MAYWEATHER is probably TBE (from a Pacman fan)

so if they were all on peds then it was obviously an even playing field

but again. . . to just assume they were all on peds is plain stupid regardless

 

Floyd is top #5 greatest. I don't know about TBE but if he goes 50-0 the only fighter I can compare him to is SRR.

SRR fought a lot of guys multiple times, lost more often, so you if Floyd keeps winning you can make a case that he's a modern day SRR.

Suppose he beats Khan, Thurman, GGG, and is still undefeated at 50-0? If he goes 50-0 I would say he's as great as SRR for his time. It's hard to directly compare the two but you can compare the achievements when you look at how far above they rest they were for their time period.

I don't think he has to beat Pacquiao to be compared to SRR. He can do that by going 50-0 against very good fighters. If he were to fight and beat Pacquiao then people might say Pacquiao was too old.

So the fact he's beating guys younger than him, undefeated guys like Canelo, you have to give the man credit. When SRR was in his late 30's he wasn't winning fights like this.

 

Just out of curiosity how much credit do you give Floyd for his most recent win?

 

Wow top 5 wow that must be some hella weed u Smokin !

 

your logic could be used to argue the opposite.

Back in the day, the best fought the best. There was only one champion from each division. It is much easier to protect a pumped up record today.

 

He beat a very good fighter but not a great fighter. I think the Cotto win was against a great fighter. I think the Canelo win does even more for his legacy because Canelo is young, in his prime, was undefeated, and probably will be a great fighter over time.

I think Maidana wasn't so much a fight to secure his legacy but it was a very tough style for him and probably one of the toughest fights he could have taken. The fact that he beat the guy twice in a row is a major accomplishment considering what Maidana did to prime Broner.

But to become TBE he needs to try for 50-0 or face Pacquiao. I think Pacquiao isn't going to fight him so if he just beats guys like Khan at 38 years old that to me would solidify his legacy because what other fighter in history does that? Hopkins?

 

You oviously didn't watch much boxing until like 2000, RJJ in his prime was better then Mayweather ever was

 

The whole thought process on this is completely skewed. You're essentially saying that because Floyd is the best now and because we have better drug testing today then in the past that must then mean he's the best ever. I think you can easily make the argument that doping now is far more common and far harder to catch (Lance Armstrong ring any bells) then it was in the past and I just do buy the argument that doping was common in the 1920's 30's, 40's etc. and since you have no proof this is pure speculation. I would argue that because there was only 1 belt per division the level of competition at the top wasn't as diluted and the best fought the best more often. Floyd could never have avoided Pac in the old days.

 

your vocabulary beats the **** out of your iq. just shut the **** up.

 

You're not taking into account who he beats, how he beats them, and his age. He's beating young very good fighters in their primes. He's taking on the toughest fights or the fights which could do the most for his legacy.

I don't think the Pacquiao fight is as much of a legacy fight as it once was because Pacquiao isn't prime anymore. People can say Pacquiao is old.

But if Floyd is beating all of the next generation young fighters like Canelo and all of the prime soon to be great or good fighters like Cotto and Maidana you can't ask for much more. I think if he could fight guys like Timothy Bradley and Manny Pacquiao of course those two fights alone could make him TBE but he can't fight those fights. He's going to have to take on a bunch of young guys like Hopkins.


What is unique about Floyd is he is doing what Hopkins did but somehow remains undefeated? All he has to do is keep fighting, keep winning, and beating younger guys.

The fact that he's pushing 40 and winning like this is something even SRR couldn't have done. It's the age factor which can help his argument for being TBE but that also requires he go 50-0 which is possible but the older he gets the more unlikely it is.

Let me ask you this, if he fights and beats Khan, Thurman, and GGG, is 39 years old, and is still undefeated, why isn't it enough to be TBE? Who else has done that?

 

Lewis and Duran come to mind off the top of my head.

But did you really think he was going to loose the rematch. Honestly?

 

nower near

 

It would be impressive I grant you that, but what would he be 50-0. What about those that say when 90+ fights undefeated, or Duran's 72-1 record, or SRR's 173-19-6 record. You can't ignore these accomplishments. To me then mean more than 50-0

 

Duran got knocked out and beaten multiple times. Lennox Lewis? You can't be serious.

I think you can compare Duran to Floyd but Duran didn't have the same kind of longevity, was not undefeated at this age, even if he has a similar resume you have to take into account the age at which Floyd is beating guys. Duran at this age would have been knocked out by guys like Canelo, Cotto and Maidana. Vinny Pazienza beat Duran, Pat Lawlor beat Duran, Robbie Sims beat Duran, Kirkland Laing beat Duran.

I think Duran is a great fighter but he has a lot more losses even if his resume in terms of his wins are similar. I think Duran has beaten a similar amount of great fighters but lost more and many of his losses aren't even to great fighters.