Who's legacy is greater ODLH or PBF?

Nope.

I merely have eyes and a brain, therefore I can the clear improvements in Pacquiao since '03/05.

Your fanboy absurdity has never been more clear than when you cite 'bias' for me saying Floyd was as good as 24 as he is at 34.

So thinking that Floyd, like RJJ and SRL, was an exceptionally skilled, mature, mentally strong, adaptable and athletic fighter by the time he rose to world title level means I am biased against Floyd??!

Think about it. You're an obsessive fanboy moron if you believe that me thinking the superfeather/light Floyd was the best Floyd ever equals bias. That claim makes no sense whatsoever.

That doesn't make sense either.

How could someone the size of Mosley be fighting at 130?! Think about it. Really dumb comment.

And as I've told you before, don't get carried away by that fight. Mosley was very old, very rusty, and got very tired very quickly. If Floyd had done that to a prime guy Mosley's size, I'd be impressed too. But he didn't.

Nah. A 24 year old who has been a world champion for 4 years is not a "kid". That's a dumb comment too.

Ivan Calderon was the best minimumweight of his era. So that makes him a "beast" then, purely because he was the best of his era?

Yet another dumb comment. You're not doing too well today, are you?!

The welterweight/lightmiddleweight Felix Trinidad was a "beast".

The lightweight/welterweight Shane Mosley was a "beast".

Castillo wasn't.

My opinions are far more educated and informed than your own. The evidence can be found in this very thread.

I think everyone/anyone can, considering there is no part of boxrec which rates skill and/or athleticism.

You're losing it.

Floyd Mayweather's physical prime was 2001 as I see it. He may have looked as good beating up Gatti as he did beating up Corrales, but the version of Corrales he beat was a better fighter than the version of Gatti he beat. Floyd's speed, movement, sharpness and power were outstanding against Corrales. I maintain that was his absolute peak. Gatti would've made any quick fighter look supernatural that night, he was well past his sell-by date.

Wow. What a seasoned, mature, rational boxing analyst you are.

You blew your load watching your favourite fighter beat up a can, and so that automatically means that was the best version of Floyd ever.

Even though everyone with a brain accepts Floyd's best weight was 130.

All I can say is -

Hmmmm. Only one problem with that theory, Professor: I'm not actually saying anything like that.

If you read back the posts of mine which you have responded to, you will see many references to how Floyd has changed/evolved/developed due to increasing weight and age, and many references to how Floyd has remained effective.

You will see no references to Floyd going "downhill".

It's a tired old tactic, trying to change someone's argument for them to make it easier for yourself, but one which is easily identified. You have failed.

Floyd Mayweather has not gone "downhill" at all. He has changed as a fighter over the years, but has remained very, very effective. However, is the current version with decreased footspeed as good as the guy who was arguably the greatest superfeatherweight ever (along with Arguello & Chavez)? No.

Fighters don't hit their peak at aged 34 after being at world title level for 13 years. atsch

Nah.

The sfw Floyd simply had a different mentality from the current version of Floyd.

The sfw Floyd liked to fight more than the current version. OK, he was never exactly Roberto Duran in that regard, but the younger Floyd was a bit more courageous, a bit more adventurous.

Yes, he got hit a lot by Jesus Chavez, but that was clearly because Floyd wanted to beat him at his own game and so fought him in a phone booth when he didn't have to. Once Floyd changed his tactics to a smarter fight, he beat the **** out of Chavez.

If he wanted to fight like that the entire fight, he easily could have.

(it seems like I actually rate Floyd Mayweather more highly than you do!) :nut

But his footspeed and punching power have decreased, so it's swings and roundabouts.


Look at it this way - you think a 130lbs Floyd has to settle for a UD against a much smaller, lighter, older, slower man the way that the 150lbs Floyd did with JMM?

Please. The younger, hungrier, faster, more powerful Floyd would've buried someone he had those advantages over. Buried. :deal

Hang on, I thought Floyd beat Castillo?!

atsch

Another dumb point.

"Smaller opponents" doesn't make sense, that's as stupid as your point about there being no superfeathers as big as Shane Mosley.

All size is relative, mongtard.

When Floyd fought at 130, he was a superfeather fighting other superfeathers.

When Floyd fights at 147 now, he is a welter fighting other welters (well, except Mitchell, Hatton and Marquez).

When Floyd fought good superfeathers, he had a very good stoppage rate (Corrales, Hernandez, Manfredy, etc).

When Floyd has fought welters, his stoppage rate is not impressive (he should have got both Marquez and Judah out of there).

