Mayweather the Goat?

"Outside of the ring he was an arrogant, loudmouthed, woman-beating bully bereft of class. Inside the ring he was a genius."

And that's why he's such a polarizing figure!

 

SRL Tyson Monzon etc we’re not saints outside of the ring, yet their out of ring actions do not polarize them to the degree of FMJ

 

Actually, Leonard was quite a polarizing figure when he fought; and Tyson - are you kidding me? Tyson may be more polarizing than Floyd.

I agree on Monzon, but more because Monzon's off-ring indiscretions are not so well known to most American fans.

 

Polarizing then in opinions of like and dislike I agree with but with the exception of a handful of outliers they are pretty much rated in a consistent ballpark. FMJ is all over the map.

 

Well, I think I'd favor guys like Maidana and Pacquiao to defeat the likes of Roger Stafford, who was rated as high as number 2 following his shock win over Pipino Cuevas in 1981. Think I'd favor even a faded version of Pac over Cuevas (though it's possible he might get Jeff Horned, too).

Hell, a couple of the challengers that Hearns faced (Baez and Primera) would have difficulty making Top 10 in this era, I think.

Kind of goes both ways.

 

Perhaps I am reading you wrong? It sound like you are espousing the view that greats of the past are infinitely greater than modern greats? I personally don’t agree with the modern is better or the past is better either in a H2H sense or a rating sense, so I guess I am somewhere between the 2 diametrically opposed factions.

When some one says I can’t rate Louis/Dempsey/Marciano etc. highly because they are: 1 cruiserweights, 2 didn’t beat any great bigs 3 couldn’t beat Ali, Lewis’s etc competition....my only response is I can’t expect him to have. H2H there are biases on both sides....the only thing I can say is did he beat the best of his own era and was he willing to face the best of his era? To me Louis/Lewis are both great because they both faced and beat the best available. How they would fare in each other’s era is mere conjecture and speculation most likely influenced by our personal biases. But I can contrast how each did against the best available when they fought.

Likewise the past argument Loma/FMJ or even the extreme ABC titilists wouldn’t be top 5 during Hearns day. Not saying I don’t agree with that statement but how they would fare in the 80’s is irrelevant to me and again biased (even if informed in the decision making process) speculation. I can’t prove how they would or would not be in the 80’s. I can contrast did they perform or fight the best available. Which is why we can all have a good laugh about a Grigorian being called a top 5 great. Because we know that he wasn’t the best, based upon he did not fight or beat the best available.

I feel like Floyd is held to a different standard when measuring him against the best of his era and contrasting it to a great of another era. Which era is better is split and generally biased....I can only ask are you the best of your era and how did you perform against the best of your era.

 

I agree that due to a number of factors it’s so difficult for a modern great to truly break into that upper echelon level of all-time greats.

You have 12 still living in your all-time top 50? Giving it a rough guess I’d have the following :-

Eder Jofre
Roberto Duran
Jose Napoles
Fighting Harada
Ruben Olivares
Sugar Ray Leonard
Marvelous Marvin Hagler
Tommy Hearns
Julio Cesar Chavez
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquaio
Roy Jones
Evander Holyfield
Pernell Whitaker
Michael Spinks

15 I think I’d have for sure and some bornderline cases like Juan Manuel Marquez and Bernard Hopkins I could see. I am an unabashed Marquez cheerleader. So we are in the same ballpark in the amount of currently living top 50 guys.

Re: Floyd’s ranking. I think he’d be between 30-40. He’s a great fighter but I personally feel timing was brilliant for him and he played the game. For a fighter who was the main shot caller in the game for about half his career to not fight any of your fellow greats in their primes is a sign that perhaps it was designed and I punish that a little as I do the fact I am convinced he was on PEDs at least for his fights 2009 and onwards.

 

It's probably becuase of how recent he was. They will probably be more of a consensus in the future (though it too will probably shift, as it has in the past)

 

De La Hoya I don’t think would make my top 125 to be honest. Not saying he wasn’t excellent but I’m not seeing “great”. Lewis was great for sure and I admit I am probably a little harsh when grading heavyweights pound for pound. I have Lewis #4 all-time in that division (Ali, Louis and say back in 3rd Holmes then Lewis would be my top four).

All subjective of course and we’ll never all agree on everything but I think you need to re-assess Jofre, Napoles and Harada as they are slam dunks for the top 50. I commend you on putting your list out there as it’s hard to compile and always open for ridicule or complaints.

 

I agree about the other ones, and HW’s don’t fare well on my lists either....Not sure Harada is a lock for the top 50 though. He is in that 40-60 range last time I did a list I think he was around 55. He is clearly in the conversation, but not sure he is a lock

 

No Thanks...

 

Sounds more like wishful thinking

 

Never liked Mayweather, but his ability and longevity weigh heavily for me. In the next few decades I suspect his stock will rise among historians, partially due to the criteria of an atg evolving where pre 1960 resumes that get bonus points for quantity will drop slightly in value, and partially to nostalgia building for the Mayweather/Pacquiao era. I have him around #19 or #20, but anywhere in the top 30 seems fair.