Can Pacquiao catch Floyd?

First topic message reminder :

They fight either side of a promotional and televisual divide: Pacquiao is affiliated with HBO and Bob Arum; Mayweather with Golden Boy and Showtime.

They rank alongside one another with many experts in the all time rankings - Mayweather having stolen a march on Pacquiao in the past year with easy wins over Guerrero and Alvarez while Pacquiao suffered a shocking loss to nemesis Marquez in a fight he looked poised to win via stoppage himself.

With neither likely to threaten the all time 15 (for many experts they rank outside the top 20) and with their chances of meeting as remote as ever, can Pacquiao catch Floyd in the home straight with the competition he has available to him (Rios, Alvarado, Marquez, Provodnikov, Bradley)? Mayweather seems likely to take a gimme against Amir Khan before facing Danny Garcia -- fights he'll be an overwhelming favourite to win.

Can Pacquiao close the gap - pip Mayweather even - with a series of blood and thunder victories?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You could also ask why Robinson was willing to step up to face Maxim but not Moore and why he didn't face Burley prior to winning the title. Or why he was willing to fight LaMotta at middleweight in 42 and a shot Aaron Wade in 50 but didn't fancy any of the BMR in the interim. Could it possibly be that like everyone else he followed the path of least resistance?

He fought Maxim because he was the champion.

Ragging on Robinson isn't likely to win you any ground here.

The Rios win is about as average as Floyd's over Guerrero. Don't see as it can make much difference.

Then his 'revenge wins' are a very murky area as one would be over a guy he beat already but got screwed on the scorecards and the other would be versus a guy he himself has screwed on the scorecards and has a winning record against accordingly.

Can't see him catching Floyd and think your ATG is overly harsh, to the point of being questionable Truss-baiting.

He fought Maxim when he was the champion but showed no intention in fighting Moore when he was champion, does that not appear to be selective match making to you?

Why can't we criticise Robinson for the fights he didn't take, he could have fought any of the BMR, Charles or Moore if he was inclined to do so but he didn't.

From John L through to Schmelling a period of 30 odd years all the HW champions, with the exception of probably only Jeffries, milked the title. When Louis came he changed that by fighting all the top contenders.

Johnson did what others at the time did. We know in those days the top of the mountain was winning the belt. After that it was exhibition stuff andbvery sporadic fights.

There is also the point that Johnson sold tickets based on race hate. Nobody was going to pay anything like as much money to watch two black fighters.

I am not implying it was right for Johnson to duck Langford but can we fully ignore the context in which things were done in those days?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The eyeball test is used for every fighter, from Jofre to Leonard to Whitaker to even middleweight Robinson. Robinson has a fabulous record but is it any better than Grebs, Armstrong or Charles? I would say no but from the small clips we have of him near his prime he looks a better fighter and as with most old timers we are swayed somewhat by what is written about them.

Anyone who has Moore higher is either being biased against Mayweather or giving Moore too much credit for what is a patchy record.

Not when ranking them in terms of greatness. Otherwise Roy Jones would be top.

I think you're doing Moore a great disservice. Who has Floyd beaten that can trump Holman Williams for one?

What are your views on Jofre then Haz, a boxer with a fairly average record but a boxer the IBRO rate as the 15th greatest of all time, he is rated on the eyeball test alone.

It's not all about wins Haz, Moore had his highs but he also had his lows, he outlasted the BMR but Charles, Burley and Booker all had the better of him, of the top of my head think he's 1-6 against the trio. He excelled against the tier below the absolute best but against the cream he more often than not lost, he only beat Bivins for instance when he started his post war slump. When Bivins was in his pomp he dealt with Moore with ease.

I think Jofre was a remarkable boxer but -- like you say -- his record doesn't stack up to the likes of Moore. Matt McGrain produced an excellent top 100 recently and he had Jofre in at 33. Wonderful numbers, perhaps the greatest comeback in history but his opposition is slightly lacking (Harada being the single stand out).

Eyeball test puts him top ten, though. He looked a mini-Robinson.

