Floyd has never faced a "crisp" puncher with two good hands his entire career.

What's the point of bumping threads from this clown?

 

Ohhh, haha no. I'm drunnk.

 

To put his history of extreme and specific bias on comical display. I thought that was obvious.

 

Williams was never a serious opponent for Mayweather. The guy didn't even win a title until July of 2007 and then immediately lost it to Quintana the next fight. Margo and Cotto are two guys that people were calling for him to fight. In the end though, Team Cotto never made any effort to get a fight with Mayweather. Regardless, neither will ever be remembered as great fighters, and neither will probably ever get in the HOF(Cotto has an outside shot). Those are good fights, but not career defining fights.

As far as Mosley? He had his shot in 2006 and it down. In reality, Mosley was rated as high as he had been in almost a decade when he fought Mayweather. Let's be real, how much better of a win is it if Mayweather beats Mosley in 2007 when Mosley has no title, no big wins in years, is still in his mid to late 30's and is not on anyone's p4p list?

 

Right, but when history is written. The record is the record.
All these welterweights were slugging it out with MW on the side.

Just because he could have/should have beat them doesn't mean he did.

No star is bigger than the sport. Not even ali.

 

Cotto has more than an outside shot at getting into the hall of fame, Reg.

 

ahhhhhahahahahahahahahaha, ****ing funny man!:happy lmao.

 

Some things don't stand out when you're slamming lemonade/vodka.

 

I never said this. But let's say Mayweather fights Pacquiao and beats him. People will look back on his record and someone might say "but he never fought Cotto" Then someone will resond, "yeah but he beat Pacquiao who kicked the **** out of Cotto. Not only that, but Cotto's best win was a narrow decision over Mosley; a guy that Mayweather beat with ease".

Then someone else might chime in and say "Yeah, but he never fought Margarito either". Then someone will respond by saying "Yeah, but Margo was a cheating scumbag. We don't know how many fights he won legitimately. Not only that, but he got his ass kicked by Mosley and then Mosley got beatdwon by Mayweather in his very next fight". You see where I'm going? Yeah, it definately would've been nice to fight Margo and Cotto. However, when people look back on his career they're really not going to hold it against him considering all the guys he did beat, including ones that were better than Cotto and Margo. The Pacquiao fight is key. That's the one he needs to take. If he takes that fight and wins, not many will care 10-20 years from now that he never fought Cotto or Margo.

 

I mostly agree with you, but you know what?
Pacquiao has already beaten the guys mayweather has in more impressive fashion. AND he took on cotto/clottey.

Mayweather has his niche, and I respect it, but it's not going to win over fans who want to see really active fighters cleaning out divisions.

Mayweather is great. I don't deny it. He's just not what he could have been in my estimation.

 

When has Pacquiao ever cleaned out a division? The answer is never. It's almost impossible to do nowadays.Who really cares if Pacquiao beat a couple of Mayweather leftovers worse than Mayweather did? If he loses desicively to Mayweather, it won't even matter. In the end, time will tell how high Mayweather stacks up with the ATGs. Joe Louis made a career out of beating bums. I belive the term "bum of the month club" was first used to describe his opposition. He's now considered a top 10 ATG by most. People care most about much you stood out compared to the rest of the fighters in your era.

 

he wasn't in a division long enough to clean it out.

I don't want to argue this with you. You always show a bias towards mayweather.
I'm not anti-mayweather/pro-pacquiao Neither guy is my favorite boxer.

I just call it like I see it.

 

Since when, the last two weeks? You have generally been biased and negative. Anyway, I don't claim Mayweather is a great fighter because I'm a fan of his, I'm a fan of his because he is a great fighter. I think this is lost on people. Not many people have accomplished what he's accomplished in the sport, not many have had the talent that he possess. He's fought plenty of good fighters over a 13+ year career over 5 divisions and has won just about all of his fights with relative ease.

Just think about his for a minute, Mayweather and Pacquiao fight in the same division. Pacquiao is supposed to be the best fighter in the sport and one of the greatest fighters of all time. It's pretty obvious that Pacquiao can fight effectively at WW. Despite this, he would be the undergog against Mayweather. Mayweather would have to go to SMW to find a guy who would be a favorite over him. How is this even possible? It's possible because even though most try to detract from his accomplishments deep down they all know he's clearly better than all of his peers, which is why the boxing public(as a whole) is hesitant to bet against him. It's because of this that I think he'll end up pretty high on many ATG lists when all is said and done. The fact that he never fought Cotto or Margarito will be meaningless.

 

Can you provide an instance of me being biased?
Maybe you'll pull up my threads about how I thought Cotto and de la hoya would smash pacquaio?
Or how I have never bet against floyd mayweather.

Give me a ****ing break, dudee.

 

Everyone here knows you're a biased poster clown. So what you throw in a few fake ass 'PAc will lose to Dlh and Hatton-wow, Pac is ****en great, he beat Hatton and Dlh worse than Floyd' comments lol... That shite doesn't fly with real knowledgeable posters clown!