So Mayweather is essentially retired...

I'm talking the tyson that fought LL, he was in debt, fighting for a paycheck and couldnt beat anyone post prison. The tyson that fought Lewis wasn't anywhere close to ssm from 2010. A marg was very under skilled, still ssm could throw hard shots for 9 straight rounds, something tyson couldn't do past his 25th bday.

You claiming losses don't count sums your opinion and ranking criteria as in the dumps. Saying Floyd never had to fight as the underdog, holy wtf. Too hard to grasp, that's exactly why he's one of the very top atg fighters. He was greater than everyone for 2 straight decades, going fromy 130 to 154, being the smaller to drastically smaller fighter for 50+% of his fights.

You're honestly one of the guys that ranks fighters higher that lose and then come back and beat that fighter. If said fighter was great he wouldn't have lost the fight. Losing fights is a negative no matter how anyone looks at it. Winning is all that matters it doesn't matter how you win as long as you win

 

Whitaker? Easy. Julio Cesar Chavez. That win is better than any Floyd has. Top that with top wins over McGirt, Nelson, Ramirez, Haugen, Mayweather (Roger), Vasquez, and arguably beating a prime Oscar way past his own prime (as opposed to competitively beating an old Oscar in Floyd's own prime). He's considered the best lightweight of all time by many.

Just check here if you doubt me. Those are some well known writers and posters opining.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=440297

You realize that, at least, is almost consensus, right? That Whitaker is superior to Mayweather. It's not some insult. It is widely believed.

As to what he did better, Whitaker had a better jab, could control the center of a ring better, and had better defensive head movement. His inside game was just as good. So there's your answer. Next time try learning about the facts BEFORE forming your opinion, not the other way around.

 

But Tyson was KOing guys that were at least on Margarito's level at the time. I already explained that. lol.

 

Really, if you think about most of your list, your opinion is very bad if you truly think all these are greater all time. When a few aren't atg to begin with.

Your atg list must be never ending. Mines 25 fighters max, lots of yours don't come close to making mine. Seriously, a feworse of yours are B fighters. Hof and atg is a very different animal.

Floyds top 10 in my atg list, Langford couldn't sniff mine. Foreman couldn't make the cut either. ****, lots of yours wouldn't sniff my top 50, would take way too long to make anyway.

You just named all the popular names you could think of. How the **** could anyone put rjj anywhere near fmj class is beyond me

 

Most people consider an ATG list top 100. Top 25 is basically some **** you made up for yourself, which is fine, but it doesn't apply to what most people consider an ATG.

Floyd is in your top 10 list? Holy ****. See, nobody in their right mind has Floyd in their top 10. That's just ridiculous. His resume doesn't hold a candle to the Universal top 10-15 fighters.

I can see now you're simply ignorant and trying to defend Floyd out of personal bias. I'll leave you to that. Go watch some classic boxing, you might like it and have something to post about in the classic forum.

 

Lmfao, in my head like it happened yesterday. God was I embarrassed for the iron taking place of where a brain should reside.

My my tyson, he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he was done, didn't want to fight buy needed paydays. Lol the weaker Mike got the more mean he tried to come off as. Until LL, lol LL beat the very last of Mike out. One thing we can all agree on, Mike could take a ****ing beating

 

If that's all you've got - Julio Cesar Chavez - and - "look at another thread on this site" ... I'm not even going to bother.

Now that both of their careers are - for the moment - over, Mayweather was better than Whitaker in every regard.

Do you rate Wilfredo Vazquez, Buddy McGirt, Haugen and Chavez ... higher than Cotto, Alvarez, De La Hoya, Mosley, Pacquiao, Hatton, Hernandez, Judah, Corrales, etc.?

I've got news for you ... HISTORY WON'T.

He had a better jab?



Good Lord.

Wherever people rated Whitaker over the years ... you can START by rating Mayweather at least one spot ahead of Pernell.

Just START there.

Because he was clearly better than Whitaker, he beat better guys than Whitaker, he was more dominant than Whitaker, he was a bigger star than Whitaker, he made 100 times the money Whitaker made.

Now that their careers are over, Floyd Jr. blew Whitaker's career out of the water. :good

 

Opponents closer to their prime, or more accomplished; yes, I consider them better. As do most hardcore fans now. As will most in the future, I suspect. JCC at the time he fought him was better than anyone Floyd fought.

Yes, Whitaker had the better jab, clearly. The fact you laugh at this means you haven't watched much Whitaker. I like how you didn't contradict the rest of his advantages either.

More money than Whitaker? Lol as if that matters at all to one's greatness. What a joke.

Ask the forum to rank Lewis, Whitaker, and Mayweather and you'll see I'm not the only one placing them above Floyd. Better yet, ask if Floyd is top 10 of all time :rofl That was ****ing gold.

 

If you think wins over Greg Haugen and Wilfredo Vasquez are better than wins over Pacquaio, De La Hoya, Cotto and Alvarez ... because Haugen was closer to HIS prime ... then you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

I've been watching boxing since 1975. I saw all of Whitaker's televised fights when they aired live ... (I even recorded them and then tossed most because I never wanted to watch them again) even the one where he quit on ESPN.

I saw all of Mayweather's fights, too. And I didn't keep most of them for the same reason.

But Mayweather beat far better fighters, he was in far fewer close fights, he never lost, he was a household name, he was the highet paid athlete in all sports.

He did everything better than Whitaker. Everything.

Even his jab was better.

 

A real head scratcher to me is how Floyd beat Marquez so comprehensive that it seemingly doesn't count. While it's true that the fight was at 147, which wasn't Marquez ideal weight, it's also true that Marquez was in his prime and Floyd was coming off a layoff. It's also true that Marquez would knock out the pfp number 1 fighter at 147 and have success there after the fight. Other instances of fighters in their mid thirties being "too small" for a weightclass and then showing up there a couple years later and knocking out the pfp number 1 are zero.

It's one of the best wins immediately after a layoff in the sport's history.

 

I agree.

Marquez was the lightweight champion. Mayweather was the welterweight champion.

A lot of lightweight champions have fought welterweight champions. That's the only time I recall a battle of champions like that "not counting" because the bigger guy won.

 

Way to pick Haugen as the worst one No, Chavez and McGirt and Nelson and Vasquez in their primes are more impressive than the versions of the famous fighters Floyd fought.

He did not do everything better than Whitaker. That's just insane. Whitaker controlled the center of the ring better, had a better jab, and his head movement was second to none. Did everything better :rofl Fanboy BS.

Having Whitaker above Floyd is as common as having Robinson #1 and Ali in the top 10.

 

The same reason people don't hold the Hearns loss against Duran. The style matchup and size difference is so against the loser that it isn't really fair to hold it against him.

 

People thought Marquez was already small for lightweight when he came up. He started at featherweight and had to adopt a modern strength training regimen to compete effectively at welterweight, and even then was still small for the weight historically. Still a good win.

 

Well, the Duran win is considered one Hearns' best and he was way bigger than Duran. Poor comparison.