Floyd, JCC and Duran

First topic message reminder :

Why are two of those guys often ranked above Floyd? Their records aren't better than Floyd's by any stretch of the imagination. OK Duran has Leonard on his ledger, but lets not forget he was pancaked by Hearns, thoroughly outboxed by Laing and lost to Benitez. Floyd has beaten everyone in front of him without looking like losing. OK he got a dubious decision against that mexican and put the record straight the very next fight.

Why people rank Chavez ahead of Floyd is beyong.

Floyd beats them both so should be ranked higher.

Thoughts

manos de piedra wrote:How many all time greats have there been then? 10? Ridiculous to say he wont rank along with guys like Dempsey, Wilde, Marciano, Canzoneri or many of the other fighters considered all time greats.

Well, just hold onto your britches and prepare to shout "ridiculous" when it doesn't happen next time an experts list comes out. Just won't happen.

In terms of talent, he's one of the best ever but that's a different, more subjective argument.

There is a bias favouring oldies. Even though many wouldn't lay a glove on a semi decent euro level fighter.

azania wrote:That list is ridiculous. How on earth can Ali be tied with Louis? Louis should be in the lower reaches of the top 20. How Duran is above SRL is beyond me. Greb is all myth also.

Wasn't really posted to question the quality of the list, was more to demonstrate that the idea Floyd could break into that group is not exactly out of left field. All I would say though is that cumulatively the membership of the IBRO have a knowledge of the sport we could only dream of having.

Rowley wrote:1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali (Tie)
4. Joe Louis (Tie)
6. Sam Langford
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Willie Pep
10. Bob Fitzsimmons
11. Joe Gans
12. Ezzard Charles (Tie)
12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie)
14. Jimmy Wilde
15. Eder Jofre
16. Mickey Walker
17. Archie Moore
18. Jack Dempsey
19. Jack Johnson
20. Gene Tunney

The following list is the top 20 according to the IBRO, just to pick a name from the lower reaches has Floyd really been anymore selective in his choice of opponents than Johnson was during his title reign?

Two things,

1. Johnson drew the colour line.
2. Heavyweight champs at that time barely fought never mind risked getting beat. You know that better than anyone.

Johnson record before he won the title is very good.

Here's the last of these expert lists from Boxing News (which admittedly, is one of the poorer efforts I've seen on this subject):

20. Jack Dempsey
19. Gene Tunney
18. Sandy Saddler
17. Tomy Canzoneri
16. Stanley Ketchel
15. Sam Langford
14. Marvin Hagler
13. Carlos Monzon
12. Jack Johnson
11. Benny Leonard
10. Archie Moore
9. Willie Pep
8. Jimmy Wilde
7. Harry Greb
6. Roberto Duran
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Joe louis
3. Henry Armstrong
2. Muhammad Ali
1. Sugar Ray Robinson

Floyd was 41.

If Mayweather's not an all-time great then we really are setting the 'pass threshold' a bit too high!

Mayweather's comfortably an all-time great from whichever angle you measure it from, that's not really up for debate in my opinion. But there are different levels of greatness and it's deciding exactly which level Mayweather occupies which is the issue, for me.

Personally, I think Mayweather belongs inside the all-time top fifteen, pound for pound. Last time I tried to calculate a rough list I think I had him at #12, perhaps #13. Had he taken the Pacquiao fight when he should have done, in 2010 or at the latest 2011 (and I've always firmly believed that it was Floyd who was the less willing and more reluctant dance partner of the pair) and won it, he'd be inside my top ten with no problem at all.

Like Manos, I do think there are certain things which get overblown when people evaluate him and his career, much of which he's brought on himself by playing on his bad boy image and generally coming across as an odious character, admittedly. I see above that he apparently ducked Williams, Margarito and Mosley until Shane was an old man. Well, I think we need to be careful in making sure we don't automatically assume that, if two fighters who are campaigning in or around the same weight class don't meet, that this automatically equates to one of them ducking the other. If that were the case, then Ward ducked Bute, Marquez has spent the past three years ducking the likes of Khan and Roy Jones ducked Steve Collins.

