How will boxing history remember Floyd Mayweather?

I always forget the Oscar fight. Still he was the best fighter he could fight at the time.

I personally do the the amateurs has a baring on overall legacy.

 

No it doesn't. Greatness is based purely on the professional game.

 

Floyd lost to Augie Sanchez in the and ams anyway

 

well i guess its a matter of opinion. Its an achievment in his boxing career.

 

Een taking it into account it has little effect on his ranking.

Larry Holmes was stopped **** loads as an amateur. The amateur game has little bearing on most fighters in the pro game, especially by the time Floyd competed in that sport.

For the benefit of this thread, shall we ignore his Olympic achievment? Is it any more impressive than a fighter with no am experience succeeding in the pro game?

 

somewhere close to mcallum

 

Slightly behind Jeff Thomas. :think

 

I'd have him below Kalambay myself.

 

a fighter acheiving allot with no expirience is also impressive and adds to legacy.

we are just judging Mayweather here no comparing him to other fighters.

this is not about ranking.

 

Fair enough Rob but when people say he's amongst the most skilled fghters of all time when his skillset hasn't been pitted aainst enough 'greats' I object to it.

I don't think he's as great as Kalambay, and Sumbu isn't one of the true elite 'greats' IMO. I use Kalambay because he utilised a similar style much more effectively, though because he isn't a 'character' or benefitted from weight hopping and numerous ABC titles he doesn't get as much press/kudos.

In short, if Floyd is to be remembered as 'the most skilled fighter of his generation' I object to it.

 

this is your problem Flea. Stop comparing him to other fighters from the past and just apreciate him for what he is. Kalambay is not part of his generation. I do not think he is the one of most skilled fighter ever, just ignore the clowns that say that.

Compare him to the fighters he has been about at the same time as. The major fighters in that time would be Lennox Lewis, Jones Jnr, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Winky Wright, De La Hoya, Pacquiao, Mosley, Morales, Barerra, Marquez etc..

 

I think you could add Hopkins to that list.

 

Eh? I'm referring to what others have said.

Surely appreciating for what he is, and saying he is one of te most skilled fighters of his generation, requires comparing him to other fighters?

I have no problem anyway. Why do I have a problem, because I don't rate him as high as others?

Floyd is grossly overrated. I've said it time and time again and have always offered evidence to back it up. That's not much he's done to be regarded as particularly 'special'. If the first fight with Castillo had gone the other way he'd barely warrant a mention, people are just loved up with the '0'.

You can pick holes in Hops record I agree, but the holes in Floyds game are presented to you in a fashion that isn't avoidable. Holes or not, Hopkins has more going for him than Floyd does, they are on different levels.

If I object to something I have to use a comparison as basis for an argument. His resume barely needs to be picked apart anymore, even his staunchest supporters are well aware of it's mediocrity and fall back on 'well clearly he would beat those guys look how skilled he is'.

How many different styles has he actually conquered? And how formidable where those fighters?

Floyd is very very good, but not an 'all time great'. IMO :good

 

Jones has a better resume though. And looked even more brilliant :deal