Mayweather, Jones, and Whitaker were too dominant at their best to have rivals shoul

:deal

Check out at 5:00 mins

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86t0tpUoCYg&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86t0tpUoCYg&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

 

Whitaker had no peers....


But as for Jones and Mayweather...these guys take exception:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Oh yeah...


No excuses..

This content is protected

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=442653

 

Not that I disagree with your general point but wouldn't Eubank, Benn or Collins be more suitable as Jones Jr actually fought Hopkins and beat him. :huh

 

Think it's more the actual (or perceived) quality of opponent than a world ranking. Floyd literally would've fought or attempted to go through whoever he needed to to reach the status he has, but there's still a very stage management feel to it particularly since the DLH fight as SS mentioned, even if the quality of opponents hasn't been as poor as people like to make out. What do you consider his best win (Corrales?), taking at the time into consideration and not name alone -- and how far down Pernell's list do you have to go before it matches up with one?

 

Anybody that consistently runs through a sizable number of the top rated contenders/champions of their own time impressively for a career and win a fair amount more than they lost can earn the title of being a great fighter. From that point, the quality of those opponents has to be judged and determined, and while there is plenty of wiggle room for debate in that aspect, I can't in good conscience say Floyd matches a group consisting of Chavez, De La Hoya (arguably), Nelson, McGirt (x2) and Vasquez any more than that tops Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez and Kalule in Leonard's case. Dominance is certainly a key component that some weigh more than others and can place fighters above others, even if their pockets aren't as deep. It's pretty subjective exercise as a whole.

I would say that old-timers certainly get more benefit of the doubt, even if there's nothing visually available. We're privy to so much more information in regards to just about everything concerning a fight (80s, 90s, 00s). Nothing is taken at face value to nearly the same extent and detractions are made to the absolute fullest.

 

He didn't make a fight and beat P4P #1 Hopkins in 2002. He beat a good but still developing middleweight 9 years prior.

Yeah, the list for Jones is pretty long. You could sub all those guys in, but in Hopkins 01-02 we are talking about a guy that was actually the higher ranked P4P fighter calling him out.

 

I read the thread title. Like what was said about Jones/Tarver II at the time..NO EXCUSES. Tarver just had your boys number.

If you cut off Floyd at 2006 it gets even worse because he left alot of fighters hanging.

I'm aware of the excuses. I followed Jones in the 90s, his greatness is evident but it was also frustrating he left so many rivals hanging. I can't say the same for Whitaker, whom you are trying to say Jones and Floyd are in company with.

 

The Mongoose is a relic from the Classic (no offense buddy) -- This will be harsh if he decides to stick around in the thread.

 

I watched the 90s as they unfolded.

Jones and Mayweather are comparable but they are no Sweat Pea, regardless of the bogus judging he left no doubt in my mind that no active fighter in his weight range was his true peer. Of Jones and Floyd..I have doubts.

 

Has there ever been a fight as big financially as Pac-Floyd. Both prime, both huge draws, both rated joint no.1/2 p4p by Ring, and between them champions in 14 weight divisions.

Floyd should have fought Pac. Whitaker fought Chavez and Jones fought Toney.