Mayweather's top 5 fighters of all time

[Seano]

Win over 1973 Ali > Loss to 1996 Holyfield.

See, you're intentionally ignoring what Tyson was. Tyson was the youngest fighter in history to unify the titles and likely always will be. Not only that, he still won multiple titles and beat numerous ranked fighters after the Holyfield fights.

There's this weird silently agreed upon idea that boxing fans have that certain fighters and their opponents are just untouchable in terms to comparison to other fighters from other eras. Ali was great. No question. Not every guy who fought in his era was also great though, but it does seem that the average fans believes that all of the opponents that a great fighter fought were killers. You see it in every discussion about Robinson. "Um excuse me but Robinson was 128-1 at one point!" Yeah and about 100 tomato cans made up the bulk of that opposition.

Ken Norton is another example. IF you put aside the "OMG he beat teh Ali! the greatest!!!" and objectively look at his record, he was the Oliver McCall of his era. I've made this comparison before and certain people absolutely lost their shit about it, one person even brought it up here in this thread. Oliver McCall had one unbelievable upset win and then was competitive with a few decent fighters. But compare him to someone from the Ali era who was exactly the same thing and people get legitimately offended by that. Norton wasn't great. He had a great win.

There's nothing wrong with occasionally revisiting the All time lists and deciding if they need updating. Boxers didn't stop being relevant after Duran lost to Leonard.

 

[Sunfish]

Ali>Tyson

Barman ducked McCall.

 

[clashnat]

See, you're intentionally ignoring what Tyson was. Tyson was the youngest fighter in history to unify the titles and likely always will be. Not only that, he still won multiple titles and beat numerous ranked fighters after the Holyfield fights.

There's this weird silently agreed upon idea that boxing fans have that certain fighters and their opponents are just untouchable in terms to comparison to other fighters from other eras. Ali was great. No question. Not every guy who fought in his era was also great though, but it does seem that the average fans believes that all of the opponents that a great fighter fought were killers. You see it in every discussion about Robinson. "Um excuse me but Robinson was 128-1 at one point!" Yeah and about 100 tomato cans made up the bulk of that opposition.

Ken Norton is another example. IF you put aside the "OMG he beat teh Ali! the greatest!!!" and objectively look at his record, he was the Oliver McCall of his era. I've made this comparison before and certain people absolutely lost their shit about it, one person even brought it up here in this thread. Oliver McCall had one unbelievable upset win and then was competitive with a few decent fighters. But compare him to someone from the Ali era who was exactly the same thing and people get legitimately offended by that. Norton wasn't great. He had a great win.

There's nothing wrong with occasionally revisiting the All time lists and deciding if they need updating. Boxers didn't stop being relevant after Duran lost to Leonard.

Don't count me among those who consider fighters who are only known from black & white footage to be greater than modern fighters. If you go to the beginning of the thread, you'll see that I addressed comments that suggested that Floyd needs to go to the nuthouse because he didn't put Robinson in his personal & subjective top 5.

Can you explain to me exactly why you consider Frazier greater than Norton?

 

[VulgarSnaps]

This comes down to the definition of "greatest".

Without a very specific definition of the word, it's highly subjective.

Impact on the sport? The world stage? Record? Stats? It goes on and on.

Personally greatest means all of those things to me. That's why I have Ali at the top, he is so far ahead of anyone in terms of impact it's ridiculous. Additionally the length of his career, while obviously too long, was impressive. He was active over 3 decades.
As to Frazier over Norton; Frazier wasn't a true heavyweight. Fighting above your natural weight class is generally considered an accomplishment, especially when it comes to the heavies.

 

[Cracky]

Impact on the sport? The world stage? Record? Stats? It goes on and on.

.

What I don't think a lot of people understand is that alot of the so called records being broken today.. are not records that all previous fighters could compete for on an even playing field.. Ray Leonard would have certainly been a major draw on the ppv market if he competed in a time where ppv was the norm. Ali as well..Even Mike Tyson would do better numbers in this era because of social media and the constant window into his insanity that would be provided to the world... I see Floyd talk about himself breaking records like he just crushed the long standing home run record or something..The reality is that even he was a victim of the times..he was headed right down the same path as Roy Jones..and Pernell.. he was the best but couldn't draw..and then DLH brought him into the light and the timing couldn't have been better..social media was just getting a foothold..but he's not breaking a record so much as he is creating a record...imo..

 

[Seano]

Can you explain to me exactly why you consider Frazier greater than Norton?

