I can't remember seeing a better fighter than prime Floyd Mayweather Jr

[Beanflicker]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

[Rantcatrat]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

[Addicted to_boxing]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

[Rantcatrat]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

Not me at all if that is what you are implying. I'm one of the few that thinks very highly of both Floyd and Pac. They are two of the best boxers of the last twenty years easy.

To prove it, just take out Floyd's name in all of my posts, and replace it with Pac's. I would make the same point about experience/competition and him.

[Addicted to_boxing]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

Not me at all if that is what you are implying. I'm one of the few that thinks very highly of both Floyd and Pac. They are two of the best boxers of the last twenty years easy.

To prove it, just take out Floyd's name in all of my posts, and replace it with Pac's. I would make the same point about experience/competition and him.

Why will no Pac fan debate the detailed cherry picked resume facts layed out in fine print above, funny how you avoid the facts? Mayweather has not nearly cherry picked as Pac as he has beaten the same boxers before Pac .

[TysonBomb]

Floyd is untested over 135

He became totally content after the Oscar fight and is just living off his name ... cashing out for low risk, high reward, lucrative fights.

Nothing wrong with that though but I've personally witnessed better boxers than Floyd.

I was young for the tail end of Tyson's career but I still remember it. His physical gifts and attributes trump Floyd's ... his skill wasn't quite the same in the 90s as it was in the late 80s but he still showed flashes of excellent footwork, head movement, punching technique and combination punching. Of course I didn't really notice these things as a kid ... was more impressed with his explosiveness

Roy Jones Jr. is another guy I rank above Floyd ... as a boxer I personally watched. Floyd's defense is supposed to be what makes him special, right? Well RJJ is the ONLY guy to have never been hit for a single round in the CompuBox era. Vinnie Paz didn't land a single shot in Roy in the 6th round of their bout. So much for Floyd bragging about his CompuBox stats. Roy arguably didn't lose a single round in his prime. He was the most dominant champion I've ever seen, along with Tyson.

Two guys that I've personally seen who were leagues above Floyd IMO. He's nothing special compared to Tyson or Roy. Elbowing people in the throat isn't great defense IMO.

[Bobthepen]

Floyd is untested over 135

He became totally content after the Oscar fight and is just living off his name ... cashing out for low risk, high reward, lucrative fights.

Nothing wrong with that though but I've personally witnessed better boxers than Floyd.

I was young for the tail end of Tyson's career but I still remember it. His physical gifts and attributes trump Floyd's ... his skill wasn't quite the same in the 90s as it was in the late 80s but he still showed flashes of excellent footwork, head movement, punching technique and combination punching. Of course I didn't really notice these things as a kid ... was more impressed with his explosiveness

Roy Jones Jr. is another guy I rank above Floyd ... as a boxer I personally watched. Floyd's defense is supposed to be what makes him special, right? Well RJJ is the ONLY guy to have never been hit for a single round in the CompuBox era. Vinnie Paz didn't land a single shot in Roy in the 6th round of their bout. So much for Floyd bragging about his CompuBox stats. Roy arguably didn't lose a single round in his prime. He was the most dominant champion I've ever seen, along with Tyson.

Two guys that I've personally seen who were leagues above Floyd IMO. He's nothing special compared to Tyson or Roy. Elbowing people in the throat isn't great defense IMO.

I don't know how the hell you can criticise Floyd's resume and then hail Tyson and Roy. Roy fought nobody of note above 168lbs, and Tyson lost to the first elite level fighter he faced. Vitali as had rounds where his opponent hasn't landed a single punch.

[Beanflicker]

Roy Jones Jr. is another guy I rank above Floyd ... as a boxer I personally watched. Floyd's defense is supposed to be what makes him special, right? Well RJJ is the ONLY guy to have never been hit for a single round in the CompuBox era. Vinnie Paz didn't land a single shot in Roy in the 6th round of their bout. So much for Floyd bragging about his CompuBox stats. Roy arguably didn't lose a single round in his prime. He was the most dominant champion I've ever seen, along with Tyson.

Listen I'm not going to say a bad word about RJJ because I think he was one of the greatest talents boxing has ever seen.

But if you want to be fair and shit on Floyd's opponents... you're talking about Roy pitching a shut out at 168 against a blown up 140lber who was coming back from a car accident where he BROKE HIS NECK.