You've really illustrated the argument with that list of figters: * gift @ catch weight + very old ! paper champ at time of fight for that weight (alphabet title era) Hernandez Corrales Castillo * Gatti ! Judah ! Baldomir ! De La Hoya +!* Hatton @! Marquez @! Mosley +! Ortiz *! Pacquaio + Madiana !* Cotto ! Canelo @
The reason why what you put forward was under simplified is because you are trying to apply rules of logic. These are very rarely logical debates. You will often find the same posters contradicting themselves in line with their own personal bias. They will go to lengths to explain why Mayweather's resume does not stand up to scrutiny but then don't apply the same aggression to other fighters. That leaves two scenarios 1) any objective analysis of Floyd's resume will reveal it to be inferior to that of generally recognised greats. 2) Floyd is a divisive character so people like to attack his resume and tear it apart but give other fighters a pass for the same thing. I wholeheartedly believe it's the latter. This is why people on this thread are happy to slate Floyd for not facing Pacquiao in his prime, but will defend Hearns for not facing McCallum in his prime or will defend Jones for not facing Michalczewski in his prime.
That version of Duran was losing to Laing and Robbie Sims Duran was great at 135 but I don't see how he can be called great above welterweight, too many losses.
Thank you for proving my point. This is the exact same kind of thing people don't bother to do with older fighters. In fact it's something you haven't bothered to do with Hearns in this very thread. Do the same with the top 15 victories if Tommy Hearns and let me know your results.
You've used false dilemma (it must be either a or b) and then poisoning the well to discount anyone's argument against Floyd. Using Conor McGregor and women Floyd has defeated in supporting the strength of his resume would be a more valid argument.
I explained how the fab 4 and Benitez were naturals to fight, and they fought. Floyd and Manny were naturals to fight and it was talked about and it didn't happen for 5 years. And once Floyd wanted the fight, he made it happen after a basketball game. So easy in 2015. The fab 4 made their fights happen easily. I don't think they were afraid of losses. Floyd was. I don't blame him, but in boxing if you don't fight the best when they are the best your credibility is less. He is undefeated he has that. He doesn't have the legacy those other guys do. Fighting the best gives guys a legacy. Had Floyd beaten Manny in 2010 before the Marquez knockout, that win would have almost solidified his legacy.. He had the choice. Floyd's resume and career having a bit of asterick is his fault.
When you say he was 36 over and over, you starting to argue with the authority of Donald Trump. Canelo always boiled down to 154. If you knew anything about boxing or you were being honest, you'd realise that the last 2 pounds are exponentially the hardest to lose whilst also the most debilitating. How many times did Canelo fight lower than 154 as a pro?
It isn't a false dilemma. There's either an objective reason to criticise the resume or a subjective reason to criticise the resume. I haven't put any false information out there neither. If you read through the thread you will see the same poster criticise Floyd's failure to fight Pac, but defend Hearns failure to fight McCallum and Jones failure to fight Michalczewski. I don't have to defend Floyd what he did in his career, he did. That's on him. The only issue I have is people picking holes in one fighters resume and not the other.
What Floyd did is of course his fault. But almost every resume and career has a bit of an asterisk. We can compare how big the asterisks are but imo the size differential isn't significant. What is significant is comparing what they've actually done, not what they haven't done.
With Floyd it is hard to rank him. The way he made his career work and not fighting Manny earlier hurt him, and he could have made it happen in 2010. Manny fought everyone and he would have fought Floyd earlier. I get arguments here that Manny is the one who turned it down, but Floyd was playing games with testing and things like that. Floyd didn't want it. You knew Manny did. Manny's career is complete with fighting the best all the time. Floyd's was not. So I have to go with it being Floyd's fault that fight didn't happen earlier. Everything points to Floyd no matter what his fans say about Manny turning it down.
I tend to blame the champion if no offer is made or the challenger if an offer has been made, but in this case they were basically 1a and 1b so ultimately I blame them both. I don't care that much as I tend to look at what they did do. For my money Pacquiao is on a different level of greatness to these two.
I agree also. Manny fought everyone and would fight everyone. This is a case where the guy who lost is much greater.
There are plenty of good fighters missing from Manny's resume who he should have faced but didn't. I can't imagine where people are getting this idea that he fought everbody. He may have been willing to fight anyone but for whatever reason many big fights failed to materialize.
