Who is the best Boxer of all time?

[The Endless]

I'd say he lost the first Castillo and Maidana fights.
He should've fought Manny 5 years before he did. The Floyd that fought Zab Judah wouldve been smoked by Manny imo.

Yes he beat everyone. But he fought a lot of them at opportune times for himself and his record.

There is no question of his skills, dedication and work ethic. His ability to adapt to his opponents mid fight is just unbelievable. Defensively he's unparalleled. And as "Pretty Boy" before his hand troubles he was pretty damn entertaining. But as "Money" all he cared about was his 0 and his $$$. He didnt care about the sport, or entertaining the fans. He fought boring, risk free fights to get the decisions from the judges. Nothing more

So yea on paper and technique wise he is the best. But I separate "best" and "greatest". "Greatest" is someone who has really pushed themselves. Who has entertained the fans. Who has taken risks. Who has cared about more than their record or their bank account. Who has cared and done more for the sport of boxing as a whole.

I put Manny above Floyd because Manny has become a Champion in 8 weight divisions. He's taken on everyone at any time. He's fought in a way that is risky for himself, but entertains the fans. He has tasted defeat and resistance, but come back stronger. He's been involved with some of the greatest fights of all time. He is still fighting and defeating top level opponents and claiming world titles even today.

So yes whilst Floyd maybe the best boxer ever... will anyone in 20 years time really be excited to watch any of his fights? No. Unless they are trying to learn the Philly Shell. But I 100% guarantee people will still be excited to watch Manny vs Marquez 1-4 or Manny vs De La Hoya.

 

[famicommander]

I'd say he lost the first Castillo and Maidana fights.
He should've fought Manny 5 years before he did. The Floyd that fought Zab Judah wouldve been smoked by Manny imo.

Yes he beat everyone. But he fought a lot of them at opportune times for himself and his record.

There is no question of his skills, dedication and work ethic. His ability to adapt to his opponents mid fight is just unbelievable. Defensively he's unparalleled. And as "Pretty Boy" before his hand troubles he was pretty damn entertaining. But as "Money" all he cared about was his 0 and his $$$. He didnt care about the sport, or entertaining the fans. He fought boring, risk free fights to get the decisions from the judges. Nothing more

So yea on paper and technique wise he is the best. But I separate "best" and "greatest". "Greatest" is someone who has really pushed themselves. Who has entertained the fans. Who has taken risks. Who has cared about more than their record or their bank account. Who has cared and done more for the sport of boxing as a whole.

I put Manny above Floyd because Manny has become a Champion in 8 weight divisions. He's taken on everyone at any time. He's fought in a way that is risky for himself, but entertains the fans. He has tasted defeat and resistance, but come back stronger. He's been involved with some of the greatest fights of all time. He is still fighting and defeating top level opponents and claiming world titles even today.

So yes whilst Floyd maybe the best boxer ever... will anyone in 20 years time really be excited to watch any of his fights? No. Unless they are trying to learn the Philly Shell. But I 100% guarantee people will still be excited to watch Manny vs Marquez 1-4 or Manny vs De La Hoya.

1. No way he lost the Maidana fight. Floyd outlanded him despite Maidana throwing almost twice as many punches. Maidana was swinging at air all night long. You could make an argument he lost the first Castillo fight, but only if you ignore the fact that Castillo got knocked down in that fight but it was incorrectly ruled a slip. And he easily won both rematches. HBO's absurd lopsided scorecards influenced a lot of people's opinions on the first Castillo fight.

2. Manny is the one who ducked Floyd from 2007-2014, and Floyd was more washed up than Manny when they finally did fight. Floyd is 2 years older than Manny and by the time they fought, Floyd's hands were so brittle from multiple breaks that he had zero punching power left. If they fought earlier, Floyd wins even easier.

Floyd fought Marquez coming off a 2 year retirement and easily dominated him. Manny lost to him 4 times but got handed 2 wins and a draw. It took a savage KO for Marquez to get the win he earned.

 

[The Endless]

1. No way he lost the Maidana fight. Floyd outlanded him despite Maidana throwing almost twice as many punches. Maidana was swinging at air all night long. You could make an argument he lost the first Castillo fight, but only if you ignore the fact that Castillo got knocked down in that fight but it was incorrectly ruled a slip. And he easily won both rematches. HBO's absurd lopsided scorecards influenced a lot of people's opinions on the first Castillo fight.

2. Manny is the one who ducked Floyd from 2007-2014, and Floyd was more washed up than Manny when they finally did fight. Floyd is 2 years older than Manny and by the time they fought, Floyd's hands were so brittle from multiple breaks that he had zero punching power left. If they fought earlier, Floyd wins even easier.

