Better resume Ali vs Mayweather

Whatever, he was old and past his prime. That's the reason people don't make a huge deal out of Floyd beating Mosley, who barely even tried.

I'm not about to argue with you over stats and semantics when you blatantly ignored all historical context people brought up with you for 20 pages.

 

“Historical context” is just fancy agenda pushing.

 

No, it's called critical thinking, something you wouldn't be able to use even if you were tutored by Socrates because you're intellectually dishonest and dimwitted.

One only has to look at the 20 pages of you completely ignoring what people like George, Loakiem, or Loudon were attempting to explain to you for proof. Canelo being in his prime against Mayweather and Corrales being an ATG are 2 of the funniest arguments you've made in a long list of absurd claims. If you're doing this because you're bored and not simply dumb, I can only assume you're some sort of masochist or an attention seeker.

 

Historical context=Chico and Nelo were undefeated champions on every pfp list when Floyd trounced them, a decade and a half and five weight classes apart.

Never will happen again.

 

Historical context=

-Canelo was not as good back then against Floyd as he is now. His defense, timing, footwork, counters, and accuracy are significantly improved. His resume is also literally 10x better. Canelo went from going life and death with Trout and Lara to beating Cotto, Saunders, Golovkin, Jacobs, Kovalev, Plant, Charlo etc. It's like night and day.

-Corrales was not and is not an ATG. Good fighter? Yes. Great fighter? Not really.

-Simply being on a subjective p4p list doesn't make someone an ATG. Unless you want to say Roman Chocolatito Gonzales is an ATG. Look what happened to him.

The idea that the Canelo and Corrales who Floyd ACTUALLY faced in the ring were better wins historically than the likes of Foreman, Frazier, Liston, etc is comedy to anyone whose spent more than a month learning boxing history and context.

I'll throw you a bone. Explain to me how Canelo beating Trout and Lara (both controversial decisions) were better achievements than Foreman brutally KOing undefeated Frazier and then just as easily KOing Norton?

 

Trout was better than Norton. He had a chin and was a more complete fighter.

Lara is 12-1-1 in title fights over two weightclasses since fighting Canelo and the loss was by SD against a guy who was basically a drained 168 pounder. He's undefeated outside of Canelo and Hurd and is in his forties.

Just because you're in your feelings over Mayweather does not give you a right to disrespect Lara, who would easily beat Foreman if he were 6'4 and 220.

And LOL at using the word "subjective" as if your bs subjective opinions trump consensus pfp lists.

 

Norton was greater than Trout. Trout's defining win is Miguel Cotto, Norton's is Muhammad Ali, your own GOAT Heavyweight. If you want to argue close fights that Trout should have arguably won to push him up the ladder, Norton is the wrong man to do it against. This is a resume comparison, not who we'd think would win if they were the same size.

Against who ? Fringe contender Delvin Rodriguez and a blown up WW who was unranked at 154 ? Only 1 decent win in his entire career Ishe Smith, who lost to everyone ? An unranked Gausha and unranked Yuri Foreman who hadn't faced a live body in 7 years ? His only good win between Canelo and Hurd was Martirosyan. All his opponents in title matches after the Castrano draw were unranked, both at 154 and 160. Literally everyone

You might not like it doc, but Lara basically had the 154 equivalent title run of Deontay Wilder. Faced a group of unranked, inadequate or blown up fighters and only had one actually good win in-between. And let's be honest, Martirosyan ain't all that. His best wins are Trout, Martirosyan, Ishe and Angulo. Clearly a better resume than Foreman's wins over Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Moorer

Before you call it disrespect and tell me I should be ashamed of myself, keep in mind that you were disrespecting Foreman by claiming Lara was better than him. The difference is that in their primes, one beat an ATG lineal champion, while the other never even beat a divisional #1. One beat a blown up Welterweight Danny Garcia at 40 at a catchweight of 157 to not seem too unfair, the other became lineal Heavyweight champion at 45.

 

floyd has the best resume in boxing.

yeah some guy who barely exists on film and lost 30 fights beat people too, but come on.

charles is my guy and might be the only one with a case to best floyd's record, but how many times did he lose?

 

I'm pretty sure Norton beat more ranked contenders than Trout. He also has better signature wins. We aren't talking about who has the better chin, we're discussing resumes. And Trout doesn't have a single win close to Norton beating Ali.

What Lara did AFTER fighting Canelo is irrelevant just like Foreman beating Moorer at age 45 is irrelevant to how good his resume was before Ali beat him. The facts of the matter are that Lara's resume wasn't in the same galaxy as Foreman's when Lara faced Canelo. You know this, and that's why you're desperately bringing up his 12-1-1 run.

A 6'4 220 pound Lara doesn't exist and is irrelevant to the conversation. Can you stick to the actual topic and criteria? I thought you cared about stats and facts, what's with all the random topic shifts and trolling attempts?

I didn't say my opinion on p4p lists is above whatever the consensus was. The point is p4p lists are subjective while resumes are not. And Corrales being on the p4p list doesn't mean he was an ATG.

Still waiting for you to explain how Canelo beating Trout and Lara (via controversial decisions!) were better wins historically than Foreman vs Frazier/Norton. Let me reiterate: we are talking about the version of Trout/Lara Canelo ACTUALLY FACED IN THE RING and how good their resumes were AT THE TIME compared to Foreman's best wins. Not who has the better chin, better looking abs, or how good Canelo's opponents would be if they took a super soldier serum. Stick to the topic.

 

I'm just gonna keep these here for now.

This must be that fancy agenda pushing you were talking about.

Awh boo hoo, did someone upset you by talking bad about your favourite? Womp womp.

Ifs and buts can suck my nuts, Foreman is an ATG heavyweight who destroyed a fellow ATG heavyweight. Lara isn't even close to that, and he still wouldn't be if he was 220lbs and 6'4.

You talk about everyone being in their feelings over Mayweather then say **** like "what gives you the right to disrespect Lara!"

Coming from the guy who thinks Corrales and Lara rank above Foreman

 

ifs and butts can suck my nuts

I got many hours travel about to happen and every time that is even nearly relevant i'ma say it.

 

Trout won five title fights in a row before giving Canelo a competitive fight. And he beat Cotto wide. Norton never won a title fight and got knocked cold multiple times.

Lara has beaten Paul Williams, Trout, Vanes (yes he was good for a few years), and other known fighters over his career, title fight and not. Are we erasing that he drew with Castano had a strong case for beating a peak Hurd too?

 

Norton has more signature knockout loses than Trout. That's for sure.

 

Had Corrales retired earlier and not shared an era with Mayweather certainly some people would argue he was an atg. The Mayweather beat down and his post prime losses really negatively impact his legacy

If he's retired after the first Castillo fight he's seen much more favorably

 

Exactly. And Ken Norton would be Carl Williams without the Ali fights.