Moore improved immeasurably as the years rolled on and has enough quality wins on his record in spite of he setbacks against Burley and Charles (lets face it, we're talking two of the best of all time there). He got there in the end and learned in defeat (showing that a loss isn't the be all and end all); wins over Bivins (thrice), Williams, Johnson (thrice) -- his heavyweight exploits including a win over Valdes and a sterling shift against Marciano.

TopHat24/7 wrote:The Rios win is about as average as Floyd's over Guerrero.  Don't see as it can make much difference.

Then his 'revenge wins' are a very murky area as one would be over a guy he beat already but got screwed on the scorecards and the other would be versus a guy he himself has screwed on the scorecards and has a winning record against accordingly.

Can't see him catching Floyd and think your ATG is overly harsh, to the point of being questionable Truss-baiting.

Why would I bait him? I could find better ways of doing so if I was that way inclined. I could make a thread up about subscriptions to his fan club being too high.

I think Rios is more of a challenge than Guerrero -- slightly.

Marquez and Bradley are quality scalps, still. I'd be interested to see Floyd face this new hulk-like version of JMM, for example.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He fought Maxim when he was the champion but showed no intention in fighting Moore when he was champion, does that not appear to be selective match making to you?

Why can't we criticise Robinson for the fights he didn't take, he could have fought any of the BMR, Charles or Moore if he was inclined to do so but he didn't.

 
Robinson viewed light heavyweight as a bridge too far (after the Maxim disaster). I've no reason to believe that had he not wilted in the heat he'd have taken Moore on -- if you can't admire Robinson then you're in the wrong sport.

Strongback wrote:From John L through to Schmelling a period of 30 odd years all the HW champions, with the exception of probably only Jeffries, milked the title. When Louis came he changed that by fighting all the top contenders.

Johnson did what others at the time did. We know in those days the top of the mountain was winning the belt. After that it was exhibition stuff andbvery sporadic fights.

There is also the point that Johnson sold tickets based on race hate. Nobody was going to pay anything like as much money to watch two black fighters.

I am not implying it was right for Johnson to duck Langford but can we fully ignore the context in which things were done in those days?

Yeah, with you there. Wasn't Johnson marketed as the black menace that must be crushed by the white race?

I don't think Moore did improve with age, his level of opposition dramatically dropped in winning the title and then his subsequent defences, only Johnson being of the very best. A 39 year old Moore is not better than a younger version of himself, he did incredibly well to win the title albeit against a weak champion in my opinion and was not exactly exceptional in defending it.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He fought Maxim when he was the champion but showed no intention in fighting Moore when he was champion, does that not appear to be selective match making to you?

Why can't we criticise Robinson for the fights he didn't take, he could have fought any of the BMR, Charles or Moore if he was inclined to do so but he didn't.

 
Robinson viewed light heavyweight as a bridge too far (after the Maxim disaster). I've no reason to believe that had he not wilted in the heat he'd have taken Moore on -- if you can't admire Robinson then you're in the wrong sport.

He isn't beyond criticism, the same things you throw at Mayweather can be thrown at him, he could have face the aforementioned if he wanted to but LaMotta and Maxim were easier options. The thing is Moore wanted the fight but Robinson did a Mayweather and wanted everything his own way so the fight never materialised.

Strongback wrote:From John L through to Schmelling a period of 30 odd years all the HW champions, with the exception of probably only Jeffries, milked the title. When Louis came he changed that by fighting all the top contenders.

Johnson did what others at the time did. We know in those days the top of the mountain was winning the belt. After that it was exhibition stuff andbvery sporadic fights.

There is also the point that Johnson sold tickets based on race hate. Nobody was going to pay anything like as much money to watch two black fighters.

I am not implying it was right for Johnson to duck Langford but can we fully ignore the context in which things were done in those days?

Johnson was offered around $30,000 dollars to fight Langford in Australia by Hugh Macintsoh. Given Hugh promoted his bout against Burns he had no reason not to think this offer was not genuine. This is a far better purse than he got for most all of his defences.

Strongy why did he defend his title against Battling Jim Johnson then, if he could go against the way things were done for that fight, why not for Langford?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He fought Maxim when he was the champion but showed no intention in fighting Moore when he was champion, does that not appear to be selective match making to you?

