Where does Floyd rank in the top 100?

Agreed.

 

It's one thing to say that Floyd won a close decision that some people thought Castillo deserved. But to say that Mayweather has that win "only on paper" is being unfair towards Floyd. It was a close fight and by no means a robbery. Some people scored it for Mayweather and others for Castillo.

 

I see Castillo as a B+ level fighter, I'm ok with that. I would preface this though, by saying that at 135lbs he was at his most effective and was very big for the weight. Mayweather took him as his first challenge if I remember correctly at 135lbs, so I rate Mayweather's wins against him a little higher than you probably.

 

I agree with this statement.

Can't say that I agree here.

Look, I thought Marquez completely schooled Pacquiao en route to a 115-112 win and was totally robbed of a victory. But afterwards I thought that you could make a case that Pacquiao pulled off a 114-113 win and my stance towards the fight was that it was an extremely competitive fight that most observers including myself thought Marquez won, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that Pacquiao got the decision.

 

So being a professional judge and being a boxing writer who's watching fight ringside is not enough to be considered competent? I know their credentials. What exactly are your credentials?

So now Castillo is a B fighter? Make up your mind. And beating up on someone who you have a stlyistic advantage over is better than winning a close decision against some who you are at a stlyistic disadvantage?

IMO opinion, Mayweather beat Castillo and Hopkins beat Taylor twice. However, I realize that boxing can be a very subjective sport. Judges are seeing a totally different fight than people watching at home on T.V. That's why I like to deal with what actually happened, unless there was an outright robbery. However, you seem to think your opinion is the only one that holds water and everyone else in incompetent.

Are you talking about Mayweather and Hopkins here? If you are, this statement makes no sense.

 

yes they would have but we all know the stories why these fights didn't happen, but he does have Hernadez , corralez , Castillio , Chavez , manfredy , all were two time world champs with the exception of manfredy, they are no less great fighter then the fighter you mention .

@ 147 it depend on your perspective floyd , everyone believed Zab would be the man to beat Floyd , he was suppose to be bigger , faster , stronger and the harder puncher of the tow, and he was but when Floyd over came all them obstacle and dominated Zab with hardly a scratch, all of a sudden Zab became damaged and Flawed..
The same could be said about Baldi every boxing credit with a name was screaming for floyd to fight Bali, but once again after beating the "people destroyer of Floyd" then al of a sudden ya know Baldi not that good regardless of not loosing a fight in the past 7 year before fight floyd.

So my question is this What will make floyd resume great , since every fighter he fights is immediately down graded after losing to floyd but was so highly ranked and respected before? I suspect this will be the case when and if he beat Cotto , cotto will become immediately flawed.
So what does floyd have to do in your eyes to get the credit he deserves ?

but can you honestly say that Floyd has more bums on his resume then top contenders?

just for though We label Sugar Ray Robinson as a great fighter Why ? because he had 200 fights ? you can't tell me that everyone on SRR resume was top level competition .

RJJ beat every 175 from 1 to 15 down but because he didn't fight Michalczewski he doesn't have a great resume ? compared to who at the time and even now??

sorry so sloppy Im at work..

 

Last time I did it (October 2007) I had Lil Floyd at #43:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

While I don't have a particular number in mind for him but I don't see how anyone could rank him from 1-40 since just off the top of my head I can think of about 30 people to rank above him and many more than don't come to mind just now. He has had a great career but has not faced an in prime great (Castillo aside[though those two fights were close] and Coralles which was a stellar victory). DLH was old and not worth much legacy wise. Recently with the addition of Hatton it looks better but Hatton was a 140 pounder with issues at 147, nonetheless a great victory considering he was the first to stop him.

 

At the time Floyd beat Castillio twice Cotto was still dabbling in the kids sand box. So how can you say Cotto is a level above Castillio ? maybe now with the age and wars , are you saying 6 year ago Cotto could have competed with floyd and Castillio ?

Also Remember Hatton KOed Castillio what did that mean ?
Ill go one step further what make Cotto a , A level fighter who has he beaten to get such status?

 

Now look at this Amsterdam, this is exactly what you wrote in another thread regarding who was the more accomplised fighter between Hopkins and Calzaghe. Now in this thread, you're arguing that Hopkins' resume is superior to Floyd's and you're arguing that Taylor had stylistic advantages over Hopkins.

It seems to me that you have a very clear cut bias when it comes to Calzaghe and Mayweather. It seems as though you'll say whatever to make Calzaghe look better and Mayweather look worse. You even contradict yourself in doing so. It is for this reason that I have a hard time attributing much credibility to what you say about either fighter.