Why is Mayweather not the greatest of all time?

nevertheless, post 2010, Floyd was to boxing what Ariana Grande was to the world of music

 

cherry pick

 

Way too calculated in his match making and never beat a prime atg.

That being said, Mayweather didn't retire that long ago and he has so many haters. Decades from now he'll be in the vast majority of fans top 10 lists, his feats and resume will look better with time. Mayweather being above Leonard is a very controversial take, but in 30 years it won't be, they'll be neck and neck

 

He's already put at #1 by most casuals.

 

Yes but not hardcore fans

 

He took fights that suited his style. Especially, after Gatti. Doesn't matter if they were a little bigger, he had reach and speed.

 

We go back forever in "all time".

 

....because he's not a heavyweight might be the simplest answer. 'Casual' fans have a huge impact on the cultural landscape of the boxing wasteland and the heavyweight champion is THE guy for many. Another reason might be he lacks cultural/societal impact. Foreman summed it up when he quipped Ali wasn't the best boxer he'd ever fought, he was the best MAN. And thirdly, Floyd never had a Frazier, a Liston, a Foreman. He never had a nemesis who could match him, who was also an ATG and who he had to 'go to the well' to beat. Floyd has never been in the 'near room to dyin' ', he was too good, too careful, too clever. For me, I think Floyd is criminally underrated because of the above. And I think he matches well with any of the fighters who fought at his weight(s) throughout history. I have him much higher than many in my myhtical all time list.

 

Because boxing before was just a d measuring contest and that lead to a lot of
"I am better than you"
"No I am better than you"
Then they fight and there is a lot of brain damage involved in it because their at their peak athletically.

With Mayweather it is a lot more commercial. His biggest strength is his boxing IQ. I don't think people realize just how smart he actually is in the ring even though he cant read. And his intelligence in the ring leads to fighting people at the right time. He fought Pacquiao 5 years too late, he fights Coralles before going into prison, he fights Marquez at a catchweight.
He boasts about his defence. Well it is easy to talk about defense when the guys you are fighting aren't in fighitng shape.

when to fighters fight, both at the top of their game, you are bound to take some damage. Even with Floyds super defense, he still got a tooth knocked out by Maidana and shook by Mosley.

 

Floyd is not in the same category as Robinson, Duran, Greb, Langford, Armstrong, Fitzsimmons, Pep, Leonard, Moore, Walker, Gans and so many more. To believe he is number one shows a serious lack of knowledge of boxing history and so only casuals and newbies place him anywhere near the number 1 or top 20-30.

 

Enough said.....

 

Mayweather is a fascinating study in the age of spin and genuine credentials.

On film, the most consistently skilled defensive fighter of all times, arguably. On record, undefeated, yet like Calzaghe, Ward and even Crawford, there are aspects of the career and résumé that we have to question.

Fights against fighters out of their prime, stipulations that scream opportunist rather than pure warrior - for all the skill, you can't find a handful of fights where he was outgunned or shouldn't be favoured so is it any surprise when he beats said fighters and then knowing that he held the bulk of advantage, why the stipulations to swing things in his favour? Basically, how skilled are you really when those skills aren't put to the test by a fighter that holds significant advantages over you?

Now, that being said, Robbi, Ali and Ray Leonard before him all negotiated aspects to their favour, but all of them stood in the furnace of fire against live ATGs and came out on the other side with victories that enhance their legend.

You could argue that Floyd was dominant in a Louis-like fashion so nobody else, other than PAC, got a chance to be an ATG, but that's a surface level comparison. Louis held the belt when there was only one champion. Floyd picked up titles and didn't unify, missing out on fighters that I believe that he would've beaten anyways.

Back to the crux of the argument - when he retired first time around, he was a bonafide great but he hadn't surpassed the very best of Roy. What he did in subsequent years with the likes of McGregor, Berto, Maidana etc. is not going to catapult him above Ali, Gans, Duran, Langford, Benny Leonard, Armstrong, Pep, Charles, Louis, Fitz, Armstrong, Greb and Robbi. You could also argue the likes of Saddler, Moore, Jofre, Walker, Ray Leonard etc.

Floyd is one of my favourite fighters and as said, on film, I don't think anyone demonstrates defence as consistently effective as he did BUT résumés matter and so do standards. Unfortunately, some of those that came before him set some impossible standards that today's fighter has an unfair mountain to climb to eclipse them. Add in low threat business moves first, legacy second mindset - you have to respect the money earning and leaving with your faculties intact IQ about how he went about his career but then whilst respecting that you gotta them remember that there were predecessors who took the highest threat business moves first and managed to tie it in with legacy at the same time.

 

You can’t do this sort of argument without giving huge passes to others for burning out, cherry picking (Ray Leonard), not moving up through weight classes, or just being inconsistent. People act like beating the pfp best while 38 or beating the next pfp guy while 36 and in a fifth weightclass are small feats.

 

Not really - I already alluded to Ray's negotiation tactics. Ray beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler - Floyd doesn't have anything near this on his record and certainly not fighting at the disadvantages that Hearns presented for Ray. Floyd trumps Ray for consistency, of course.

Then again, Ray is not held to be the best ever by any credible person that I am aware of that talks boxing. Floyd put himself up there as the best to ever do it - when compared to the likes of Greb, Robbi, Armstrong, Langford etc. what he actually achieved and when and how he fought fighters e.g., Pac, Sharmba, Mosley, Oscar, Berto, McGregor, Guerrero, Maidana etc. matters and will be scrutinised to the nth degree.

Floyd's will always be one of my favourite fighters, much like Roy - I watched their whole careers and I maintain that Floyd didn't marvel like Roy at his mercurial best and the closest one of them two that had an argument of being the best was likely Roy after he beat Ruiz and I still maintain that he still would've needed to do it against Lennox and well, we know how that would've played out and that is exactly why he didn't do it.

Quite simply, you have to dare to be great - picking up a title isn't enough, being the best on paper isn't enough - you have to beat the man and leave absolutely no doubt. Floyd beat almost everybody, but did he beat them when they weren't compromised, without his own IV scandal(s)?

 

The top heavyweight IS the man. It's the top division. The best at heavyweight beats all the rest. That's factual.

The 'casual' take is the belief in something called "pound for pound". It's become a huge marketable ploy, to market fights at welterweight or super-middleweight or whatever as having "pound for pound" prestige. Which the average casual fan buys into but can rarely explain what makes it so. They just believe what they are told.