Why can't we criticise Robinson for the fights he didn't take, he could have fought any of the BMR, Charles or Moore if he was inclined to do so but he didn't.

 
Robinson viewed light heavyweight as a bridge too far (after the Maxim disaster). I've no reason to believe that had he not wilted in the heat he'd have taken Moore on -- if you can't admire Robinson then you're in the wrong sport.

He isn't beyond criticism, the same things you throw at Mayweather can be thrown at him, he could have face the aforementioned if he wanted to but LaMotta and Maxim were easier options. The thing is Moore wanted the fight but Robinson did a Mayweather and wanted everything his own way so the fight never materialised.

 

Robinson could be a bitch at the negotiating table but you can't fault his record. I don't need to defend Ray Robinson.

Then how is he any different to Mayweather then and why is he beyond criticism, beating the best white fighters of the day is one thing but why did he not face off against the best black fighters?

Other than just imply he is beyond criticism explain why I should let him off for not facing the best but use it against Mayweather when the reason is the same, namely money.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think Moore did improve with age, his level of opposition dramatically dropped in winning the title and then his subsequent defences, only Johnson being of the very best. A 39 year old Moore is not better than a younger version of himself, he did incredibly well to win the title albeit against a weak champion in my opinion and was not exactly exceptional in defending it.

If we use McGrain's top 100 as a marker (I don't agree with some of the placings but he's certainly made a wonderful and informed case) then Moore defeated: Jimmy Bivins (45) three times, Holman Williams (26), Lloyd Marshall (83) -- lost to Ezzard Charles (5) three times, Burley once (25) and Teddy Yarosz (79). He also gave Marciano (65) hell. His numbers are extraordinary.

Mayweather has just Marquez (83) and De la Hoya (79) -- two fights.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Then how is he any different to Mayweather then and why is he beyond criticism, beating the best white fighters of the day is one thing but why did he not face off against the best black fighters?

Other than just imply he is beyond criticism explain why I should let him off for not facing the best but use it against Mayweather when the reason is the same, namely money.

Gavilan was a defining fight -- two all-time great welterweights. And he beat him twice.

Are you seriously arguing their competition is comparable?

Strongback wrote:From John L through to Schmelling a period of 30 odd years all the HW champions, with the exception of probably only Jeffries, milked the title. When Louis came he changed that by fighting all the top contenders.

Johnson did what others at the time did. We know in those days the top of the mountain was winning the belt. After that it was exhibition stuff andbvery sporadic fights.

There is also the point that Johnson sold tickets based on race hate. Nobody was going to pay anything like as much money to watch two black fighters.

I am not implying it was right for Johnson to duck Langford but can we fully ignore the context in which things were done in those days?

but surely by that yardstick what Mayweather is doing is also in some way a product of the times. Modern fighters fight less often, and generally won't always face their toughest opponents. I mean, which modern fighter could you say, without fear of contradiction, has faced all the best opponents that were available to him? Froch, maybe Ward, but that was due to the nature of the Super Six. Can't think of any others...

Matt McGrain's top 10, for anyone interested:

10. Duran
9. Joe Louis
8. Joe Gans
7. Ali
6. Bob Fitz
5. Charles
4. Armstrong
3. SRR
2. Greb
1. Langford

Noticeable points are obviously one Sugar Ray not at #1 and the other not in the top10 at all. He does make the point he can barely split the top4 and their positions are definitive.

Just missing out are Benny Leonard at 11, Mickey Walker at 12, Pep at 13, Ross at 14 and Moore at 15. Sweet Pea at #20 is his most 'modern' highly ranked fighter.

http://www.boxing.com/news/comments/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1

TopHat24/7 wrote:Matt McGrain's top 10, for anyone interested:

10. Duran
9. Joe Louis
8. Joe Gans
7. Ali
6. Bob Fitz
5. Charles
4. Armstrong
3. SRR
2. Greb
1. Langford

Noticeable points are obviously one Sugar Ray not at #1 and the other not in the top10 at all.  He does make the point he can barely split the top4 and their positions are definitive.

