Even after Tiger dominated his most infamous tournament (Masters 1997), he was pretty much unranked after that until he started performing consistently. He was never a top 5 when he started. Floyd reached #8 p4p in 1998 #2 in 1999 But that's just how boxing is. There's no realistic way to get #1 p4p even if you knock everyone out. You're not faced with decent competition until you get farther in your career. But the fact that he's been winning/climbing the ladder so quickly is dominating enough for me.
Dude, let it go. I'm a Floyd fan and you're wrong on this one. Tiger started in 1996 and ascended to #1 in 1997. The YOUNGEST EVER. So Tiger is actually on 17 years as well. He's far more dominant.
The Klitschkos crush Void easily, put him into a morgue or hospital. Void would not fight Martinez at 150. Void is a coward. He last fought a featherweight and loves to beat up women..............
Like I said before. There's no realistic way to get #1 p4p as an infant pro. But the fact that he climbed the ladder so quickly and dominated so fast is proof that he was way ahead of everyone else. Way ahead of his time.
I don't agree with this at all. The only reason that there may be a low pool of boxers in each respective division is because boxing is such a hard sport. Everyone can be a pro (Given that you pass the pro examination) but 99% of the people don't make it big. They take multiple losses in their first few bouts and they go into retirement. It's much easier to reach decent success in Tennis than it is in boxing.
We never know. Floyd is a different kind of athlete. It's his sheer willpower, willingness to work hard which propels him ahead of every other athlete. That's just what I think I think he could be just as dominant if he focused on other sports.
Federer is probably the most dominant athlete of the modern era the fact that he recaptured #1 last year at his age is incredible
He's 5 years younger than Floyd... and he hasn't been dominating as hard as Floyd has Sure he won wimbledon last year, it's great and all but he hasn't been showing enough consistency since his loss to Nadal at Wimbledon 2008.
Wrong. I do follow tennis from time to time. I do watch championship games and slams when they're on. Not an avid follower, but still know some stuff.
He actually makes a simple but good point. Fighting a guy who is 0-0 is hardly being on top of the game.