Floyd fought Marquez coming off a 2 year retirement and easily dominated him. Manny lost to him 4 times but got handed 2 wins and a draw. It took a savage KO for Marquez to get the win he earned.

Maidana is a rough volume puncher. He missed a lot, but he landed a lot too. And they were more effective.

Same as Castillo. But tbf in the rematch he was schooled.

Manny ducking Floyd? Bollox. Floyd was trying to make him jump through hoops with his absurd stipulations. He deliberately made the fight impossible to happen. And when the fight DID happen, Floyd was allowed pain killing injections for his hands, but Manny wasnt allowed one for his shoulder? What kind of corrupt bs is that?

Marquez? Styles make fights. Marquez was a counter puncher with good power, speed and combos. A good stylistic match up against Manny who likes to push the fight and can leave himself open. A terrible stylistic match up against Floyd, who sits back and counter punches with pot shots that impress judges.

As a fan of boxing, what would you rather watch? The explosively entertaining Manny vs Marquez fights? Or the technically impressive, yet dull as dishwater Marquez vs Floyd fight?

 

[famicommander]

Maidana is a rough volume puncher. He missed a lot, but he landed a lot too. And they were more effective.

Same as Castillo. But tbf in the rematch he was schooled.

Manny ducking Floyd? Bollox. Floyd was trying to make him jump through hoops with his absurd stipulations. He deliberately made the fight impossible to happen. And when the fight DID happen, Floyd was allowed pain killing injections for his hands, but Manny wasnt allowed one for his shoulder? What kind of corrupt bs is that?

Marquez? Styles make fights. Marquez was a counter puncher with good power, speed and combos. A good stylistic match up against Manny who likes to push the fight and can leave himself open. A terrible stylistic match up against Floyd, who sits back and counter punches with pot shots that impress judges.

Floyd offered 50/50 as far back as 2010 for Manny. Manny ducked because he didn't want drug testing that close to the fight date, point blank. His excuse was that he was afraid of needles, even though he has insisted on the very same drug testing for his own opponents including Brandon Rios.

Floyd easily dominated Manny in their fight when it happened, even though he was the older, more physically broken man. Manny is still a top fighter four years later while Floyd had one more real fight and then retired.

People have this crazy idea that everybody Floyd fought past their prime, while Floyd's prime lasted his entire career. The reality is that Floyd was washed up after about 2012, and even washed up Floyd was still better than everybody else.

The only reason people think Maidana won the first fight is because one of the judges had it even. The other two had Floyd by 5 points an Floyd by 4 points, which was correct. Defense counts in boxing and Floyd stole the rounds when he wanted them with flurries.

 

[The Endless]

Floyd offered 50/50 as far back as 2010 for Manny. Manny ducked because he didn't want drug testing that close to the fight date, point blank. His excuse was that he was afraid of needles, even though he has insisted on the very same drug testing for his own opponents including Brandon Rios.

Floyd easily dominated Manny in their fight when it happened, even though he was the older, more physically broken man. Manny is still a top fighter four years later while Floyd had one more real fight and then retired.

People have this crazy idea that everybody Floyd fought past their prime, while Floyd's prime lasted his entire career. The reality is that Floyd was washed up after about 2012, and even washed up Floyd was still better than everybody else.

The only reason people think Maidana won the first fight is because one of the judges had it even. The other two had Floyd by 5 points an Floyd by 4 points, which was correct. Defense counts in boxing and Floyd stole the rounds when he wanted them with flurries.

I wouldnt say Floyd dominated their fight. Manny won 4-5 rounds.

I see no reason why Manny would duck Floyd. What's the motivation behind that? Manny had been in all out wars with elite opponents who could damage and defeat him. Why duck someone who would simply take it to the judges whilst offering little to no damage?

I dont think either of us will agree or change our minds. I respect your opinion and can totally see why you think Floyd is the best ever. But like I said before, I separate "best" and "greatest". Floyd may well be the "best" boxer ever. But for me he's not the "greatest".

An interesting question though... throughout history who do you think couldve beat him at WW? I think Prime Tommy Hearns with his reach and power or Prime Sugar Ray Leonard with his accurate, fast volume punching wouldve given him huge problems.

 

[famicommander]

I wouldnt say Floyd dominated their fight. Manny won 4-5 rounds.

I see no reason why Manny would duck Floyd. What's the motivation behind that? Manny had been in all out wars with elite opponents who could damage and defeat him. Why duck someone who would simply take it to the judges whilst offering little to no damage?

