BoxRec

Chepppaaa wrote:KBB acting like a di....

nothing has change since my long layoff

And you're being the same dumb ass you've always been, nothing has changed with you.

KBB wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:KBB acting like a di....

nothing has change since my long layoff

And you're being the same dumb ass you've always been, nothing has changed with you.

dont talk to me like that, I am a official member of TMT, know your place.

Listen, I have been rooting hard for Floyd's opponents for years because I want to see this guy lose so badly. But if he beats Manny as soundly as I think that he will on May 2nd then you can crumple up your old list of fighters and the most recent fighter lists you have and toss them in the trashcan because Floyd Mayweather Jr will be the best fighter in the history of the sport. I'm talking HISTORY. Then you can start arguing about 2-9 best in history.

Some people will argue that certain fighters were more dominant in periods of time before they ended up losing. Well, good for you. Yeah Roy Jones Jr was great for a 4 year period in time and Mike Tyson was deadly when he was 21. How can you give more credit to fighters that had 2, maybe 3 years, at the top of the sport over a guy that has been champion since 1998? Floyd Mayweather Jr. In an era where athletes are bigger, faster, stronger than ever in history. Let's not even mention that it's also the steroid era. Undefeated. It's really crazy to think someone can be this good.

He wins in every category available. Another measure to use when considering greatness that people fail to consider is total money earned. When you think about it, that should be considered highly when determining who the best ever was. Sure they are in it to win titles but these are PRIZE FIGHTERS. The reason most get into the sport is to make money, why else would you risk your life every time in the ring? This guy has just dwarfed the field in terms of profit. Even if you account for inflation, no one in any era has been more profitable or even close to FMJ. So put em all together...money....wins...ability...track record. He's the best. You could always argue that he's way too selective with his opponents and didn't take on ALL comers. I will give you that but IMO, it really doesn't matter. No one can touch this guy and no one ever has. I hate it, believe me, but if he dominates Manny then we will be forced to eat our hat and give the man his due. If he loses, then we have a whole new can of worms to dissect.

20 years down the road the winner of this fight will be held in top 10 if not top 5 ATG status.
We might not agree now but history will paint it as such.

verballistic wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:20 years down the road the winner of this fight will be held in top 10 if not top 5 ATG status.
We might not agree now but history will paint it as such.

Agreed. Personally I put the winner of Pac-Floyd just ahead of Duran (around 8-9), Roberto was an alltime great, but he lost almost every major fight that he had at the higher weights. Both Pac & Floyd have had far better success in their weight-climbing exploits than Duran ever did.

Both of these +1!!

KBB wrote:

verballistic wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:20 years down the road the winner of this fight will be held in top 10 if not top 5 ATG status.
We might not agree now but history will paint it as such.

Agreed. Personally I put the winner of Pac-Floyd just ahead of Duran (around 8-9), Roberto was an alltime great, but he lost almost every major fight that he had at the higher weights. Both Pac & Floyd have had far better success in their weight-climbing exploits than Duran ever did.

Both of these +1!!

Not arguing with any of you, regards the merits of either fighter in the ATG list

But who do you think would win if
1. Prime lightweight Duran fought Mayweather or Pacquiao at Lightweight? (lets say the 2002 mayweather that fought Castillo & it would have to be the 2008 Pac that fought Diaz as he flew threw LW)
2. Who do you think would win if 1980 welterweight Duran who beat Leonard fought say the 2007 Mayweather who face Hatton or the 2009 Pacquiao who beat Cotto? (IMO their respective "primes")

**I suspect if I post this in the boxers of the past forum the answer will be fairly predictable**

davie wrote:Not arguing with any of you, regards the merits of either fighter in the ATG list

But who do you think would win if
1. Prime lightweight Duran fought Mayweather or Pacquiao at Lightweight? (lets say the 2002 mayweather that fought Castillo & it would have to be the 2008 Pac that fought Diaz as he flew threw LW)
2. Who do you think would win if 1980 welterweight Duran who beat Leonard fought say the 2007 Mayweather who face Hatton or the 2009 Pacquiao who beat Cotto? (IMO their respective "primes")

**I suspect if I post this in the boxers of the past forum the answer will be fairly predictable**

I think both of them would've beaten Duran (and I'm from that era), contrary to the mythical belief that all of these guys from way back when were so great and basically unbeatable in comparison to some of today's fighters I do not always hold that in esteem.

Duran proved to be very hittable, look what SRL and Hearns was able to do to him; Manny is very athletic and fast and he has as much power as Roberto too so I'd give him a better than average chance of beating Duran. Floyd is better skilled than Hearns defensively and though not as offensive-minded as Tommy I still believe that if SRL was able to frustrate the Hands of Stone then Mayweather would've made it look just as frustrating if not more.

The problem you'll have in debates like this is that people only go with their favorites, I love the way Duran fought and I'm a huge fan of his and especially of Tommy Hearns but I don't feel Floyd would've been able to beat Tommy no more so than I feel that Pacquiao would've beaten him either.

I can see Hearns winning by decision vs Mayweather and by possible KO vs Manny due to Pac's offensive nature and sometimes reckless aggression that leaves him open for hard shots.

JCS wrote:Dempsey at #10? Holy lord.

Dempsey is so overated. How can any sane man have him above Marvin Hagler or Sugar Ray Leanord on a pound for pound list?

