Is Mayweather v Pacquiao not happening a good thing???

Mis-communication, its cool. For the record you're posts are normally v informative imo i just disagree with alot you say! Respect dan laters :good

 

Its the whole debate on 'Who fights who' versus 'Well you gotta actually win the ****ing fight to make it worthwhile!' If you got a ton of cans on your record and your 40-0 or whatever i got ya, no problem thats horse-****. Not when theres some seriously quality fighters that you've BEATEN though, thats dis-respecting a whole lotta future hof fighters and in JMM case a lb for lb top 5 possibly.

Moore fought great guys at heavy but beat none of em. Simple as

 

Valdes was a top contender. He was the #1 contender to the title for couple of years and consistantly in the top 10, comfortably. Same with Bob Baker. He beat Clarence Henry aswell, and Jimmy Bivins who'd established himself at heavyweight aswell beating the likes of Lee Q Murray, Turkey Thompson and Mellio Bettina.

I don't get what your point is. What is this all about? That Mayweather's resumé is superior to Marciano's? Or that he should be higher on an ATG list or what? And where does discrediting Moore's achievements at heavy come in this?

 

So where do Mayweather and Marciano come into this? What are you debating with Flea Man about?

 

Well no ****ing world beaters then and top 10 aint what we're talking about. Flea's using any top fighter in history to discredit the record of Floyd. It began with saying Rocky's records better which I strongly disagree due to the age/weight and or tough fights his best wins had come against. Granted Floyd has a few of those but his wins are better. The Moore argument is clearly spurned from the fact that a past it ezzard charles and god knows how old Jersey Joe were not enough to put Rocky over Floyd and no Moore as a heavyweight doesnt touch his abilty at light heavy.

I have to say though in 2 minutes you listed more fighters, albeit nothing specially than flea could in over an hour

 

Flea brought it up. answered the question in the other post

It annoys me that some people think that coz they post thousands of times over god knows how long that makes them right all the time. Not the case, and idont mean you TommyV btw.

 

You were talking about discrediting wins over greats, and mentioned Marquez. Aren't you doing exactly the same with all Marciano's wins over the likes of Charles, Walcott and Moore?

You are talking about weights and age. Marquez was no spring-chicken when he fought Mayweather, and [you are talking to a Mayweather fan here by the way, and for the record, not a particularly big fan of Marciano as it happens] completely unproven at the weight.

Moore was proven at heavyweight is the point. Valdes, Baker, Henry, Bivins as mentioned. All established top heavyweights themselves in the 50's.

 

If you read all my posts it would be clearer. I even mentioned JMM as being undersized but he's still more of a ring legend in the grand scheme of things than a Valdes or Baker in Moores case and I even addressed the negative aspects with respects to Floyd and Rocky's records and Floyds is still better.

The trouble im having here is fleaman brings any Floyd related thread from whatever it is to bashing him even in this case bringing in Marciano and Moore for christs sakes. As a light heavweight i love Archie Moore his 2 wins over Joey Maxin were great and the 1st Johnson fight was awesome amongst many others but the Moore who fought Marciano, the heavyweight Moore was not as good a fighter come on Tommy.

By this he and the other over the hills once greats arent enough to give Marciano enough of a record to beat Floyds.

Btw did Moore lose to Bivins too? Not being a dick im genuinely asking

 

Yes, he is. But what has that got to do with anything? My point is Valdes and Baker were very good contenders and Moore beat them, establishing himself as a top heavyweight at the time.

So is this a way of discredting Valdes & Baker, in turn discrediting Moore as a heavyweight and therefore Marciano? Moore - you don't need telling - was an ATG fighter in his overall ability. He may not have been his 175 self when he fought Marciano, but he was still a damn good fighter. So was Charles. So was Walcott. LaStarza was a top, top contender.

Okay, so instead of Moore's HW resume, which has nothing to do with any of this, and Marciano's. Let's talk Mayweather's. Where do you feel that his resumé stacks up to be better?

Yes he did. But won the series overall.

 

Its got everything to do with it. JMM is a better win than any of those guys no matter how undersized he was. I certainly dont buy the he beat him so he's better than him bull**** and you're using the word discrediting too much and too generally. As i say flea chips in with negative Floyd posts on every thread to do with him bringing in something that yes is kinda irrelevent but im not gonna sit here and let that bull**** go just coz of his many posts etc

WAS WAS WAS WAS WAS Tommy thats my point, flea cant be bringing in Marciano as the next guy he tries and fails to use as his reasoning to not give Floyd his just dues. Charles WAS great before Marciano. Jersey Joe WAS sooooo past his best when he fought Rocky and the point your making re: Moore stiil doesnt establish him as a top heavyweight imo and yes as he is still the best win (not even going near Joe Louis) on Marciano's record id stick with Floyd anytime.

My issue was more with Marciano, Moore is as you say and i agree an ATG at light-heavy you aint gonna see him on many ATG heavyweight lists and as Rockys best win this shows my point.

