50-0: The Best Ever

[moosaev]

Persevering over adversity is a huge part of greatness, Floyd did everything in his power to minimize the potential for adversity before even stepping into the ring. There are too many what ifs, misses, ducks, and unfulfilled matchups for him to be considered a top 10 ATG, in my opinion.

 

[ssx]

I'm not a fan of Floyds style, but if you take a unbiased look at his record and the victories he's had, he's top 5 all time. Regardless of when he fought them, having Canelo, Mosley, Cotto, Pacquiao, Corrales, Judah, DeLaHoya, Marquez etc in your win column is one of the best resumes IMO.

 

[Jim Reaper]

I think that after enough years have passed he will be remembered as one of greatest ever. Anywhere in the top five could be argued. No other fighter in history was able to do what he did. He was never even knocked down (I know his glove touched in the Zab fight) let alone lost a fight and his resume holds up against most, maybe all of the other GOAT contenders.

 

[Seano]

At that age Duran had almost double the fights Floyd has had in his whole career.
At 29 years old, when he fought Leonard, Duran was in his 70 something pro fight.
It's not only the quality of the opposition he faced, it's also the sheer number.

I personally don't know where to rank Floyd.
I only know he is damn great!
As far as technique goes he reached the climax and he was great in every facet of the game.
In every spot and occasion in the ring and even outside the ring.
He also had pretty high IQ and was a great strategist.

His record isn't as impressive as that of some others boxing greats though.
And in ranking record is the most important thing.

I'll take quality over quantity when it comes to resume. Floyds fought top ranked guys exclusively for well over a decade. I don't believe public sparring session for money mean much for your resume. People are saying Conor shouldn't count for Floyd, how about all the fluff on Duran's resume? What is so great about fighting 70 guys when 50 of them wouldn't make the cut for Mayweather's sparring? See, people tend to make conditions for modern fighters that they don't for fighters from different eras.

 

[Seano]

I'm not a fan of Floyds style, but if you take a unbiased look at his record and the victories he's had, he's top 5 all time. Regardless of when he fought them, having Canelo, Mosley, Cotto, Pacquiao, Corrales, Judah, DeLaHoya, Marquez etc in your win column is one of the best resumes IMO.

Even guys like Berto and Guerrero. Those were considered easy fights for Floyd but both were world champions at some point.

 

[Khabib Fan]

This fight brought me back to Boxing.

 

[moosaev]

Even guys like Berto and Guerrero. Those were considered easy fights for Floyd but both were world champions at some point.

That only proves that being a world champion means shit these days.

 

[ssx]

That only proves that being a world champion means shit these days.

The guys I listed would be champs in any era. The guys Seano mentioned are all champions and good top level fighters, Even guys like Castillo, Hernandez, Maidana, Gatti etc are world champions. They may not be "elite" world champions, but they were very, very good fighters. Floyd beat them all without slipping up and losing.
Floyd's got more high level wins than, Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Chavez etc.

 

[moosaev]

The guys I listed would be champs in any era. The guys Seano mentioned are all champions and good top level fighters, Even guys like Castillo, Hernandez, Maidana, Gatti etc are world champions. They may not be "elite" world champions, but they were very, very good fighters. Floyd beat them all without slipping up and losing.
Floyd's got more high level wins than, Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Chavez etc.

Comparing all-time resumes based on # of world champions defeated, or using # of belts as any kind of proxy, is useless. The proliferation of belts makes it such that a meaningful comparison cannot be made. There are guys back in the day who wouldve been multiple weight champions, they just had the shitty luck of being in an era w/ one belt per division. Why should a win against them count for less than a win against the Berto's and Guerreros of the world? I'm sorry but Berto, Guerrero, Gatti, Castillo, etc ain't shit relative to the long horizon of boxing. They were not that good, especially when you consider that boxing was a lot deeper with talent when it was the preeminent sport. I'm sorry, Floyd's resume aint that good.

 

[Seano]

That only proves that being a world champion means shit these days.

Why is that? There were multiple titles in most eras.

