When you say you got the benefit of close decisions you are implying that the undefeated record isn't earned. That the judges happened to bail him out in a fight that "could have gone either way". When you say he didn't fight someone good enough to beat you that's a jab at his competition. Floyd never received a "gift" and he had excellent competition so both of your attempts to take him down a notch for being undefeated are nonsensical. He's great because he consistently fought at the world level for 2 decades and defeated more champions than any other boxer. Did Ottke and Menayothin consistently fight boxers as good as Mayweather's competition? Do you say the same thing about Marciano's record?
No, when I say got the benefit of close decisions I'm implying that any close fights saw him receive the benefit of doubt with the judges. I never jabbed his competition, I said he didn't fight someone good enough to beat him. I never said he received a gift. I never said he didn't face excellent competition. I haven't attempted to take him down any notch, I said being undefeated doesn't make you great. Ottke and Menayothin didn't consistently fight opposition as good as Mayweather, but they're undefeated and you said being undefeated makes you great. I didn't say the same about Marciano, I don't think he's great because he's undefeated, I think he's great because he beat Walcott, Charles and Moore and cleaned out his division. I feel like you don't actually read my posts, you just spew out some nonsensical rants in defence of a fighter who does not even know you exist. You have some strange emotional attachment here. Which again brings us back to, being undefeated doesn't make you great. Being undefeated means you got the benefit of close decisions or you didn't fight someone good enough to beat you.
The only one being emotional is you. I Only responded with the same energy you'e been giving out lol. And no for the record I don't have an emotional attachment to Mayweather. I think he's a beta-male, attention seeking, weasel sellout control freak with little man syndrome who milked the system. He found his niche and made the most of it. You didn't explicitly state that he received a gift but that's what you're suggesting when you write that he received the benefit of a close decision. If you didn't mean that then you can simply say what you mean instead of responding like a politician saying what you didn't mean. And if you don't care to elbaborate on your position maybe you should just say so and don't get annoyed when people on a discussion board are curious. It's not a knock against a fighter if they get a nod in a close fight that isn't a straight up robbery. They fought hard and the judges thought they did enough to win. You brought up Casamayor, Margarito and other b level fighters who got their asses kicked by people mayweather already beat. We don't really need to speculate how he'd do against them since he beat much better opponents. He didn't miss out on the guys since he fried much bigger fish. Yes being undefeated by itself doesn't automatically make you great but in the context of Mayweathers resume it's obviously significant. You made a blanket statement as if that applies to undefeated fighters in general when it doesn't. Mayweather was a great fighter and retiring undefeated makes him an even greater fighter. Agree or disagree?
The energy I gave out was that being undefeated does not make you great. I didn't suggest he got a gift, I said he received the benefit in a close fight. I said he fought someone good enough to beat him, Castillo. You can try to imply whatever you want, it doesn't change what I've said. I brought up Casamayor, Tszyu, Margarito, Williams and Pacquiao. I said we don't know if they were good enough to beat Mayweather. What we absolutely do know is that the fights didn't come off. I'm not annoyed, I would just prefer it if your posts actually responded to the ones you are quoting. I made a blanket statement that says being undefeated doesn't make you great. You backed that up for me. Mayweather was a great fighter, retiring undefeated does not make him greater. Of course it doesn't. If he came out of retirement now and went 1-1 with Charlo, becoming a unified LMW champ his legacy improves even though his undefeated record is gone. Which again brings me back to the point I originally made. Being undefeated does not make you great, it means you got the benefit of doubt in close fights or you didn't fight someone good enough to beat you. This time try to actually respond to what I said rather than have your emotional outbursts defending a position which is not even being attacked.