Manny won 3 rounds in that fight at the very most. 4 rounds is extremely generous. It wasn't a close fight and Floyd wasn't threatened at any point.

Manny was trying to wait out the older man. That's why he ducked the fight. He was riding a 15 fight winning streak until Marquez stopped him, and a loss to Floyd would destroy his unstoppable mystique at the time. But after taking a couple Ls and Floyd hitting 38 he figured he had nothing to lose.

He accepted the Floyd fight in 2015 with the exact same terms he turned down in 2007 and 2010. He said himself the drug testing was the reason he turned it down, the fear of needles, in 2010. And then he signed up for the same drug testing in 2015.

When Floyd wanted the De La Hoya fight, he had to eat crap and make all the concessions because De La Hoya was the A side. The biggest PPV star in the sport at the time.

But Floyd, even being the clear A side the rest of his career, offered Manny 50/50 and Manny ducked it until his brand was already damaged enough from the Marquez KO that another L couldn't hurt him.

Floyd was the champ. He had the lineal title and the unified title. If you want the champ, you don't make excuses. You go get him. Manny tried to wait him out and still got schooled.

 

[Doc Samson]

Couldn't of said any of this better famicommander. And I've tried...for years.

An interesting question though... throughout history who do you think couldve beat him at WW? I think Prime Tommy Hearns with his reach and power or Prime Sugar Ray Leonard with his accurate, fast volume punching wouldve given him huge problems.

Leonard is the only one I've ever thought who could realistically beat him. One of the few times I saw Floyd struggle was early against Judah.

Say what you want about Zab but he was extremely fast and Floyd couldn't time him. And it shouldn't be viewed as a slight, Judah sabotaged his own career, it shouldn't take away from his talent though, he had some of the quickest hands ever.

If Zab had better discipline and conditioning he would've won but like Floyd said leading into the fight, he knew he'd fade late.

Leonard wouldn't fade. And he could hurt him, something Zab wasn't.

 

[famicommander]

Zab Judah doesn't get enough respect either. He was the freaking undisputed, lineal welterweight king and a 3X super lightweight world champion. And he was crazy enough to take fights against Amir Khan and Danny Garcia way after he was washed up.

 

[The Endless]

Yea Judah was definitely underrated.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

I still cry about how Kostya ko’ed Zab.

 

[jolldan]

In their absolute prime Roy Jones Jr. was probably by best.

 

[B]

Another thing that factors for me when I'm thinking about the the "GOAT" in terms of fighters is that I personally think weight matters.

If I don't believe there's very much between 2 particular fighters I'll always pick the heavier weight class fighter over the smaller weight class.

If they're the same or similar weight class I'd take into account finish ratio. I mean if you're the best, you are destroying your opponents finishing them with few ever seeing the final bell.

It's obviously all still a subjective opinion, but that's the way I tend to look at it.

 

[The Endless]

Yea in his prime Roy Jones Jr was an absolute freak of nature. The greatest athlete to ever lace up imo.

What he did, going all the way up to HW, was phenomenal. But it did ruin him. He was never the same once he came back down weight classes.

 

[jolldan]

Another reason I think this is so subjective is what you value the most in terms of rating someone, as it can be different for everyone what they value most.

• Undefeated?
  
• Most wins?
• Most title wins?
  
• Most title defences?
• Most weight classes fought in?
• Most past/present/future champions beaten?
• How good they were in their absoloute prime?

Yea in his prime Roy Jones Jr was an absolute freak of nature. The greatest athlete to ever lace up imo.

What he did, going all the way up to HW, was phenomenal. But it did ruin him. He was never the same once he came back down weight classes.

Yeah seems to be true for most fighters than once you start messing around with your weight problems start.

 

[Doc Samson]

In their absolute prime Roy Jones Jr. was probably by best.

Roy was my personal favorite boxer of all time to watch, he might've been the quickest human I've ever seen, even in slow motion he was fast.

I just acknowledge that he was more hyper athlete than fundamentally sound boxer, which is why I give the nod to Floyd as a technician and of course longevity, which brings me to:

Another reason I think this is so subjective is what you value the most in terms of rating someone, as it can be different for everyone what they value most.

I think it all counts but for me the most important might be longevity and adversity.

Most of the greats, in any sport, are considered that for facing down father time and adversity while still being almost as great outside of their prime as they were in it. People bring up Ray Robinson for his streak, for his overall record and for coming back and regaining titles multiple times.