It's interesting that Pacquiao, who likewise has campaigned either at the same weight as guys like Williams and Mosley (before Floyd hammered him) or within a few pounds of them between 2008 and 2009, is never accused of running from them, whereas Mayweather is. I strongly suspect that Pacquiao having a humble and amiable personality when compared to Floyd's brash and obnoxious one is a primary reason for this.

For me, when it comes to fights which slipped the net, there are three real notable blotches on Floyd's copy book, all of which vary in terms of significance. Pacquiao's the obvious one. Outside of that, there was Floyd's foray to Light-Welter in 2005. When you're proclaiming and selling yourself as the world's number one pound for pound fighter, taking on by far the weakest and most limited 'name' champion in the weight class (Gatti) when the consensus champion (and fellow pound for pounder) Tszyu and a young, undefeated and clearly superior (to Gatti) Cotto are up for grabs is a pretty poor turn, for me. Next, there was the potential mega fight between Floyd and an undefeated Cotto at Welter in 2007 / 2008. For a short while, this was THE fight that boxing fans wanted more than any other. In late 2007, when Floyd outclassed Hatton and Miguel showed he could box as well as brawl against Mosley, anticipation was reaching something approaching fever pitch. Again, nothing happening at Floyd's end, as he decided to go in to a 'retirement.' He got round to fighting Cotto eventually, of course, but nary a single fan will ever believe that it was a fight to match what they could have produced four years earlier.

In terms purely of opposition beaten, Floyd's ins't top ten for me. He has a long (and I mean seriously long) list of very, very good wins, but perhaps not anything which really grabs you by the scruff of the neck. However, if you garner enough of those wins and match it with consistency and longevity which most certainly is top ten worthy, then it becomes a more realistic possibility of him joining that elite group. Whether or not he's a top ten man in terms of pure, God-given talent and ability is a subjective call, and one which is impossible to translate in to cold, hard facts, but for me I'd feel very comfortable saying that Mayweather is at least in the same bracket as all but a very few other fighters who ever lived.

When you combine all of those elements, I don't see how he can miss out by the top ten by much, if indeed he does at all. He'd be slightly outside mine as I said above, but not by a great deal. A genuine all-time great by whatever currency you pick to use - the only talking points for me are where exactly he stands in terms of greatness and whether or not he could have been even greater still with a little more ambition and a little less ego.

The top 5 there seems reasonable although I'd make a few changes to that.

Floyd at 41 is plain silly. In 10 years he will start creeping up the list.

Question. Why does it take decades for guys to rise up those rankings?

azania wrote:There is a bias favouring oldies. Even though many wouldn't lay a glove on a semi decent euro level fighter.

If that was the case, why do so many of today's better fighters profess to studying "old school" methods. Men such as Hopkins, Ward and Mayweather himself?

The older fighters had far more craft and savvy than today's clueless lot. And savvy does a lot. Look at Rigo-Donaire.

Studying them and applying their knowledge to their current arsenal. Many of the older fighters didn't know what to do when faced with a jab. They thought avoiding punches was cowardice.

Strongback wrote:1. Johnson drew the colour line.

Against everyone other than Battling Jim Johnson, odd he could fight a black fighter of mimimal talent for one tenth what he could have made fighting a fighter of genuine ability in Langford.

88Chris05 wrote:If Mayweather's not an all-time great then we really are setting the 'pass threshold' a bit too high!

Mayweather's comfortably an all-time great from whichever angle you measure it from, that's not really up for debate in my opinion. But there are different levels of greatness and it's deciding exactly which level Mayweather occupies which is the issue, for me.

Personally, I think Mayweather belongs inside the all-time top fifteen, pound for pound. Last time I tried to calculate a rough list I think I had him at #12, perhaps #13. Had he taken the Pacquiao fight when he should have done, in 2010 or at the latest 2011 (and I've always firmly believed that it was Floyd who was the less willing and more reluctant dance partner of the pair) and won it, he'd be inside my top ten with no problem at all.

