Quote Originally Posted by Rantcatrat View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
Here's the deal with Floyd: he's most likely the greatest in-ring talent of all time. When you take into account all the factors: boxing skill, physical gifts, boxing IQ, discipline, ring generalship, ect, there's no name you can give me that had more of an abundance of these things than Floyd Mayweather. That's a fact.

People won't acknowledge this, because as people we really don't appreciate shit until it's gone. People have rose colored glasses when viewing past era's and legendary fighters: according to these people, nobody pre-1990 ducked anyone, nobody fought bums, everyone was a man's man who fought who they thought was their toughest test, regardless of what the public thought. And the REAL old timers fought every couple of week because they were all super-tough manly men who wanted to learn their craft. It had nothing to do with the fact that the pay was SHIT compared to today, and corrupt mobster managers took most of their money. No, they were all tough guys who ate cement and shit bricks.

When Muhammad Ali was in his prime, when he was head and shoulders above everyone and visibly the most gifted heavyweight fighter ever seen in a ring, all people could talk about was how he was a sissy, how past champs like Marciano, Joe Louis, Dempsey, ect would have wiped the floor with him. Now he's considered the #1 of all time.

Floyd will go down as, if not #1, a solid #2 behind SRR. I gaurentee it. We can't see it now because everyone hates him and tries to discredit him, but you can't fuck with his resume and accomplishments. I've personally never seen a better boxer, and I've seen them all.
Compare their legacies. There are many people who argue with how highly ranked Harry Greb or Joe Gans are on most all-time lists because there aren't much film of them. In this discussion, how do we know how good Floyd's "boxing skills, physical gifts, boxing IQ, discipline, ring generalship, etc." are if he hasn't faced guys that we consider to be great? Like with Greb and Gans, we can only speculate. How can we say Floyd was a better lightweight than Ike Williams when his best performance at lightweight was his rematch with Castillo? It's impossible.

The difference with Floyd is that we could have found out. We can blame it on Bob Arum's strategy with developing boxers for his pre-2007 fights. We can blame it on risk/reward for his post-2007 fights. At the end of the day though, Floyd's competition is what it is.

There is no doubt Floyd is an all-time great, nor that he should be on everyone's list of 100 best fighters. However, when you start comparing the truly great fighters, guys in the top five all-time of each division, I'm pretty sure, and this is where I would like input from the Saddo community, but I'm pretty sure that Floyd's best wins don't match their best wins.

For example, Wladimir Klitschko is effective as a heavyweight. He's big; he's athletic; he has a high boxing IQ; he has good ring generalship. However, who has Wladimir really beat? Does he have any wins that match the wins of great heavyweights? That's why when we rank Wladimir Klitschko, no matter how you think he would have fared against the top 5-10 heavyweights, they rank above him because they have better wins. Is Wladimir's best win David Haye?

Let me ask this: if Floyd beat Sergio Martinez in his next fight, how would you rank that win compared to Floyd's previous wins? In the alternative, if Floyd beat Kosta Tszyu in 2004 or whenever they didn't fight, how would that win rank on Floyd's current ledger? If Floyd had fought and beat Margarito and Cotto in 2007, instead of retiring, how would those wins compare?
If Floyd was to beat Martinez next or if he had beaten Cotto or Margarito in 07 I would still rank his win over Corrales as his best ever