Can any fighter pass the Floyd Mayweather Assessment?

This is a new method for assessing if fighters should be regarded as great all time P4P fighters. I learned about it in the thread discussing his P4P ranking against Sugar Ray Leonard, and I think it will revolutionise our rankings. Here is how you do it

Pretend they are multiple weight divisions heavier than they are. Which means if their wins aren't impressive for someone at least a classic weight division heavier, they aren't impressive

Aging doesn't matter. Yup, you no longer get any extra credit for great wins when past your best. This also means losses can't be overlooked because they were past their best.

H2H is very important. You can't be a great fighter, if you don't win imaginary fights with greats from other eras. This rule applies in the context of the first rule, so these fights are all with naturally bigger opponents, but the results are seen as them against similar sized or smaller opponents

Aging is very important. While it doesn't apply to the fighter themselve, it matters if any of their opponents are past their peak, and they should get no credit for beating past it greats even if they are still considered amount the best of their division, or even P4P. Remember this in the context of no credit for winning whil past your best, so the fighter being past it themselves still means no credit for past it opponents.

No credit for beating fighters bigger than yourself. Apparently

Anyone they didn't face at their peak is clear evidence of ducking and cherrypicking, entirely their fault, and taken very seriously.

Beating fighters before their best gets no credit. Again no matter their ranking at the time in their division or P4P.

No credit for beating fighters outside their best weight. Even if you are outside your best weight yourself.

From this, I'm happy to reveal the new Top 50 P4P boxers of all time.

1. Vacant
2. Vacant
3. Vacant
4. Vacant
5. Vacant
6. Vacant
7. Vacant
8. Vacant
9. Vacant
10. Vacant
11. Vacant
12. Vacant
13. Vacant
14. Vacant
15. Vacant
16. Vacant
17. Vacant
18. Vacant
19. Vacant
20. Vacant
21. Vacant
22. Vacant
23. Vacant
24. Vacant
25. Vacant
26. Vacant
27. Vacant
28. Vacant
29. Vacant
30. Vacant
31. Vacant
32. Vacant
33. Vacant
34. Vacant
35. Vacant
36. Vacant
37. Vacant
38. Vacant
39. Vacant
40. Vacant
41. Vacant
42. Vacant
43. Vacant
44. Vacant
45. Vacant
46. Vacant
47. Vacant
48. Vacant
49. Vacant
50. Vacant

 

Oh I forgot these two rules.

No extra credit for depth of resume.

Beating the best in a division doesn't count count if you don't dominate it. How this rule applies, while depth and longevity don't is anyone's guess. The important thing is that they all dimminish the fighter's achievements.

 

Can't believe we're actually agreeing on something, lol.

 

I think a touch above Leonard, but for sure below the likes of Armstrong. Maybe similar to Duran who peaked higher but was less consistent.

It's hard to know with all time rankings, when you look into most wins there's astericks and more going on, but I do think Floyd has a few too many that knock him down, but for me easilly the best boxer of his generation.