Mayweather's top 5 fighters of all time

Yeah, you can pick holes in every resume but the fact remains he beat all comers in thrilling fashion. Guys like Big Nog, Coleman, Cro Cop, Schilt, Goodridge, Arlovski and Hunto were all dangerous hombres.

Werdum has at least as many of those wins.
 
Ray is several inches taller and a naturally bigger man than Floyd. Do you disqualify Hearns as an elite welter because he sweated down below his natural weight?


Floyd was 36-0 years ago. Kalule wasn't elite just because Ray kicked his ass. It is absolutely about name recognition. You're comparing guys that have been built up to legendary status to guys who are still actively fighting.

I don't really agree. Benitez wasn't unbeatable but any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, you do understand what I mean. You rate Hearns as some incredible win (Which it was, sure) but ignore that Hearns hadn't really even come into his own as a pro at that point. He's never even fought to a decision before.


He didn't make that fight when Hagler was near his peak. Hagler was still elite, no doubt but had certainly shown vulnerability in the Mugabi fight.

Floyd has fought more champions, more p4pers than Leonard did. You can't argue against that. He's had more success vs championship calibre fighters than Leonard. The only argument would be that Duran and Hearns were "better" than say, Pacquiao or Marquez but you can't really support it. Its all about those legendary names. Duran quite frankly IMO was an embarrassing loss for Ray, especially when you consider how poorly Duran performed against every other elite level welter that he got in the ring with. Duran is a fighter whos career is viewed like a highlight reel. No one remembers his schooling by Benitez. No one recalls him losing to Kirkland Laing. He's remembered for being so great because he was so fun to watch. His record against the elite is not that strong. Lost to Hearns, lost to Benitez, lost to Hagler....
Numbering so I don't have to do the quotes
1) Nobody is disqualified if they made the weight.. Im just not impressed by their transition to higher divisions because they their innitial division was unnatural.. and Ray is not several inches taller than floyd.. 5'10 vs. 5'8.. and if they stood side by side in their primes, they would look roughly the same size
2) I don't understand you Floyd record reference..Im not suggesting Floyd isn't great.. and It's not about name recognition..it is about who the better fighter is..I can tell you exactly why I think the 4 horseman would reign over this era just like they did in their own era...It's not about names..it's about attributes and skill...
3) So? Hearns was a beast..he was the biggest threat to Leonard at the time..and the scariest fighter going..and he developed into a hall of famer..We have hindsight with Hearns.. we don't have to guess what he would become from there..He was Leonards prime Pac... he was Leonards GGG..waiting in the dark places
4) Im not saying Benitez was unbeatable..but more skilled than anybody from 154 down going today..with the exception of Mayweather..
5)Im not trying to argue quantity of average chicks banged over quality of smoking hot models banged....lol.. Quantity is good..don't get me wrong.. but it only proves that you can still do what we knew you could do... Ray, indisputably, has faced the bigger threats.. while Floyd was negotiating the price of a drink for the lady at the bar, Ray got her number...and her 3 friends too!
My analogy pwns!
6) Again..not about the name.. It's as simple as this.. who would win Duran or Pac.. who would win.. Hearns or JMM? ...Roach is pretty confident his fighter would lose to Duran.. I am as well...and Hearns is too big and dangerous for either of them...
 
only if you're ignoring the entire point of this conversation.

What, that Robinson beat far more top contenders, and has greater individual names than Mayweather has on his record?



Moore never had a significant win at HW when Marciano fought him. He wasn't an elite HW.


Considering he beat the number contender four months prior to fighting Marciano (not to mention an earlier win over Jimmy Bivins when he was still ranked) that'd be wrong.

Now list me career featherweight Juan Manuel Marquez's welterweight credentials prior to Mayweather dragging him up two weight classes.
 
The heavies always, 100% of the time, have GSP in the top 5. Many, many people have him as number one.

GSP is usually recognized as top 3 AT (and is my personal pick). It WAS Anderson for a while (and he still has a totally legitimate case IMO), but his delusional fanbase kinda shrunk away after his losses to weidman and hte drug test, and he's received nothing but shit after that. Now I think he deserves some shit for the drug test and obviuosly you have to weigh his losses, but the backlash to Anderson has been waaaaaayyyy over the top and has been directed at anger at his tyranical fans, and isn't grounded in reason. Fedor's comp was relatively weak but he has good wins and had an aura around him.

anyhow, top five goats is usually:
GSP, Silva, Fedor, Aldo, Jones largely interchangeable. Hendo, Big Nog, and BJ might slip in on there on a good day.
 
Seano, you keep shitting on the Kalule win, but Kalule was more or less comparable to Canelo when Ray and Floyd fought them. Kalule was the twoish year lineal champ, Canelo had just beaten Trout for a lineal title. Both were good but had obvious deficiencies.
 
Seano, you keep shitting on the Kalule win, but Kalule was more or less comparable to Canelo when Ray and Floyd fought them. Kalule was the twoish year lineal champ, Canelo had just beaten Trout for a lineal title. Both were good but had obvious deficiencies.

