The point is that the titles didn’t count for anything and therefore meant nothing for weight negotiations.
Where do you get this stuff from? That's just made up - just weird Mayweather fantasies. Mayweather "never put his record on the line." Canelo "had no choice". Do you mean this stuff? Of course he had a choice. Just like Juan Manuel Marquez had a choice when he didn't like the terms for Pacquiao II so fought Chris John. Or Bowe's decision not to fight Lennox Lewis. Or every other millionaire alpha...actually nah i'm sick of typing that. But in these and other instances, fighters can chose not to take a fight where they don't like the terms. Even the biggest money fights they can make. Canelo, inarguably, beyond all hope of contradiction and finally and forever absolutely had a choice about whether or not he would fight Mayweather. ffs don't post that ****ing list again.
Like I've made clear before, I couldn't care less. But, if the titles didn't count for anything nothing then why fight for them at all?
In other words, there is no argument for claiming that beating an aging midget at 154 who lost to two journeymen around that time is better than beating the best 135 of the 2000s convincingly after a close first fight.
He didn’t have a choice if he wanted the fight. It was either 152 or no fight. Why do you support that BS?
Even this might not be true. But I understand. I don't, but it doesn't make me crazy like it seems to you. The only bad clause is the one that prevents a fighter from occurring. Two teams earning around 10k an hour between them got in a room or a virtual room and thrashed out a contact that was agreeable to both men. Then they had a fight. /end.
I never said one warrants more criticism than the other. What I said was a fan of a boxer will always find a way of defending him and a detractor will always find a way of criticising him. You can blame Floyd for whatever you want and defend Roy however you want, but ultimately one of those ended up fighting his biggest divisional rival and one didn't. It's like I'm this thread. People say Hearns is greater because Floyd ducked x, y and z. Yet Hearns didn't face McCallum, rumours circulated he'd seen him in Kronk and was kept away from him. Every fighter has missed someone off their ledger, fans will always defend that someone and detractors will always criticise that someone. Ultimately we can only judge a man on what he did. Imo what Floyd did was greater than what Hearns did, but there isn't a lot in it.
your whole case is weak.also the fact that you rank the Castillo win above the Duran win makes one question your objectivity
