if floyd beats...

#1

 

you know the answer: to most of the dumbassed (and obviously inbred:yep ) pbf haters, he would still have "never beaten anyone of note"atsch

 

I'd have him at #2 probably if he did that, maybe #1 (BLASPHEMY!).

That's a whole hell of a lot of very very stiff competition. Floyd won't.

 

In the top 100 P4P all time..

 

#1 without a doubt. he will have wiped out a talent rich division and moved up to fight fighters much bigger than himself.

 

If all those wins were between 147 and 154 I'd put him in the top 10-20 fighters ever.

Dont get carried away, there's still no top 50 atg's on his resume even if he beat all them guys.

But it would still be enough to rank him up there.

You cant put him top10 though, simply because there's at least 10 people who were better than him.

 

We do have to keep in mind though that 147 and 154 are not exactly Mayweather's prime weight classes. Lacking top 50 ATGs to fight in your prime division (Floyd could almost definitely STILL make 140) moving up other divisions and just fighting the greats of your era and beating them has to count for a whole hell of a lot.

 

#1. But if he though all them he's be 40, by then. If he beats Cotto, Mosley and Magarito then he may be considerd the greatest.

 

It most likely would still degenerate to the chronic nostalgia bias we all suffer.

At this point it's not whom he beats...it's whom he can't ever face due to era difference.

Plus, for obvious reasons, people can still go the hindsight route and say he never fought Freitas or Casamayor at the height of their threats at 130, or Tszyu when he was at 140 as undisputed champion, or Wright when he was at 154 while Mayweather tried bragging again...hell, I'm sure some here rememebr the ribbing about him not fighting Spinks at 154 (why is it that those kinds of things are only brought up as negatives, when we KNOW that would've been an ugly-as-sin fight?)

I don't necessarily agree that's how things should be discussed, or that there should ever be a single all-time list (how is it fair to compare what SRL did in multiple divisions to what hagler did in one???) but as long as they're done that way, I'll say he's one of the greats, and leave it at that, because that's all I think about it now.

The litmus test is 20-30 years from now, when some will say "sure this guy is the best now, but he's no Floyd Mayweather..."

 

If he beat Cotto and Williams alone i'de have him knocking on the top 5's door if not higher..

 

Its very hard to compare present fighters to guys in the past. Those guys sometimes fought once a week. Nowadays a fighter who is "very" active fights 3-4 times a year. But as of present times(within the last 20 years i would say he would be top 5). Even if he didnt beat all those guys i would give him alot of credit just for fighting them and i think that would make his popularity grow since lately it seems like he hand picks his opponents.

 

Thats very true.. Fighters are better remembered for their greatness as time goes on..

 

If he beat all those guys he would be the greatest fighter of all time for my money. If you leave Cotto, Williams and maybe Mosley on there i also feel you could ditch any two others and he would still be the GOAT.