I love Bud, but can't put him on Floyd's level. Not greater or better, IMHO.

It is laughable because you're comparing guys who won vacant belts, who were elevated to champion or just had 1 belt in the division to a guy who beat all the champions in the division, or the best guy in the division and left no doubt who the best fighter in the division was. Again, you're comparing Lineal and undisputed champion to belt holders and there is no comparison

This argument is already lost to you, because you have confirmation bias and you're opinion is based on your own opinion. It's clear bias because you could use the same reasoning against guys like Usyk and Inoue. But you don't because you have a bias against certain fighters.

The truth is, Floyd fought in an era where boxing was more popular, so of course he's going to have more recognizable names on his resume. But are the guys actually better? How do we quantify that? It can't be by accomplishments because you just said Ricky Burns is a 3 weight champion, but somehow that isn't a good win? Postol was lineal, but somehow that's a win to be scoffed at. Indongo was unified but that's still not a good win right? Horn beat Pacquiao. So basically what's makes a fighter good is your opinion of them? I won't waste time with that.

Floyd gave Maidana and JLC rematches because people actually thought he lost those fights... Nobody outside of this forum really thought Bud lost to Madrimov, so there was no demand for a rematch. That was literally the only competitive fight Bud has had in his career and even that was a Unanimous decision. Come to think of it Bud has never had anything other than UD/KO/TKO.

And there you go again, judging weight jumps by your opinion instead of objective facts. Are you mad at Bud for actually putting on weight to fight Bud guys? Using unofficial fight nights weights that are literally optional as proof? Where guys weigh in with all of their clothes and accessory's or not at all? And just gave them a weight to put down like Floyd used to? Stop it.

 

I

I can't have a debate with someone who thinks that their opinion and biases are facts.

If were were speaking on only on the facts. This would be a short conversation, in which you'd have no legs to stand on.

 

Not at all. I already made my point. I laid out the tangible facts that prove said point. Verifiably. There's nothing more for me to elaborate on. Only an idiot would go back an forth with someone about their biased, baseless opinions.

The facts show Terrence Crawford is a more accomplished professional fighter than Floyd Mayweather. And his story is still being written.

 

I'm not an Alt. I'm just a long time lurker. And i accept that you live in your opinion of reality instead of reality itself.

 

When a fighter is as great as Floyd, fans forget that some of their lesser wins are better than some other fighters best wins
For example, just look at Floyd's sfw and lw wins
Hernandez
Gerena
Manfredy
Juuko
Corales
Chavez
Vargas
Rios
Solar
Ndou

That resume alone is amazing before we move on to some of Floyd's bigger wins

 

Floyd’s Resumer is much better
However Bud’s career is greater.
Bud vs money may let’s see it.

 

I can put him on Floyds level but not above him. At the end of the day Crawford won a 168 belt by beating someone Floyd beat. Floyd could have won at 160 and 168 there were just too many fights to be made at 147 and 154.

A successful campaign at 175 would change this in my book.

 

On just quality alone Corrales and Genaro are 2 of his top 5 best wins perhaps some might say Genaro isn't but Corrales unquestionably is if not top 3. Not as big names as other wins but at the weight and time be fought them he doesn't have many better wins than either. And of all the weights he fought at he's ranked highest at 130 so naturally a good chunk of his resume would be there.

 

LOL he made a 23yo Canelo cut and extra 2lbs at 152. In no reality is Floyd fighting Canelo from 160-168. He wouldn't even do 154 get real

 

I’d hardly call the op’s ‘murderers row’ as such

De la Hoya was old and Floyd barely squeaked it

Hatton is probably the best win but with a biased ref and the worst refereeing performance of all time

Mosley was old

Cotto decent win

It’s more the ‘caveat old man half decent row’ than murderers row, but that’s Floyd.

As for Floyd v Crawford they’re on about the same level overall

 

Floyd's resume is far greater than Buds.

Bud is a brilliant fighter, but, unfortunately for him, he has fought in a relatively weak era compared to Floyd.

Floyd beat Pac, Canelo, Maidana X2, Hatton, Cotto, Mosley, DLH, Marquez, Gatti, Judah, Corrales, JLC x2, and Hernandez.

Obviously, there are some caveats here like catch weights and fighters being post peak.

Bud has beat Canelo, Spence, Brook, Khan, Porter, Postol, Gamboa, Burns.

Similarly, just like Floyd, some of these have caveats like fighters being post peak.

These resumes just aren't comparable. I think one of the problems is that some people tend to just remember Floyd's career from the DLH fight onwards. The problem with this is that Floyd had a HOF worthy career before he even stepped into the ring with DLH. Floyd essentially had two careers; Pretty Boy and Money / TBE. They were defined by the weights Floyd fought in and the change of style he had to implement as he moved up the weights. Both were very successful careers, and combined, they result in an ATG legacy.

For as good as Bud is, he just doesn't have the resume. His achievements are great, but ignoring who he has fought is lazy thinking. This is something I see a lot lately. People say things like "He's an X times unified/undisputed champion" and this alone is good enough to rate someone as an ATG. By itself this is impressive. However, you need to delve a little deeper to see just how impressive it is. Ultimately, the opposition fought is the ultimate decider of your all time ranking. Winning x amount of titles and trinkets is nice, but if you fought in a weak era then you may be regarded as a lesser fighter to someone who fought in a harder era but won less titles.