What's the best argument against FMJ being the greatest?

Mentioning roy jones like the best ever is like tony galento being a candidate against usain bolt arguing who was faster

 

They dont actually discuss this stuff mate, they prefer to make ad hominems like " hipster ".

The rules of logic and debate arent that hard to understand.

Cheers.

 

I think the Dead Kennedys are still touring...

 

Roy was incredibly gifted but I agree that there is no way he is the GOAT from an historical perspective as he didnt face nearly enough prime, really good let alone great fighters. I do reckon that at his prime from 160-168 pounds he was a VERY hard fighter to beat though.

I do reckon the Hopkins and McCallum fights showed that when he was facing a tall technician who knew his way around a ring that Roy looked human. No fighter is unbeatable, all of them have certain styles that give them difficulties.

Cheers.

 

Don't you think that Galento would have elbowed bolt aside?

 

Galento would have already tied Bolt's shoelaces together.

 

Two Ton would have chinned Bolt at the starting blocks.

 

Lol

 

l

Lol what are you talking about? The 2nd Castillo fight was 7-5 on 2 judges cards as well as Lederman's card. Hardly an easy win, have you ever even watched the fight. Castillo gave Floyd the same exact problems on the inside he just gave away a few rounds as opposed to giving effort all 12 like he did in the 1st fight

 

Only if you circle jerk over the 20s era. Greb and Mayweather both faced the best of their respective eras over multiple weight classes

This argument only had weight before he cleared out Pacquaio, Cotto, Alvarez, Mosley. Pacquaio's and Alvarez's subsequent wins gives Mayweather's legacy a bump

Plus Mayweather is undefeated Greb wasn't

 

This content is protected

 

These were still the top P4P fighters of the day. He took on everyone of note and retired undefeated, which is unprecidented. I still consider RJJ to be better

Pacquaio - firstly this is a 1 and 2 of an era fight and a huge legacy fight. You point to Pacquaio lossing to Marquez - Pacqauio lost to Marquez every time because of the styles issue. Sadly both were past prime but Mayweather was 3 years older

You point to DLH losses - 1 of those was a robbery, 1 was against MW ATG. At 154 DLH was essentially the man, Mosley robbery aside

You point out Marquez being the smaller man - okay well Mayweather was the much smaller man against DLH, Cotto, Castillo, Corrales and Alvarez. Marquez was also a top 3 P4P fighter of the generation and the man Pacquaio doesn't have a legit win over. If you want to **** on this win, be consistent and **** on Monzons wins over Griffith/Napoles, Lamotta wins over Robinson/Williams and Grebs win against Walker.

Also you haven't seen the John fight if you're calling it a loss. Marquez was robbed.

Cotto - you fail to he was a 154lb weight class on the comeback, had avenged his defeat against Margarito who had loaded gloves in their first fight.

Mosley- he had destroyed Margarito in his prior fight and was number 1 Welterweight

As for prime fighters:

Corrales - destroying everyone at 130 before and after
Castillo - the best LW of this era both before and after Mayweather
Hatton - the lineal 140lb champion
Ortiz - WW WBC champ
Guerrero - 2 weight champ
Maidana - WBA Welter Champ
Manfredy - almost a unification as he was fresh off beating IBF Champ Gatti in an over the weight fight
Guerrero - 2 weight champion

 

Basilio, Fullmer and Lamotta all are major fails on the eye test

Robinson avoided the murderers row fights like Burley, Marshall, Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid who the best WWs/Mws of his day. Lloyd Marshall beat Lamotta and said he was easy work. Robinson signed up for a charity exhibition bout and then backed out when he realised Cocoa Kid was the opponent.

By your logic Tommy Bell was past prime because of all the losses going into the Robinson fight

 

Perhaps that's because you value flash over substance. Mayweather was better defensively and as a ring general than all of those men and it isn't particularly close.

I can understand a defensive ring general not necessarily being easy on the eye.

 

Maybe Floyd could have put together a resume like Armstrong, SRR and Charles etc if he fought as often against quality opposition as they did, but he didn't. That's really the long and short of it.

With that said, as usual when it comes to Floyd there's a lot of nitpicking on his opposition: "but so-and-so had LOST/would LOSE, he wasn't in his absolute prime" etc, etc. That's just an absurd standard that no one lives up to, not even Robinson and the gang. There's not one fighter alive who only beat guys at their absolute peaks with unblemished records and about whom you could make absolutely no case that they were drained or whatever.

Overall Floyd fought damned good opposition. The one big thing missing is a fight with Pac when both were in their primes.