Floyd makes his case as the GOAT

True but we simply have more evidence that SSR was greater for longer against more opponents (IMO). I agree this is not fair as it is not Floyd's fault he fights in a different era. Some may feel H2H Floyd may have a chance but P4P SSR is maybe greater, I suppose we must combine both "scores" to get an overall picture of their comparative greatness. Personally I have SSR winning head to head but the gap closes P4P.

 

This is just it.

Someone in the running simply doesn't need to argue their own case like that - not to mention that the criteria he uses (including gate receipts and money earned) are of little relevance.

 

RJJ was kind of going that way before Tarver, so even though it's harder with less fights for one to quality without almost a sliver of a doubt it shouldn't be impossible. Of course, even if it wasn't for Tarver there were names missing from his resume that would always have been brought up in these discussions.

Had Pac convincingly won all the fights with Morales, Marquez and Floyd, I might just have him as the GOAT, though. Those crazy achievements would quite possibly overshadow what he lacks in number of wins compared to for example SRR.

Personally I think the quality is there as much as ever. Inoue, Usyk and Crawford are crazily talented as far as I'm concerned, but the difficulty/reluctance to make the right fights today (it took Crawford some five years to reach undisputed at WW and it will take Usyk something similar at HW if he wins and Fury doesn't somehow back out) means that it's harder to erase every question mark.

SRR met and took care of just about every one who mattered at WW and MW the years he campaigned there full time, often several times over at that, and threw in even the LW champion for good measure when he was just getting started. So there are hardly any what ifs there.

Not perfectly fair, but a fairly logical conclusion if you want to speculate as little as possible.

But let's see where Inoue takes things.

 

Any list like this that has Roberto Duran #1 is a bad list, to me.

I watched Roberto Duran absolutely suck for virtually all of the last 20 years of his career. I watched so many bad and embarrassing Roberto Duran performances, I quit watching.

I know there are a lot of fans who only consider when someone was the very best, and that's how they choose to remember them. But when you watch someone look awful for longer than they looked good, in real time, it's impossible to ignore year after year after year of terrible performances.

What kind of imaginary walls do people have to build in their minds to put Duran over those three guys on the list above who beat him? (Leonard beat him twice - easily.)

Duran wasn't better than Leonard, or Hearns (AT ALL) or Hagler. (He wasn't even better than Hagler's brother. That's sarcasm.)

How lists like the one above don't completely outrage people boggles my mind.

Can you imagine if Floyd Mayweather got obliterated in two rounds by one fellow in a unification ... then Mayweather quit in the middle of a title fight, gave up his title in the ring and said No More against another guy ... and lost a unanimous decision in a title fight against a third guy ... and someone on here made a list and put Mayweather above all those guys?

I know these lists are all for fun, but I can't separate myself from reality and pretend Roberto Duran belongs higher on any list with Hearns. They got in the ring, and we saw who was better.

It wasn't Duran.

No version of Duran beats any version of Hearns. So, if you're making a list with Duran on it, my advice would be to make sure it's a an all-time lightweight list or something that Hearns doesn't qualify for.



I was a young fan at the end of Duran's lightweight run and when he moved up to welterweight, looked amazing against Palomino. My dad and uncles all loved him. (Who didn't?) And I was 16 when Duran quit against Leonard.

Except for a fight with Moore here and a fight with Barkley there (and I thought Barkley won that fight) ... Duran was, more times than not, mediocre to bad and often embarrassing from the time I was 16 until I was 37 years old.

So it's virtually impossible for me to rate Duran on the top of about anything, because he was bad for so long for me in REAL time.

That's why, as I've gotten older, I realize how impressive it is for someone like Mayweather to be great his ENTIRE career ... the whole time, and never lose and beat so many big names that he did.

Because so many fighters AREN'T GREAT the whole time.

 

There's a lot of "what ifs" at middleweight, aren't there?

Robinson won one of four against Fullmer. Lost two to Pender (no wins). Lost to Downes (no wins). Lost to Archer (no wins). Lost to Giardello (no wins). Lost and won against Turpin. Lost and won against Basilio. Lost and won againts Denny Moyer.