Like Manos, I do think there are certain things which get overblown when people evaluate him and his career, much of which he's brought on himself by playing on his bad boy image and generally coming across as an odious character, admittedly. I see above that he apparently ducked Williams, Margarito and Mosley until Shane was an old man. Well, I think we need to be careful in making sure we don't automatically assume that, if two fighters who are campaigning in or around the same weight class don't meet, that this automatically equates to one of them ducking the other. If that were the case, then Ward ducked Bute, Marquez has spent the past three years ducking the likes of Khan and Roy Jones ducked Steve Collins.

It's interesting that Pacquiao, who likewise has campaigned either at the same weight as guys like Williams and Mosley (before Floyd hammered him) or within a few pounds of them between 2008 and 2009, is never accused of running from them, whereas Mayweather is. I strongly suspect that Pacquiao having a humble and amiable personality when compared to Floyd's brash and obnoxious one is a primary reason for this.

For me, when it comes to fights which slipped the net, there are three real notable blotches on Floyd's copy book, all of which vary in terms of significance. Pacquiao's the obvious one. Outside of that, there was Floyd's foray to Light-Welter in 2005. When you're proclaiming and selling yourself as the world's number one pound for pound fighter, taking on by far the weakest and most limited 'name' champion in the weight class (Gatti) when the consensus champion (and fellow pound for pounder) Tszyu and a young, undefeated and clearly superior (to Gatti) Cotto are up for grabs is a pretty poor turn, for me. Next, there was the potential mega fight between Floyd and an undefeated Cotto at Welter in 2007 / 2008. For a short while, this was THE fight that boxing fans wanted more than any other. In late 2007, when Floyd outclassed Hatton and Miguel showed he could box as well as brawl against Mosley, anticipation was reaching something approaching fever pitch. Again, nothing happening as Floyd's end, as he decided to go in to a 'retirement.' He got round to fighting Cotto eventually, of course, but nary a single fan will ever believe that it was a fight to match what they could have produced four years earlier.

In terms purely of opposition beaten, Floyd's ins't top ten for me. He has a long (and I mean seriously long) list of very, very good wins, but perhaps not anything which really grabs you by the scruff of the neck. However, if you garner enough of those wins and match it with consistency and longevity which most certainly is top ten worthy, then it becomes a more realistic possibility of him joining that elite group. Whether or not he's a top ten man in terms of pure, God-given talent and ability is a subjective call, and one which is impossible to translate in to cold, hard facts, but for me I'd feel very comfortable saying that Mayweather is at least in the same bracket as all but a very few other fighters who ever lived.

When you combine all of those elements, I don't see how he can miss out by the top ten by much, if indeed he does at all. He'd be slightly outside mine as I said above, but not by a great deal. A genuine all-time great by whatever currency you pick to use - the only talking points for me are where exactly he stands in terms of greatness and whether or not he could have been even greater still with a little more ambition and a little less ego.

With all respect, you're unlikely to be asked to contribute to such a list. The authorities on these things have already insinuated he doesn't belong in that bracket (which I agree with) and he's pretty much out of time if he still has hopes of altering that. He didn't take the Pacquiao fight and that will be held against him (unless they make it in future -- hey it worked for Lennox Lewis when he beat up a decrepid Tyson). He also missed viable challenges in Cotto (before he was damaged), Margarito, Williams and Mosley (before he was shot).

Hatton, Gatti, Oscar were all good money fights for him but which great welterweights from history wouldn't have dealt with that lot? The tough guys (when they were still formidable) weren't of interest to him.

The Pacquiao fight is a huge asterix against his career. Imagine Leonard hadn't faced Hearns or Ali hadn't faced Frazier?

azania wrote:Studying them and applying their knowledge to their current arsenal. Many of the older fighters didn't know what to do when faced with a jab. They thought avoiding punches was cowardice.

How would you know? A large proportion of the old timers aren't on tape.

azania wrote:The top 5 there seems reasonable although I'd make a few changes to that.

