is it possible for Mayweather to retire the greatest ever?

[Althugz]

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

[Althugz]

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

[blegit]

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.

[generalbulldog]

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.

[Althugz]

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

[El Kabong]

He COULD retire as the greatest of all time, but he could also fly a rocketship to the moon.

IMO Floyd has to fight and beat: Pacquiao, Cotto, Mosley, and Paul Williams to be the greatest...and maybe even Kelly Pavlik

[jahmez]

It will be very hard indeed for any contemporary or future boxers to eclipse the greatness of the old masters partly thanks to the rise and rise of mass media phenomenons such as youtube. The rarity of vintage film can mystify the deeds of past champions. This may happen even more so when records are illustrated by supporter's eye witness accounts. Now one can easily analyse and criticise every punch a fighter has thrown while sitting on their ass and pressing a few buttons.

[Spicoli]

I'd go with no.One of the most naturally gifted...yeah.But not putting in all out against the primed best of his era.I get the impression that he's playing a bit of catchup right now.

[Rantcatrat]

I'd go with no.One of the most naturally gifted...yeah.But not putting in all out against the primed best of his era.I get the impression that he's playing a bit of catchup right now.

And there is nothing wrong with that, right? I mean its never too late.

[Spicoli]

I'd go with no.One of the most naturally gifted...yeah.But not putting in all out against the primed best of his era.I get the impression that he's playing a bit of catchup right now.

And there is nothing wrong with that, right? I mean its never too late.

Not at all, indeed.But I think he cost himself much in the way of legacy when he opted out for two years off huge peaking win vs Hatton and not facing the cream of the crop.I just don't see him jumping right in and cleaning house.Good point about the Manny fight but I think the negotiations alone could take alot of time,and he's not getting any younger.