Ive already written why Floyd's record is better than most give credit for, without the need to even mention the multiple belts which flea used- Moore woulda been champ if there were more belts or something to that effect. Im a bit confused about the question actually, if we're not talking about Marciano and Moore, who's are comparing Floyds against to make it better??

Thanks i couldnt remember

 

How was he a better win? How exactly? He was completely unproven at the weight. Moore wasn't, he proved it beating Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, Jimmy Bivins, Clarence Henry amongst knocking out 200lb plus journeyman for fun.

He was settled at the weight. He wasn't any more attached from his prime in that fight than Marquez was, who looked a shadow of his former self, mainly due to the weight.

Charles was still a very capable fighter, do you want a list of top heavyweight contenders he beat now? He had just come in off a win over Satterfield, and had beaten the likes of Bivins, Walcott, Oma, Lesnevich, Maxim, Baksi, Ray and Layne in the year or two proceeding.

Walcott had beaten the likes of Charles and Harold Johnson in recent times before going into the Marciano fight. He looked top-quality in that first fight aswell as Flea said. And yes, Moore did establish himself as a top heavyweight. If beating the #1 & #4 contenders isn't a way to prove that, I don't know what else to say to you.

I don't have a range for Moore in mind, so I couldn't comment. But HW is stacked with greats, which is why you won't see him high up. Charles is arguably a top 15-20 ATG heavyweight, Walcott arguably somewhere in a 13-17 range.

The cases you seem to be making for Floyd's resumé seem to center around the likes of Marquez, Judah and Corrales. That is not good enough to convince me his resumé is any better.

Floyd is a great fighter, I'm a huge fan of his technical ability, his consistency, his adaptability as a fighter and the way he can carry himself H2H from 130 to 147 well. That's where he stacks up on an ATG P4P list. Not on a resumé basis.

 

Mosely- future hof, De la Hoya, future hof Hatton-undefeated, JMM-future hof, corrales, castillo, ndou, judah.. Thats elite level competition not just good competition. Plus, like your bosom buddy you conveniently choose Moore as your comparison (still not good enough at HW) and not my original argument that Floyds resume still beats Marciano. Besides you got it wrong, he was a better win than Valdez, Bivins etc about par with Moore coz both are legends in a lower weight class(es in Marquez' case)

Ive already mentioned Charles and Walcott you're not taking it in. They had BEATEN top fighters not they went on to aka PAST THEIR ****ING BEST. Fed up of repeating myself.

Some old farts cant accept we are in the presence of having 2 fighters in a position to rank themselves amongst the all time elite. But **** both these have had ****ing good careers even if it dont happen, only 1 guy gets the respect and the other gets his record disrespected by people who think a guy LOSING can sometimes be better than another winning

I dont look at the 1 thing either when judging a fighter its on physical attributes/skills, living up to potential, record, consistency, ability to cope under pressure add em up and you see why its Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquaio the whole boxing world wants to see

 

Nice ebb and flow fellas. :good

They (the three letter network) were quoted as saying if Floyd vs Manny doesn't happen we'll have enough money to make Bradley vs. Alexander after Devon's camp asked for more money.

I told you Alexander and his team were a bunch of posers. Now they want more money to fight Bradley after all their big talk....lol. I think they knew they got away with robbing Kotelnik blind in the Loop and they realise they aren't ready for Bradley. If thats the case, why not give Kotelnik a more than deserved rematch and actually beat him this time.

I swear boxing needs another great depression to get back into top form, then all these Gordon Gekkos can start fighting for legacy and appreciate every dollar instead of fighting journeyman and pricing themselves out of every big fight.

Speaking of Gordon Gekkos...my favorite MOAT! Greed, for lack of a better word, is a good thing: Greed for success, greed for life, greed for legacy. Greed, Mr. Chairman, mark my words will be the key to saving that dysfuntional company they call the United States of America.

 

I'm in my early 20's. TommyV is about 18.

I really don't see how I didn't give you sufficient reasoning earlier. However, despite the evidence, it's still 'Moore was not a good Heavy', well, he clearly was, and an impressive scalp.

I bought up Marciano because BELLEW did :deal I was responding to him, and then Dan-B if I'm not correct.

As I say, we can argue til we're blue in the face. Floyds resume is poor, simple as. The fact I can even try and argue for Marciano (who I don't rate highly) says it all.

I wonder if you'd argue for Floyd over:

Jose Napoles

Kid Gavilan

Luis Manuel Rodriguez

Emile Griffith

?

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG8kmOgjSPY[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDZ0BZBtbSo[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvvs8Y4xaqs[/ame]

And Charles beating Satterfield:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9fncDgI-s[/ame]

What a K.O, unbelievable that Charles can be considered 'past it' as soon as he fights The Rock, Satterfield was arguably the more dangerous foe in terms of sheer power.

Simple thing is, Bellew said 'people just remember the 0' (which is why I started discussing Marciano in the first place), well it's clear to see that 50 years on people still have their questions marks about Marciano.

The same will be said of Floyd, who has a thinly spread resume himself.