I didn't "shit" on Kalule. He just wasn't an elite level fighter. 154 was just a weak division at the time. I would bet the average person couldn't name 2 opponents Kalule fought aside from Ray without using boxrec.

The only fighter being shit on in this thread is Mayweather. I'm not shitting on Leonard. Leonard is one of my favorite fighters. But he didn't do more in the ring than Floyd has.You just can't say that he did without mentioning names of beloved fighters.He just beat a couple of names that people respect more. Ali's resume isn't in question, other than when people say that a guy like Mayweather is a "joke" in comparison.

Also, people don't look at the fighter Hearns was when Ray fought him. He's credited for that victory based on the legend he became after losing to Ray. If thats the way it is for Ray, it should be the same for Floyd. Canelo is/was the best fighter at 154 at a time when there was a fair amount of talent in the division. Since losing to Floyd, he beat the division's boogie man in Lara and has a few respectable wins in Kirkland and Angulo as well. If Canelo beats Cotto for the MW title, then he becomes an even stronger win for Floyd.

Its absurd to say that a guy who has beaten Marquez, Hatton, Pac, Delahoya, Mosley, Cotto etc etc etc is a joke in comparison to any ATG.
 
Now list me career featherweight Juan Manuel Marquez's welterweight credentials prior to Mayweather dragging him up two weight classes.

Why prior? List for me Thomas Hearns career best win before losing to Ray. Pepino Cuevas?

Juan manuel Marquez is one of the best fighters of this era. I'm not boxrecing his resume to prove that to you.
 
Numbering so I don't have to do the quotes
1) Nobody is disqualified if they made the weight.. Im just not impressed by their transition to higher divisions because they their innitial division was unnatural.. and Ray is not several inches taller than floyd.. 5'10 vs. 5'8.. and if they stood side by side in their primes, they would look roughly the same size

Nah, Ray was a bigger guy.
2) I don't understand you Floyd record reference..Im not suggesting Floyd isn't great.. and It's not about name recognition..it is about who the better fighter is..I can tell you exactly why I think the 4 horseman would reign over this era just like they did in their own era...It's not about names..it's about attributes and skill...
eh, I don't believe your opinion of who you think would beat who is a measuring stick of greatness. Sorry.
3) So? Hearns was a beast..he was the biggest threat to Leonard at the time..and the scariest fighter going..and he developed into a hall of famer..We have hindsight with Hearns.. we don't have to guess what he would become from there..He was Leonards prime Pac... he was Leonards GGG..waiting in the dark places
I sort of addressed this in my last post.
4) Im not saying Benitez was unbeatable..but more skilled than anybody from 154 down going today..with the exception of Mayweather..
Nah. Silliness. There are some incredibly talented fighters out there today.
5)Im not trying to argue quantity of average chicks banged over quality of smoking hot models banged....lol.. Quantity is good..don't get me wrong.. but it only proves that you can still do what we knew you could do... Ray, indisputably, has faced the bigger threats.. while Floyd was negotiating the price of a drink for the lady at the bar, Ray got her number...and her 3 friends too!
My analogy pwns!
Quantity + Quality > Quality alone. Pac is a "smoking hot model" So is Marquez. So was Hatton.
6) Again..not about the name.. It's as simple as this.. who would win Duran or Pac.. who would win.. Hearns or JMM? ...Roach is pretty confident his fighter would lose to Duran.. I am as well...and Hearns is too big and dangerous for either of them...
Again, your opinion of who might beat up who is not how you measure a great fighter. I personally believe that Hagler would beat pretty much anyone that Robinson fought. So does my opinion of that mean that Hagler should be rated over Robinson all time? Of course not. You look at a guys resume and if he beat a shitload of champion calibre fighters, then he was a great fighter. Even better if he never lost to any of them.
 
Why prior? List for me Thomas Hearns career best win before losing to Ray. Pepino Cuevas?

Juan manuel Marquez is one of the best fighters of this era. I'm not boxrecing his resume to prove that to you.

You are judging JMM by his entire resume and Tommy by his resume up to Ray Leonard...JMM with 6 years in, was getting his ass kicked by Freddie Norwood...if we stopped telling his story right there, he wouldn't be worthy of conversation..

That said, there needn't be a direct comparison with records..the only thing that needs to be asked is who would win in a fight.. Hearns or JMM? If the answer is Hearns, then Hearns was the bigger risk..and more credit is due for beating him.. simple
 
Regarding Mayweather vs Leonards size- MAyweather was no giant compared to the guys he fought at 130 pounds.
But anyone who has watched Leonard in his early welter fights would have to admit that there is NO WAY he could have cut down to 130 pounds. That guy was a shredded 147 pounds.
 
Why prior? List for me Thomas Hearns career best win before losing to Ray. Pepino Cuevas?


We were discussing Archie Moore & him supposedly not having a single win of note at heavyweight when he fought Marciano, and now you're suddenly slinging Hearns into the discussion.

You don't even know who you're arguing with at this point. :icon_lol:


Juan manuel Marquez is one of the best fighters of this era. I'm not boxrecing his resume to prove that to you.

