Sports Illustrated article critical of Floyd

That said, history may very well treat Floyd the way it should have treated Fritzie Zivic.

 

Really? To me, the fact that article exists as well as the one I posted seems to portend what's coming. True, it's unfair to compare May to Fritzie Zivic, but as you can see, some people are already doing similar things. Hell, you can even see it on this forum.

 

If it were alone, you'd have a point. But deep down, you know that author's not alone. When mainstream sports sites like ESPN and SI bash Floyd for the fight not happening, that's a better indication of where the mainstream's at. You can deny it all you want, but you know as well as I do that Floyd gets a lot of hate.

 

You got it backwards. I'm saying it's an indication of where the mainstream's at rather the source of mainstream opinion. It's a niche sport now, but so is golf. Just as public opinion over the long term has an impact on Tiger's legacy, it does as well on Floyd's.

Unless you're totally oblivious to the Floyd hate, you can't reasonably deny what I'm saying.

 

Re: Tiger, I was answering your point about public opinion not mattering simply because it's niche, and that's not true. If Tiger doesn't win any more majors, people will point to his problems in his personal life even though the real problem is most likely that he blew out his knee a couple years ago and hasn't been the same. He'll likely go down in history as someone who destroyed his own career with his personal life, and I'm not sure that'd be fair.

No one is questioning that Floyd is an ATG, so you can drop that strawman right there. But because of all the Floyd hate, people will question whether he was the best of his own era unless he fights Pac and wins. It's less likely to be the case with Pac even if the fight doesn't happen.

 

Ortiz was nowhere near his level, so that win doesn't improve to his legacy. The way he won does add to it, but not in the way you seem to believe.

I suspect your confusion is that you seem to think my argument is that Floyd is not an ATG, given your two most recent posts on this thread. As I've said numerous times, I believe that despite what Floyd has accomplished, there will always be questions surrounding his legacy if the Pac fight doesn't happen.

But OK, I've cited the support for my argument. Cite your proof that I'm wrong on this.

 

And that, Sweet, is the rationale of my argument.