List 10 fighters with a better resume than Floyd Mayweather

[ThatDude44]

I seriously can't. I just wish he had fought De La hoya and Mosley a tad earlier.....

You have a Cubs logo, a Rose highlight but yet have Jordan, the greatest athlete ever and on a Chicago team, getting crossed. Explain, lol.

[LacedUp]

Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, Alexis Arguello, Julio Cesar Chavez, Sr., Oscar De La Hoya, Willie Pep, Marco Antonio Barrera, Manny Pacquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez, Erik Morales, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, George Foreman, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, Felix Trinidad, Jake LaMotta, Sam Langford, Hector Camacho, Pernell Whitaker, Azumah Nelson, Bob Foster, Joe Frazier, Kostya Tzsyu, James Toney, Roy Jones, Jr., Bernard Hopkins, Archie Moore....

A lot of those are very debatable I'd say.

[IronDanHamza]

A lot of those are very debatable I'd say.

Surely the absence of highlighting James Toney was a mistake on your part?

[LacedUp]

Surely the absence of highlighting James Toney was a mistake on your part?

Of course! I think Bernard Hopkins' and some of the others' resumes are probably worse than Mayweather's as well.

It was just a quick run through.

[Jc8804]

Some people here seem to believe that Mayweather doesn't belong in the top 30. I have limited knowledge of history, maybe someone here can point me to 10 fighters who had a better resume than Floyd Mayweather. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Plenty of fighers. At least 30-40 fighters.
He missed over 10 fighters which is a lot



You see , people who really know boxing know floyd cherry picked and waited fighters out. He allowed a good crop of 147 pounders to beat eachother and stayed away. He ducked certain guys and he fought a lot of has beens who happened to have a good name popularity wise.
He fake retired twice to avoid certain guys



His resume is overated. He didnt fool real boxing heads.

its a sham

[Tony Trick-Pony]

A lot of those are very debatable I'd say.

To be honest with you, resumes are debatable period. I'm not sure why people call them "resumes." What is this? A job interview? It's very broad and doesn't really tell the tale, period, much like boxrec arguments.

The guys I picked didn't pick opponents. They pretty much fought everybody. They fought guys they were very unsure of beating. Still, though, they did fight. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost. Either way, they weren't going to duck and keep the "0".

Times have changed greatly, too. You have to consider how hard it was to be champion in the earlier days of boxing. Titles are really starting to mean nothing these days. At one time, the champion had went through absolute hell to get a shot. Now a days? Win twenty in a row and you're a lock for a shot at on of those trinkets. So, Floyd's winning multiple titles is fine, but it ain't impressive like it used to be.

As far as his opponents, there are several credible names on there, but in historical terms, they weren't ATGs be any means. Pac is of course, as is De La Hoya, but Corrales? I don't think so. He was pretty limited when you really watch him. Gatti? Everyone beat Gatti. Very limited and not HOF worthy really. Madiana? Solid fighter but ATG? Defintely not. Judah? Lost to everybody, although dangerous of course. Tzsyu more or less showed that he lacked a lot in terms of defense and did he ever go the distance without looking completely gassed? Stamina wasn't there. Mosley was fine, but past it and at the time, Floyd wasn't. Guerrero is a joke. Ortiz is a joke. Berto is a joke. Chavez was a good fighter but certainly not great. Genaro was solid, but not great, not to mention had hands made of balsa wood. Cotto has never been that special. The Castillo fight was of course arguably a loss and he did rematch him, but again, it's Castillo. Not necessarily a ATG either. Canelo was a fine victory and it will pay him dividends in the future for sure.

I mean, when it gets down to it, you can pick anybody's "Resume" apart. None of them will show a fighter who beat every opponent down without a scratch in a tougher than hell era. Those fighters don't exist. His resume is exceptional compared to a lot of fighters on paper, but in reality, I don't see it as that great. And as time passes, I think this is going to become more and more evident. If you can pick apart Hopkins' ledger, it ain't very hard to pick apart Floyd's.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

And the guy conducts a poll to see who the fans want to see him fight. They pick Khan. He fights Maidana. What's up with that?