Floyd at 41 is plain silly. In 10 years he will start creeping up the list.

Question. Why does it take decades for guys to rise up those rankings?

Perspective.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Studying them and applying their knowledge to their current arsenal. Many of the older fighters didn't know what to do when faced with a jab. They thought avoiding punches was cowardice.

How would you know? A large proportion of the old timers aren't on tape.

Don't bite Haz.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:1. Johnson drew the colour line.

Against everyone other than Battling Jim Johnson, odd he could fight a black fighter of mimimal talent for one tenth what he could have made fighting a fighter of genuine ability in Langford.

I knew I was out of my depth with you in this era.

Still you know what I was getting at, he did fight Jeanette and Langford etc before he took the title.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Studying them and applying their knowledge to their current arsenal. Many of the older fighters didn't know what to do when faced with a jab. They thought avoiding punches was cowardice.

How would you know? A large proportion of the old timers aren't on tape.

Didn't you state that Hopkins, Toney et al study the old timers? How could they study them if they aren't on tape? Are you talking carp again?

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Studying them and applying their knowledge to their current arsenal. Many of the older fighters didn't know what to do when faced with a jab. They thought avoiding punches was cowardice.

How would you know? A large proportion of the old timers aren't on tape.

Don't bite Haz.

Bitten.

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:How many all time greats have there been then? 10? Ridiculous to say he wont rank along with guys like Dempsey, Wilde, Marciano, Canzoneri or many of the other fighters considered all time greats.

Well, just hold onto your britches and prepare to shout "ridiculous" when it doesn't happen next time an experts list comes out. Just won't happen.

In terms of talent, he's one of the best ever but that's a different, more subjective argument.

No he has a better record than those mentioned fighters. You couldnt make a reasonable case for someone like Jack Dempsey to rank above Mayweather unless theres a serious alternative agenda. Im not too pushed if some expert wants to have their own list. I firmly believe barring some kind of legacy ruining collapse Mayweather will comfortably be ranked top 30 in years to come and if he isnt I wouldnt find it credible in any case. I see experts list all the time I disagree with.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:The top 5 there seems reasonable although I'd make a few changes to that.

Floyd at 41 is plain silly. In 10 years he will start creeping up the list.

Question. Why does it take decades for guys to rise up those rankings?

Perspective.

That same perspective can be applied while the fighter is still active.

If Floyd had fought and clearly beaten Manny a few years back there would have been calls to have him number one. I wouldn't have had too many arguments with that and any other minor problems with his career would have disappeared, i would have had him in around 9 to 13. And assuming he doesn't now go out with a defeat he won't be far behind that.

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:If Mayweather's not an all-time great then we really are setting the 'pass threshold' a bit too high!

Mayweather's comfortably an all-time great from whichever angle you measure it from, that's not really up for debate in my opinion. But there are different levels of greatness and it's deciding exactly which level Mayweather occupies which is the issue, for me.

Personally, I think Mayweather belongs inside the all-time top fifteen, pound for pound. Last time I tried to calculate a rough list I think I had him at #12, perhaps #13.

With all respect, you're unlikely to be asked to contribute to such a list. The authorities on these things have already insinuated he doesn't belong in that bracket (which I agree with) and he's pretty much out of time if he still has hopes of altering that.

Well yep, you've got me there, Haz! I am but a boxing pleb offering my opinion which, in the grand scheme of things, will fall on deaf ears, just as millions of other people's opinions on this subject will.

Presumably, you're taking the lists given above by both the IBRO and Boxing News as the 'authorities' on this matter. Well, those two respectively ranked Wilde at #14 and #8, which I assume you're happy with in light of what you've said above.

When I compare the cases and credentials of Wilde and Floyd, I see it like this: Floyd has reigned as an elite fighter for longer, has beaten a better level of opposition throughout a whole career and has more notworthy victories. Wilde was known as a fighter who could defy weight and compete with bigger men thanks to a mix of boxing ability and punching power; well, Floyd's beaten top-tier operators from Super-Feather up to Light-Middle, and what's more, he's done it without the luxury of a pay-off punch to help him out when he's been struggling.

