Mayweather the Goat?

I'm honestly not sure. I'd add Henry Armstrong and Packey McFarland to that group.

 

Who's your number 1?

 

To be honest, modern-day fighters are at a disadvantage in these kind of discussions, because the nature of your typical world champion's career has changed so much between the days of Armstrong, Robinson et al and now, as have our expectations of world-leading fighters. Moreover, the perception of boxing as an ailing sport with a dwindling fanbase, ruined by ever-expanding titles, politics / bureaucracy and commercialism doesn't help. So goes the 'health' of the sport in those regards, so goes the quality of fighter seems to be certain people's logic.

I don't think Mayweather is the greatest, by the way. I'd have him probably just inside my top ten. But I genuinely think it would be almost impossible for a twenty-first century fighter to ever earn general acclamation as the greatest ever - or even be considered a genuine, viable candidate for that title - simply because the hardcore fans and historians wouldn't allow it. They automatically lose points for being born after boxing's golden era(s), and in any case tend to be rated by a different set of criteria. Historians (and I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, by the way) rave about stats such as Robinson's 175-19-6, Pep's 229-11-1, Archie Moore's 130-odd knockouts etc...Yet they'd often be the first in line to slate a Mayweather, a Jones Jr., a Lomachenko etc. if they padded their numbers with only a small handful of no-names and journeymen, never mind the dozens which can be found on Ray, Willie or Archie's records, even after they became world champions or established names.

That's not to say that those guys deserve any particular criticism for enhancing their numbers with keep-busy fights, because it was the done thing at the time. But there's a hypocrisy afoot when people point to such numbers and then call someone such as Mayweather a 'cherry picker'. A by-product of this is that losses are held against today's fighters much more than in previous eras, and their opponent selection tends to be held to much greater scrutiny.

I think the parameters of boxing at championship level have changed too much for anyone to ever become a real rival to Robinson for general acclaim as being the greatest, and it's a shame. Ray is well worth that status, don't get me wrong, but I don't think this atmosphere where merely to question it is seen (by some) as an admission of having no knowledge of the sport is healthy.

 

At the end of the day they are all opinions, but I would put Ali more around 9-11.

1 SRR
2 Armstrong
3 Greb
4 Langford
5 Charles
6 Fitzsimmons
7 Gans
8 Benny Leonard
9 Joe Louis
10 Ali
11 Duran

 

I actually rate him #3 at LW (behind Gans and Benny), but I feel LW & MW are among the deepest weight class. I can’t see Duran top 5 but like you I see him there on some lists.

Great LW
Beat a prime SRL likely the # 2 WW on most lists (I put Leonard 12 behind Duran), so a win over a naturally larger Prime top 15 ATG is among the best wins in boxing history. Wining titles in multiple divisions along the way when he was well past his best or natural weight, weigh heavily in a P4P sense. Not sure I can see him below 15 on a credible or unbiased list...I actually probably am harder on him than many as he is generally in the 7-10 range

 

He is an ATG.

 

Lol! NP mate, again they are all opinions at the end of the day. Most of us here in classic rate on resume, ranked opposition etc. for me longevity is another component. Perhaps why I rate Louis above Ali both at HW and P4P. Very few people achieve greatness, and fewer still sustain it over the years (although Ali/Louis are difficult to separate on either view IMO).

TBF most of my rankings were done 5 years ago. I have been fine tuning it over the past year but am not as close to compiling a new list as I would like to be. My 2 biggest areas of weakness/lack of knowledge are pre-1920 and weight divisions below 118. I have spent much of the past year looking at minimum weight to Super Fly, and think many greats from that weight class get sold short in these rankings as well. Jimmy Wilde for one should be considered top 10, although I did not.

 

For me, he is top 10 h2h @ 140-147

#1 in terms of pure defense

He gets points for sheer longevity and consistency in his ability and fitness.

Resume wise he's not that great, there were soooo many good ranked prime fighters available throughout his reign that he simply did not fight (not gonna get into a debate about why). The handful of good fighters he did beat in their prime were either very inexperienced (Victor Ortiz, canelo), had a horrible style matchup (guerrero, Marquez) or were past their prime and diminished (pacquiao, mosley).

The only prime ranked boxers i can think of who he beat were corrales, zab Judah, Castillo, and maidana and many of those were nail biters and not the most convincing. Mayweather's control freak diva personality and frequent layoffs and jail stints meant we never saw him mix it up with very many perceived name threats where he wasnt the obvious favorite and he deserves to have his legacy diminished for that very reason.

When the list is this long of prime ranked fighters in YOUR divisions that you somehow never fought:

Williams
Kostya Tzu
Winky wright
Thurman
Porter
Brook
Margarito
Khan
Spence
Lara
Sergio martinez
The Charlos

Your legacy and "longevity" gets an asterisk*. Again, IDGAF about why or whose fault, blah blah. All i know is he didnt fight them.

Some of the names on this list were very young and inexperienced or past their prime when mayweather was active. My counter to that is: that peefectly describes many of mayweather's opponents! What's the excuse?

 

I've never seen a better 130lber than Floyd Mayweather. You would have to pull out some heavy names to try to take his title.

He's an all-time great Super Featherweight.