[betmen]

Like I you said only in opinion. I'm not much of a historian guy unless it is from the 80's and I don't know much of Archie Moore. But about the Pacquiao, this "Tie has been broken by beating him" yes....if it was 6 years ago! We never get to see Prime for Prime between Mayweather and Pacquiao. Mayweather doesn't have a Prime HOF in their best weight class in his resume! That's why I think many of this fighter's resume is above him because they fought ATG in their primes! I dunno about Joe Louis and Archie Moore though but you get my point.

why....?? do you think mayweather is in his prime at pacquiao fight?? floyd is two years older and have continue hands injury. even the fight is 6 years ago i doubt pac will win.

as casual fan who love the entertaiment side of boxing i love pac more than floyd. i dream about pac beating floyd everytime but i realized is just a dream, Floyd is just too good, too tactically brilliant for any fighter in 147-154

[LacedUp]

To be honest with you, resumes are debatable period. I'm not sure why people call them "resumes." What is this? A job interview? It's very broad and doesn't really tell the tale, period, much like boxrec arguments.

The guys I picked didn't pick opponents. They pretty much fought everybody. They fought guys they were very unsure of beating. Still, though, they did fight. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost. Either way, they weren't going to duck and keep the "0".

Times have changed greatly, too. You have to consider how hard it was to be champion in the earlier days of boxing. Titles are really starting to mean nothing these days. At one time, the champion had went through absolute hell to get a shot. Now a days? Win twenty in a row and you're a lock for a shot at on of those trinkets. So, Floyd's winning multiple titles is fine, but it ain't impressive like it used to be.

As far as his opponents, there are several credible names on there, but in historical terms, they weren't ATGs be any means. Pac is of course, as is De La Hoya, but Corrales? I don't think so. He was pretty limited when you really watch him. Gatti? Everyone beat Gatti. Very limited and not HOF worthy really. Madiana? Solid fighter but ATG? Defintely not. Judah? Lost to everybody, although dangerous of course. Tzsyu more or less showed that he lacked a lot in terms of defense and did he ever go the distance without looking completely gassed? Stamina wasn't there. Mosley was fine, but past it and at the time, Floyd wasn't. Guerrero is a joke. Ortiz is a joke. Berto is a joke. Chavez was a good fighter but certainly not great. Genaro was solid, but not great, not to mention had hands made of balsa wood. Cotto has never been that special. The Castillo fight was of course arguably a loss and he did rematch him, but again, it's Castillo. Not necessarily a ATG either. Canelo was a fine victory and it will pay him dividends in the future for sure.

I mean, when it gets down to it, you can pick anybody's "Resume" apart. None of them will show a fighter who beat every opponent down without a scratch in a tougher than hell era. Those fighters don't exist. His resume is exceptional compared to a lot of fighters on paper, but in reality, I don't see it as that great. And as time passes, I think this is going to become more and more evident. If you can pick apart Hopkins' ledger, it ain't very hard to pick apart Floyd's.

Of course they are debatable. But I mean, what you're saying about Floyd's resume can be said about anyone. Floyd's lesser opponents like some of the guys you mentioned i.e. Berto, Guerrero, Ortiz, Gatti, Judah etc etc would be top wins on most others' opponents. Those guys are world champions, some of them multiple world champions.

Now, we can talk about someone like Barrera or Morales or Hopkins - Have you looked through their "lesser" wins? They are absolutely 100% complete unknowns. They beat fighters with double digit losses in some cases and guys who weren't even ranked when they were 25-30 fights in.

We can talk about cherry-picking all we want, and I'm not one to disagree with the fact that Mayweather has cherry-picked a good few opponents in his career. He even admits it himself, he just calls it "smart business". However, fighting Berto in what's considered a "cherry pick" is still 100 billion times better than fighting Carlos Unknowno in what isn't considered a cherrypick.

Hopkins is a great fighter, definitely. But through his whole prime he beat a couple of good fighters and only 1-2 great ones (1 if we're honest). Mayweather completely craps all over that, those are just facts.

Mayweather has fought champion after champion. When is the last time he didn't fight a champion (past or present)? Do you even remember? I don't really off the top of my head.

I'm not a Mayweather fan at all, I fell asleep during a few of his fights, but there's no denying that when watching him you're watching greatness in the ring. All time greatness. The reason why people say his resume is not as good or whatever they like to say, is because of one of two things:

1) they hate him
2) they have such ridiculously high expectation for him incomparable to any other fight in history

Sometimes both are true, but I think #2 point is very telling whenever someone discusses Mayweather.

I mean, for example, you just said Miguel Cotto wasn't anything special. I'm thinking, honestly, what world are you living in?

Anyone would love to have a great fighter like Cotto on their resume. And that just shows you what level of expectation you have for Mayweather compared to the expectations we have for a guy, even like Hopkins. It's totally out of proportion.

[Mike D]

Sutherland fought both Rainford and Wofford



It's close but I give Sutherland's resume the edge