Unless I'm missing something, then I see no reason for Wilde to even rank above Mayweather in the first place, much less a reason for him to be streets ahead as you seem to believe. Maybe racking up a win column which registers at three figures does it for you, but I don't tend to get too hung up on those kind of statistics. Wilde's 136-3-1 record featured a run of 81-0-1 before he even fought a legitimately ranked opponent (Eugene Husson, who was only picked because he was even smaller than Wilde as Peggy Bettinson, London's chief matchmaker at the time, was concerned that his NSC members would complain of bad matchmaking if Wilde took on a man bigger than himself).

Wilde has more fights and wins on his ledger than Mayweather, but he certainly doesn't have more significant or meaningful ones.

I am actually amazed at how negative your take on Mayweather's career is.

Strongback wrote:
I knew I was out of my depth with you in this era.

.

Had no choice but to steer it towards that era I am screwed discussing anyone who fought in colour!

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:If Mayweather's not an all-time great then we really are setting the 'pass threshold' a bit too high!

Mayweather's comfortably an all-time great from whichever angle you measure it from, that's not really up for debate in my opinion. But there are different levels of greatness and it's deciding exactly which level Mayweather occupies which is the issue, for me.

Personally, I think Mayweather belongs inside the all-time top fifteen, pound for pound. Last time I tried to calculate a rough list I think I had him at #12, perhaps #13.

With all respect, you're unlikely to be asked to contribute to such a list. The authorities on these things have already insinuated he doesn't belong in that bracket (which I agree with) and he's pretty much out of time if he still has hopes of altering that.

Well yep, you've got me there, Haz! I am but a boxing pleb offering my opinion which, in the grand scheme of things, will fall on deaf ears, just as millions of other people's opinions on this subject will.

Presumably, you're taking the lists given above by both the IBRO and Boxing News as the 'authorities' on this matter. Well, those two respectively ranked Wilde at #14 and #8, which I assume you're happy with in light of what you've said above.

When I compare the cases and credentials of Wilde and Floyd, I see it like this: Floyd has reigned as an elite fighter for longer, has beaten a better level of opposition throughout a whole career and has more notworthy victories. Wilde was known as a fighter who could defy weight and compete with bigger men thanks to a mix of boxing ability and punching power; well, Floyd's beaten top-tier operators from Super-Feather up to Light-Middle, and what's more, he's done it without the luxury of a pay-off punch to help him out when he's been struggling.

Unless I'm missing something, then I see no reason for Wilde to even rank above Mayweather in the first place, much less a reason for him to be streets ahead as you seem to believe. Maybe racking up a win column which registers at three figures does it for you, but I don't tend to get too hung up on those kind of statistics. Wilde's 136-3-1 record featured a run of 81-0-1 before he even fought a legitimately ranked opponent (Eugene Husson, who was only picked because he was even smaller than Wilde as Peggy Bettinson, London's chief matchmaker at the time, was concerned that his NSC members would complain of bad matchmaking if Wilde took on a man bigger than himself).

Wilde has more fights and wins on his ledger than Mayweather, but he certainly doesn't have more significant or meaningful ones.

I am actually amazed at how negative your take on Mayweather's career is.

I'm also not an authority on these things so don't sweat it! Most lists I've seen (Ring Magazine, ESPN, The Times, Boxing News) along with expert opinion from the likes of Bert Sugar, Cliff Rold, Al Bernstein and others, preclude Mayweather from as high a rating as you feel he deserves for the reasons I stated earlier.

He just hasn't fought the best opposition available to him. Missing Pacquiao hurts him badly.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:The top 5 there seems reasonable although I'd make a few changes to that.

Floyd at 41 is plain silly. In 10 years he will start creeping up the list.

Question. Why does it take decades for guys to rise up those rankings?

Perspective.

That same perspective can be applied while the fighter is still active.

Not usually with much success. Better to let the dust settle on a career (hence the reason the IBHOF only induct fighters who've been retired five years).

