Yeah floyd is better than joe, no contest, talent wise its hard to top floyd but joe was a decent mover too
Is that right? Hatton looks chubby at 145 while Mayweather looks fit at 150. At 140 Hatton was monster at that time, its not like Mayweather would be in huge decline at 140lb but the difference is that Hatton would be more mobile, faster and dangerous than Hatton at 145.
We cant blame Joe and Floyd for what was happening to Kessler and Corrales after they were fighting them, right? In the whole perspective Corrales ia 1-2 with Casamayor and 1-1 with Castillo, all happened after Floyd fight so that hardly surpass Kessler who is 0-1 with Ward, we can say more after Froch fight.
As Uncle Roger would say if anyone thinks Joe is better than Floyd Jnr they don't know **** about boxing
well, those 5 pounds would not have kept that left hook from putting hatton on his ass. put just to entertain your viewpoint, lets say for the sake of argument that hatton at 145, wasnt as good at 140. even if this was the case, you'd really put him on the level of eubank, being that eubank was past his prime when he fought calzaghe and retired a year later?
But the better is a relative thing as the father time. If you think about the pure boxing abilities then uncle Roger is probably right. If you think about the resume then its arguable. If you think about the historical aspects, I bet people in England will talk longer about Joe than people in US after he retires for good. Overall ... still arguable at this time.
Is that what joe says to make his biggest fights seem legit eventhough they came against past prime greats.
But in that point of view you may say that Hatton is almost retired now so almost retired Hatton at 5lb over the comfortable limit seems fit with almost retired Eubank at comfortable weight.
everything you said was true, but the point is, up until now corrales has accomplished more. 1-2 with casamayor and 1-1 with castillo(dont forget about the whole weigh-in fiasco in the rematch) is still pretty good. kessler hasnt exactly been in there with that type of competition. the fact of the matter is, mayweather's resume, while its missing some names, is still better then calzaghe's.
first off how do you know hatton is almost retired. who knows what his plans are. secondly, hatton won his two next fight after losing to mayweather. one of them happen to be against malinaggi, he won by tko. he did something that even cotto couldn't do, a guy who comfortably moved up to 147. while eubank lost two fights and was done. so common sense should tell you, both men were at different stages of their respective careers.
At this time you right, overall Corrales looks better than Kessler, but we still don't know the outcome of Kessler-Froch and neither where will Ward and Froch go in history comparing to Castillo and Casamayor. I guess overall Kessler will end up below Corrales .... but that is still open. ..... difference is razor thin.
yes, but Hatton get back to his comfortable zone at 140lb and he was beaten then by PAC, you know the smaller guy who never fought at 140lb before. On the other hand Eubank lost to .... Carl Thompson at CW ... you know the bigger guy who schooled David Haye ... current HW champion. So you see its hard to decide who was better at the time Hatton or Eubank?
well, you dont know what the future holds. because after kessler-froch, mayweather-mosley will happen and if mayweather beats mosley. you going to have to give up this agrument completely. so you can only judge the present time. and even if kessler beats froch, that still doesnt necessarily put him over castillo. yeah there's a difference. you seem to think its razor thin but when you really analyze their resumes there is enough difference to conclude that mayweather will be remembered and rightfully so as the superior fighter. but if you're a calzaghe fan or mayweather fan, its hard for you to be objective.