If Mosley and Mayweather were to never have another match

As opposed to Cotto's resume right now?

 

So it's alright to excuse Mosley for his poor matchups yet criticize Forrest for his?

I don't know if you followed boxing when the Forrest/Mayorga matchup took place, but Mayorga wasn't the sideshow he is now. He was an extremely physical fighter who possessed dynamite in both hands and could change up the timing on his punches at any time (which bothered Forrest the most).

 

Funny you should mention resume because Cotto's resume is on par with Forrest's. For the most part, Cotto has defeated more B-level fighters, but Forrest has a few B-level fighters plus 2 victories over an elite in Mosley. But Cotto's an A-level fighter and Forrest wasn't?

Maybe someone needs to beat Cotto to see his grade drop?

 

A fighter like Mosley should lose to a fighter like Forrest.

Forrest was just as good as Mosley if not better. Better schooled fighter who had brilliant execution and rarely made mistakes. Forrest was the superior boxer, style-wise or not.

 

We're not discussing who had the better career. I just can't believe you could call Forrest a B-level fighter, while dismissing his two schoolings of Mosley as a "bad style matchup". It's not Forrest's fault that he was highly avoided before he reached his position as Mosley's #1 contender so that he could finally prove himself. Give a B-level fighter all the stylistic advantages over Mosley and he still wouldn't be able to dominate Sugar Shane the way Forrest did.

 

Mosleys a great fighter, but this goes to Mayweather. And the question is accomplishments and resume not head to head matchup, we;ll see that next year, but you'll just say Mosley was old anyway b/c hating just feels so damn good.

Mosley- 3 division titlist, Undisputed at 154 (bc Oscar unified titles) and I think Oscar won that second fight.
Beat 1 atg (oscar), lost to one future hall of famer (wright) and a guy that might sneak in (Forrest). Beat 3 former/current titlists (Holiday, Vargas, Collazo)

Mayweather beat future hall of famers Castillo, Corrales, Oscar, and former champion Judah, Baldomir, and titlists two Hernandez' , Chavez, Mitchell.
3 undisputed championships at 130, 135, 147 and titles at 140 and 154.

its not even close guys.

 

Wright is an even bigger monster than Castillo and Corrales combined. I really don't consider Castillo and Corrales that great. Who have they really beat? One of them got destroyed by Hatton in 4. Did Mayweather fight Chavez??? Judah, Baldomir, Mitchell weren't that great either. Mosley fought guys who were harder to beat.

 

Okay, then Judah is better than both of them. Judah is better than either of them. He faced Tszyu, Mayweather, Corley. Spinks and Cotto. If we're going to reward fighters for a bunch of losses, then lets change this to a Zab and Mosley comparison then.

 

Forrest had a spectacular amateur pedigree along with a blazing start to his professional career. Though he never possessed the natural talent of a Mosley or Mayweather, he was a better schooled fighter than Mosley and his technique was on par with that of Mayweather's.

 

Why can't fighters be rewarded on losses??? A lost to a great fighter is probably better than a win over a good fighter. It depends on how close it was and says a lot about the fighter. Wright is bigger and better than Castillo and Corrales. Mosley's lost to Wright is probably better than Mayweather's win over Castillo. Mayweather barely scraped though. I don't see Mayweather wanting any part of Wright. He doesn't want to take the risk.

 

This is getting ridiculous. You might as well say that Mayweather is better than Ray Robinson. Since, Mayweather hasn't had a loss and Robinson has had a bunch.

 

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure Steward has criticized Forrest and said he was never a top or elite fighter. Anyways, that doesn't matter. It's really funny how some people in here are trying to convince others that a loss over the "great" Forrest isn't bad at all for Shane's legacy. I like Shane a lot more than Floyd and I would love to see him beat PBF, but I agree with Sweat Pea that if you think Shane's legacy is better than Floyd's, then you simply don't like Floyd and you don't want to give him the credit.

A lot of people here still don't think PBF's win over DLH is impressive and it's for the same reason. They don't like Floyd as a person and don't want to give him credit. I would go as far as saying that Floyd's win over Oscar was almost as impressive as Shane's. Floyd started his career at 130 and has no business fighting anybody at 154, but he challenged a past-his-prime, but still elite DLH and beat him easily (the SD was bull****). Like I said, I like Shane more, but I can admit that there's no way his legacy is better than Floyd's right now.

 

I would say Floyd simply because he is undefeated.

 

Most people think that Mayweather is the better fighter simply because he is undefeated and this is quite weak. If you look beyond that who has Mayweather beaten that Mosley can't? His win over dela Hoya was impressive but, you can't deny that Mosley's first win over dela Hoya was even more impressive since Mosley beat him in his prime. Dela Hoya didn't exactly start his career off at 154 either so I don't see your point. I give credit to Mosley because he is a fighter. He is willing to fight just about anyone, guys who he would not be favoured against. Mayweather is talking about retirement, meanwhile Mosley is 35 and still wants to fight the best. Having said this, if Mayweather beats Mosley this year and Wright soon after then yeah he would be better.

Not a hater, just a lover of the game. Mayweather needs to prove he is the best by fighting the best.

 

the reason Mayweather hasn't lost is that he's picked his fights carefully. Mosley fights anyone and has lost a few because of this. Mayweather just wouldn't fight some one like Forrest or Wright.