Think this is where even I as a committed fan of the old timers have slight issue with how modern guys are ranked. Whilst there is undoubtedly some truth to the argument Floyd has not fought the best of his era the same is true of many a guy we frequently see on top twenties with nowhere near the protestations Floyd’s inclusion would raise.

I mentioned Johnson earlier but in comparison to Floyd is record as champion is little short of shameful, similarly guys like Walker, Dempsey and Jeffries all have notable black opponents they did not face, hell even Robinson has the Burley asterix hanging over him. I appreciate there are often valid reasons the fights did not happen and I am always wary of criticizing guys for not facing black opponents in the earlier 20th century as the world was a very different place but do think we run the risk of applying different and sometimes more strict analysis to modern guys than we do for their older counterparts.

hazharrison wrote:I'm also not an authority on these things so don't sweat it! Most lists I've seen (Ring Magazine, ESPN, The Times, Boxing News) along with expert opinion from the likes of Bert Sugar, Cliff Rold, Al Bernstein and others, preclude Mayweather from as high a rating as you feel he deserves for the reasons I stated earlier.

He just hasn't fought the best opposition available to him. Missing Pacquiao hurts him badly.

Aye, but why should we take whatever the 'experts' say as gospel? Nat Fleischer lived a life more engrossed and involved in boxing than any of us, but I'd happily say that a lot of his historical rankings of fighters were a load of nonsense. Fleischer lived until 1972 but, right up until immediately before his death, he opined that Charles 'Kid' McCoy was the greatest Middleweight ever, despite basically nobody else agreeing and also despite the fact that he'd lived to see Middleweights as great as Greb, Walker, Robinson, Fullmer etc in the flesh.

You haven't really addressed my points concerning someone like Wilde, who all of these supposed experts rate inside their top twenty, in comparison to Floyd, who doesn't get a look in from these fellas. You also say that this isn't just because Floyd's still active, in fact you've made it pretty clear that, in a few more decades time, Mayweather still won't be held in the same esteem. I'd like to know what it is about Wilde's record which makes that so.

What is shameful Is trying to blame the Hearns fight on a guy being bigger than him when he had success against Barkley and Hagler.......

Guy couldn't get past the jab end of.............

Remember when Floyd got interviewed by Rugged Man.

Just listened to it again. He got asked about the ducking and why he will never been seen as up there with the greatest.

Fairly funny and Floyd didn't do to well.


Highlights here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM8U8rbOpI4&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qt89xHHKYY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

That's it Floyd is a ducker...Disgrace to the sport...

I think Wilde gets the nod because of his weight versus power ratio. He was tiny and fearless and to my limited knowledge of that time he took on all comers. His story is quite unique, a phenomena for such a tiny little man.

Dodging fighters just doesn't go down well.

Strongback wrote:I think Wilde gets the nod because of his weight versus power ratio. He was tiny and fearless and to my limited knowledge of that time he took on all comers. His story is quite unique, a phenomena for such a tiny little man.

Dodging fighters just doesn't go down well.

And lost many.

He only lost 4 times. Two of those in his last two fights. One of the other losses was in a 3 round fight.

He won 132, 98 by KO.

You never check before you announce 'your' cast iron facts.

Wasn't he the bloke fighting coal miners weekly for wages?

Wilde really is the wrong guy to use the 'he lost many argument'.

You keep banging on about Duran not getting past Hearns jab but they started 21lbs apart so it doesn't really factor into my thinking when assessing him. How did hearns and Leonard do against Spinks, that's right neither of them had the balls to move up that high to face fellow great fighters.

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'm also not an authority on these things so don't sweat it! Most lists I've seen (Ring Magazine, ESPN, The Times, Boxing News) along with expert opinion from the likes of Bert Sugar, Cliff Rold, Al Bernstein and others, preclude Mayweather from as high a rating as you feel he deserves for the reasons I stated earlier.

He just hasn't fought the best opposition available to him. Missing Pacquiao hurts him badly.