A career featherweight, one that got comprehensively beaten by any relevant welterweight he wasn't completely familiar with & similar in size to.
 
You are judging JMM by his entire resume and Tommy by his resume up to Ray Leonard...JMM with 6 years in, was getting his ass kicked by Freddie Norwood...if we stopped telling his story right there, he wouldn't be worthy of conversation..
If you're paying attention, only for the sake of argument. Conversely, Thomas Hearns was getting stopped by Barkley when Marquez got hs career defining win. Thats precisely why you view a fighters resume as a whole, not pick and choose the parts that suit your argument. If Ray gets credit for beating the man that Hearns would later become, then you have to use that same criteria to judge every fighter.



That said, there needn't be a direct comparison with records..the only thing that needs to be asked is who would win in a fight.. Hearns or JMM? If the answer is Hearns, then Hearns was the bigger risk..and more credit is due for beating him.. simple
Stop saying that. Thats not how you judge great fighters.
 
Nah, Ray was a bigger guy.
eh, I don't believe your opinion of who you think would beat who is a measuring stick of greatness. Sorry.
I sort of addressed this in my last post.
Nah. Silliness. There are some incredibly talented fighters out there today.
Quantity + Quality > Quality alone. Pac is a "smoking hot model" So is Marquez. So was Hatton.

Again, your opinion of who might beat up who is not how you measure a great fighter. I personally believe that Hagler would beat pretty much anyone that Robinson fought. So does my opinion of that mean that Hagler should be rated over Robinson all time? Of course not. You look at a guys resume and if he beat a shitload of champion calibre fighters, then he was a great fighter. Even better if he never lost to any of them.


Meh.. Hatton got caught doing the walk of shame from Luis Collazo's house.. hotness points were lost along the way.. anytime a fighter runs you out of a division, you lose cred...

Benitez is more talented and intelligent than anybody fighting today.. I can't think of one guy that is on his level.. He'd beat Canelo, Cotto, and probably Pac as well..and would give Floyd a serious technical chess match..very close.. possibly win..
 
We were discussing Archie Moore & him supposedly not having a single win of note at heavyweight when he fought Marciano, and now you're suddenly slinging Hearns into the discussion.

You don't even know who you're arguing with at this point. :icon_lol:
huh? Wasn't MArquez the fighter we were talking about in regards to that quote?




A career featherweight, one that got comprehensively beaten by any relevant welterweight he wasn't completely familiar with & similar in size to.
Yeah, you're right. Marquez isn't very good. :rolleyes:
 
If you're paying attention, only for the sake of argument. Conversely, Thomas Hearns was getting stopped by Barkley when Marquez got hs career defining win. Thats precisely why you view a fighters resume as a whole, not pick and choose the parts that suit your argument. If Ray gets credit for beating the man that Hearns would later become, then you have to use that same criteria to judge every fighter.




Stop saying that. Thats not how you judge great fighters.

Last point first.. yes it is..when we are talking about actual accomplishments and what they mean.. If Shane Mosley knocked out Mike Tyson, people would lose their shit more than if he had beatin Floyd..why? because Tyson is bigger-badder-scarier..and knocking him out was more unlikely than beating Floyd...
What Ray did to Tommy was more unlikely than what Floyd did to JMM because Tommy was bigger-badder-faster-and scarier... and the comparison is made even more relevent by the fact that he competed in the same division as JMM. If they fought in the same time, Tommy would have erased him from the hall....

Yeah, Hearns got stopped by Barkley, but he also knocked Duran cold... Im glad we can focus on entire careers instead of saying.. "who has so and so fought up until this point"... thats irrelevant.. he was a great fighter and his entire career shows that.... JMM as well..
 
huh? Wasn't MArquez the fighter we were talking about in regards to that quote?

No, you cut off the first half of my post (which the bit you quoted was related to) and suddenly brought up Hearns, whom had zero relevance to what what we were discussing.



Yeah, you're right. Marquez isn't very good. :rolleyes:


Yes, just a journeyman who made his name off of a far more famous, successful fighter. The only reason anyone knows about him, really.

Dare I say it, the Ken Norton of his era.
 
Um.. random.. I hate to quote a crackhead.. but "YDKSAB!"

JMM is a beautiful technician that consistently outwitted more popular fighters throughout his career.,...his wall is covered with the mounted heads of hall of famers
 
No, you cut off the first half of my post (which the bit you quoted was related to) and suddenly brought up Hearns, whom had zero relevance to what what we were discussing.

The Hearns quote was the response to the Moore thing. It wasn't intended to be a riddle.






Yes, just a journeyman who made his name off of a far more famous, successful fighter. The only reason anyone knows about him, really.

Dare I say it, the Ken Norton of his era.

You might dare but I think anyone can recognize that MArquez was a better fighter p4p all time than Norton and its not even close.
 
Conor and Ronda both called out Floyd in a real fight, says they would both smash him in seconds in the streets. Do you think they are paid by the UFC to say that?

For the record I think Conor would, but Ronda would lose to Floyd
 
Back
Top