Does Mayweather have a win over a ATG in his prime?

Whitaker was 33 you dumb****.

 

^^^^And??? Hopkins was 36 when he fought Trinidad which hopkins was still in his prime you dumb **** lol. Whitaker was top 3 or number 1 p4p doing that time he fought de la hoya. Vargas became past his prime in under 30 years old smh. Same with morales at under 30 years old.

 

And that is why we look at the whole record. You proved my point. Whitaker only fought a few more times and lost most of them. So we know he was past it when ODH beat him. Berrera on the other hand won 6 straight fights over the next three years and two more belts after losing to Manny.

14-1 Between EM and JMM the 1 is Manny they dont get more prime than that.

 

I agree to this... people think too much about a persons age like if youre 30 youre over the hill now and past prime... but thats not how i works in boxing... a fighter can be Young and fight wars early on in their career and lose their prime in the ring...Fernando Vargas is a clear example of a young fighter who lost his prime before it even started.. Pavlik is another young fighter who lost his prime not only because of how he fought in the ring, but what he did outside the ring as well....

B-hop is a perfect example of a fighter who peaked at an older age but took care of himself inside the ring and out.. which was why his prime lasted as long as it did late into his 30s-and mid 40's i would say.. His longevity in a sport that sometimes takes younger fighters prime and sometimes life away from them is a perfect example that Age isnt nothing but a number, and if you take care of yourself you could still be in your prime...imo

Windigo Aka Mr.Boxrec doesn't seem to get it, and i don't know why..

 

I agree to this... people think too much about a persons age like if youre 30 youre over the hill now and past prime... but thats not how i works in boxing... a fighter can be Young and fight wars early on in their career and lose their prime in the ring...Fernando Vargas is a clear example of a young fighter who lost his prime before it even started.. Pavlik is another young fighter who lost his prime not only because of how he fought in the ring, but what he did outside the ring as well....

B-hop is a perfect example of a fighter who peaked at an older age but took care of himself inside the ring and out.. which was why his prime lasted as long as it did late into his 30s-and mid 40's i would say.. His longevity in a sport that sometimes takes younger fighters prime and sometimes life away from them is a perfect example that Age isnt nothing but a number, and if you take care of yourself you could still be in your prime...imo

 

And why then do you not apply this reasoning to Berrara who also peaked later in his career?

 

Barerra turned pro at the age of 15, he's a teenager ffs you know,. When pac fought him in 2003 he was I think 29-30 years old, that's 15 years in the game but he had losses to junior jones+ 1 a KO, brutal war with kennedy McKinney, had wars with morales had I think 50 something pro fights by the time he reached 30...That's a lot of fights for a young guy and it takes a toll on your body physically and mentally as well so I know he had to be feeling burned out and that is sometimes all it takes to exit your prime, age has nothing to do with it... He was a tired fighter by the time Pacquaio fought him in 2003 imo

 

So?

None of that is evidence that he is shot only thst he could be shot. Thd evidence would be in his record and performances. Which you can't point to.

Using your logic I could say that BHOP was shot after his first fight.

 

First off I didn't say he was shot, You did... Maybe I said it to tick you guys off in other threads but right now i'am being serious...

I don't think he was a shot fighter, but I do think he was a tired fighter and burned out from a physically long career, which I think makes my case that he was not a prime 29-30 year old fighter when he fought pacquaio like you guys think he was... he was still good enough to perform at a high level don't get me wrong as fighters like Oscar did, Floyd and Pac are doing right now ect... but I disagree that MAB was a prime fighter in 2003.

 

You think.

You need ****ing evidence. You think he "could" have been burned out. No go find the evidence that supports that he was burned out. 14-1 mother ****er. A fighter you argue was on the decline went 14-1.

 

he went 14-1 against blown up career bantamweights in johnny tapia, a old kevin Kelley, Naz, morales who he lost to in the rematch btw.....the rest were all bums... but youre excited about 14-1 doe? fuken idiot:deal learn boxing

Windigo:tomb

another pacturd bites the dust!:rofl:rofl

 

Whitaker was having huge personal problems after he lost to oscar in case you didnt know which messed up whitaker's career as a boxer.

Barrera won 6 more fights after the first pacquiao fight? Cool but did he look prime in most of those fights he won? I'll answer noo. Barrera only look good vs a past prime morales in the 3rd fight which was close. He did tko a much smaller funa. He tko a past prime paulie. He won by decision to freaking peden which barrera if that was prime should have ko peden whos nothing to brag about. He look absolutely bad when he fought rocky twice. He got outboxed by marquez.

Now lets look at fighters barrera fought like the few fighters barrera fought before the first pacquiao fight, he beat an overrated ****y hamed which it wasnt a shut out as some dummies think it was.

He got a very gift decision win over morales in the second fight which mostly everyone thought morales won the fight.

If that was a prime barrera then he should have ko a decline tapia bottom line. No excuse to not ko a decline, shot fighter like tapia point blank period.


He did tko a decline kevin kelly who had 5 loses before facing barrera.


^^^Now look at that and other fights before the hamed fights. <<That was a past prime barrera from the start of hamed fight or start from the morales second fight. It was his 60 pro fights going in the pacquiao fight and mostly alot of times when a fighter have 60 pro fights or more? They are not still in their primes.

 

I love how you think that beating Morales is a negative on his record.

You are absolutely re****ed.

 

Morales beat MAB in the rematch, and im not the only one to think this...
Youre biasness to justify Mab as a better win for pac over anything Floyd has on his record is absolutely biasley returded... theres no other words to explain this stupidity.

please yourself now!thanks

Windingo:tomb

 

No Floyd does not have such a win. When you review history only few fighters have.