Robinson also lost and never won against journeyman middleweights "who never mattered" like Tiger Jones, lost and never won against journeyman middleweights Phil Moyer, Mick Leahy, Memo Ayon, Stan Harrington (two losses, no wins) and Ferd Hernandez.

How is winning one of out four against Fullmer, splitting two with longshot underdog Randy Turpin and splitting two with former welterweight Basilio seen as "taking care" of everyone?

If Mayweather went one for four against anyone I can't see posters here nodding in agreement and thinking that was Mayweather "taking care" of someone.

There's not even the "out of sight, out of mind excuse" with Robinson. We can watch him lose A LOT. In fact, on film, you can watch Ray Robinson lose to nearly everyone you can watch him beat.

Mayweather fought basically everyone who mattered, too, and didn't lose anything to anyone as a pro.

I don't understand the disconnect. Isn't beating all the names you faced and NEVER losing to any of them better than splitting two or never beating them at all?

Hold them to the same standard.

 

It's quite fantastic that you not once has acknowledged the different number of fights. Despite it being an extremely obvious factor and despite me bringing it up time and time again in our discussion. But you refuse to even touch upon it. Wonder why that is...

If Floyd was as consistent as he was but after 150-200 fights, about 50 of them against ranked opposition, - yes, then I would definitely see your case. Even with the IV business (i e doping), stuff that weren't around in Robinson's day.

But he was 100-150 fights shy of that number, and on modern PEDs, so we will never know. How hard is that to comprehend?

The fact is that he is no unicorn. Calzaghe also looked very good at a similar age (not quite as good as Floyd, but very good), with almost the same number of fights. Hopkins ruled supreme at MW at 35+, not picking and choosing like Floyd did at that stage. Crawford and Usyk look great pushing 37, Crawford demolishing Spence at a an age where Floyd struggled with Maidana.

Will these guys almost round up your top 5 with Floyd when they retire? Top 2 sport being taken by Crawford and top 5 by Ward?

Because these guys' consistency in their 30's annihilates most of the usual suspects' in the top 10 at that age.

And this is the only criteria I think I've seen you mention so far.

So Floyd is not alone in looking good in his late 30's, but I don't know who comes even close to Robinson going some 90 fights unbeaten against that class of competition. That should tell you something.

 

At the risk of speaking for @THE BLADE 2, it's a p4p list, based on their entire careers, not a H2H list at 154lbs.

Who do you rank as the "greater" fighter, p4p, Carl Thompson or Chris Eubank? Danny Green or RJJ?

I appreciate those 4 x fighters have nothing to do with Duran & Hearns, I reference them to try to help you understand a concept, a concept that sees the vast majority of people rank Duran higher on p4p ATG lists than Hearns.

 

I have no problem with anyone rating Robinson #1.
I have no problem with anyone rating Mayweather #1.
I have no problem with a lot of people being ranked #1 once someone states their case.

My point, which I've stated repeatedly, is Mayweather has as much of a case for #1 as anyone you'd rate there.

I know Ray went on a phenomenal run. That's what most point to as the reason they have him #1. I get it.

But Robinson also lost to a lot of names, he split with a lot of names, he didn't beat some names at all, he didn't even beat some pretty basic journeymen at all. I acknowledge that, too. (As should you.)

If you're rating the best ever, and you're comparing one guy who beat every name and everyone he faced, and you're comparing him to another who fought more but lost or split many ...
* The number of fights supports Robinson ...
* But those 50 fights and all those titles and divisions Mayweather fought in WITH NO LOSSES ... levels the field quite a bit.

Also, regarding the number of Ray's fights compared to the number of Floyd's, Sugar Ray Robinson quit boxing to take up tap dancing.

If he made more tap dancing, Robinson never would've come back to boxing.

Mayweather made $430 million in purses before he ever signed to fight Pacquiao (and reportedly made $250 million for that one fight).

Forget 200 fights, Ray Robinson wouldn't have fought 20 times if he made the money Mayweather did.

Hell, on more than one occasion Ray Robinson would sit in the dressing room on nights when he fought on TV and refuse to go out unless the promoter paid him more money ... because he knew the promoter and the network had advertised his fight.

It was ALL about money for Ray Robinson. He didn't even like boxing.

