I don't have a huge issue with anyone who calls Floyd Mayweather Jr. the GOAT..

Hmmm.

ATG? Certainly.

GOAT ... I don't think so.

 

But how can you argue against that claim?

 

I don't have an issue with anybody who thinks so either. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I don't think he is even close to being GOAT, but that it just me.

 

Yeah, especially if you make the assumption that athletes have only gotten better and better and thus harder and harder to dominate.

 

Well I will admit that I've elevated his status substantially over the last year or two but it's never going to be to the level of being GOAT as far as I'm concerned. To me the GOAT has to also show how he would do in the trenches, and more heart and guts than I've seen from Floyd. But I think he's comfortably in the top 25 and maybe as high as 15 or so. Would have been nice if he had more than 49-50 fights given some of the truly greats fought well over double and in some cases 4-5+ more fights. It's hard to put his accomplishments into context as I consider the titles and varies divisions watered down more than use to be the case. But he's certainly a top echelon fighter regardless of where people rank him.

 

Well I don't have a huge issue because of his skill level.

If someone thinks he's the most skilled of all time it's an opinion they're entitled to and probably could justify.

I have him in my top 30 and he's in my top 15 at SFW, LW and WW. Anyone boxer I history at those weights, anyone you pit against Floyd, you could make a solid argument for favouring Floyd.

For instance I personally think Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, Armstrong, Whitaker, Duran and Napoles all beat him, maybe a few others as well. I wouldn't vehemently disagree with someone saying they think he can out point Sugar though.

It's justifiable having him number 1, you just wouldn't catch me trying to justify it.

I think most other rank on things like resume and greatness and in that regard I think I would rank Pacman higher than him despite Floyd being more skilled.

 

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY[/url]

 

Well I think it's laughable to rank him above people like Duran or Armstrong for instance.

 

Not really, don't forget Duran was beat in his heyday.

 

What would Greb's, Robinson's, Langford's, and so many others' resumes look like if they had as many belts and divisions to play with? As much as I enjoyed Mayweather's ability, which was outstanding, he never once beat a prime great.

 

Then you shouldn't have a problem with people saying Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest of all time. Because SRR easily matches and surpasses everything you have mentioned.

 

Yes Duran was once was 72-1, but Floyd only fighting 49 fights means we really don't know how he would have done if he fought another 24 times. The activity level between the two is day and night. Moving forward from lightweight, Duran had a lot more peaks and valleys than Floyd did. The lows were lower but the highs were higher. In fact I would argue that Duran's lost to Hagler was better than any of Floyd's wins.

 

So was Mayweather arguably by Castillo.