Where Does Mayweather Rank on your ATG List?

Canelo is the top 154 in boxing. Manny is the next best 147 in boxing.


Mayweather beat the two best at 36-38 years old.

 

SuzieQ, sorry but do you have a link to your ATG list?

 

I'm surprised such a lame "fight" (with, I hasten to add, such a widely predictable and PREDICTED outcome) has infused such outpourings of unobjective enthusiasm here on the classic forum.

Yes, I know they split a GAZILLION dollar purse, and will probably find a way to do so again. But, c'mon ...

People are losing sight of objective historical reality.

 

Here is my list

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Joe Louis
3. Sam Langford
4. Harry Greb
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Willie Pep
8. Roberto Duran
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Archie Moore
11. Sugar Ray Leonard
12. Floyd Mayweather


I have him at 12

 

To be "objective" is to be unbiased.. Frankly I go with results and what I can actually see to judge someone with and there are plenty of tangibles to critique floyd by. His legacy was sealed long before the Pacquiao fight, and beating him only capitalized that.

 

Well, I'm not denying he has a legacy.
I'm not denying he is a great fighter.
He's definitely a great fighter.

But the question is where does he rank ?
Against all the other great fighters in history ?
An objective UNBIASED assessment would have several, many, fighters placed ahead of him.

 

why is that?

 

Probably top30/40. I can definitely see him as top30 but not really top20.
Still very good considering the amount of great boxers throughout history...

 

Because, if we are fair and unbiased, we should rate them on what they did.
There are many great fighters who did more than Mayweather, fought more great fighters, in their primes, put on more on epic performances, took bigger risks, conquered bigger monsters etc. etc.

 

There are definitely "some" who did just as you say.. There weren't 40 of them however. And some of that criteria is ambiguous to say the least. Primes can be micromanaged to fit one's agenda. Epic performances aren't really a rating quality. You could say that Iran Barkley's KO of Thomas Hearns was more impressive than any performance Mayweather ever had, but I'm not about to rate him higher for it. And what some may consider as truly great fighters may not be for others..

 

Top 20

 

Stop

 

Nice list, thanks. I have a limited understanding of boxing history but I know every one of those names and have quite good knowledge of all their careers. Your list looks very reasonable to me.

 

I definitely rate fighters on performance as well as "wins", or simply results.

If Mayweather had given a violent drubbing or a KO defeat to Pacquiao the other night, for example, that would be better than nicking the rounds in a slow-paced dull encounter.

Let's be frank, in past eras Mayweather probably gets thrown out for "faking" by some referees. As several great fighters did, in actual fact, rightly or wrongly.
There's something to be said for going that extra mile to show your superiority over an opponent, not just stalling and nicking fights.
And, yes, I do value a bit of excitement. It's part of the art.
Clever boxers don't have to be dull and forgettable.

Obviously, I acknowledge that Mayweather DOES have scintillating performances under his belt too. :good

Primes can be "micromanaged" (I like it :good) to fit agendas, yes.
But I think when we're talking about Oscar in 2007 or Pacquiao in 2015, history is clear enough, for example.
Of course, Mayweather BENEFITS from observing "primes" correctly too, since he's getting good wins way past his own prime. I'm certainly going to credit him that. :good