ReggieDiggs wrote:
Grass is green. Sky is blue. Roses are red. I'm not arguing with you.
You're arguing that it doesn't matter that they didn't fight. It always matters, that's why fighters fight, to see who is better.
ReggieDiggs wrote:
Grass is green. Sky is blue. Roses are red. I'm not arguing with you.
It doesn't really though. Lennox didn't fight alot of guys. Riddick didn't fight alot of guys. Floyd & Manny didn't fight alot of guys. There are always guys you don't fight. We can compare them even if they didnt fight everyone or each other. We are comparing them right now even though they didnt fight or havent fought yet w/e the case maybe. Does it matter in regard to how things could have worked out? Well sure, but so does fighting or not fighting anyone else. If Floyd had fought Emanuel Clottey & Manny had fought Genaro Hernandez & the fights with Emanuel & Genaro with the other guy never took place things would need to be reaccessed somewhat just due to that if we are dick measuring Floyd & Manny. So obviously things would get reaccessed if Floyd & Manny fought, but if they don't fight people forget & eventually no one gives a sh!t. Jack Johnson didn't fight certain guys cuz of their race & he's still considered one of the best HW fighters of all time & if you think he's the only one who didnt fight other guys for this reason or that reason in the history of the sport til Floyd & Manny or Riddick & Lennox I got some ocean front property in Iowa I'd like to sell you for cheap.IKSRTFO wrote:ReggieDiggs wrote:
Grass is green. Sky is blue. Roses are red. I'm not arguing with you.
You're arguing that it doesn't matter that they didn't fight. It always matters, that's why fighters fight, to see who is better.
ReggieDiggs wrote:It doesn't really though. Lennox didn't fight alot of guys. Riddick didn't fight alot of guys. Floyd & Manny didn't fight alot of guys. There are always guys you don't fight. We can compare them even if they didnt fight everyone or each other. We are comparing them right now even though they didnt fight or havent fought yet w/e the case maybe. Does it matter in regard to how things could have worked out? Well sure, but so does fighting or not fighting anyone else. If Floyd had fought Emanuel Clottey & Manny had fought Genaro Hernandez & the fights with Emanuel & Genaro with the other guy never took place things would need to be reaccessed somewhat just due to that if we are dick measuring Floyd & Manny. So obviously things would get reaccessed if Floyd & Manny fought, but if they don't fight people forget & eventually no one gives a sh!t. Jack Johnson didn't fight certain guys cuz of their race & he's still considered one of the best HW fighters of all time & if you think he's the only one who didnt fight other guys for this reason or that reason in the history of the sport til Floyd & Manny or Riddick & Lennox I got some ocean front property in Iowa I'd like to sell you for cheap.IKSRTFO wrote:ReggieDiggs wrote:
Grass is green. Sky is blue. Roses are red. I'm not arguing with you.
You're arguing that it doesn't matter that they didn't fight. It always matters, that's why fighters fight, to see who is better.
You're assuming a result not just a fight. If Butterbean had KO'd Tyson in 95 he'd had gotten quite the bump up in this eras ranking too. What I'm saying is fight or no fight you're gonna get ranked. OF COURSE beating or losing to this guy or that guy can raise or lower you in "atg" silly ass discussions, but you don't fight everyone any way so whats it really matter. Maybe Lionel Butler would have KO'd Lennox. The possibilities of could have beens are endless.IKSRTFO wrote: If Riddick Bowe would've beaten Lennox Lewis, you're saying it would not have mattered being he would've probably been elevated to being the best of his era?
But you'll never be the best without doubt unless you beat the best.ReggieDiggs wrote:You're assuming a result not just a fight. If Butterbean had KO'd Tyson in 95 he'd had gotten quite the bump up in this eras ranking too. What I'm saying is fight or no fight you're gonna get ranked. OF COURSE beating or losing to this guy or that guy can raise or lower you in "atg" silly ass discussions, but you don't fight everyone any way so whats it really matter. Maybe Lionel Butler would have KO'd Lennox. The possibilities of could have beens are endless.IKSRTFO wrote: If Riddick Bowe would've beaten Lennox Lewis, you're saying it would not have mattered being he would've probably been elevated to being the best of his era?
Actually thats incorrect. Thats not how rankings work. Someone gots to be #1 regardless if he "beat the best" he may just have beaten better guys than the rest. And lets be real, rankings are always subjective & never without doubt.IKSRTFO wrote:But you'll never be the best without doubt unless you beat the best.ReggieDiggs wrote:You're assuming a result not just a fight. If Butterbean had KO'd Tyson in 95 he'd had gotten quite the bump up in this eras ranking too. What I'm saying is fight or no fight you're gonna get ranked. OF COURSE beating or losing to this guy or that guy can raise or lower you in "atg" silly ass discussions, but you don't fight everyone any way so whats it really matter. Maybe Lionel Butler would have KO'd Lennox. The possibilities of could have beens are endless.IKSRTFO wrote: If Riddick Bowe would've beaten Lennox Lewis, you're saying it would not have mattered being he would've probably been elevated to being the best of his era?
ReggieDiggs wrote:
Actually thats incorrect. Thats not how rankings work. Someone gots to be #1 regardless if he "beat the best" he may just have beaten better guys than the rest. And lets be real, rankings are always subjective & never without doubt.
Those 30 for 30 guys are f#cking champs, they could make a 30 for 30 about that time Andrew Six Heads sh!t his trunks or almost did or whatever. I don't give a damn about anything cept for boxing & MMA & they can get me watching sh!t about golf or Olympic fake sports bs.IKSRTFO wrote: But to the original point the mainstream fans didn't even notice at the time that Bowe or Lewis never fought. You say Mayweather or Pacquiao to anyone and that question is always asked.