Just missing out are Benny Leonard at 11, Mickey Walker at 12, Pep at 13, Ross at 14 and Moore at 15.  Sweet Pea at #20 is his most 'modern' highly ranked fighter.

http://www.boxing.com/news/comments/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1

with all due respect to someone that knows more than I do about boxing, that does seem like a typical nostalgia-tinged list. No wonder Floyd doesn't have many top-100 ranked fighters in that list, there just aren't that many in there for him to fight.

I do think there's a huge tendency among boxing fans (and writers) to look back overly fondly at the past. This results in modern fighters records being picked apart far more stringently than the older fighters are. People have rightfully said on this thread that you can pick any record apart really if you try hard enough. It strikes me as unfair that modern fighters records always seemed to be scrutinised the most deeply.

McGrain isn't the only one to have SRL outside the Top 10. I have seen SRL placed around the No.12 spot in liists a few times from memory.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Matt McGrain's top 10, for anyone interested:

10. Duran
9. Joe Louis
8. Joe Gans
7. Ali
6. Bob Fitz
5. Charles
4. Armstrong
3. SRR
2. Greb
1. Langford

Noticeable points are obviously one Sugar Ray not at #1 and the other not in the top10 at all.  He does make the point he can barely split the top4 and their positions are definitive.

Just missing out are Benny Leonard at 11, Mickey Walker at 12, Pep at 13, Ross at 14 and Moore at 15.  Sweet Pea at #20 is his most 'modern' highly ranked fighter.

http://www.boxing.com/news/comments/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1

with all due respect to someone that knows more than I do about boxing, that does seem like a typical nostalgia-tinged list. No wonder Floyd doesn't have many top-100 ranked fighters in that list, there just aren't that many in there for him to fight.

I do think there's a huge tendency among boxing fans (and writers) to look back overly fondly at the past. This results in modern fighters records being picked apart far more stringently than the older fighters are. People have rightfully said on this thread that you can pick any record apart really if you try hard enough. It strikes me as unfair that modern fighters records always seemed to be scrutinised the most deeply.

If talking p4p fighters, particularly those that weight jumped, I think it's hard enough to pick a better 10. The order may change but these are the best fighters of all time in my opinion.

Take the test Poochio

Strongback wrote:McGrain isn't the only one to have SRL outside the Top 10. I have seen SRL placed around the No.12 spot in liists a few times from memory.

Doesn't even get into the top20 of McGrain's list though, which seems a bit crazy to me.

Anyone know how much of Manny's purse he'll be donating to the Filipino Disaster Relief Fund?

I take it his training hasn't been disrupted too much (assuming he hasn't already flown out to China)

Rjj gets in at #29, Monzon at #31, Hagler at #34, JCC at #35, Napoles at #40. Arguello at #41, M Spinks at #42, Hearns at #44, Manny & Floyd joint at #47/48.

That's it for relatively modern fighters in the Top 50.

Strongback wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Matt McGrain's top 10, for anyone interested:

10. Duran
9. Joe Louis
8. Joe Gans
7. Ali
6. Bob Fitz
5. Charles
4. Armstrong
3. SRR
2. Greb
1. Langford

Noticeable points are obviously one Sugar Ray not at #1 and the other not in the top10 at all.  He does make the point he can barely split the top4 and their positions are definitive.

Just missing out are Benny Leonard at 11, Mickey Walker at 12, Pep at 13, Ross at 14 and Moore at 15.  Sweet Pea at #20 is his most 'modern' highly ranked fighter.

http://www.boxing.com/news/comments/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1

with all due respect to someone that knows more than I do about boxing, that does seem like a typical nostalgia-tinged list. No wonder Floyd doesn't have many top-100 ranked fighters in that list, there just aren't that many in there for him to fight.

I do think there's a huge tendency among boxing fans (and writers) to look back overly fondly at the past. This results in modern fighters records being picked apart far more stringently than the older fighters are. People have rightfully said on this thread that you can pick any record apart really if you try hard enough. It strikes me as unfair that modern fighters records always seemed to be scrutinised the most deeply.

