So Mayweather is essentially retired...

I think it's clear here who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Buddy McGirt is a Hall of Famer in terms of head-to-head ability.

What in the hell does that even mean?

And Julio Cesar Vazquez beats Oscar, Cotto and Canelo? :roll:atsch I watched Vazquez when he actually used to fight. He was nothing special. He wasn't even ranked the best junior middleweight when he was the champion. All the pubs had the other champs rated higher than him.

Go sit down, son.

You blew it.

And I noticed you didn't respond when I asked if Mayweather beat the guys Pernell did, and vice versa, if you'd rate Floyd higher. Because if Pernell had beat Alvarez, Pacquiao, De La Hoya, Cotto, Mosley, Marquez, Gatti, Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, etc. ... and retired undefeated ... people around here would be tripping over themselves to rank Whitaker among the very best ever.

And if Floyd had lost to the guys Pernell lost to, nobody would be rating him over "that" Whitaker (with Mayweather's resume).

Mayweather's resume and career blows Pernell's out of the water.

I almost feel sorry for you that you can't see that.

 

Mayweather's resume cannot be taken at face value. Because he's a unique situation.

All of his most notable names were past prime. All of them.

Probably more than any recent fighter his past prime wins stand out. We could on and on about why he fought Marquez, Pacquiao, Mosley and DLH in the condition they were in. That's another discussion entirely.

 

Blows Pernell's out of the water

Because s****ing by Austin Trout and cowering on the ropes from the threat of Floyd's jab in a catchweight fight is superior to beating an undefeated Winky Wright and making 8 defenses of the title.

Vasquez could conceivably beat those 3. Old Oscar, past-prime Cotto, and green Canelo. Just look at him.

[YT]lfBTUqBrlnE[/YT]

Southpaw with great poise and body punching, great power, a decent jab, and a complete punch selection. ****, an undefeated Winky was more complete than Canelo was and is. That win would have been better. But no, Whitaker one upped that and beat the guy who beat him.

 

Don't you start, too.

Mayweather beat the RING Super Welterweight champion and current lineal middleweight champion Canelo Alverez when Alvarez was 23 YEARS OLD.

When the hell was Canelo's "prime?" When he was 19?:roll:

And Mayweather beat him when Mayweather was 36 years old. And Floyd MOVED UP to Super Welterweight to fight him.

Diego Corrales was the reigning champ and he was 24 YEARS OLD when Floyd took his title ... and it was a pick 'em fight.

Jose Luis Castillo was the RING Lightweight champion and he was 29 years old.

Hell, even guys like Zab Judah and Ricky Hatton were both two-division champions and were both 29 years old.

Who did Pernell Whitaker move up to beat in that guy's prime in that guy's own weight class? It wasn't Chavez or Nelson? Chavez never did anything at welterweight (especially as a 30+ year old welter) and Nelson never did anything at lightweight but lose two fights. atsch

And when was Mayweather's "prime?" You guys act like everyone he fought was old he was perpetually 28 years old.

Floyd was older than many of the "names" he fought throughout his career. So saying they were all past their primes is, frankly, A LIE.

Floyd was past his prime when he fought many of them, too. He was just better than they were. Much better.

 

Canelo isn't one of Floyd's biggest names on his resume. Neither is Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, etc.

The best fighters he beat were Mosley, DLH, Pacquiao and Marquez. None were prime. Thus the best names he beat were past prime.

 

Canelo-Mayweather was the RICHEST PPV in BOXING HISTORY ... until Mayweather-Pacquiao surpassed it.

So I think he as kind of a big name. Since it outsold and made more money than every other fight ever held. :roll::good

 

I mean to say best name. I messed up.

 

And, again, who was the best "prime" guy Whitaker beat?

It wasn't a 31-year-old welterweight Chavez. And it wasn't a 32-year-old Lightweight Nelson. Those guys moved up for those fights for a payday and went right back down to where they were comfortable.

Was it Greg Haugen?

:huh

 

Mayweather wasn't in his prime when he fought them, either. He was in his 30s against all of them.

Pacquaio is younger than Mayweather.

 

Pernell is overrated too. When Bert Sugar didn't rate Pernell in the top 50 ATG people freaked out. But he's got a point because of Pernell's resume and the condition his opponents were in when he beat them. Plus the weight classes too.