Dempsey was a tough brawler but not much else.

Mayweather will never go down as the best ever because of his timing when he finally accepted some of his biggest challenge's especially Mosely and this fight that should or would have been made
a long time ago if it was Duran/Leonard/Hearns the dust would have settled years ago on their first meeting and we'd be talking about fights 2 and 3, but if he beat a monster who's in his prime right now like GGG that would help cement his legacy more than any victory out there unless he ko's Pacman in spectacular fashion even though i'v got to be fair to Mayweather and say that he came up from a lighter weight than Leonard and Hearns even Duran who was lightweight champ Mayweather has moved up from jr lightweight as for Pacman his legacy won't be tarnished has much if he losses a competive and maybe even a one sided fight because he has come up from flyweight all the way to the jr middleweight world tittle something never thought possible me included that will go down with[ Foreman winning the world heavyweight tittle 20 years apart/Sugar Ray Robinson winning the middleweight tittle 5 time's and B-Hop beating men half his age ]

KBB wrote:

stevedoc wrote:If Floyd wins it won't make that much difference for him as Manny clearly isn't the fighter he was 5 years ago if Manny wins he will be a top ten if not top 5/7 fighter around the Duran, Leonard level

LOL at the double standards in this post!!

Wow this is some incredible crap to say, and to think all of us let him get away with stating this garbage. Shame of Boxrec's Boxing Fans, shame!!

why is it double standard to say that
opponents are at different levels in
their careers and therefore a win or
loss has different impact on assessing
them.

beating ali is nothing larry holmes gets
credit for, but goodness, how different
would it be for ali's legacy had he been
able to pull off a miracle.

forcefraser wrote:

JCS wrote:Dempsey at #10? Holy lord.

Dempsey is so overated. How can any sane man have him above Marvin Hagler or Sugar Ray Leanord on a pound for pound list?

Dempsey was a tough brawler but not much else.

to me the board is very rationale at large,
but the praise of dempsey never fails to
surprise me.

man wrote:

KBB wrote:

stevedoc wrote:If Floyd wins it won't make that much difference for him as Manny clearly isn't the fighter he was 5 years ago if Manny wins he will be a top ten if not top 5/7 fighter around the Duran, Leonard level

LOL at the double standards in this post!!

Wow this is some incredible crap to say, and to think all of us let him get away with stating this garbage. Shame of Boxrec's Boxing Fans, shame!!

why is it double standard to say that
opponents are at different levels in
their careers and therefore a win or
loss has different impact on assessing
them.

beating ali is nothing larry holmes gets
credit for, but goodness, how different
would it be for ali's legacy had he been
able to pull off a miracle.

if ali had beaten holmes i think he might have been considerd the greatest athlete of the 20 century.
cant work out which post is the most stupid yours or stevedoc, i'll go with a draw your both equally pointless.

Has anyone said "Under five-foot seven" yet?

Like it or not, fair or not, the winner will be considered the better of the two.

Both men will be considered ATGs and this fight isn't going to change that.

I know there are some who will say the winner is the GOAT or one of them but, as someone who saw SRL, Hearns, Duran, and Benitez fight at 147, I would have serious problems with such a claim.

meahdem wrote:

man wrote:

stevedoc wrote:If Floyd wins it won't make that much difference for him as Manny clearly isn't the fighter he was 5 years ago if Manny wins he will be a top ten if not top 5/7 fighter around the Duran, Leonard level

if ali had beaten holmes i think he might have been considerd the greatest athlete of the 20 century.
cant work out which post is the most stupid yours or stevedoc, i'll go with a draw your both equally pointless.

WTF you talking about? How is my post pointless when the man clearly presented a double standard, maybe your level of comprehension in regards to what he stated is limited because if you think it is pointless.

Mayweather will never go down as the best ever because of his timing when he finally accepted some of his biggest challenge's especially Mosely and this fight that should or would have been made

So according to what you stated in bold then Manny should never go down as the best ever because he fought many of the same big challenges after Mayweather did.

i was referring to the posts made by man and steve doc. not you kbb.
i was making an attempt at sarcasm which i clearly failed at, what would ali's legacy be if he beat holmes concidering he's already the most renowned fighter in the history of the sport, i think its a bonkers thing to say. and to say historically that mayweather will get no credit for beating a fighter of the stature of manny is equally stupid.

meahdem wrote:

man wrote:

KBB wrote:LOL at the double standards in this post!!

Wow this is some incredible crap to say, and to think all of us let him get away with stating this garbage. Shame of Boxrec's Boxing Fans, shame!!

why is it double standard to say that
opponents are at different levels in
their careers and therefore a win or
loss has different impact on assessing
them.

beating ali is nothing larry holmes gets
credit for, but goodness, how different
would it be for ali's legacy had he been
able to pull off a miracle.

if ali had beaten holmes i think he might have been considerd the greatest athlete of the 20 century.
cant work out which post is the most stupid yours or stevedoc, i'll go with a draw your both equally pointless.

ahem, that was precisely my point ...

man wrote:

meahdem wrote: if ali had beaten holmes i think he might have been considerd the greatest athlete of the 20 century.
cant work out which post is the most stupid yours or stevedoc, i'll go with a draw your both equally pointless.

ahem, that was precisely my point ...

I fear you're too subtle for these boards, mate.