Hagler famously talked about how difficult it is to get up and run when you wear silk pajamas. Mayweather had more silk pajamas (if you will) than any boxer in history. The fact that he remained committed and never lost and still went 50-0 says something about his will to win, IMO.

So when people talk about how 50 fights isn't that much, compared to the old timers, when it comes to Mayweather, I'm shocked he fought as many times as he did and the money didn't negatively impact his performances.

Anyone who thinks Ray Robinson fights 200 times if he could make $250 million for one fight (like Floyd did against Pacquiao) ... never saw Ray tap dance.

 

Sure, but he didn't earn as much and he did fight 200+ fights and was not far from unbeatable for the first 120 of them.

We don't know that the same could have been said of Floyd, who avoided several of the best guys in the division when he was on 40+ fights, in other words almost 80 short of SRR:s number when he retired as a MW champion before being forced back because of tax issues.

That's why it can't and shouldn't be forgotten.

 

Well, I can say Floyd Mayweather WAS unbeatable during his whole career, because he never lost.

And he beat guys just as good as anyone Ray Robinson beat. He certainly didn't lose to anyone as bad as the guys Ray Robinson lost to.

 

He certainly didn't beat anyone as good as Angott and Zivic when just starting out as a pro. Prime Kid Gavilan and LaMotta... I'll let others dice that one out.

And for maybe the 7th, but certainly last, time - we don't don't now who he would have lost to when closing in on 150 and 200 fights. That you fail to even adress this over this many posts is an indictment of the kind of poster you are.

So, enough time wasted.

 

Duran's prime ended after 147, you know, after 70 + bouts, at least 20 more bouts than Mayweather had IN HIS 21 YEARS AS A PRO LOL. After that he was a guy that was capable of good performances but was basically well past his prime the whole time he was mediocre. Any fighter if they hang on too long are going to look like crap.

 

I definitely respect Mayweather's dedication and (to be controversial) his respect for the fans in that he always showed up fit, prepared and with a clear game plan. This is actually what I admire about Larry Holmes and use to defend him when people take pot shots at him. Yes he could have fought XYZ but at the end of the day he was the fittest most dedicated guy on the block and I feel Floyd could be seen like this. I think fans like someone like Duran because he is a bit like Homer Simpson, a flawed guy who we can relate to. His falls from grace and then his redemption appeal to fans who like the romance of boxing while people don't tend to warm to perfection. For example no seemed to like Pete Sampras, for all his tennis success fans didn't warm to him because he was almost too professional but they love someone like McEnroe.

I think it is hard to separate the stories and legends and just focus on cold hard facts with boxing because it is such an involving and emotive sport!

 

So are Calzaghe and Marciano in the mix for the top spot as well?

 

It's not an indictment of anything. I'm trying to keep an open mind ever since we had a discussion here about whether anyone would ever replace Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis at the top of the all-time heavyweight rankings.

And someone said maybe Lennox Lewis would. And I'd never thought about that before, but Lewis did win the Olympic gold against a hall of famer (Bowe), beat everyone he faced as a pro, finished his career with a win over hall of famer Vitali Klitschko ... and retired on top. And I'd much rather have had Lennox's career than Joe's or Muhammad's.

So, why not?

Would you have rather had Floyd's career or Ray Robinson's? Would you rather retire unbeaten, with a laundry list of great fighters on your record (all wins), with more money than any boxer in the history of the sport ever earned, where your weigh-ins turned into events where thousands of people turned out to watch ... or would you rather have Ray Robinson's career? Or Duran's? Or whoever you want to name.

Everyone clearly doesn't use the same criteria to rate fighters.

Should the guy who was the best fighter ever end his career losing on bad shows to nobodies who never amount to anything? Or retire on top, having beaten everyone, with the guys you beat going on to have great careers themselves?

Should the best fighter ever be great the WHOLE TIME, or be great most of the time, or just be great for a handful of years and then be mediocre or suck the rest?

I lean more toward fighters who were great for a long time (and who were mediocre or sucked the least amount of time - preferably not at all). Like I said, I have no problem with Ray Robinson being number one.

Compared to most fighters, Robinson's accomplishments far outweigh his bad losses. He has credentials others don't have. But others, like Mayweather, have strengths and credentials he doesn't have, too, and Mayweather doesn't have the bad losses to drag him down.