Fighters who are often lauded as all time greats.....

You are quite right mate, my proposed system isn't great. I just think there should be some way to combatting the way people on the General readily call guys like Naseem Hamed ATGs. There has to be some sort of limit.

 

Oh I'm sorry, what fighters did Lopez beat that are in the same stratosphere as a prime Michael Nunn or a Mike McCullum? That's the whole point. Toney beat better fighters he spanned more divisions, he trumps him on longevity, and the skills of the fighters are not to far apart. I see no reason to hold Lopez in higher regard than Toney. Frankly, Morales and Barrera are greater than Lopez. You can't name one legitimate great fighter the man defeated. Was it his his fault? Well why didn't he move up to the stacked Light Flyweight division?

 

Certainly it is an over used term, i wouldn't pay any attention to some of the idiots on the general forum though, i think most people that know what there talking about have a decent grasp of the term. I think your definition is a little to tight though, i certainly think people like mayweather and barrera have done enough to get that title

 

Barrera certainly has.

 

Mayweather certainly has the skills, but I don't believe he has the resume to justify ATG status. A loss and an unimpressive win vs Castillo, an unconvincing win over a past-prime Oscar, and wins over good but flawed fighters like Corrales, Judah and Hatton do not an All-Time Great resume make IMO. If he beats Pacquiao and Mosley, there would be no argument about it, but till then his res is too bare I think.

I find it difficult to argue against Barrera since I hold him in such high regard, but I just have a real problem with calling so many fighters from this comparatively feeble era Greats for All-Time. I could be wrong, I could be in a small minority, but I'm not really so attached to this issue that I'd fight and die over it. Labels are subjective.

 

I agree on Ricardo Lopez, Winky Wright, Joe Calzaghe, Tito Trinidad, and Juan Manuel Marquez. But Marco Antonio Barrera has separated himself from those guys. I'm going on a tangent, but I go back and I watch Barrera vs Rosario. It was a tune up fight for his first fight back after losing once again to Junior Jones, a decision many people have disputed. As Marco proceeds to take Rosario apart, the commentator is fixated on this idea that if Barrera fought Mckinney again he'd probably lose, etc. etc. I go back to the post fight of Junior Jones II. Larry Merchant is doing his infamous stare into the camera, as it zooms in, he says something like, "Barrera is a great fighter, but Jones is just better".

In hindsight, how absolutely ludicrous does all of that sound. The point I am making is that Marco Barrera defied the odds...time and time, again. Because he was special.

 

Nice avatar, you little hypocrite *******!

You are managing to talk me round though...

 

I'm warming up to Manny, I've not said a bad thing about the guy since his win over Hatton, actually. I just wish his ****in' trainer, as great as he is, was every bit as humble as his fighter.

I'm not making a case purely because he's my idol, although that is undeniably part of it, but I'm arguing with you because...there's never been any dispute over Barrera's all-time great status in my eyes. I've always thought he had all the qualities to be considered a top 50 entrant. His victories aren't tainted like most other great fighters, both Hamed and Morales were undefeated, prime time, p4p rated opposition and Barrera was a heavy underdog in 3 of the 4 fights. Enough of me rambling on about stuff you already know. Ricardo Lopez couldn't hold Marco's jockstrap.

 

Mayweather didn't lose to castillo though, you may have scored it to castillo and that is reasonable as it was a very close fight, but it could have went either way. Last time i scored it i had PBF tight. I think too many scream robbery to often in tight fights. Pac v Marquez is another one. I scored both marquez way but i can see how pac could win them as they where damn tight and he therefore has to be credited as he got the offical decision in fight 2. We are not talking pea v ramirez style robbery's in these fights.

I definetly think floyd is an all time great, mainly down to his ability to be fair, espicially at 130 where i genuinly haven't seen many better skillsets in my opinion. But his resume is not that bad. Castillo was a very good fighter with a good resume, Corrales was a monster when floyd fought him and took him out, De La Hoya while past prime was still a decent fighter the night floyd fought him in my opinion and it was fought at a weight where mayweather was clearly uncomfortable.

If you then add a very good win v genaro hernadez (his most underrated win and in my opinion floyd's best performance with corrales) and then the smaller level wins against your chavez, hatton's, marquez, corley, judah etc. Its better than some make out in my opinion

 

I think you are a cup half full guy when it comes to Floyd. Compared to yourself, I'd be the cup half empty version. I actually think his resume is overrated because of his perceived great ability.

I scored the 1st JLC fight to Castillo by 2 points. Castillo was a very good lightweight, but this was only 5 pounds from Floyd's best weight. If he is an ATG talent, he should be beating guys like Castillo, and beating them properly. Floyd did not emerge with much credit from those 2 bouts.

His win over Genaro Hernandez was good, but Oscar had already shown Hernandez was no great fighter by demolishing him with relative ease.

Corrales was a monster in the way that Jeff Lacy was a monster - hyped because he could punch and had a zero. Don't get me wrong, Chico was a better fighter than Lacy, but for me he wasn't as good as JLC or Casamayor, and true ATGs have scores of Chico-standard fighters on their win resume. It speaks volumes about Floyd's resume that a win over a merely decent fighter like Corrales is so often pointed to as a career high.

If he had fought Tszyu, Margarito, Cotto and Williams, or if he does fight Pacquiao and Mosley, then things would look a whole lot better. The fighters have been and are there to be fought, so you can't blame the era.

As it stands, his resume just isn't ATG standard whichever way you look at it. It's not just that it doesn't stack up to other ATG resumes from other eras, but it's not even close to being the best resume compiled in his own era. Therein lies the problem.

 

Therein lies your problem, I rank Floyd higher than Manny, but they are in the same ball park, therefore I shall rank the winner in the ring the higher in an ATG list, what about you , would you rank Floyd greater than Manny if Floyd beats him in the ring ?

I currently rank Floyd higher, I assume you rank Manny higher than Floyd ?
Do you think Manny beats Floyd ?, because I dont.
Plus no bull**** about size, when both boxers were 16 years old, they were the same boxing weight, now they have hit 30 they are the same boxing weight.

 

They are definitely not the same size at all, but I think I would have to rank Floyd higher if he beats Manny convincingly. Manny was fully grown as a superbantamweight in his mid-20s. By Floyd's mid-20s he was at light-welterweight. However, I'm not hung up on the size issue. Manny looks good at ww and if Floyd beats him, to the victor the spoils.

 

....No possible way to justify ranking Floyd above Pacquiao. :verysad

And that will not change even if Floyd stops Manny Pacquiao if they were to ever fight. Manny would still have the superior resume, and his achievements through the divisions is quite remarkable. Floyd would have to go and challenge himself to compare, like maybe fight for supremacy at 154lbs or 160lbs. Not going to happen.

 

True.

(I just don't want to look like I'm making excuses for Pacquiao before he even fights Mayweather: "Well Pac will still be better anyway!", because I believe he can win the fight, and TAKE the higher placing definitively in the ring. But of course you are right about the resume thing, Pac's would still be stronger and his weight-scaling achievements would still be much better - but I wouldn't have a problem with anyone ranking Floyd higher if he beats Pac. Fair enough)

 

Fair enough mate.

It's not that Floyd has a particularly bad resume, and it's not like Marquez and Hatton constitute as poor competition. We're just bound to hold the guy to a higher standard because he quite clearly among the best in the sport, and yet he still can't fight the leading fighters in his division. It must be really embarrassing for him that a former Super Bantamweight had to come up and do it for him. If Floyd don't fight Pacquiao...he can **** right off, he can't ignore it.