If talking p4p fighters, particularly those that weight jumped, I think it's hard enough to pick a better 10. The order may change but these are the best fighters of all time in my opinion.

I do regard Langford at 1 as straight up wrong.

If I could just quickly chip in about Robinson, I was always under the impression, though my knowledge on the subject is not extensive, that out of the BMR, you can only really level Burley as a guy Ray could and should have boxed and I believe that was around the early 40's. The rest were either past their best or not operating in the same weight class. None of them brought any money to the table either of course, but that's by the by.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:McGrain isn't the only one to have SRL outside the Top 10. I have seen SRL placed around the No.12 spot in liists a few times from memory.

Doesn't even get into the top20 of McGrain's list though, which seems a bit crazy to me.

Yeah I missed SRL's name at No. 16 the first time I looked at the list al well. I looked through the 20-30 fighters and I couuldn't find his name so I reckoned I had missed it in the 10-20 fighters the first time checking.


Here's McGrain's reasoning for SRL's rating:


"#16 Ray Leonard (36-3-1)

For some, Ray Leonard has only one peer in all of boxing, Sugar Ray Robinson, perhaps the greatest fighter ever to have lived. I believe there are other fighters that share this class, but I have some sympathy with those that think otherwise—both Rays had literally everything.

Leonard held a brutal shot, as he proved in fights with Tommy Hearns, against whom he also proved his power and heart. Against Hagler, whatever your own opinion of that decision, he demonstrated a maxed out boxing IQ and once in a generation type generalship. He was fast, fit, and technically brilliant but riffed with the best of them; he was close to perfect.

But, compared to most of the men on this list, he hardly boxed a career. Most of his fellow greats hadn’t even fought for a title when Leonard hung them up. Leonard is fascinating in that he crammed enough great wins into those few fights to find himself firmly ensconced in the top twenty regardless. Between 1979 and 1987 he defeated Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns, then after a short retirement came back past-prime to shade Marvin Hagler. Few of the men ranked above him have four better wins, never mind the men ranked below. He also defeated Randy Shields, Floyd Mayweather Sr., Dave Green, Ayub Kalule and Donny Lalonde. His one prime loss is to the all-time great Roberto Duran but it was a fight the naturally smaller man should not really have been winning. In tandem with a relatively short career arch, it keeps him from the top fifteen."



Seems reasonable enough to me,

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:McGrain isn't the only one to have SRL outside the Top 10. I have seen SRL placed around the No.12 spot in liists a few times from memory.

Doesn't even get into the top20 of McGrain's list though, which seems a bit crazy to me.

Yeah I missed SRL's name at No. 16 the first time I looked at the list al well. I looked through the 20-30 fighters and I couuldn't find his name so I reckoned I had missed it in the 10-20 fighters the first time checking.


Here's McGrain's reasoning for SRL's rating:


"#16 Ray Leonard (36-3-1)

For some, Ray Leonard has only one peer in all of boxing, Sugar Ray Robinson, perhaps the greatest fighter ever to have lived. I believe there are other fighters that share this class, but I have some sympathy with those that think otherwise—both Rays had literally everything.

Leonard held a brutal shot, as he proved in fights with Tommy Hearns, against whom he also proved his power and heart. Against Hagler, whatever your own opinion of that decision, he demonstrated a maxed out boxing IQ and once in a generation type generalship. He was fast, fit, and technically brilliant but riffed with the best of them; he was close to perfect.

But, compared to most of the men on this list, he hardly boxed a career. Most of his fellow greats hadn’t even fought for a title when Leonard hung them up. Leonard is fascinating in that he crammed enough great wins into those few fights to find himself firmly ensconced in the top twenty regardless. Between 1979 and 1987 he defeated Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns, then after a short retirement came back past-prime to shade Marvin Hagler. Few of the men ranked above him have four better wins, never mind the men ranked below. He also defeated Randy Shields, Floyd Mayweather Sr., Dave Green, Ayub Kalule and Donny Lalonde. His one prime loss is to the all-time great Roberto Duran but it was a fight the naturally smaller man should not really have been winning. In tandem with a relatively short career arch, it keeps him from the top fifteen."



