Is Mayweather a all time great?

[walrus]

I find myself doing that with Floyd. Defending him although I don't like him. He perform some trickery which I don't care for but no doubt he is a marvelous specimen and an all time great. I would still love to see him lose #49 then we can all just say he was a flash in the pan.

[El Kabong]

No doubt Floyd is an all-time great, granted he doesn't have the rivalries guys like Leonard-Hearns-Duran had, but shit what do you want from the guy?


The ONLY knock against Floyd was that he never unified at any weight class, but that's it, that's a small knock against the guy. His career has been brilliant and everything right now is just icing on the cake.


Now, he's not Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, or Willie Pep but by God he's a fucking amazing fighter.

[Beanflicker]

Now, he's not Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, or Willie Pep but by God he's a fucking amazing fighter.

The only one of those guys who you could even compare to Floyd in terms of in-ring skill would be SRR.

[El Kabong]

Now, he's not Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, or Willie Pep but by God he's a fucking amazing fighter.

The only one of those guys who you could even compare to Floyd in terms of in-ring skill would be SRR.

Do people just look at anything I say about Floyd and attempt to find fault with it or just assume I'm slighting Floyd somehow?? How much praise must I heap on the guy to just have people accept that I think he's a great fighter?


Skill and ability sure....career achievements on the other hand. And let us not discount Willie Pep's skill or abilities...the guy survived a plane crash and came back to fight at an outrageously high level.

[Beanflicker]

Nothing against you in particular, I just think people are being a little ridiculous in including certain guys over Floyd.

People insinuate that Floyd isn't on the level of certain guys (Roberto Duran and Willie Pep in particular), and I question whether those guys should even be considered to be near Floyd's level.

In Roberto Duran, you have a guy who was a great lightweight (although who did he really beat at LW), went up to WW, got a fantastic win over Leonard and then QUIT in a championship match, got outfoxed by Wilfredo Benitez and Kirkland Laing, did good against Hagler but still lost, and got KTFO by Hearns.

Why does this guy pop up in everyone's top 10, and then people laugh when you say that a guy who went undefeated for 18 years (16 of those at the championship level) who beat every style, every body type you can think of (mostly in easy/dominant fashion), should be included in the top 10 as well.

[El Kabong]

Willie Pep had 229 wins, only 65 KO's, he fought 18 times in 1 year (think about that and the KO% he had), he was seriously injured in a plane crash January 7, 1947 and STILL fought 10 bouts that year winning all of them, he retired in 1960 then came back in 1964 and for the last part of his career he went 43-5 ......yeah, I'm sorry I included him in my all-time greats, I mean obviously the guy wasn't half the fighter Floyd Mayweather is....I mean how foolish of me to even make mention of such a boxing peon in the same thread as the great Floyd Mayweather Jr.


229(65 KO)-11-1....horrible, atrocious record.....how'd he EVER win a belt?

[El Kabong]

As for Roberto Duran....you doubt his talent, skill, drive, heart? Fuck 104(69 KO)-16-0 fought from age 16 until he was 50 years old, Universally regarded as the Greatest Lightweight of All-Time, won world titles at: lightweight, welterweight, light middleweight, and middleweight....and he's "not great" or "not worth mentioning with Mayweather"


Ok, I mean I'm sorry I'm just looking at other "great" fighters and what they did I guess truly none compare. I mean Carmen Basilio, Jake LaMatta, etc beat Ray Robinson....why is Ray in the mix

[Beanflicker]

229(65 KO)-11-1....horrible, atrocious record.....how'd he EVER win a belt?

Again, it comes back to that double standard where we'll take a current great fighter, in this case Floyd, and go over his record with a fine-toothed comb - this guy sucks, that guy sucks, that guy was overrated, that guy was washed up, ect ect ect. 46-0? 18 years undefeated? Who cares? He only fought hand picked patsies (not my opinion, just echoing the opinion a lot of people here feel about Floyd).

But then when we're talking about (insert old timer here), "ohhh well look how great he is, he has over 200 wins". Ok, but how many of those wins were against quality guys? An insanely small fraction. Floyd Mayweather, Andre Ward, Rigondeaux, Klitschko, ect... these guys could easily go to a similar (or better) record fighting that kind of opposition.

So which is it? Do we judge on quantity or quality?

Also, about Duran... great fighter, one of my personal favorites. I don't watch the second Leonard fight or the Hearns fight because it breaks my heart to see him in those positions. But let's get real: we're talking about a guy who was the lowest rung of the "Fab 4", a guy who never even came close to being dominant once he left LW, a guy who has proven flaws/shortcomings technically that were exploited by slick fighters, and a guy who did not have the proper discipline of a champion and came into several fights out of shape. A guy who quit in the middle of a championship fight because of a "tummy ache", a guy who was outclassed on numerous occaisions by slick boxers and knocked unconscious by one of his peers in short order.

Contrast that with a guy who was COMPLETELY dominant in his time, adapted and beat every style/body type/ect that was thrown at him, and was so dominant in his victories that he never had a legit rival. They don't match up.

You want to talk about SRR, Leonard, ect, that's fine. But Duran did not have nearly the same skill or dominance as Floyd, and that's a fact.