I'll just respond to one thing you wrote, which is that retiring undefeated doesn't make you greater. This is a ridiculous idea. Again, the point of a boxing match is to defeat your opponent. If you are consistently fighting ranked opponents all throughout your career and you defeat them all that is a great achievement. It absolutely enhances your legacy to retire undefeated. This was the main thing I disagreed with because it doesn't make any sense. There are no participation points for going out on your shield and getting your ass kicked for daring to be great when it comes to resume. Going 2-0 over Charlo is better than going 1-1. I do agree that fighting Charlo and then avenging that loss would certainly boost his resume because that is a quality opponent in a higher weight class. But his resume is already great without Charlo. He went through 5 weight classes and is the best fighter of the past 2 decades. You don't always need to be like Duran or Pacquiao going through nearly every weight class to prove you're great.
The idea can't be that ridiculous as you just argued the case for me. If he goes 1-1 with Charlo his resume is boosted even though his unbeaten record is gone. Being 51-1 in this case leaves a greater legacy than being 50-0.
You must have missed the part where I wrote his legacy was already great without fighting Charlo at all. Beating every opponent you face makes you great. Especially if you are consistently facing world ranked opponents over an incredibly long stretch of time. Charlo adding to Floyd's greatness would be like increasing the sugar rating on the nutrition facts label of an already incredibly sweet cheesecake by adding a single cherry. It's not like losing to him and then winning suddenly makes Floyd's career skyrocket lol. You must think really highly of Charlo.
Yes it does actually if the boxers are similar enough. If fighter A lost to B C and D and fighter E completely outclassed B C and D then it would be illogical to put A in the same conversation. Margarito was a slow punching bag who lacked one punch power and needed to break guys down with volume. He relied on his size, chin, and big gas tank to bully smaller welterweights. Not only did Floyd beat several guys who had a similar style to Margarito, he beat guys who beat Margarito! 3 of them! It's the silliest thing in the world to suggest he would have broken Floyd down with his cement shoes swarming style. Casamayor lost to Robert freaking Guerrero who looked like he lost every round to Floyd. He was stopped by the feather fisted Tim Bradley. He lost to Marquez and Corrales--two more guys who Floyd picked apart and took to school. Hindsight shows these would have been easy pay days for Floyd. At the very least, Floyd should have been heavily favored had he faced them after they'd been exposed by guys he already beat.
Casa was a shell of hmself when he lost go guerrero FFS. And Tim Bradley beating Casa? You can't be serious. That's called cherrypicking stats. And no, Floyd has NOT beaten several guys similar to Margarito. That's just a false statement, since a part of his style was his size as well. That is just a bad post with terrible examples.
A younger Casa? Absolutely. He was a highly skilled technician. And he'd very likely get a little dirty w/ a younger (At the time of being in the same weight class) Floyd. THAT'S the version one should look at, not old Casa who lost to guys like Ghost or TB. As for Margarito, win or lose, he'd make Floyd work his ass off. It was a nice clash of different style. Which is why is was a good fight to make. Not Judah who just lost to a journeyman in Baldomir. That was a fight that SHOULD have happened AFTER Judah put himself back in to contention at 147. Not just after a loss.
Well it's not Floyd's fault Baldomir wouldn't pay his sanctioning fees and Judah kept his titles. Floyd and Judah were scheduled to face each other BEFORE he lost to Baldomir--should he have backed out of his contract? It's a bit silly to criticize him for the mess his opponents got into. Floyd proceeded to beat Baldomir in literally his very next fight. Margarito's feet are too slow for him to be able to consistently apply pressure on a prime Floyd. People apparently have ammesia and forget he had great foot work and was much more offense oriented than the "money" version. Margarito's lack of a consistent jab and ability to cut off the ring are 2 more problems. Now add in that he isn't knocking Floyd out in a million years and I don't get why this was ever a serious discussion.
That has nothing to do with what I said. Fact of the matter is, Judah losing made the fight lose a lot. And I KNOW when it was scheduled. That doesn't make it any better. Who the heck scheduled a second fight when the first one hasn't even happened. That's clearly a stupid thing to do. Apply some critical thinking, not fanboy thinking. Yeah, Floyd beat the absolute WORST WW champion in the history of the division. Margarito is not slow of feet. Handspeed. sure. Feet? No way. If it was so easy, Floyd wouldn't have declined a career high payday. Odd for someone called "money" to do that.
