The Ring: "Mayweather Doesn't Crack The Top 25 Greatest Ever"

Oh yeah. Clottey got skills son.

 

#2
#4
#8
#9
#10
#13
#14
#20

These are the reasons why that list loses all credibility, and that's without even looking at the whole list.

30-50, I'd probably have him around #35-38.

 

I agree Mayweather doesn't deserve to be there, and it's his own fault why he's not there.

 

Mostly a decent list, but I think it's considerably biased towards heavyweights- Ali and Louis are probably a bit too high, and Dempsey and Johnson DO NOT belong in the top 10- and that Greb, Charles, Moore and Monzon (45?!?! Are you serious?) are too low. I also think Mayweather probably deserves a substantially higher placement than #48, but I would prefer not to set his standing down in stone until most of his major opponents have retired, giving us full perspective on his career.

 

I changed my answer top 260 no doubt.

 

if this was a list of boring fighters he would be up there with some of the most boring fighters ever.

 

ESPN's rankings were and are garbage, written by Kieran Mulvaney and Dan Rafael, two of the most biased writers in the business.

The Ring's Top 80 was a lot better, and their rankings had a lot of people come together to try to neutralize bias.

That said, I think Mayweather is not Top 10, or even Top 20, but easily Top 30-40. Despite the fact that his competition from 140-154 has been spotty, he has won 5 belts in 5 weight classes and been undisputed P4P #1 for multiple years, which if you look above, several people that ESPN ranked above him never did. His resume still kills another undefeated record like Calzaghe's, who would fall into the 70-80 range.

 

:good :good

 

I wouldn't necesarly call it penalizing, but had Mayweather taken on even one risky oponet he would rank a lot higher.

 

If we're talking resume and level of accomplishments, I think you could reasonably leave Floyd out of the top 100 all together. I don't think there's a single fighter on Floyds ledger that I'd rank as top 150 all time, other than an old, ten years past his peak DLH who Floyd struggled with.

Bring in things like skills and head to head ability and dominance and I think you could place him somewhere in the 100-50 zone, depending exactly on how you think his fights with DLH and Castillo went.

Personally, I felt he lost to both DLH and Castillo and whilst I feel both fights could reasonably go either way, his losses there mean he doesn't receive that high a ranking from me. Somewhere in the 75-100 region I'd say.

I'm not one of these guys that are clamouring for Floyd to fight Margarito or Cotto though. I wouldnt move Floyd up much in my rankings even if he did beat Margarito or Cotto. These guys would be nothing but B-class fighters in past eras and Floyd on the whole has fought in a sub-standard era and it shows when you have fossils like Hopkins and Calzaghe still near the top of the p4p charts.

As an aside, I hope I never set eyes on the ESPN list again. An absolute joke unless the first criterion is: ignorant and incompetent journalism.

 

Yeah Hagler and Whitaker are way too low.
How can Lamotta be so much far ahead of Hagler:huh

De la Hoya shouldnt be top 50.

Johnson, Tunney and Fraiser are too high.

 

44. Pernell Whitaker?!?!!?!?


WTF

 

Agreed, strong arguments can be made that he does not even make the Top 50.

If he comes back cleans the out the welterwweight division, he would make the Top 25.

Right now, fighters like Hopkins, Toney and Jones rank above him.

 

Mayweather is a great fighter. he has the skill speed and dedication that is only owned sporadically by the exremley blessed.

 

First glance. Monzon and Hagler are too far down the list. frazier's too high. I'd rank Floyd higher than Frazier but lower than Monzon/Hagler What were these guys thinking?