Seems reasonable enough to me,

What a loon. SORRY!! Dunno how I scrolled past it so fast!

Personally would not have Sam top myself but would not consider those who have him there to be too far out of left field. Certainly for me he is a guy who deserves to in the conversation as the greatest of all time. He was an absolute phenomena in his prime. As a green novice he was good enough to beat an all time great lightweight in Gans and get a draw against a similarly great Walcott at welter, in a fight most thought he deserved to get the nod in. For a virtual novice to manage this is nothing short of remarkable.

Believe I am right in saying that during his peak years between 1908 and 1913 his record was something like two losses from 50+ fights and both of these were avenged in fine style. Remarkable enough in itself but when one considers Sam was never more than 5ft 7 and could have made middle weight had he been able to secure a fight there it becomes all the more remarkable coming as it did against the cream of the heavyweight division in the likes of Jeannette and McVea, both of whom were resolutely ignored by Johnson. As I say he is not top for me but I cannot think of another fighter who fought at such a disadvantage throughout his career and with so many great results. Definitely a guy who deserves to be right in the mix.

Jeanette and McVey were only ignored when Johnson became champ. That is evidenced by Johnson fighting Jeanette 7 times and McVey 3 times pre-title.

He was fighting them all as they had just started out, he didn't face a single one of them when they were in a rich vein of form. When he first faced Jeanette for instance he had yet to win a single fight.

The criticisms of Mayweather are not being applied across the board, Robinson could and should have faced at least four of the BMR. Williams, Wade, Cocoa Kid, Moore and Burley are all fights that could have happened. If it's a case of money then it's no different to Mayweather wanting more for Pacquiao.

Paccy will never be top 10 so he won't catch him.........

Morales, Jmm devastation.................and five or so defeats..........

Mayweather has been undefeated at the top for 16 years........

Much as the OP doesn't like it he'll have to accept the situation........

DEFEATS COUNT!!!

Thing is most fighters become more respected after they've retired.....

So my guess is If it's controversial top 10 now for Floyd......It will be accepted as the norm in years to come.

Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

The problem with 'on the top for 16 years' is, even ignoring the conveniently timed retirement, in that period he's only 'crammed in' as many decent level fights/defences as the greats of yesteryear would have in 18 months or so.

So it's a bit of a false indicator......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Paccy will never be top 10 so he won't catch him.........

Morales, Jmm devastation.................and five or so defeats..........

Mayweather has been undefeated at the top for 16 years........

Much as the OP doesn't like it he'll have to accept the situation........

DEFEATS COUNT!!!

Thing is most fighters become more respected after they've retired.....

So my guess is If it's controversial top 10 now for Floyd......It will be accepted as the norm in years to come.

16 years?

If Ray Leonard can't nail down a top ten placing then Floyd has no chance.

16 years ago, Floyd was 11-0 and had just beaten Felipe Garcia 14-18-1.

Floyd wasn't even a PPV attraction until 2007 for goodness sake.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

Robinsons record would take some dissecting,200 fights, stopped only once through heat exhaustion and boxing till your 45, I wouldn't like to even attempt to dissect it.

The Mayweather obssessevists strike. Moore over 200 fights from middleweight to heavyweight against some of the most avoided fighters in history. Mayweather gets to pick whoever he wants, when he wants and can wait for opponents to become faded or avoid facing them at all. No contest between Moore and Mayweather.

Completely different careers Haz, Leonard fought in 13 title fights with a record of 10-2-1 compared to Mayweathers 25-0. Another good statistic is that Mayweather is a 5 time lineal champion across four weights compared to Leonard as a three time champion across two weights. Mayweather is also one of only two triple world champions to not lose a title in the ring.

Leonard is a fighter you have to use the eyeball test on to evaluate, his four top wins aren't enough on their own, it's his undeniable talent that sees him rated so highly.

All lists are nostalgic...........Bernstein has Johnson top 7..

Which makes it stupid for the OP to comment that Floyd isn't top 10.........

He's top 10 in 30 lists on here........and for me considering Sugar has Dempsey top 10 is VALID enough....

I'll take the Captain and Chris lists over some experts anyday..