Trust me, 20 years from now they'll still ask why those Pacquiao and Floyd never fought. I can imagine an ESPN 30 for 30/HBO/Showtime documentary being made about it.
Devon doesn't have quite the same resume first off. Having said that ALL Atg threads are kinda to complete bs whenever they go up.Lackeos wrote:I think it's ridiculous that two days after Mayweather beats Marcos Maidana, someone makes a thread calling him the greatest of all time. I don't remember anyone Devon Alexander getting that kind of hype after beating Maidana.
Lackeos wrote:I think it's ridiculous that two days after Mayweather beats Marcos Maidana, someone makes a thread calling him the greatest of all time. I don't remember anyone Devon Alexander getting that kind of hype after beating Maidana.
Dude, if there was a documentary about Andrew Six Heads sh!tting his trunks, I would pay to watch it at the theater.ReggieDiggs wrote:Those 30 for 30 guys are f#cking champs, they could make a 30 for 30 about that time Andrew Six Heads sh!t his trunks or almost did or whatever. I don't give a damn about anything cept for boxing & MMA & they can get me watching sh!t about golf or Olympic fake sports bs.IKSRTFO wrote: But to the original point the mainstream fans didn't even notice at the time that Bowe or Lewis never fought. You say Mayweather or Pacquiao to anyone and that question is always asked.
Trust me, 20 years from now they'll still ask why those Pacquiao and Floyd never fought. I can imagine an ESPN 30 for 30/HBO/Showtime documentary being made about it.
And I mean yea people who are 15-50yrs old right now will be like "I wish that fight would(a) happened" in the future just like now & in 2010, but in 20 years some of us will be dead or not following the sport & there will be a lot of new fans like the ones we have around here right now today who know f#ck all about Riddick vs Lennox or Julio Cesar Chavez or how thick in the air Tyson's destructiveness & seemingly unbeatableness was. Some cats here today don't hardly even know sh!t about Ricardo Lopez or Pernell Whitaker. That trend will continue & 20 years from now there will be plenty of guys who know f#ck all about Floyd vs Manny, Andre Ward or how thick in the air Adrien Broner's awkwardness & obnixiousness was.
I imagine the facts of why it didnt happen will be much more clear 20 years from now when Manny & Floyd come out with their biographies & tell all books on the dynamics of the time get brought forth more clearly so it'll likely be more understood & more forgivable (w/e side you may take now with incomplete information) by boxing fans the realities of why it didnt get done.
i hear what you're saying. it is not the qualityLackeos wrote:I think it's ridiculous that two days after Mayweather beats Marcos Maidana, someone makes a thread calling him the greatest of all time. I don't remember anyone Devon Alexander getting that kind of hype after beating Maidana.
OK, other than Pac and Margarito, how has Floyd not fought the best out there? Look at who he's beaten:FloydtheDuck wrote:dumbest thread ever-
like saying the Harlem Globetrotters are the best basketball team ever.
it's all about opposition
if you dont challenge yourself, and take on the best out there, nobody gives a crap
there are good arguments against him being GOAT,fergusg wrote:Over the course of 20 months (from 1979 to 1981), Sugar Ray Leonard competed in seven world title fights, winning titles in two weight divisions and becoming the undisputed welterweight champion. Some of the opponents he faced during this golden 20-month period include victories against all-time-greats like Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran (faced him twice) and Thomas Hearns.![]()
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that Floyd Mayweather Jr. has never had such an aggressive schedule against such a high calibre of opposition!
+shane + oscarVG_Addict wrote:OK, other than Pac and Margarito, how has Floyd not fought the best out there? Look at who he's beaten:FloydtheDuck wrote:dumbest thread ever-
like saying the Harlem Globetrotters are the best basketball team ever.
it's all about opposition
if you dont challenge yourself, and take on the best out there, nobody gives a crap
Hatton
G. Hernandez
Manfredy
Marquez
Canelo
Guerrero
Corrales
Castillo
Cotto
Judah
Maidana
None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.VG_Addict wrote:OK, other than Pac and Margarito, how has Floyd not fought the best out there? Look at who he's beaten:FloydtheDuck wrote:dumbest thread ever-
like saying the Harlem Globetrotters are the best basketball team ever.
it's all about opposition
if you dont challenge yourself, and take on the best out there, nobody gives a crap
Hatton
G. Hernandez
Manfredy
Marquez
Canelo
Guerrero
Corrales
Castillo
Cotto
Judah
Maidana
great point and one can certainly see it like that.IKSRTFO wrote:None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.
man wrote:great point and one can certainly see it like that.IKSRTFO wrote:None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.
but my case is more build on how he beats people.
i dare say never in the sport did the leading boxer
of his era even come close to be so dominating. the
way he caught the very hand that hurt him against
shane was just unheard of IMHO.
now does his opposition hold up to the fabs? no, it
doesn't. but when did we ever see one fighter who
had so little real trouble with opponents? truth is
it is a mild sensation if any real shot lands on him.
Who he is dominating is the problem. Had he taken on any great prime fighter his case would be stronger. He has taken on what, 5 sure fire hall-of-famers (Cotto, De La Hoya, Mosley, Gatti and Marquez), and none were at there best.man wrote:great point and one can certainly see it like that.IKSRTFO wrote:None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.
but my case is more build on how he beats people.
i dare say never in the sport did the leading boxer
of his era even come close to be so dominating. the
way he caught the very hand that hurt him against
shane was just unheard of IMHO.
now does his opposition hold up to the fabs? no, it
doesn't. but when did we ever see one fighter who
had so little real trouble with opponents? truth is
it is a mild sensation if any real shot lands on him.