Not really. Seems fairly obvious. Frazier had better wins pre Ali and lost to an overall better quality fighter. Two common losses but Frazier didn't lose to ****ey and Shavers.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Norton beat Ali, Young, Quarry, and Duane Bobick.

Frazier beat Ali, Quarry twice, Ellis twice, Joe Bugner, Bob Foster, and Bonavena twice.

Not sure how there's an argument there.

 

[clashnat]

Not really. Seems fairly obvious. Frazier had better wins pre Ali and lost to an overall better quality fighter. Two common losses but Frazier didn't lose to ****ey and Shavers.

Lol, you also didn't lose to Shavers and GC, did you?

If you consider Norton and Frazier equal, then I assume you don't consider Frazier a great one either. Which would also devalue George Foreman. Those two wins made him.

 

[clashnat]

Norton beat Ali, Young, Quarry, and Duane Bobick.

Frazier beat Ali, Quarry twice, Ellis twice, Joe Bugner, Bob Foster, and Bonavena twice.

Not sure how there's an argument there.

I would argue Norton beat Ali twice. He also deserves credit for the Holmes fight although he lost that one.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

I would argue Norton beat Ali twice. He also deserves credit for the Holmes fight although he lost that one.

Then Frazier deserves credit for both the losing Ali performances, one marred by referee incompetence, and the other essentially being a draw given that both guys quit on the stool at the same time.

You can't really just cherrypick fights you wanna give people credit for though. I give fighters credit for wins because the circumstances of losses/performances in those losses can be argued for millenia. You can't argue that Norton beat Ali twice because he didn't. He beat him once and lost to him once. You can argue that you think he should've gotten the nod in the second fight but that could be argued all day with someone who thinks the opposite. I don't really like to rate fighters based on shit like that because it's too foggy.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Also, Lennox > Ali in my opinion. The reasons Ali is ranked so high by historians have nothing to do with his actual resume. Lennox's resume is the best in heavyweight history, IMO.

Mason, Weaver, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Morrison, Mercer, McCall, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Tua, Rahman, Tyson, Klitschko.

That's a fucking resume.

 

[burningspear]

Lewis got one-punch KO'd by a journeyman - twice. He often stunk the joint out too.

 

[Prime Ang]

He avenged both those losses in dominating fashion.

 

[RandomUser12]

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

No, you just got mixed up on who you was arguing with. That's obvious to anyone who read those posts.

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.

And I think anyone can recognise that Marquez's legacy is heavily reliant upon his series of fights with Pacquiao, just like Norton's is with Ali.

It's okay, being a journeyman doesn't make you a bad fighter.

 

[NaughtyBoy]

Damn, Faitelsson is a completely dick !

 

[RandomUser12]

Also, Lennox > Ali in my opinion. The reasons Ali is ranked so high by historians have nothing to do with his actual resume. Lennox's resume is the best in heavyweight history, IMO.

Mason, Weaver, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Morrison, Mercer, McCall, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield, Tua, Rahman, Tyson, Klitschko.

That's a fucking resume.

Yeah, beating three consensus top ten ATG heavyweights doesn't have anything to do with it. Neither does beating the most rated contenders in heavyweight history.

Ali's greatness is just baby boomer nostalgia.

 

[NaughtyBoy]

Oh I see thanks bruh. I thought maybe he absorbed some Spanish from whipping on Mexicans all his career, kinda like osmosis.

Canelo has beaten several americans and his english still sucks.
What an awful argument.

 

[Seano]

No, you just got mixed up on who you was arguing with. That's obvious to anyone who read those posts.

I didn't mix up anything.

+++++

Originally Posted by RandomUser12 View Post

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.

+++++
You brought up Marquez. I responded about the same idea in regards to Hearns. Whats the problem?

And I think anyone can recognise that Marquez's legacy is heavily reliant upon his series of fights with Pacquiao, just like Norton's is with Ali.

It's okay, being a journeyman doesn't make you a bad fighter.

Sure, Marquez is defined by Pacquiao. But he also cleaned out the LW division had the win over Barrera and held titles at multiple weights.

Its a poor comparison.

 

[Seano]

Lewis got one-punch KO'd by a journeyman - twice. He often stunk the joint out too.

I rate Ali over Lewis but its close. Lewis beat every man he ever fought and fought pretty much every big name of his era.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Lewis got one-punch KO'd by a journeyman - twice. He often stunk the joint out too.

Lewis proved to be vastly better than McCall and Rahman, humiliating them both in rematches. Ali lost to Norton and left a lot to be desired with his win in the rematch.