won't stop going on about it, it's JC. Yet, Mayweather suddenly becomes public enemy number 1 for being undefeated.

Also, I don't remember him ever saying "he has losses, why should I fight him" because he probably would have had a couple fights his whole career if that was the case.

He usually just says "there is no blueprint to beat me because I ain't been beaten"

In answer to the topic question - I highly doubt anybody would allow Mayweather to retire the greatest. People look back too fondly on the old guys like they were on a different planet to Floyd..

Shame really because I think he's just as good as SRL, Hearns, Duran in his own way. SRL was known for his slick combination, Hearns for his flicker jab and those ball n chain fists. Duran for his sheer animal instincts. Floyd should be known as a defensive master.

Styles make fights - I think he's pretty evenly matched against the ATG's

In terms of skillset he has his own thing going on that defines him as a great in his era, but based on resume it's nothing compared to Leonard, Hearns, Duran.

Hell let's just take Leonard's resume and matched him with Floyd since he was considered the best p4p of his era and Floyd is considered to be the best p4p of his era. Leonard beat guys like Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler in their absolute prime or close to it. Now name me a fighter on Floyd's resume that has the credentials of Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Hagler that was at their absolute prime or close to it that Floyd beat? There isn't any fighter on Floyd's resume that comes close to those 4 I mentioned that Leonard beat. Some of Floyd's fans may say De La Hoya, but Oscar was 34 and would be a shot fighter a year later.

And get this, Leonard had only 1 fight in 5 years, came back and jumped up 2 weight classes and went the distance with Hagler (whether he beat Hagler or not is another debate). Floyd comes back after almost 2 years and makes the LW champ jumps two weight classes and beats him.

In terms of skill set Floyd may even beat a guy like Leonard in some sort of fantasy matchup, but in terms of resume he doesn't even come close to matching Leonard's or Duran or Hearns. To be the greatest of all time, you better have an outstanding resume. That's the number 1 criteria.

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Althugz

Originally Posted by Kel

I would never slag him off if he fought the to Welters, he fought some great guys south of 140 and I have nothing but respect for that. He just ain't fought prime hungry guys for a long time. I want him to get beat for one reason........that's all he goes on about "I'm undefeated, he has losses why should I fight him blah blah" I just want to see what he would replace the "undefeated" thing with.

Hold on, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be) but you're a Joe Calzaghe fan right?

That tool STILL goes on about how he is undefeated on Strictly Come F'in Dancin and he fought NOBODY (Kessler is the exception - Hopkins beat him)

If there is anybody who cares about their undefeated streak and won't stop going on about it, it's JC. Yet, Mayweather suddenly becomes public enemy number 1 for being undefeated.

Also, I don't remember him ever saying "he has losses, why should I fight him" because he probably would have had a couple fights his whole career if that was the case.

He usually just says "there is no blueprint to beat me because I ain't been beaten"

In answer to the topic question - I highly doubt anybody would allow Mayweather to retire the greatest. People look back too fondly on the old guys like they were on a different planet to Floyd..

Shame really because I think he's just as good as SRL, Hearns, Duran in his own way. SRL was known for his slick combination, Hearns for his flicker jab and those ball n chain fists. Duran for his sheer animal instincts. Floyd should be known as a defensive master.

Styles make fights - I think he's pretty evenly matched against the ATG's

In terms of skillset he has his own thing going on that defines him as a great in his era, but based on resume it's nothing compared to Leonard, Hearns, Duran.

Hell let's just take Leonard's resume and matched him with Floyd since he was considered the best p4p of his era and Floyd is considered to be the best p4p of his era. Leonard beat guys like Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler in their absolute prime or close to it. Now name me a fighter on Floyd's resume that has the credentials of Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Hagler that was at their absolute prime or close to it that Floyd beat? There isn't any fighter on Floyd's resume that comes close to those 4 I mentioned that Leonard beat. Some of Floyd's fans may say De La Hoya, but Oscar was 34 and would be a shot fighter a year later.

And get this, Leonard had only 1 fight in 5 years, came back and jumped up 2 weight classes and went the distance with Hagler (whether he beat Hagler or not is another debate). Floyd comes back after almost 2 years and makes the LW champ jumps two weight classes and beats him.

In terms of skill set Floyd may even beat a guy like Leonard in some sort of fantasy matchup, but in terms of resume he doesn't even come close to matching Leonard's or Duran or Hearns. To be the greatest of all time, you better have an outstanding resume. That's the number 1 criteria.

That, we can both agree on.

I'm just talking talent for talent. Regardless of resume etc