Watch this long enough and you to will believe in the thread title https://m.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=fZXFty2rNvo
Whitaker, JCC, Hopkins, Pacquiao. If Sal Sanchez had not had his tragic accident and fought on, I'd probably rate him top 10, and he would've been within 30 years.
Hopkins ruled a weak division too, so how do you justify his inclusion but not Floyd (who fought a much better calibre of fighter and over several weight divisions) also, Floyd beat pac and roy beat Hopkins...
By beating the fighters he beat and fighting the fighters he fought in their primes while being well past his, Floyd would never in a million years fight Kovalev's or Tarver's equivalent that had 10 to 15 + year age advantage on him while being the best in their division ATT. You can argue all you want, but Floyd is king cherrypicker and that's why he isn't in my top 30.
Floyd will age like Hopkins with his ring IQ and defensive skills, and Chavez fought a lot of average fighters I can't fathom how you can rate pacman and Hopkins above Floyd and jones (and I rate both pacman and Hopkins) Floyd is easily the best boxer of his generation, and jones was unbeatable in his prime (I don't say that lightly)
It's pretty easy to figure, Pac was a ****ing Flyweight when he started and knocked off P4P top guy Barrera on his way up. Then he continued to fight and beat every good fighter on his way up to WW. Except Floyd of course who wouldn't fight him until Pac started to show signs of age and slowing down, that's when the cherry pick king swooped in and proclaimed he would now fight Pacquiao. You didn't see Pac waiting out Barrera, Morrales or Marquez. In fact, I'm having trouble coming up with a name on Floyd's record on par with any of those fighters while that name was in their prime and without some ridiculous stipulation like this is ****ing pro wrestling.
Lol, the only time actual age is used like it should mean something in a argument about boxing instead of boxing age or ring years (accumulated by wars in the ring, wear and tear on the body & number of fights (in some cases) is when it's a discussion about Floyd and Pacquiao. Felix Trinidad considered one of the best fighters of the 90's done and used up at 28, ring age caught him young. Pacquiao while being younger than Floyd by one year of actual age has been fighting professionally for 22 years straight, has had many hard fights, he started out at Minimum Weight (24 pounds south of Floyd just 1 year before Floyd's debut) and is still considered the man at Welterweight. Plus he has almost 20 more fights on his record and body. Only a Floyd defender would try to use Floyd being 1 actual year older than Pacquiao like it means something in the sport of boxing.
Floyd is better than Pac because his will to win was greater, his skills were better and he never got knocked out. So who gives a **** what you have to respond to about age. Everyone in the know knows Floyd is greater than Pac period. No Floyd isn't the best ever. He's just one out of many people consider to be tbe.
Disagree. He was diva and a stipulation fighter. Just because he retired before the judges finally gave him a loss when he deserved one does not make him TBE. Plenty of ATG's hell almost all ATG's had loses because they fought the best, and when you keep testing yourself you're bound to lose a couple. Marciano and Ricardo Lopez were also undefeated, so I guess to Floyd fans all 3 must be the greatest 3 fighters ever. It's totally silly and quite ridiculous to put Mayweather above greats like Robinson, Ali, Duran, Chavez, or Hagler just because they had loses.