Why do we say "he fought no one" to boxers that are HIGHLY skillful?

i believe toney was the favorite going into the fight with roy jones. that was rjj's first foray into the 168lbs division...and he absolutely dismantled a fighter that was regarded as top 3 lb for lb material

 

I think thats the only time when jones wasnt the favourite, when we look untill the second tarver fight.
Now we only need to know when floyd wasnt.

 

When you stack those skilled fighters up against say, SRR, SRL, and Ali, the comparison looks quite bad in terms of the difference in competition level. Floyd hasn't fought his biggest rival(Pacquiao) and Roy didn't either(Michalczewski). They are regarded as two of the best fighters of this era from an overall perspective, but they just don't stack up well measuring their competition against the above names. Doesn't mean they're not great fighters, but the criticism is valid to an extent. They have fought nobody in comparison to some other all-time great fighters.

 

thats a good question but realistically outside of maybe pual williams who could floyd have faught that he wouldn't have been the favorite against from 130-147

 

I stopped reading right there.

 

great post :thumbsup

 

would floyd have been the fav vs margarito after the cotto fight? In that case maybe only paul indeed.

 

These are risk vs reward fighters.

They hedge their bets as to look invincible and keep their allure.

It'd be like Leonard never fighting hearns or duran, but smacking the **** out of benitez and saying 'i'm so great, I won a title' and then fighting a bunch of b- or b fighters while looking invincible.

Would anyone have expected leonard to get outboxed by Hearns for almost every round and then get a come from behind KO?

Those are the risk taking champions of yesteryear.

Oscar was the last one in it for major legacy. Pacquiao luckily cemented his legacy before he became a household name with barrera, morales and marquez.

Mayweather's coming out party was Oscar, after that.............

 

people are always looking to discredit people they don't like. that's why hopkins reign as middle weight champ is underrated. he fought live competition, which is more than can be said about a lot of champions. the comp may not always be elite, but a live and game fighter is better than a walking stiff with gloves and a pot belly.

 

We say they fought "no one", because they made the opponent look like "no one" or mediocre.

Manny Pacquaio is just recently great for about 5-6 years since Barrera, Then theres Floyds fights that are not even close except the fight vs Castillo1, domination for 14 years.

We can base it on who they fought, who they ducked whatever, but remember the opponent is also trying to take their head off. But then we also have to look at negotiation clauses, weights, whats a fair or unfair advantages, and if they're coming off loses and if they have a chance to win at all. But nowadays the fights are for the money.

Theres the Miami Heat, been on a winning streak and everyone is saying they're on track to win it all, but fail to see they have beat teams under .500 on their winning streak.

 

Tends to happen with every popular fighter who've made opponents look second rate, not just the black ones. Pac and Klits today, Mayweather and RJJ before them, Tyson at his peak..they were too good for their own good. Seems to me fighters need close fights, they don't even have to be wars, for them to get any credit..see Ray Leonard, Duran.

 

I was thinking this was a decent thread til I read that line. atsch

 

you cant say that to roy jones....to floyd MAYBE you can....