FAO: Floyd Mayweather Jr. Supporters

nobody in there right mind has #48 above floyd.

Is it too late to add Manny to the list Tua? :rofl: who is this tua? my name is check hook floyd.

Is it too late to add Manny to the list Tua? :rofl: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7kw5sF8191r4xetfo1_500.gif

Please list 9 of Floyd's Best Opponents. or 9 of Floyd's Best Fights. His most decorated, accomplished opponents. Thank you. Is it too late to add Manny to the list Tua? :rofl:

if i can call him #2.... if ring had him #2.... why then have we argued about me calling him #2? this is what it was all about. you think it wasn't a good win. that's fine. but he was #2 in the division. Yes, he was #2. So was Zsolt Erdei. Would you base someone being #2 as it automatically being a good win? You're treading into dangerous territory. When Mayweather beat Mosley, Shane was #3 pound for pound. When Pacquiao beat Barrera, Marco was #3 pound for pound. Do you consider those equal wins?

Sometimes you have to put things in proper context, Tua. Who was #2 at LHW in 2006? Zsolt Erdei according to the Ring. Context. Erik Morales got soundly whitewashed by Raheem. So no, I wasn't impressed by what Pacquiao did after. Especially, forcing him down to a weight he didn't want and then with all that weight penalty crap. I don't rate it very highly or I'd have to consider Raheem a god or some sh*t. did he say he didn't want the fight at that weight going into the second fight? i thought their excuse vs raheem was the weight and what does weight penalties have to do with anything?

I think you missed the point. You can put Morales at #2. The point is that, like beating #2 Zsolt Erdei...it doesn't matter. That's if you put in context as you just claimed. if i can call him #2.... if ring had him #2.... why then have we argued about me calling him #2? this is what it was all about. you think it wasn't a good win. that's fine. but he was #2 in the division.

that's fine. put it in context. but answer who was #2 at 130 in 2006. we've gone at it over this for 4 hours. least you can do is tell me who was #2 at 130 in 2006. since it's not morales. I think you missed the point. You can put Morales at #2. The point is that, like beating #2 Zsolt Erdei...it doesn't matter. That's if you put in context as you just claimed.

Sometimes you have to put things in proper context, Tua. Who was #2 at LHW in 2006? Zsolt Erdei according to the Ring. Context. Erik Morales got soundly whitewashed by Raheem. So no, I wasn't impressed by what Pacquiao did after. Especially, forcing him down to a weight he didn't want and then with all that weight penalty crap. I don't rate it very highly or I'd have to consider Raheem a god or some sh*t. that's fine. put it in context. but answer who was #2 at 130 in 2006. we've gone at it over this for 4 hours. least you can do is tell me who was #2 at 130 in 2006. since it's not morales.

so who was #2 at 130 in 2006? Sometimes you have to put things in proper context, Tua. Who was #2 at LHW in 2006? Zsolt Erdei according to the Ring. Context. Erik Morales got soundly whitewashed by Raheem. So no, I wasn't impressed by what Pacquiao did after. Especially, forcing him down to a weight he didn't want and then with all that weight penalty crap. I don't rate it very highly or I'd have to consider Raheem a god or some sh*t.

Wasn't hard. You already consider the Ring the standard. So what else is there to say when they place Floyd dozens and dozens higher than Manny? :lol1: so who was #2 at 130 in 2006?

ok. i trust you. for a second there i thought you were adamant about morales not being #2 with you yourself not knowing where he should be ranked. you have made me see the light. Wasn't hard. You already consider the Ring the standard. So what else is there to say when they place Floyd dozens and dozens higher than Manny? :lol1:

Yeah they have had some questionable rankings for sure. But for the most part solid. Even today, I think their rankings are good. Even though people critisize them. The actual magazine is terrible though these days. Yeah to be honest, I haven't read their mag in a long time. And yup, agree that they are solid for the most part when it comes to rankings. I think Tua's just a little butthurt because while they may have ranked Morales #2 at 130, his coming off a decisive loss to Morales greatly discounts the win for Pacquiao. That context thing again.

You've already told me that you want to use my rankings. I've cut through the loose tape for you since we know what this thread is really about. Floyd is higher on my all-time list than Manny is. And on the Ring's list too. Oh, and on irondan's too. No need to be confused, we're all here to help you get your feeble mind right. ok. i trust you. for a second there i thought you were adamant about morales not being #2 with you yourself not knowing where he should be ranked. you have made me see the light.

I'm partial to Ring rankings as well. Probably since I grew up with them. That said, it's always good to keep things in context. I remember when they had Pea #1 for far too long. Made Oscar #1 for no real good reason. And so forth and so forth. So while it's good to look back and read, Lord knows I always remember to use my own head too. Yeah they have had some questionable rankings for sure. But for the most part solid. Even today, I think their rankings are good. Even though people critisize them. The actual magazine is terrible though these days.

I have Floyd higher at the moment. But whoever wins this Saturday will be ranked higher than the other, in my opinion. Yup. That's how I see it. At the end of the day, barring some insane robbery or foolishness, Saturday determines all. Can't f*cking wait.

You've already told me that you want to use my rankings. I've cut through the loose tape for you since we know what this thread is really about. Floyd is higher on my all-time list than Manny is. And on the Ring's list too. Oh, and on irondan's too. No need to be confused, we're all here to help you get your feeble mind right. I have Floyd higher at the moment. But whoever wins this Saturday will be ranked higher than the other, in my opinion.

It is impressive for someone who apparently doesn't fight anyone :lol1: no one in modern history can say they did that. Only fighter who comes close to fighting as many Top 5 ranked fighters (ring magazine) in the divison being fought at in the past 20 years is Pacquaio. As for Ring, I've been using them as the go-to rankings since, since always really. Back in the good old days, 60's/70's The Ring Magazine was often the only way of finding out who won fights, Aswell as the Newspaper. We didn't have the luxury of having every single fight on TV or if not an illegal Internet stream :lol1: I'm partial to Ring rankings as well. Probably since I grew up with them. That said, it's always good to keep things in context. I remember when they had Pea #1 for far too long. Made Oscar #1 for no real good reason. And so forth and so forth. So while it's good to look back and read, Lord knows I always remember to use my own head too.

damn. impressive for floyd. too bad we can't use ring rankings for standard reference anymore. It is impressive for someone who apparently doesn't fight anyone :lol1: no one in modern history can say they did that. Only fighter who comes close to fighting as many Top 5 ranked fighters (ring magazine) in the divison being fought at in the past 20 years is Pacquaio. As for Ring, I've been using them as the go-to rankings since, since always really. Back in the good old days, 60's/70's The Ring Magazine was often the only way of finding out who won fights, Aswell as the Newspaper. We didn't have the luxury of having every single fight on TV or if not an illegal Internet stream :lol1:

he WAS number 2: Junior Lightweights Title Vacant 1.Marco Antonio Barrera 2.Erik Morales 3.Manny Pacquiao 4.Vicente Mosquera 5.Yodsanan Sor Nanthachai 6.Jorge Rodrigo Barrios 7.Carlos Alberto Hernandez 8.Alex Arthur 9.Robbie Peden 10.Janos Nagy http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_2005 thanks. wait.... you trying to trick me, funny guy you. ring magazine rankings don't count.