The Trout fight was open scoring. That's not an arguable loss in any way. He had no reason to turn it up.
He was fresh off a win over another rising star and fellow world titlist. He also made short and easy work of Kermit Cintron, though I realize Cintron's career was on the slide as was Mosley. But to say he had beaten " nobody" is a gross exaggeration. Now factor in that he had 12 years on Mayweather and was the bigger man and it wasn't unreasonable to call the match a challenge.
In that case then how can you have Floyd or anyone for that matter in your top 100 list if you don't believe in p4p ratings in the first place?
Well, if we're talking about ranking fighters in an ALL-TIME or historic sense, based on their whole careers and total accomplishments etc. .. that is possible. It's not easy but it is possible to look at their careers and rate their accomplishments. But to do "monthly" or "current" p4p ratings that are supposed to indicate who is currently the best fighter across all divisions .. I don't see how that's possible. Or maybe it is possible, but I don't detect any real effort behind those lists. Hence, fighters such as Mayweather and Pacquiao do tend to sit on top of their reputations and those lists for years while frankly coasting along, and often seem to "defend" their position against fairly ordinary opponents while some champion in another weight class might be doing more than them at that current time. These days, once a fighter gets that "pound for pound" label put on them, and repeated over and over by everyone on the media and internet, they are pretty secure until something really drastic happens to them. It seems like hyperbole to me.
So, Mayweather has better wins than ODLH ? ... and you'd pick a prime Mayweather to beat a prime Oscar De La Hoya too ?
All of that may be true as a general matter but has very little bearing on Mayweather and his well-deserved p4p ranking...
i prefer floyd to odlh, oscar fought a significant amount more people but floyd won, albeit with an age advantage and never blew a fight either. depends how you score castillo 1, it was close but i scored for floyd and would go as far as to say it is one of his more important/impressive performances in that he overcame adversity. the canelo victory will be viewed differently depending on his career, if he is a long reigning mw champ it is a real good win, if he loses his big fights then not, atm it is a decent win.
Of course it does. If Roman Gonzalez or Gennady Golovkin, Sergei Kovalev or Wladimir Klitschko or some little Japanese guy I've never heard of, wanted to claim they were dominating their division just as much as Floyd, it don't see any clear reason why they'd be wrong.
If that fight with Pacquiao and the recent thing with Berto are the current standard of what a champion needs to do in the last 12 months to be considered the best across all divisions, I'd say the standards of fighters must be low or the p4p rankings are badly flawed. If we want to go back 24 months, throw in the two Maidana fights .... okay, throw in Alvarez even, it just about gets in (sept 14, 2013) ... I'm still not convinced Mayweather's a clear number 1 across the divisions, even if we include those 5 fights over the 24 months. I feel it's based on hype and fame more than a hard objective look at all the active fighters. I mean, f**king Pacquiao's still top 5 or 6 on the list, and he looked like sh!t his last fight. I think he might have beat one good fighter since he got iced by Marquez in 2012. He's 3-1 since then. I swear there must be more worthy fighters out there.