Aye, but why should we take whatever the 'experts' say as gospel? Nat Fleischer lived a life more engrossed and involved in boxing than any of us, but I'd happily say that a lot of his historical rankings of fighters were a load of nonsense. Fleischer lived until 1972 but, right up until immediately before his death, he opined that Charles 'Kid' McCoy was the greatest Middleweight ever, despite basically nobody else agreeing and also despite the fact that he'd lived to see Middleweights as great as Greb, Walker, Robinson, Fullmer etc in the flesh.

You haven't really addressed my points concerning someone like Wilde, who all of these supposed experts rate inside their top twenty, in comparison to Floyd, who doesn't get a look in from these fellas. You also say that this isn't just because Floyd's still active, in fact you've made it pretty clear that, in a few more decades time, Mayweather still won't be held in the same esteem. I'd like to know what it is about Wilde's record which makes that so.

While experts aren't always correct, the consensus opinion is that Wilde was one of the greatest of all time. I don't know enough about Wilde to argue his case and so I look to those that do. Have a look about, there are plenty of respected writers who'll be able to shed light on it for you. Ring Magazine rated him as one of the greatest punchers in history a few years back -- no mean feat for a Flyweight.

I think Haz is our very own Glenn McCrory or else he's reading too many of his Sky Sports columns.

I think you should change your username to 'Hazn't a Clue'

Anyone who doesn't consider Mayweather a great is well just wrong, his exact placing is up for debate but his greatness isn't.

How about deciding Floyds best weight then see where he lists in that weight before deciding P4P ATG rating?. For instance, say it's welter - list the top 10 welters then try and factor that position into an ATG list? If he's not a top 5 welter then he's not a top 5 ATG. Surely? Or does achievements at multiple weights push him ahead of people who rate ahead of him in a single weight category?

That's a garbage idea because people like Floyd..DelaHoya went for challenges and money...

Not for them the Hagler approach...

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Anyone who doesn't consider Mayweather a great is well just wrong, his exact placing is up for debate but his greatness isn't.

Great fighter, no question. Just doesn't belong with all-timers such as Robinson, Armstrong and Ali.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:That's a garbage idea because people like Floyd..DelaHoya went for challenges and money...

Not for them the Hagler approach...

Except Floyd missed his greatest challenge.

I have him as the second best 130lber of all time behind Arguello who I actually think has a great chance of beating but ranks a fair bit higher based on his more impressive record above that weight.

Pedro147 wrote:I think Haz is our very own Glenn McCrory or else he's reading too many of his Sky Sports columns.

I think you should change your username to 'Hazn't a Clue'

Hilarious.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

hazharrison wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Anyone who doesn't consider Mayweather a great is well just wrong, his exact placing is up for debate but his greatness isn't.

Great fighter, no question. Just doesn't belong with all-timers such as Robinson, Armstrong and Ali.

Maybe not but I don't see anyone arguing that he belongs in that group, I rate Duran higher but Mayweather certainly belongs in the chasing pack alongside the Leonards, Tunney, Jofre and Duran himself.

He doesn't belong alongside Leonard or Duran.

He does though in all honesty, he's one of the few like Leonard and Jofre who rightfully gets rated higher based on his god given talent when their records don't match up to that.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He does though in all honesty, he's one of the few like Leonard and Jofre who rightfully gets rated higher based on his god given talent when their records don't match up to that.

Leonard fought wars in the ring and took on Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Benitez.

Mayweather didn't take on his greatest challenges (namely Pacquiao -- I'm like a stuck record).

In terms of talent, then yes, that's a better argument.

It's not an opinion I agree with but did Robinson face Burley, he did of course face Gavilan who was the consensus number two at Welterweight but it could be argued that Burley would have been his greatest challenge.

You could say that Hearns didn't face McCallum who I think gets to his chin and ends it eventually or various others who conveniently didn't face their greatest challenge.

But it wasn't all Mayweather's fault.........

Hagler didn't give Hearns a rematch...

Leonard waited till Hearns was half dead before rematching..

I'm sorry but that is bull........................

McCallum would have taken out Hearns. Thats why it never happened.