Jordan coming back to win 3 more, Brady rising from the dead multiple times for 6, Ali forfeiting his prime and still coming back to win the title, Floyd going through 3 decades of champions, Tiger finding a way to win hobbled in the '08 Open then winning the Masters 11 years later when everyone believed he was finished, all that stuff adds to the theater of sports. Persevering through adversity or father time itself is what cements someone's legacy to me...

 

[jolldan]

Roy was my personal favorite boxer of all time to watch, he might've been the quickest human I've ever seen, even in slow motion he was fast.

I just acknowledge that he was more hyper athlete than fundamentally sound boxer, which is why I give the nod to Floyd as a technician and of course longevity, which brings me to:



I think it all counts but for me the most important might be longevity and adversity.

Most of the greats, in any sport, are considered that for facing down father time and adversity while still being almost as great outside of their prime as they were in it. People bring up Ray Robinson for his streak, for his overall record and for coming back and regaining titles multiple times.

Jordan coming back to win 3 more, Brady rising from the dead multiple times for 6, Ali forfeiting his prime and still coming back to win the title, Floyd going through 3 decades of champions, Tiger finding a way to win hobbled in the '08 Open then winning the Masters 11 years later when everyone believed he was finished, all that stuff adds to the theater of sports. Persevering through adversity or father time itself is what cements someone's legacy to me...

Yeah that's a big factor I think as well that's why I don't tend to argue with people on this topic because you or I could rate someone number 1 for the first 6 of those 7 categories but it doesn't really matter when all of them could also be trumped by the 7th something "Hey I know overall he accomplished more both just taking both guys at their absolute peak of their powers I think he wins"

• Undefeated?
  
• Most wins?
• Most title wins?
  
• Most title defences?
• Most weight classes fought in?
• Most past/present/future champions beaten?
• How good they were in their absoloute prime?

 

[B]

Roy was my personal favorite boxer of all time to watch, he might've been the quickest human I've ever seen, even in slow motion he was fast.

I just acknowledge that he was more hyper athlete than fundamentally sound boxer, which is why I give the nod to Floyd as a technician and of course longevity

Probably mine as well at least in terms of boxers, at his peak he was literally making guys look like they'd never fought a day in their life with the way he destroyed them.

He wasn't able to really adapt though to his gradual lose of that exceptional speed & power which made him such a dynamic threat. He wasn't a bum but his athletic qualities are without question what took him up levels higher than he maybe would have got to if he was an average athlete.

Floyd was able to adapt because he always was more of a technically gifted fighter & with his decline, he was able to adapt using his brain & superb technique to overcome a lose in physical traits.

 

[jolldan]

I wouldnt say Floyd dominated their fight. Manny won 4-5 rounds.

I see no reason why Manny would duck Floyd. What's the motivation behind that? Manny had been in all out wars with elite opponents who could damage and defeat him. Why duck someone who would simply take it to the judges whilst offering little to no damage?

I dont think either of us will agree or change our minds. I respect your opinion and can totally see why you think Floyd is the best ever. But like I said before, I separate "best" and "greatest". Floyd may well be the "best" boxer ever. But for me he's not the "greatest".

An interesting question though... throughout history who do you think couldve beat him at WW? I think Prime Tommy Hearns with his reach and power or Prime Sugar Ray Leonard with his accurate, fast volume punching wouldve given him huge problems.

Personally think plenty of greats could have beaten him from different times but we will likely be saying this in 10-15 years about somebody that we think only Floyd could beat.

Agree with Hearns and Leonard. Tommy is one of my top 5 boxers ever and at Welterweight was just so big and powerful I don't think Floyd would have had the counter power to get Tommy's respect. Leonard was so good everywhere I think he could have likely just managed to outbox him.

At Lightweight: The two that really stick out for me are Pernell Whitaker who in his prime I think was possibly a better defensive fighter than Floyd and Julio Cesar Chavez.

At Welterweight: Others I would say would be the original Sugar Ray, Mr Robinson himself (hard to disagree with arguably the greatest boxer ever). Roberto Duran is one im sort of on the fence about but I think it would have been close with either guy potentially taking it.

 

[famicommander]

JCC was too basic for Floyd. Whittaker got absolutely robbed against JCC, and Floyd would've performed much the same way. Except Floyd hit harder and had a better chin than Sweet Pea.

 

[childeroland]

Ali, Chavez, Mayweather, Sugar Ray Robinson, Tyson, Marciano

 

[InCali]

Ali. I've seen film of Robinson and remember thinking "Everyone talks about what a good boxer he is....and he is, but that guy has a murderous punch". Marciano has, at best, a puncher's chance against Ali. Watch the Walcott fight. Ali schools him.