 

[moosaev]

Why is that? There were multiple titles in most eras.

When you start discussing all-time greats you inevitably wade into era's where there was only one title per division. There is no rule that say ATG lists should have equal representation from all eras. The depth of talent in previous eras neccesarily means competition was stiffer and there was less room to maneuver around threats (not that it never happened). That has an effect on resume strength, greatness, etc.

 

[Seano]

When you start discussing all-time greats you inevitably wade into era's where there was only one title per division. There is no rule that say ATG lists should have equal representation from all eras. The depth of talent in previous eras neccesarily means competition was stiffer and there was less room to maneuver around threats (not that it never happened). That has an effect on resume strength, greatness, etc.

Quality competition is quality competition. Whether or not you deem their titles worthy or not isn't really relevant. If you look at the one tite era, then you're comparing wins vs losses. Floyd scores pretty high in that category.

You really can't justify Floyd not being an ATG.

 

[JayE]

The guys I listed would be champs in any era. The guys Seano mentioned are all champions and good top level fighters, Even guys like Castillo, Hernandez, Maidana, Gatti etc are world champions. They may not be "elite" world champions, but they were very, very good fighters. Floyd beat them all without slipping up and losing.
Floyd's got more high level wins than, Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Chavez etc.

Castillo and arguably Hernandez were elite world champions. Both were lineal, and Castillo was arguably the best LW of the 00s. Maidana and Gatti less so.

 

[Boxer]

Floyds one of the best to ever lace up a pair of gloves, he's had the most successful career in history and his marketing of his latest $100m+ fight out of retirement just proved it.

Boxing ability only, who else is as honed as Floyd, who else makes sure no matter what happens they're victorious?

In his prime his hands were amazing, he almost never got hit, he beat a lot of notable names and I don't want to hear "He fought Pac late" Pac may of been a few years older but so was Floyd.
With Pac its "He's a year or two out of his prime" with Canelo its "He fought him when Canelo was young and up and coming".

The guy just can't win with some people ......... but he's won everything else.

His career and skills are exemplary and even though I have a fondness for killers like SRR, Floyd's Career and life decisions regarding his career have not and will not be exceeded in my life time.

Floyd fought more top tier names than Marciano did.

 

[moosaev]

Quality competition is quality competition. Whether or not you deem their titles worthy or not isn't really relevant. If you look at the one tite era, then you're comparing wins vs losses. Floyd scores pretty high in that category.

You really can't justify Floyd not being an ATG.

Never said he wasn't an all-time great, but its sure as shit not because of his strength of opposition, and I dont anyone has him top 5, i actually think thats slightly laughable.

 

[Seano]

Never said he wasn't an all-time great, but its sure as shit not because of his strength of opposition, and I dont anyone has him top 5, i actually think thats slightly laughable.

So why would he be great if not for his opposition. I honestly can't think of a fighter who fought the level of opposition Floyd fought every time out for as long has he has.

 

[moosaev]

So why would he be great if not for his opposition. I honestly can't think of a fighter who fought the level of opposition Floyd fought every time out for as long has he has.

His greatness derives from his level of proficiency and mastery (especially defensively). I don't care who youre fighting, to go 50-0 with his level of dominance and consistency is remarkable. Thats why he's an all-time great.....but the safety first career management and other factors keeps him out of the very highest wrung of all-time greats.

 

[Seano]

His greatness derives from his level of proficiency and mastery. I don't care who youre fighting, to go 50-0 with his level of dominance and consistency is remarkable. Thats why he's an all-time great...the safety first career management and other factors keeps him out of the very highest wrung all-time greats.

You're mistaken if you think the majority of greats didn't fight people when they thought it was the right time. Look what Leonard did to Hagler and Hearns to a lesser extent.

Floyd almost always fought guys coming off of strong performances too.

 

[The Real jc]

Cherry picking records don't age well. Ducking a prime Manny Pacquiao was a mistake.

 

[Jim Reaper]

Was Cotto the only one to ever make Floyd bleed?