 

I don't even have a problem saying Mayweather is an ATG. But when people put him (or Pernell) in the top 20 it doesn't make sense.

Because they flat out just don't have the wins to crack the top 20.

 

Most of those are pretty laughable

What I want to know is where do Jimmy Young, Angott, Benvenuti, Leonard Morrow and Oakland Billy Smith rank on this top 40 P4P list?

 

Be specific. Anytime I've made this request it becomes clear the critic is simply ignorant of history.

Most?? Most of those names appear on any ATG list.

 

Firstly I'm aware you've banned yourself from another forum to concentrate on your studies. Please don't feel the need to respond until you've finished your exams and PM me on CHB when you have.

I haven't read the thread but you're in with someone who's studied all those boxers and their resumes in depth.

OK I'll just go through the ones who have little to no argument:

Pep - He was a dominant FW until he ran into Saddler at the age of 26 (going on memory could be off a year) and failed to win the LW championship earlier in his career. He doesn't have better wins, longevity, weight jumping or dominance. And he failed against bigger men

Benny Leonard - dominant LW in a single weight class for 7 years and arguably was better than the WW champ in their bouts......He doesn't have better wins, longevity, weight jumping or dominance

Tunney - refused to fight black fighters, has a LHW resume that is good but incomplete. At HW beat Dempsey who isn't a great P4P fighter, not a great HW in my book, which I can happily expand on. He doesn't have better wins, longevity, weight jumping or dominance

Armstrong - was a champion for what 2 years? He didn't defend against the top WWs of his era, looking at the top 10 WWs he barely fought any bar Garcia and when he did he lost to Zivic. He doesn't have better wins, longevity or dominance.

Gans - I'm not sure what he rates over Mayweather in?

Saddler - He was dominant over 2 weight classes but just watch him and see how very limited he was.

Canzoneri - you have the weight jumping and good wins, but he didn't dominate.

Moore - he lost to all the best fighters he faced. He doesn't have longevity, weight jumping or dominance. And he failed against bigger and best men

Johnson - Because he beat Moore? Read up on the Murderer's Row my friend. Anyway why the hell isn't Burley, Holman, Marciano and Patterson on your list? Patterson is probably smaller.

Or are you referring to Jack? Who competed prior to the sports evolution.

Walcott - he almost certainly beat Louis fair and square

Lewis - 1 weight champion, a dominant one but P4P?

Monzon - see above, plus all his best wins are past prime and/or above their best weight.

Hagler - see above

Griffith - never the best WW of his era, got plenty of gifts against Rodriguez (not sure where the hell he is on your list?) and never dominated the MWs. You must consider the 60s mighty high. Again where's Benvenuti? Where's Rodriguez? Where's Tiger?

Hearns - obviously he beats a Mayweather that started at 130 at 147 but in what world does Mayweather lose to a WW version of Barkley? (Given like Hearns that's 2 divisions below where he started)

Walker - lost plenty at WW going 1-1 against a past prime 38yo Britton and Latzo, moved upto MW to win the title on a gift decision, got shut out by Greb at MW, lost to the best LHWs and HWs while

Frazier - you're basing your choice on 1 win over a past prime Ali, his greater resume isn't amazing by any stretch

Foreman - is Jimmy Young P4P better than Mayweather because he beat a prime Foreman and sent him into retirement. Let's not forget Foreman against top 10 opposition in his comeback typically lost, including the massive robbery against Schulz

Langford - clearly a pre prime an era of boxing if you actually watch the boxers in this era. Plus he got dominated by Johnson and Wills for nearly every second of their bouts.

 

The fact you just critiqued Monzon on the same basis you can de-legitimize Floyd says everything about your bias. And the fact you've listed 18 names out of 30, meaning you have Floyd within the top 20. That's ridiculous.

Using the typical "but this ATG lost" against Hearns when he has much better wins. Come on. This criteria is ahistorical to boxing and tailor made for Floyd.

Greatness is defined by achievements, not a lack of failures. Take their best 5-6 wins and compare them. I've done that several times in this thread already and while many of the greats have imperfect wins, they're often still a level ahead of Floyd's, either because their opponent was greater or because their were in their prime.