What's better: Beating Faded Greats? Or Beating Prime Mediocres?

damnit, i picked shotes and past it greats because i didn't see that mediocre was also in a category with / good i would change my vote now that i saw the "Good" fighter a "good" prime fighter is always a tough test past prime fighters sometimes don't even try or cant take advantage if they do try

sweet mother mary you morons are getting dumber each and every day. it obviously depends on how faded and great they are. KTFO of Roy Jones at this point obviously wouldnt mean as much as beating someone like Marco Huck, who is mediocre but obviously still better than Roy at this point. conversely beating someone like Hopkins who is very obviously faded is still better than beating a prime Pascal, who is so mediocre and flawed that even faded Hopkins is still a better achievement. STOP BEING SO ****ING GENERALISTIC AND RETARDED. do you ****ing people even watch boxing? youre all ****ing stupid morons. and incidently you retarded thread starter, Pacquiao's wins over old ass shot Mosley, DLH and Morales are all worse than Floyd's wins over prime Castillo and Corrales. On the other hand, Pacquiao's first win over Barrera is better than any single win that Mayweather has, and his second win over Barrera is just as good or better than Mayweather's win over Corrales. stop being such a ****ing moron. I agree man, atlest you seem to know boxing, BOTH fighters have there flaws.

sweet mother mary you morons are getting dumber each and every day. it obviously depends on how faded and great they are. KTFO of Roy Jones at this point obviously wouldnt mean as much as beating someone like Marco Huck, who is mediocre but obviously still better than Roy at this point. conversely beating someone like Hopkins who is very obviously faded is still better than beating a prime Pascal, who is so mediocre and flawed that even faded Hopkins is still a better achievement. STOP BEING SO ****ING GENERALISTIC AND RETARDED. do you ****ing people even watch boxing? youre all ****ing stupid morons. and incidently you retarded thread starter, Pacquiao's wins over old ass shot Mosley, DLH and Morales are all worse than Floyd's wins over prime Castillo and Corrales. On the other hand, Pacquiao's first win over Barrera is better than any single win that Mayweather has, and his second win over Barrera is just as good or better than Mayweather's win over Corrales. stop being such a ****ing moron.

How is barrera faded when pac fought him? Morales II was still good(did u see Morales go to war against maidana?), Marquez was prime as can be when pac fought him 2 times. Pac ****s on Floyd's resume. It's not even close. 77% agree with you.

How is barrera faded when pac fought him? Morales II was still good(did u see Morales go to war against maidana?), Marquez was prime as can be when pac fought him 2 times. Pac ****s on Floyd's resume. It's not even close.

Dumb thread......Floyd beats "Prime mediocres" and "Faded greats" which means his resume is greater. Floyd beat two of those "faded greats" on manny's list who were titlist, a full year younger, one at his natural weight before Manny fought them. You think it's a coincidence that everyone manny beats always retire? No, it's because they already had one foot out the door. damn flomo...just damn lol

Pacquiao's resumé is built on beating faded and out of prime greats. e.g. Mosley, DLH, Barrera, Morales, Marquez Floyd's resumé is built on beating prime mediocre to good fighters. e.g. Judah, Baldomir, Hatton, Corley, Corrales, Castillo, etc. Which holds more prestige down the line historically speaking? Dumb thread......Floyd beats "Prime mediocres" and "Faded greats" which means his resume is greater. Floyd beat two of those "faded greats" on manny's list who were titlist, a full year younger, one at his natural weight before Manny fought them. You think it's a coincidence that everyone manny beats always retire? No, it's because they already had one foot out the door.

would be a more worthy topic without the involvement of Floyd and Manny, cause the characterizations of some of the fighters are stretching the categories you are trying to force them into.

u 4got 2 nclude sergio "maravagina" martinez's speciality: beating faded mediocre eurobums n japanese fishermen. lol this thread has nothing to do with maravilla and quite frankly he's no where near the level of either Floyd or Pac on a historical ATG basis

They both beat over the hill greats and prime good fighters. This thread is silly.

Pacquiao's resumé is built on beating faded and out of prime greats. e.g. Mosley, DLH, Barrera, Morales, Marquez Floyd's resumé is built on beating prime mediocre to good fighters. e.g. Judah, Baldomir, Hatton, Corley, Corrales, Castillo, etc. Which holds more prestige down the line historically speaking? Pac did beat Barrera and Morrales, Mosley and other older fighters. Corrales undefeated knockout artist that after the Floyd loss won other very exciting fights and IMO is better than average. Couldve used a more effective jab and used his height behind the jab during hiw whole career, but never ducked anyone and fought to the finish. Hatton undefeated and everyone said Floyd wouldnt fight him because of his pressure style, under-rated athleticism but his defense was questionable at best. Got totally after Floyd figured him out and was never the same fighter. Baldomir beat Judah and got a gift decision against Clottey but lets bee real he is over-rated. Judah talented but stamina is questionable and had some good moments early against Floyd but after he was figured out and got tired turned into a punching bag quickly. Delahoya fight was at 154 and Oscar was the biggest draw in the sport and the bigger man. This was a close fight but clearly won by Floyd after Oscar faded as usual down the stretch. Good fight for Floyd though because he fought Delahoya at a weight he was comfortable at although a shell of himself. Baasically not the weight dreained fighter with IV marks in his arm like he was for the PAC fight. Mosley although not the same young bull he once was had been ducked by Manny and Cotto wouldnt give him a rematch of there highly disputed decision. Floyd finally got the matched he asked for years earlier after they both supposedly ducked each other. This was a good win for Floyd after Mosley had derailed the Margarito express and called out Pacquaio and even said he would go down to 142 for a fight. He even went as far as going to Freddie Roaches gym to request a fight and Roach flat out said NO, because Mosley was too good and said he wouldnt fight him at 147 like he fought Oscar. A sign of weight draining which is one of the problem I have with PAC REIGN SO FAR.

yes but cumulatively speaking, if one's guys best wins are ALL against faded greats and another's is all against prime mediocres? Well, given your examples I would go with Pacquiao over Floyd.

I love how Pacquiao's opponents were all faded and shot. Barerra (champion, would go on to become champion again, and would never be knocked out by anybody else) Morales (Went on to nearly win a belt in two higher weight classes) Marquez (Went on to do BETTER with his career as Lightweight Champion than when Manny fought him below there) Morales was faded directly after Pacquiao, maybe. Clearly still a better fighter than most. The other two? Come on.

Kind of impossible to answer that categorically. One faded great may be better than one "mediocre", and vice versa. yes but cumulatively speaking, if one's guys best wins are ALL against faded greats and another's is all against prime mediocres?

Kind of impossible to answer that categorically. One faded great may be better than one "mediocre", and vice versa.