Floyd Keeps Saying There's no "Blueprint" to beat him...

You make some very good points Stonehands.

As a boxing fan I want to watch the best take on the best. The winning or lossing does not maker as much as a great performance.

I cannot rate a guy that has not taken on the best higher than a guy who did , but might a picked up a few losses along the way. The fans are the future of boxing, if we continue to be fooled into buying Floyd vs JMM or Roy vs Hopkins then that is what they will give us and we will suffer for it along with the true boxer that want to take on the best.

I would take the Loeonard of the 1st Duran fight over the Hagler fight any day.

Maybe I am wrong but I'm thinking that some guys with great talent can seem invicable against lesser comp' but once they take on a great boxer , they seem like a totaly different guy , eg... Hamed vs Barrera and the only way we know for sure how good they are is to take on the best.

 

Oscar De La Hoya might not been in his prime when Floyd Mayweather Jr. fought him. However he was far from being a "shot" boxer like he was when he faced "Manny Pacquiao"

 

If they would be so good, they wouldn´t mind proving it against the best. Both avoided their toughest challenges. Mayweather can still correct that mistake. If he does, he get´s big credit from me.

 

I agree with you albeit I´m one of the guys who will always excuse Hamed a bit for the Barrera loss

 

So what. Do you think Cotto or Margarito could have beaten that same version of Oscar at 154? I dont. Noone said it was confirmation of his greatness, but his overall career is. Hes won what five titles in five weight classes, but hes not great because he didnt fight all the best at 147?

Well I disagree. What great fighter could Jones have fought during that time to get in their class? A fight with DM, who wasnt great, or an unproven super middleweight in Calzahge? No, the only fight was a rematch with Hopkins. A middleweight with a big mouth, who was sour because he got outclassed. Were his defenses against Carl Daniels, Morrade Hakkar, Robert Allen, and Tito Trinidad (three former junior middleweights and a welterweight champion), proof of how he would compete against the undisputed LH champion who had also beaten the best at super middleweight? Nah.. Why wasnt it Hopkins fault for not moving up and putting himself into contention for Jones title, or taking less of the pie to get a shot at redemption when it was offered to him? I dont consider that Jones fault, nor do I think it proved how much better Hopkins had become. Hell their last fight against each other should be even more proof that Hopkins would never have had a chance against a prime Jones.

Yes I believe they do to some extent, but its not going to be dicated to me by a television network or a promoter who has his own agenda or a fighter that has a big mouth or is sour over a past one sided defeat. Prove it, earn your shot. Was Jones wrong for making Tarver prove himself? That was probably the best thing Jones could have done for Tarvers career, because he wasnt ready, he got his ass kicked by Eric Harding. Was Jones wrong for asking Hopkins to come up to LH and fight for a mandatory shot? HBO would have glady obliged and made a fight with him for a mandatory challenger spot. If not Hopkins should have taken the fight when it was offered to him, not Jones, who was at the top of the hill at a higher weight.
As far as Mayweather, his career is not over. Mosley is coming off of his second best career win. There is no way to say the fight in 2000 would have represented a "far" better challenge for FLoyd. Mosley was soundly beaten by two fighters who "he should have beaten", at that time, and just soundly beat someone who should have beaten him.
Theres still time for Mayweather to silence his most harshest crtics, but people must realize that politics, and rival promoters, are often time more of the reason "now" why these fights are not made, not because the fighters dont want the fight, and its not always the fault of the supposed fighter who should be seeking out the most legacy enhancing fight. It just so happens that most if not, all the fights that Mayweather "should have supposedly taken" involved Bob Arum, his former promoter, who I believe doesnt want to have anything to do with Mayweather.
The two biggest fights out there at this time for Mayweather are Mosley and Pac, not Margarito or Cotto who are promoted by Arum, and bingo the Mosley fight is made. Good luck on the Pac fight.
I dont think Mayweather has lost enough time to show how great he really is at welterweight, or that anyone should try and place him, or Jones for that matter, in a ATG spot they dont belong, but that doesnt automatically make a past great fighter who fought better competition, a better fighter or a guaranteed winner, (like most on here seem to argue and think), it only places them higher on the ATG list.

 

So its all Mayweathers fault for avoiding the Pac fight?

 

Where did I write that? Was Pac the only tough fight he avoided?

 

Did guys like Jones and Mayweather show the type of shortcomings that Hamed showed against comparable or worse competition? You didnt or dont see Jones and Mayweather getting knocked on their ass in every other fight.

 

You said he avoided his toughest challenge. That would be Pac. Taking on DLH to me was just as challengind as fighting Cotto or Margarito like I pointed out in the previous post.

 

No, I wrote he avoided his toughest challenges.

 

Who were those challenges? Was DM a tougher fight than Ruiz at heavyweight or (Gonzalez who beat DM:yep)? Was Cotto or Margarito a tougher challenge than ODLH at 54?

 

Yes to both.