Your main problem seems to be that you feel the need to pretend that Floyd is better than EVERYBODY at EVERYTHING. :-(

Perhaps if you grew the **** up a little, debating with you would be worthwhile.

But as things stand, it isn't.

Vernon Forrest was bigger, longer and stronger than Floyd Mayweather, and had a much better jab.

And these were precisely the aspects of Forrest's game which gave Mosley so much problems.

If you reduce all of those advantages, you swing everything more in Mosley's favour.

Mosley had severe trouble with a big, tall, long, strong fighter. So putting him in with a smaller, shorter, weaker fighter with an inferior jab would obviously remove a lot of what troubled Mosley.

It's, er, not rocket science.

Er...

I think it's pretty obvious we both know the truth about their 1st fight. :smoke

 

Any more whining excuses, or is it just the two for today?

ODLH clearly, clearly deserved the decisions vs Tito and vs Mosley II.

Therefore, he achieved not one but two victories which far, far exceed any achieved by Floyd Mayweather ever.

Floyd does not have as good a jab as Oscar. Nor does he have Oscar's punching power or size. Arguably, he can't match him for strength or chin either.

Swings and roundabouts once again.

And did you see Pacquiao using his right hand as much vs Marquez and in the preceding fights as he does today, or do you just base all your opinions on interviews?

Open your eyes and actually watch boxing.

If Pacquiao got his "ass kicked" by Marquez, then Floyd got "dominated" in the 1st Castillo fight, and "outfought" by a years past his best ODLH.

You're a moron.

Miguel Cotto is a "plodder"?

Pacquiao went 3-1-1 against Marquez and Morales, and that was before he developed his right hand, his footwork, and his counterpunching skills.

Deal with it.

Again, we are confronting your very teenage, novice mindset when it comes to boxing. I get the distinct impression you are about 14, and have seen Legendary Nights and a few Floyd Mayweather fights on dvd.

Yes, "styles make fights", but only up to a point. Obviously not every single fighter who tenuously conforms to a certain blanket style automatically defeats every single fighter who is said to have a problem with that style, otherwise we'd all be billionaires from betting on the most predictable sport in the world.

Many people (wrongly) said Roberto Duran had a problem with 'boxers', because he lost to two of the most skilled boxers of the modern era who were also naturally bigger than him (SRL & Benitez). But are you telling me that because of this apparent 'stylistic issue', that any old outboxer could've beaten Duran? Could Paulie Malignaggi have done so?!

Of course not. Styles make fights only up to a point. Quality cannot be overlooked.

Shane Mosley lost to boxers who had great jabs and were clearly naturally bigger than him in Forrest and Winky. That does NOT mean that any outboxer with a decent defence would have him on toast.

The very idea that the current version of Sergio Mora could live with a 2000-era Shane Mosley is utterly, utterly ridiculous and disgraceful. :deal

:huh Except handspeed, punching power, footspeed and size.

We all saw how much the physicality of Jose Luis Castillo troubled Floyd, but then in the rematch Castillo couldn't catch the roadrunner.

Shane Mosley would. And when he did, Floyd ain't shrugging him off like he did Ricky Hatton.

If an ancient Mosley could give Floyd the spaghetti legs, I would bet my home on a prime, fired-up Mosley doing better.

nut:nut

This is getting worse.

Do you remember the kind of footspeed that the 2000 Shane Mosley had?!

Do you acknowledge that Floyd of 2011 does not have the same footspeed as he used to?

There's no way that this version of Floyd would be able to have the choice of whether to "stand and trade" with Shane or not, Shane would be able to hunt him down no matter where Floyd wanted to fight, because he covered distance faster.

I think Floyd struggles with a good jab. Quartey had an ATG jab. That fight would pose problems for Floyd, no doubt about it.

Obviously you don't think it would because you think that Floyd would never drop a round to any fighter in history, but to those of us who enjoy analysing boxing, a fighter like Quartey would give Floyd a very difficult evening.

Pea would always be Floyd's nightmare opponent. The jab, the southpaw stance, the variety, the reflexes, the mentality, the heart, the chin. 1993 Pea embarrasses Floyd, 1997 Pea still beats him clearly despite a few sticky spots.

Stop.

Did you?

Anyway, the fans know what happened in that fight. :good

Older, lower workrate, slower footspeed, poorer offence, poorer power.

There is no justification whatsoever for saying he has "drastically" better defence or boxing intellect.

If Floyd fought Hopkins, Tito, Mosley(x2), Quartey and Pacquiao, he would lose more than one fight. :smoke