Now Floyd Mayweather has "retired"...

To be honest the p4p lists start to get ****ty and confusing when boxers close to the top of the pile start getting decisions they didn't necessarily deserve.

 

Like people ranking Pacquiao above Bradley after their first fight, but disregard the fact JMM deserved the nod in his 3rd fight with Pacquiao. The problem is theirs to many belts (we know we all know this) meaning the big fights don't get made, so it's very hard to judge who's the more dominating in their division.

 

Agree with the Berto fight. It was ridiculous that it was even billed as paper view material. But the Pac fight was an important match.

I am.. Especially with the Alvarez fight. For all his shortcomings, Saul Alvarez was a highly touted young champion. he was 43-0 with two world titles and coming fresh off a win over another highly thought of young talent. If Klitscko had beaten a heavyweight with those same exact qualifications you'd have a room full of fans with hardons and the same could be said for a lot of other champions of other weight classes. The Maidana fights don't do much for him but if we're honest Maidana was no soft touch. He had just beaten a very solid opponent in Adrian Broner and had both proven power and durability. Floyd had to work for those wins and he earned them.

Could be the case. But I can't think of anyone over the past five years who legitimately deserved a higher rating p4p.. The man has stepped up and beaten the best of multiple weight classes and fought a lot of the top names people were calling for. No he didn't fight EVERYBODY, but seldom do we ever see a champion bounce through every weight class to take on every man with a heart beat.... And as per your comment about fighters being ranked on fame and hype and charisma, well I think some of the old timers get a boost from some of that too.

Brandon Rios, Timothy Bradley and even Chris Algieri were all legitimately good wins.. Especially Bradley. It certainly awarded him the right to a top rating at welterweight if not p4p..

But against who? wins over Bradley, Rios and Algieri with his only defeat coming in a close fight to one of the greatest fighters of all time? If you ask me that's a pretty good 3-1 record.

There certainly are... But most of them are either in drastically higher divisions or drastically lower ones. Floyd can only be expected to travel so far to face these men and when people chastise him for not doing so it only confirms my point that the onus is always placed upon his shoulders to make such adjustments.. So in a way his detractors are actually giving him credit by bestowing these expectations upon him...

 

That's fair--I agree that these rankings are too conservative and weigh career accomplishments too heavily. Pacquiao is a great example. Marquez too.

 

I hear you, that's a valid point. But it also depends how you interpret the purpose of "p4p" rankings. I've never thought of it as just being a measure of a fighter's recent dominance within their current division-- that's just a component of it.

EDIT: added "recent" dominance because I think that's what you're really getting at.

 

Let's face it... If Floyd were to sign to fight GGG and somehow mange to pull off a miracle I'd bet my house, my first born and everything I hold dear that people around here would be calling him a chicken shlt for not fighting Ward or Kovalev. Its one of the few things in this life that I'd be willing to guarantee.

 

I don't consider Povetkin as anything much less than Alvarez, and Wlad beat Povetkin the following month. Wlad dominated the fight.
Neither win gives me a hardon.
But either way, we're going back 23 or 24 months.

I don't think Rios was a good welterweight, or even a ranked one, not then and not since.
Bradley was a good win.
Algieri was okay.

This was Pacquiao coming off the bad KO loss to Marquez. I don't see how that's enough to put him in the p4p top 2 again. But I've said all this before and no one ever has convinced me.

Was May-Pac close ?
I suppose it was so uneventful it might have been close.

It's not a great record considering it is all he's done in almost 3 whole years.

I was referring to Pacquiao's rating. I think there must be more worthy fighters to be ranked above him RIGHT NOW on the "pound for pound list". He's unlikely to be top 10, imo, based on that record.
But, like I said, the ratings are kind of impossible.
And I'm not saying Pacquiao doesn't have the ability to be "the best" or in "the top 5", I'm just saying he has to earn it.

 

:good
Exactly my point.
The criteria for those rankings is too vague and slanted.

I'm not arguing against any particular ranking or saying Mayweather is 100% unworthy of the status he's been given on those lists, but I'm questioning whether we really know what their purpose is and whether we can really make sense of them.

I think it's often just a case of it sounding good to people in the industry and on the internet. To be "pound for pound" the best is extra hype and glory for the sport.

 

Nah, he's chickensh!t for not fighting Rhonda Rousey.

 

Calzaghe should not be mentioned in the same breath

 

Oscar shades Floyd on best wins (Tito and Pea). Obviously, he screwed up way more than Floyd. I would pick Floyd to beat any version of oscar.

 

Fair enough.
I'd probably rank Mayweather above Oscar too. But for me they are close enough to be in the same tier.

 

Nah.. Alvarez had considerably more fights than Alexander, was a lot younger, the clear best in his division and coming off a win over someone who was a lot higher in status than anyone Povetkin had beaten. And Klitscko didn't have to rise in weight to face Povetkin. Quite adversely he HAD the advantage in size.

You need some boxing fan's viagara.

No not at welterweight. But he was 5-1 in world title fights in lower classes, in his prime and incidentally is currently ranked top 10 at welter as we speak.. You should also consider that this was Pac's first fight in a year and following a devastating loss. He could have taken on a lot worse.

Two undefeated world title holders who were coming off of big wins and more or less in their primes? yeah I'd agree.

Thing is JMM was also highly rated and is very likely a future hall of fame inductee.. His multiple battles with Pac are the kind of thing that legendary rivalries are made of. losing to a guy like that doesn't just knock someone completely off the face of the earth in ratings.. And pac coming back to beat two prime world title holders plus a prime former title holder put him right back in the mix of things.

It was a painfully boring fight to watch. But that doesn't decrease its value or importance. Both men were rightfully rated high and it was in high demand for the public.. Would you prefer they just never fought? What you be saying now?

Let's see from June of 2012 to the Mayweather fight of May 2015, Pac fought five times in just under three years.. Those five fights consisted of a robbery loss to Bradley, a defeat to Marquez and wins over Bradley ( rematch ), Rios and Algieri. That's five meetings with world class opposition in just under three years with a record of 3-2 or if we scratch the bradley robbery then 4-1.. What do you want?

RIGHT NOW, yes... At the time of the Floyd fight or in the months leading up to it not really..

Fair enough but at the time he met Mayweather he was legit top 10 p4p. Four months later and after another defeat? then its debatable.

 

Upon further reflection by your prompting, I do rank Joe above Floyd.

 

Good question. I was saying the fight was becoming irrelevant back in 2012 BEFORE Pac even lost by KO to Marquez, and by 2015 it was several years too late. Still, I did watch it, and expected a boring UD win for Mayweather, hoping for something better ... yet it didn't even live up that low expectation. I'm not sure what I'd prefer but if I'd known it would be THAT bad I wouldn't have even watched it live.

I want to know how that compares with other records at the same time.
I'm not overly impressed.

Well, I was talking about now really, to illustrate that the rankings seem very flawed to me. Pacquiao is still sitting at 5 or 6.
Maybe the standard is just low.

I question whether Pacquiao and Mayweather were the "top 2 pound-for-pound" when they fought, and I also question what that even means. I don't really want or expect any answers to that because I don't think anyone actually knows.

I'd rather say Pacquiao was probably the best available active welterweight challenger at that time, which is meaningful.