Stop saying Floyd isn't top 10 kiddo because he is on some respected lists.........

BERNSTEIN.......Hagler and Johnson top 10 and he's an expert!!.......OUCH.

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

Robinsons record would take some dissecting,200 fights, stopped only once through heat exhaustion and boxing till your 45, I wouldn't like to even attempt to dissect it.

Pulling out of fights with Williams, Burley, Moore and Cocoa Kid would be a good place to start if I go down the Mayweather route of evaluating boxers or I could judge him on his actual record. I have him at number one but if we're knocking Mayweather then why not everyone else. He was signed to fight Cocoa Kid but was given such hell in sparring he pulled out, the exact same thing happened against Tiger Wade who he eventually did fight.

Surely all it really highlights is just how subjective these lists are and how fallacious the p4p concept can be?

Mayweather 2-0 on McGrain's list (which isn't the bible but a hell of a good punt).

Pacquiao 7-2-1.

Moore 11-10

Good illustration of how tough they've been matched.

It does, if somebody is a favourite of yours you'll make every excuse under the sun to justify a high placing and it also works in reverse. Using historical lists to place current fighters will never work.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Completely different careers Haz, Leonard fought in 13 title fights with a record of 10-2-1 compared to Mayweathers 25-0. Another good statistic is that Mayweather is a 5 time lineal champion across four weights compared to Leonard as a three time champion across two weights. Mayweather is also one of only two triple world champions to not lose a title in the ring.

Leonard is a fighter you have to use the eyeball test on to evaluate, his four top wins aren't enough on their own, it's his undeniable talent that sees him rated so highly.

No, Leonard is rated as highly due to the work he got done: Hearns 1-0-1, Hagler 1-0, Duran 2-1, Benitez 1-0. That's why he rates so highly -- nothing to do with how he looked.

How many lineal title fights has Floyd won? 25-0 in this day and age isn't that impressive a stat. Wladimir Klitschko must be in that ballpark surely?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It does, if somebody is a favourite of yours you'll make every excuse under the sun to justify a high placing and it also works in reverse. Using historical lists to place current fighters will never work.

Here are my favourite fighters: Hearns, Benn, Lewis. Show me where I've made excuses to justify a high ranking for those three? Absolute tosh.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

Robinsons record would take some dissecting,200 fights, stopped only once through heat exhaustion and boxing till your 45, I wouldn't like to even attempt to dissect it.

Pulling out of fights with Williams, Burley, Moore and Cocoa Kid would be a good place to start if I go down the Mayweather route of evaluating boxers or I could judge him on his actual record. I have him at number one but if we're knocking Mayweather then why not everyone else. He was signed to fight Cocoa Kid but was given such hell in sparring he pulled out, the exact same thing happened against Tiger Wade who he eventually did fight.

So allegedly ducked 4 fighters in a 200 fight career,OK we'll leave it at that.

We have to be careful what we mean about experts..........

That holocaust denier knows more about WW2 than I ever will.............

But I'm saying the holocaust happened......

Because he wrote a few books he's right ?? Nope

Good posters on here who have seen thousands of fights have Mayweather top 10 including myself.......(I'm an excellent poster though!)

I think Haz does us an injustice to suggest our opinions don't count because we don't have Jack Johnson at 7 and are S**t commentators......Or write books about where someone came from and who he fought!! So what !

Expert has one opinion ........and for me captain Carrot types are experts.

although for me everyone's opinion counts........equally.

Theres a healthy obsession with thinking being unbeaten is the be all and end all. It only encourages fighters to act like Mayweather and carefully plan their fights. If his own fans want him to take easy fights that he wont lose then no wonder he doesnt take up the biggest challenges. Give me a Moore or a Duran or a Leonard over that anyday. Challenges are what make enriches boxing. Not minimising risk. Mayweather is proof that if you carefully manage your career you can fool people into thinking your achiveiments are better than the great fighters you took on the toughest challenges. No idea how Moore can be lower than Mayweather. Much tougher career and if he was around nowadays and operated the same way as Mayweather does he would quite easily be unbeaten in 50 or 60 fights even at the age of 40.