Exactly. Tony Pep in the mid 90s. Then handpicked short armed guys coming up in weight like Hatton, Oscar, Cotto, Marquez, Maidana, Shane, Gatti etc. Knowing he had the skeletal frame and limb length to carry gradually added muscle better going up.
There wasn't anyone with a longer reach than Tommy. Williams and Margarito were there for Floyd. And Tszyu had long shots.
Zoo had nowhere near the reach of Floyd and he was retired by the guy who Floyd beat. Margarito had about the same reach as Floyd, but didn't fight tall. Floyd beat three guys who each beat the **** out of Margarito. With that said, the fight could've happened if Margarito weren't loyal to Arum. Williams blew it. He lost right after Floyd beat Hatton and then rematched Quintana and moved up in weight. If he wanted to force the issue, he shouldn't have lost to Carlos ****ing Quintana and turned into a middleweight. The truth is that Mayweather was at a weight disadvantage in just about every big fight from Castillo on, Hatton included. You disgust me by trying to make these fragile arguments.
They both have great resumes. Roy has the better singular win, but Floyd has more named opponents. I expect most people to say Floyd. The high profile of the fighters always sways most people. This debate has been done before. In the last one, a lot of people thought that Floyd’s win over Cotto was much better than Roy’s win over Tarver. It’s what normally happens in these debates. Because Cotto is a much bigger name. But when you break it down and take into account the circumstances of the Tarver fight, with the weight loss and the stylistic match up, and the degree of difficulty etc, you see that burning muscle in 2 months to beat Tarver was much more of an achievement than beating Cotto. The Griffin win was very special. Griffin was a very good fighter, and Roy blew him away in under 3 mins. The Hill win was special too. Most fans would rate the Mosley win higher though, as Shane was once a great fighter whereas Montell Griffin was underrated and didn’t get much exposure. When you really break things down, it’s actually very close. But I’m expecting most people to say Floyd easily. We shall see. If it was posted on the General forum, it would be a landslide victory for Floyd.
On what planet was Cotto better than Toney? Okay, he had weight issues. But Cotto had already been beaten up twice years earlier.
Reach is far more important than weight with Floyd’s style. He had a huge reach advantage over Hatton.
You need speed and youth (Hatton and Cotto in 04) or reach and timing (Tszyu), or reach and speed (Williams), etc
What hole did you climb out of? We aren't talking about a rangey runner, and it still wouldn't be true. "Rangey runners" generally get smashed when they move up like Jermain Taylor, Bute, and Curry.
Is it? Well thanks for telling me that. After 30 years of being a fan, I had no idea. Ricky Hatton having a weight advantage was IRRELEVANT in that specific fight. Floyd has a 72” reach which was HUGE for a man of his stature. The heavier Ricky was, the slower he was. Ricky’s reach was 65” Trying to imply that Floyd was at a disadvantage due to the weight is absolutely laughable. Floyd had a 7” reach advantage in a weight class which was above Ricky’s best weight.
Again, you've never boxed so you wouldn't understand it. Floyd gave up almost 15 pounds to Hatton which is a big deal. You completely don't get the strain it would put on your cardio by giving up weight to a guy like Hatton. What happened to Khan at 154 and Brook at 160 is what happens when you give up weight. If you're truly a fan, you can test this out for yourself by finding someone to box who has 15 or 20 pounds on you. It's not fun after a round or two.