Who's greater? Duran or Mayweather Jr?

Mosley is overrated if anything...

 

Was pretty close, can't disagree with anyone scoring for Goldy

 

Castillo I was Floyd's only really close fight, though. And he never missed anyone really better than those he beat. Sure, had he faced Margo, Williams, Brook and Khan it's far from impossible that he'd have lost, but neither one of these were really better than the guys he did beat.

As I stated earlier, there are some things I wish Floyd had done differently, but the criticism of him is so over the top that I find myself mostly defending him.

The claim that he waited out Mosley and DLH won't go away, despite the fact that they were several weight classes above him in their primes and looking for bigger prey, as they should. And, yes, Margo was the guy to test himself against when he went up to WW, not Judah who was coming off a loss, but it makes no sense to criticise him for this yet give him no credit for beating Mosley right after he beat the **** out of Margo.

There's a lot of that going around.

Too bad the win over Pac is so tainted, though (both past their primes, no perfectly legal painkiller for Pac but an illegal IV for Floyd). That would be an absolutely brilliant one if not for the asterisks.

 

Every resume of every fighter in history can be ripped apart if someone tries hard enough.

But the point still remains that being undefeated just means you either got the benefit of close fights or you didn't fight someone good enough to beat you.

 

And if you never fought anyone good enough to beat you it means you were the best of your era. It's not like there was a murderer's row of prime hall of famers that Floyd ducked. You can't penalize someone for not sharing an era with a guy as great as them.

So yes, being undefeated certainly can mean that you're great (unless your resume is full of complete bums). Floyd fought ranked fighters and champions for 90% of his career.

 

LW Duran jumped up & fought Leonard.

LW Floyd jumped up & fought Judah.

Duran then took on Barkley, Hagler & Hearns, beating Barkley losing decisively to Hearns & pushed Hagler close.

Floyd feasted on Pacs sloppy seconds, drained Canelo to 152 & then fought Connor McGregor.



Duran (even though he was undersized comparatively speaking ) took them all on at their peak, whereas Floyd waited for his main era rivals (who we was naturally bigger than btw) attributes to decline somewhat..

 

After well over 100 votes, Duran is maintaining ~85:15 edge. TBH that's a bit more a ratio than I thought it would be.

I do agree with who has the big lead. For a guy his size, the success he had above WW is amazing.
L-E-G-E-N-D

 

No, if you never fought someone good enough to beat you, it means you never fought someone good enough to beat you.

In Floyd's case, he did, Castillo.

Casamayor, Tszyu, Margarito, Williams, Pacquaio, would any of those have been good enough to beat Floyd? We'll never know because the fights never came off.

Which brings me back to what I said previously. Being undefeated just means you got the benefit of doubt in close fights or you didn't fight someone good enough to beat you.

 

Castillo was not even good enough to beat an injured Floyd and still managed to lose. He got completely taken apart in the rematch. The record is 0-2. Even if you want to argue Castillo deserved the nod in the first fight (which would be a losing argument), it's not like he beat the crap out of Floyd or took him to school. It was very competitive. Only haters use the logic that a competitive bout should count against someone.

It would be easy to just say it's Floyd's fault those fights didnt happen and you could do that with anyone's resume.

-Floyd beat Hatton who beat Tszyu

-Casamayor lost to Corrales, Guerrero, and Marquez who all lost to Floyd.

-Floyd beat Mosley, Pacquaio, and Cotto and all 3 of them beat Margarito to within an inch of his life. Seriously, the Margarito thing is by far the dumbest thing you can bring up to criticize Floyd.

-Williams got into a car accident and his career cut short.

-Floyd beat Pacquiao so Idk why you even brought him up. Not gonna have a debate about the fight taking so long to be made. Both guys contributed to it and it wasn't all on one side. Pacquiao has gone on to do amazing things AFTER the fight so it has aged well.

None of those guys are beating Floyd. None of them were 100% proven to have been "ducked" by Floyd. These are boring YouTube comment section talking points that have been repeated literally hundreds of times. The man who beat the man is absolutely significant when discussing who a boxer didn't end up fighting. Floyd beat the people who beat these so called murderer's row of prime fighters he didn't face so it basically cancels itself out.

It would be like if Ali never fought Earnie Shavers, George Chuvalo, or Mac Foster. Ali beat Lyle who beat the crap out of Shavers. He beat Foreman who battered Chuvalo. He beat Quarry who demolished Foster. Boxing Historians wouldn't give a **** if Ali missed Shavers, Chuvalo, or Foster in the long run but for some reason the rules are different for Floyd.

The purpose of a boxing match (or any sport) is to defeat your opponent. If you are never defeated that is obviously significant and to suggest otherwise is asinine.

 

This doesn't really address my post tbh.

As I said he did fight someone good enough to beat him, Castillo.

The other guys I mentioned might have been good enough to beat Floyd but we won't know because they didn't fight.

But feel free to carry on with unrelated nonsense ranting.

 

I addressed everything you wrote and tore it apart. It was the typical "Floyd ducked Tszyu, Margarito, Williams, blah blah", Castillo got robbed, and a bunch of other unoriginal claims that have been debunked dozens of times.

The only one who posted nonsense was you when you said being undefeated doesn't mean you are great. Possibly the silliest claim I've seen in any sport discussion. You clearly missed the most basic premise of competition if you are claiming that.

Floyd never fought anyone good enough to beat him because he beat the best fighters in his divisions. Unless there's some boxer Im unaware of in the last 15 years who can match Floyd in skill and resume that he didn't fight?

 

Don't forget, Floyd fought Sharmba Mitchell before Judah, after Sharmba was KO's out of 140. Pointless to fight a blown up jrWW at WW.

 

To be fair, he didn't fight the best fighter at 140. Well, he eventually did....at 147.

 

When did I say he ducked those fighters or that Castillo was robbed?

Again I think you've got me confused with someone else.

What I said was retiring undefeated means you either got the benefit of close decisions or you didn't fight someone good enough to beat you.

I said Floyd did fight someone good enough to beat him, Castillo. I also said Margarito, Casamayor, Tszyu, Williams or Pacquiao might have been good enough to beat him but we don't know as the fights didn't come off.

So, again, take your nonsensical ranting elsewhere.

As for your claim that retiring undefeated is enough to make someone great, does that mean Ottke is a great? Or Menayothin? Of course it doesn't. Retiring undefeated just means the close fights went your way or you didn't fight someone who could beat you.

 

When you say you got the benefit of close decisions you are implying that the undefeated record isn't earned. That the judges happened to bail him out in a fight that "could have gone either way".

When you say he didn't fight someone good enough to beat you that's a jab at his competition.

Floyd never received a "gift" and he had excellent competition so both of your attempts to take him down a notch for being undefeated are nonsensical. He's great because he consistently fought at the world level for 2 decades and defeated more champions than any other boxer. Did Ottke and Menayothin consistently fight boxers as good as Mayweather's competition?

Do you say the same thing about Marciano's record?