The only reason why Mayweather isnt No.1 is because off the times he has retired ;D

7) Timothy Bradley - Really? This guy if you believe Kham camp has been running scared all year.

to the 1st reply, the reason mayweathers not num1 is because the ring, the supposed unbiased voice of boxing cant stand him, dnt believe me? look up a issue of a magazine from a few years back where their cover story was along the lines of " 10 fighters who would of kicked mayweathers butt". After that issue never bothered with it again

Which fighter makes the most money, sells the most PPVs and creates the most attention?

MONEY MAYWEATHER!!

I think Mayweather vs Ortiz only did around 1.4m that is despite having Morales and Canelo on the card on Mexican Independant day weekend.

Pacquiao did that much on a pretty poor card against Mosley.

Floyd vs DLH and Floyd vs Hatton easily outdone Pacmans matches vs the same oppenents.

Floyds so good he still takes home 100% revenue as opposed to Pac paying promoters etc.

Yeah Floyd is a good bussiness man but this is boxing we are talking about.

Pacquiao is widely regarded as the best p4p out there at the moment.

Floyd knows what he has to do to change it.

Well as for Boxing, Floyd was p4p number 1 until he took a sebaticle after beating Hatton keeping his undefeated record intact.

KAZ
So because Ring magazine runs an article saying about fighters who would beat Mayweather it is biased? That doesn’t necessarily follow…
What does follow perhaps is that you haven’t bothered with Ring magazine for a number of years so perhaps aren’t best placed to say whether it is biased or not.

Gullit
The fighter that makes the most money isn’t necessarily the best fighter.
Yes he may well negotiate better than Pac-man but that is again completely irrelevant.
As for him beating Oscar and Ricky better than Pacman – what are you judging that on?
Pacman knocked DLH out… Mayweather won on points, Pacman knocked Hatton out in 2, Mayweather took 7. I don’t like such comparisons, I think they are flawed… but you have used them despite them seemingly going against your argument.

1) Pac/Hatton @140, Floyd/Hatton @147 - Floyd fought a bigger, stronger version of Hatton. Oh, that's right, 140 was Hatton's "best weight." So, let me get this straight... Pac can move up TWO weight classes from the Diaz fight and be FASTER and MORE COORDINATED while Hatton moves up ONE weight class and suddenly can't fight? Hatton walks around at 190... so am I supposed to believe that having 7 MORE pounds of muscle wouldn't have helped him in his fight against Floyd? And, if that is the case, how is it that Pac can do what almost NO fighter does by going up TWO weight classes and not lose any speed or coordination?

2) Pac/DLH @147, Floyd/DLH @154 - Am I now supposed to believe that Pac beating DLH at 147 was a better win than Floyd beating DLH at 154? DLH walks around at 160-165. He hadn't made 147 in over six years. No question that Floyd's win over a younger, stronger DLH was a better quality win.

Gullits Dreadlocks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must know Hatton's best weight was 140lbs and didn't look too good in his previous fight at 147lbs against Collazo.

Pacquiao stepped up 3 weights in a year to fight Oscar, Floyd just stepped up one weight class.

Before the fight Pacquiao was a 3/1 underdog to beat Oscar.

But Floyd took 10 rounds to dispatch Hatton losing 3-4 rounds along the way, while Pacquiao blasted him out in 2 putting him dow 3 times.

Floyd won a SD over Oscar, a fight Floyd only pulled away in the championship rounds.

While Manny put on a masterclass against Oscar dominating ever round and stopping him in 8.

Well said D4...

I think it's difficult to judge fighters by saying they did better against certain opponents... it doesn't always tell the whole story but yes - Manny certainly wins if you do judge it that way!

mrmotimer

the article was actually 10 fighters who would beat mayweathers butt, not very proffesional for the so called pinnicle of boxing mags

United_kaz (U9943)
-----------------------------

The fighters on the list probably would, it was a good article.

Kind of copied my article that I wrote a year before called, "10 fights Mayweather never had" or something along those lines.

Kaz
What is unprofessional about it? The title?
Surely you would expect a newspaper to use a “grabbing” headline. Would it have been more “professional” to have entitled the piece “A monograph on the inefficacy of Mayweather in relation to other professional boxers”? Or perhaps… “10 Boxers that would have handsomely beaten Mayweather”?

Was it just the headline you disliked or the anti-Mayweather tone? Surely a journalist is entitled to an opinion if the article is an opinion piece? That’s what he’s being paid for!

Out of the 10 how many did you disagree with? (I didn’t see the piece if you remember the boxers listed it would be interesting to perhaps do a post on the boards about it and see what people think)

well done Floyd, #2. Keep trying and you might hit the top