Who's higher on your ATG list - MAYWEATHER or CALZAGHE??

pac's resume > floyd's resume simple. Yep, Pac losses to a past his prime Morales and gets a draw with a fighter who he knocks down 3 times in the 1st round? You can knock Floyd's wins over Gatti/Judah all you like, but be fair and critisize fighters the same way. Guy like yourselfs lose my respect when you post due to you being so biased. Be fair and critisize fighters the same way. This is why your posts are becoming so shit, because you single out fighters and critisize them.

nothing worng with being biased. i'm not a historian or writer. pac's resume shits on floyd's. true story. no actually that's not accurate

Floyd, but not by as far as some might think. Floyd's better in most ways technically and has fought more top competition. But then it was more available. Calzaghe was as a dis advantage in the SMW division in those years of it being average, whereas that's not so for some of Floyds divisions. Plus it's easier/more common to move up weight division down the lower classes. Calzaghe's natural weight was SMW, he became a 2 weight world champion, but stood no chance in really being more than a 3 weight champion, and even that's a push with his pysique at that weight. He became top where he could get to. But anyways, undoubtedly Floyd is higher ATG, for sure.

pac's resume > floyd's resume simple. lol all talk. no substance. just like floyd! i'm top 10 atg! :dance: Are you trying to define irony?

That is your responce~, I guess I should not have expected anything worth reading. lol all talk. no substance. just like floyd! i'm top 10 atg! :dance:

Does not really interest me. I told you, the arguements that you use against Floyd are the same I can use against Pacman. The same arguements can be used to pick apart a lot of fighters resumes. Hold people to the same standard, it really is not that hard to do~. pac's resume > floyd's resume simple.

respect fighters? for what? i nuthug the ones i like and i hate on those i don't. simple. That is your responce~, I guess I should not have expected anything worth reading.

you still here? go breakdown and destroy pac's resume for me. still waiting. Does not really interest me. I told you, the arguements that you use against Floyd are the same I can use against Pacman. The same arguements can be used to pick apart a lot of fighters resumes. Hold people to the same standard, it really is not that hard to do~.

i would never want to fight a 43 yr old hopkins me neither. i think 53 yr. old hopkins still beats a prime pavlik! lol

they both kinda took a safe road by picking the easier fights, or fighting certain fighters at the right time for them. but I rate Floyd higher because he is simply a better boxer than calzaghe.

Is that the best you have to offer? Come on people say you are so funny, you must be able to do better then that~. you still here? go breakdown and destroy pac's resume for me. still waiting.

Objectivity is an illusion, true objectivity is impossible. Knowing your biases and admitting the flaws in your reasoning is a good place to start with trying to be objective. We have been through this I gamble on boxing, so I think about it with my head I try to take my heart out of it, if i can not do that I can not be a succesful gambler. I already know you think about boxing with your heart, that is why we will never agree. Well not never, but the reason we come to a conclusion will always be vastly different. I generally try to respect fighters, if you showed more respect to fighters we would not have an issue. Even if I do think Pacquiao is over rated I still respect him, I do not go around talking shit about him in every thread about him (or make back handed compliments). I speak my mind, and I believe every word I say. respect fighters? for what? i nuthug the ones i like and i hate on those i don't. simple.

you better let it go. he'll breakdown your 3rd or 4th favorite fighter's resume down. be careful. he's objective. Is that the best you have to offer? Come on people say you are so funny, you must be able to do better then that~.

As you can see by the poll it is no contest

the prime issue is used too often to discredit pac's career. the only one it applies to really is morales. morales was clearly past. still very good though but clearly no longer his best. barrera was 29 yrs. old and was at the top when he first lost to pacquiao. marquez was 31 and his prime during their first fight as well. people make it seem like pacquiao fought a 43 yr. old hopkins or 40 yr. old roy or something. i would never want to fight a 43 yr old hopkins

people are rarely ever objective. people that make truly objective posts don't make any points imo. a truly objective post takes explaining both sides of an issue. you can't debate while taking both sides of an issue. i find guys that see themselves as objective are 1. not really objective and are full of it or 2. not really making a point but just agreeing with both sides. i'm a fan. supporting and hating is what being a fan is about. Objectivity is an illusion, true objectivity is impossible. Knowing your biases and admitting the flaws in your reasoning is a good place to start with trying to be objective. We have been through this I gamble on boxing, so I think about it with my head I try to take my heart out of it, if i can not do that I can not be a succesful gambler. I already know you think about boxing with your heart, that is why we will never agree. Well not never, but the reason we come to a conclusion will always be vastly different. I generally try to respect fighters, if you showed more respect to fighters we would not have an issue. Even if I do think Pacquiao is over rated I still respect him, I do not go around talking shit about him in every thread about him (or make back handed compliments). I speak my mind, and I believe every word I say.

Thats cool but beating fighters in their prime speaks more than beating them when they arnt in their prime. Not Pac's fault they were old when he fought them though. the prime issue is used too often to discredit pac's career. the only one it applies to really is morales. morales was clearly past. still very good though but clearly no longer his best. barrera was 29 yrs. old and was at the top when he first lost to pacquiao. marquez was 31 and his prime during their first fight as well. people make it seem like pacquiao fought a 43 yr. old hopkins or 40 yr. old roy or something.

Ok. Then just let it go. No offense. you better let it go. he'll breakdown your 3rd or 4th favorite fighter's resume down. be careful. he's objective.

Stalking you, LOL. When have I ever talked to you in the past, or said anything bad to you. You inserted yourself in our arguement and I am only talking to you in this thread. So how is that stalking, I ahve not made any effort to follow you around to other places? Way to overreact chief. I doubt I will talk to you for a while after this, but I am in this thread now so I will talk in it until I am through. Ok. Then just let it go. No offense.

What about Morales beating Pac, how you value that? Floyd's were in their prime besides you cant knock a guy because he has an easier time with good opponents, if anything you rate him higher for making it look so easy. a close loss to a great fighter is not really a loss imo. bernard lost to roy. how much does that hurt his legacy? it doesn't. it's easy to be a frontrunner and be undefeated. losing and picking yourself back up takes a lot of balls. what did bernard do after he lost? he picked himself back up and became an atg. that's balls. that's why i rate bernard higher than floyd and joe in this era. yeah floyd and joe are undefeated so what? i don't care about the 0. i care about resume. say what you want about the 160 division during hopkin's reign......but he fought EVERYBODY at 160 and whoever wanted to try to fight at 160.