Ranking Floyd Mayweather

When Pacquiao beats someone as good as McLarnin, twice, I'll you know.

 

Yeah, , that's how I view things. I don't look at fighters as whole, but as they were for that fight. For example: The versions of Pac, Mosley, Canelo, De La Hoya, and Cotto that Floyd fought had existing problems which meant they simply weren't great wins.

Another example I like which is really apt here, is that Gibbons isn't a good win for Dempsey (due to doing absolutely nothing at HW) but Charles is a very good win for Marciano, because Charles was a very good HW, with a storied HW career.

 

Greb missed Langford, Klaus and Delaney among others.

 

That's exactly how I view things.

Although I think Canelo was clearly very weight drained, and whilst a good fighter, not a win over Canelo as we see him today.

 

Keep some perspective though. 50-0 I can't ignore and must be respected but as far as 5 divisions, all those "Championship" fights. Fighters of past generations didn't have belts floating around. Some may have been just as capable.

 

I think as time goes by Floyd will be ranked higher.
I don't want to put him up with the very elite but 50-0 speaks loudly. Hell 49-0 got Rocky through a half century. His 49-0 wasn't even in the same state as Floyd's record.

 

actually boxing has had a multiple belt and multiple division system for a very long time including through the life of Ali’s career

 

No doubt!

Imagine if we could fast forward 50 years to take a quick peek at the boxing scene in, say, 2070! What will the sport look like by then?

Well, lots of things can have changed, but of one thing, we can be pretty sure: There will be another group of know-it-all fans, telling everybody who cares to listen, how much boxing sucks. No one will even remember, that there was once a forum like this, where the mission of a few wannabe historians was to denigrate Mayweather and other top boxers from this era.

So in 2070 Mayweather will likely be admired by most boxing historians - the same way someone like Ezzard Charles is today.

 

If there were only two guys with belts that would be acceptable as long as they were working toward a unification. Today is just too watered down. Bennie Briscoe said that there were guys holding belts that couldn't have sparred with him. I always remembered that because Bennie didn't usually talk like that. That was the 90s

 

It really goes back further than that. Previously there were competing orgs like the NBA and NYSAC who occasionally recognised different champions, and sometimes the British/European bodies staged their own versions of the world championship. However the last few decades have taken it to insane levels. At least for a period of time when it was just the WBA and WBC, it was limited to two identifiable champions and now and again they would actually fight to unify the division.

Now there are at least 80 different fighters who currently hold a world title of some description. There may actually be more active fighters who have been world champion than haven't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions

 

agree and 100 years ago you had separate works titles for blacks and whites. Today there are way too many world factions in boxing. But Floyd Mayweather usually fought the best around no matter where he was. Dude was ranked top 10 p4p for about 15 years