Holyfield: "Floyd is great but he never fought everybody"

No glaring omission yet you name more than a half dozen guys above. Also it didn't 'just turn out' that way he fought all of them exactly when he wanted to, too late.

Your attitude towards the Margarito fight is the house of cards that Floyd's perceived greatness is built upon. Oh well he would have won anyways.

I can't even tell what you're arguing but it seems like you're making excuses for him. Guy was too much of a ****** to fight the best in his era at WW, let alone the second tier 80's early 90's guys like Currey, Starling, Breland, McGrit, Brown, let alone the SRL, Hearns, Duran, Benitez's. His unwillingness means he belongs nowhere in the discussion with the above named.

 

What point are YOU making here? :huh Yes, obviously, I'm well aware I pointed out more than half a dozen names. I then said "no glaring omissions", clearly dismissing any of them as having been all that severe a missed opportunity. What's your point? I'm obviously positing that missing out even on those names doesn't warrant Mayweather being vilified or given this "ducking" reputation his most extreme haters like to lay at his feet. Any great boxer is going to have roughly as many equivalently "solid" guys they could've fought, but didn't for whatever reason. My point was that he didn't have a prime Durán or Hearns lurking around that he refused to step in with to prove who the best was - that would indeed be a glaring omission. The nonexistence of any of the above fights I mentioned doesn't really matter, at least as much as Mayweather vs. Durán/Hearns if they shared an era would matter (or imagine Leonard, Durán & Hearns never having their battles...those would be glaring omissions in all three men's resumes)


...and Mayweather and Pacquiao at least did finally meet, even if too late, which is more than can be said for the last set of rival greats from the previous generation who played a long game of footsie that never went anywhere (Tiger & RJJ)...

 

That is utter garbage what Floyd did was even worse. He missed fighting all of those guys you named plus the names he did fight were all diminished versions of themselves.... and Floyd was the one who fought them at that time on purpose.

My point is he didn't even have the heart or ***** to face the best of his own era (which isn't that great) or waited until they were non prime. That's even worse than ducking one outright killer like Hearns, he ducked nobodies by comparison and it was an ongoing pattern for over a decade, far worse than your scenario and the epitome of a ducker.

 

:-(

Theres a lot of b.s. to this but it will be to long to write. If your happy to believe your own stuff its all good since I have a friend that does it all the time.

 

There is a solid argument that he could have fought certain boxers earlier, when they were either in their prime or closer to their prime.
(E.g mosley , cotto):deal

 

May weather is the only boxers I've seen get accused of ducking guys who say they don't wanna fight, anyone else would be called feared but when it's Mayweather he's scared. Anyone who really saw his career would tell you that Mayweather was probably one of the most ducked guys in his era, yet still managed to have the best resume.

How do you get bashed for fighting guys who are better. Outside of 140 it's unarguable that he didn't beat the clear cut best in every division.

 

Sad but true. The figures don't lie, no matter what history lies beneath them, the books will only recount the 'opponent' and the 'result'.

 

I love Holyfield but he is talking rubbish. Floyd beat everybody and he is the best fighter of his generation. Beat more world champions than anyone else. It's not his fault Margarito lost as Floyd beat the guy who beat Margarito in Mosley. He also beat the guy who stopped Tyzu in Hatton. Corrales who he beat defeated Freitas and Casamayor. Floyd beat Pacquiao, Canelo, Cotto, Maidana, De la Hoya, Corrales , Mosley and the list goes on and on. Very deep detailed resume.

 

Your logic is difficult to understand.Floyd is not exactly a risk taker, he was always very protective of his 0.

 

Always? Yeah, that makes sense, no wonder the Castillo rematch happened immediately. :blood

 

Are you now seriously implying Floyd was a risk taker ???:roll:

You call castillo fighting a big risk , yet Floyd was the clear favourite both times...