Better resume Ali vs Mayweather

Ha!

As if anyone’s going to learn anything reading your posts.

Behave.

 

Gatti was an exciting fighter but Floyd was better. Levels.

 

You can put an asterisk next to any win if you try hard enough I think its best to evaluate wins as they are rather then look for reasons to invalidate them

 

No.

What you mean is, you’ll just focus on the positives, which suit your agenda.

But that’s not an objective debate.


Yes, I agree that you can nitpick anyone’s resume.

But in this case, it isn’t in any way nitpicking.

In this case, nobody has to look for anything.

It’s just staring you in the face.


The guy was a small, 36 year old LW with a tiny reach.

He was then dragged up two divisions.

Then the man who has never had an issue with weight his entire career, couldn’t even keep to their catch-weight agreement.

After the fight, Marquez then immediately returned to the LW division.

So how on earth can you just IGNORE that.


You’re basically saying that anybody who brings it up is biased and looking for fault.

Yet, to completely dismiss all of that, is far worse.


We’re comparing a guy who did that, to a guy who fought prime versions of George Foreman and Larry Holmes.

It’s LAUGHABLE.

 

You need to go grab a dictionary cause you obviously don't know what flopping means.
Mike became champ once again.That makes him anything but a flop.

 

It makes all the difference in the world.
I rank BOAT based on H2H ability at their peak.
And I rank BOAT based more on achievements and impact on the sport.
Tyson is no. 1 in terms of H2H ability.

Ali beat no prime ATG in the 60s either, so what's your point ?!?
Also, 5 years of work is a huge time span, even 2-3 years are enough for me.

Actually I can. And there's no irony whatsoever. Personal preference ain't got nothing to do with one's ability or greatness.

 

We all do none of this is objective end of the day

My point is Marquez is a great fighter who has shown he can be successful at the weight in later fights against Pacquio (which btw most people thought he would lose because of how "bad" he looked against Floyd almost like it was Floyd that made him look bad.........) so beating him at the weight shouldn't be a knock against Floyd when Floyd is probably the only person who completely dismantled Marquez you can point out all sorts of things to discredit the win but end of the day just looking at it it was a great win over a great fighter.

 

Ha!

I don’t need a dictionary.

I know the definition of the word, and I was there.

He lost to Douglas.

He missed half the decade due to his prison sentence and his ban.

He lost to Evander, before getting DQ’d in the rematch.

The 90’s were awful for Mike.

Awful.

He absolutely flopped in that decade.

He won the titles?

Yeah. Against Bruno and Seldon, before then relinquishing the belt.

Amazing.

 

White Bomber,

We’ve already discussed this.

Again, you are rating Mike off of just 5 years of greatness, where he beat no prime ATG’s.

And at the exact same time, you have trashed Ali’s legacy and resume, despite the fact that he did fight and beat prime ATG’s, and that he had far more longevity.

Only an idiot would trash Ali’s resume and call him overrated, whilst rating Tyson at the same time.

The irony is RIDICULOUS.

Saying things like he tricked Foreman and that everyone’s been brainwashed etc.

This coming from the guy who rates a LESSER fighter above him, who is also hugely overrated.

You couldn’t make it up.

 

I always try and be objective.

Many other posters do too.

You and No Neck should try it.

Look, Floyd was a genius. You don’t have to tell me that. I saw his entire career from the Olympics.

But it’s so frustrating that he has these asterisks on his wins, as they were just completely unnecessary.

 

While there are objective facts in boxing,like records, titles, and punch stats, the interpretation of those facts and the evaluation of fighters are inherently subjective. Without a universal standard for what makes one fighter 'better' than another, true objectivity in these discussions is impossible.

 

To a truly knowledgeable fan, it’s very easy to allow for circumstances, to apply context, and to be objective.

Very easy.

You and No Neck are the ones who struggle.

 

It seems you're a bit ignorant of what objective means so let me clear it up for you.
Being 'objective' doesn’t just mean applying context or allowing for circumstances, it means evaluating something without personal bias, preferences, or interpretation. The problem is, in discussions like these, there’s no universal standard for what counts as 'objective.' What you call 'context' or 'circumstances' is still influenced by your own perspective, which means it’s inherently subjective.

For example, two knowledgeable fans can look at the same fight, apply the same context, and still come to completely different conclusions about who performed better or why. That’s not because one of them is wrong, it’s because boxing is open to interpretation, even for experts.

So no, it’s not 'very easy' to be objective in these discussions. It’s impossible, because there’s no objective standard to measure things like skill, legacy, or greatness. What you’re calling 'objectivity' is really just your own subjective opinion, dressed up as fact.

 

Good thing that I have, perhaps I will help you realise your own double standards by pointing them out. That will help your credibility in the long run.

 

First of all, you aren’t going to teach me anything.

You have no idea what the word means.

Zero.

You and No Neck routinely ignore vital pieces of information and push the stats, without allowing for context.

Yes, looking at who won a fight is subjective. Absolutely.

But that clearly isn’t the same as what I’m talking about. And you know that.

No knowledgeable fan debates in the way that you two do.

You’re both stat men.

You haven’t got the capacity to delve any deeper.

We’ve got No Neck desperately trying to convince everyone that Canelo was prime when he fought Floyd, just to try and enhance Floyd’s resume. Yet if Floyd hadn’t have fought him at that point and Manny had instead, then we both know for sure that he’d be saying that Manny had beaten a pre-prime version of Canelo.

I have never seen either of you have an objective debate.

The only positive things I can see about you, are:

1. You bring entertainment.

2. You both take awful beatings, but keep coming back for more.