Lampley's Anti-Gatti List

Nothing curious about it, there's nothing to dispute at that weight class. He was more exciting. But I'm not going to be convinced that he was past prime vs Oscar or Shane for that matter. You're entitled to your opinion. One thing's for sure, he certainly wasn't fighting the same.

The canelo fight just did ratings over 2, meanwhile Pbc on network television did half of that. Why would hbo be desperate? Throw in the fact that HBO is a PAY channel and we all can appreciate HBO ratings more. Its called Prize Fighting for a reason, people want action!

so a fighter who holds, backs away consistently, pot shots, and boxes primarily isn't negative now? you understand that this is what a great boxer can look like, correct? and that mayweather is negative in comparison by any unbiased standards? robinson isn't well filmed at WW, but what we've seen from him has been more aggressive and open than either hearns or leonard. mayweather looks like he's sparring by comparison. not only can these three box, they have a second dimension in which they become aggressive and turn your lights out. you and your little crew are the only people who don't think floyd mayweather is negative. you're just going to have to accept that you're biased. do you not agree that you're biased toward floyd? i have no biases against floyd mayweather. i paid a lot of money to travel to vegas and watch him fight canelo. Good post right here.

i think the main problem is some people confuse cheating with defense and skill. a lot of these people seem to be boxing refs as well.

Lol cottos number one, the best? Seriously? You need to watch the fights instead of basing it on stupid titles. So if geale wins he's number one? I said Cotto was ranked #1, which he is. Can't change that. We both would pick GGG to beat Cotto if they fought, that doesn't mean Cotto's rank changes or doesn't exist.

Stevenson is not definitely better than Kovalev either, or Pascal. lol come on. Danny hasn't fought at 140 for over a year and most people thought he lost that fight (Herrera). Point I was making is contrary to what R Walken said, HBO have come closer to putting the best against the best than PBC who have virtually no such clashes even coming close. we don't know because they haven't fought. Your opinion on who is #1 is fine. As the rankings go, Stevenson is #1. No you come on. Your opinion on who would win if they fought doesn't mean GGG gets to be ranked #1. Both guys are behind Peterson, Postol, Broner and Danny. This is a valid point, but trying to argue these are #1 v #2 fights is ridiculous.

but this list is focusing on the best versus the best? I'm not sure any of those PBC fights can be characterised as the best versus the best. GGG-Murray (160), Kovalev-Pascal (175) and Matthysse-Provodnikov (140) might well be. Really ..... For me the KOv / Pascal was a good match up . Matthysse / Ruslan was good because you had a feeling it be a outright war which it was but Ruslan isn't that great. Lucas is probably 2-3 in his div what's Ruslan maybe top 10-12 and sinking 1 win vs Alvarado in 2 years( No credit for Castillo) . GGG / Murray wasn't a good fight Murray best fights are his 3 losses. He was only ranked high because the MW div is weak as f.u.... So he might have been top 5 by default what were the odds 40-1 thats not best vs best. Guerrero / Thurman 2 of the top 8-9 in the deepest div , Garcia / Peterson #1 against #3-4 only top guy he hadn't fought yet , Broner / Porter Top 5 JWW vs top 7-8 ,WW , Direll / Degeale 2 top 10s fighting for a belt , Dirrell / Jack 2 top 10s fighting for a belt. Quillen / Lee 2 top 5 MWs . Even Lopez / Berto was a competitive match up on paper You can disagree that's cool , I don't even think it's close as far as better match ups , I just think PBC is focusing more on competitive matchups . HBO is focusing more on fan friendly fights. Personally I like more competitive fights but I'm watching both ,not complaining just a observation

Stevenson IMO is either 1 or 2. Kovalev is not definitively better than him IMO. Cotto is #1 at MW no matter if you guys want to admit it or not. GGG is #2. Danny is the#1 fighter at 140 and there is really no discussion. Lol cottos number one, the best? Seriously? You need to watch the fights instead of basing it on stupid titles. So if geale wins he's number one?

Stevenson IMO is either 1 or 2. Kovalev is not definitively better than him IMO. Stevenson is not definitely better than Kovalev either, or Pascal. Cotto is #1 at MW no matter if you guys want to admit it or not. GGG is #2. lol come on. Danny is the#1 fighter at 140 and there is really no discussion. Danny hasn't fought at 140 for over a year and most people thought he lost that fight (Herrera). Point I was making is contrary to what R Walken said, HBO have come closer to putting the best against the best than PBC who have virtually no such clashes even coming close.

You can't say that without giving me who you think are the top two guys in those divisions. #2 at 160 is very much open, Stevenson is not definitely better than Pascal and who is definitively better than Provo at 140 with Garcia all but moved up? Either way, none of the PBC bouts have even come close to putting the best versus the best. Stevenson IMO is either 1 or 2. Kovalev is not definitively better than him IMO. Cotto is #1 at MW no matter if you guys want to admit it or not. GGG is #2. Danny is the#1 fighter at 140 and there is really no discussion.

I find it curious that they ignore how he fought from 130-140. As if it doesn't matter. Floyd is 38. He was 33 when he fought Mosley. 30 when he fought Oscar. In these divisions, you start losing it at that point. So to point to these fights as a barometer really says a lot. Floyd pre ODH is much different than post ODH for sure. It is somewhat frustrating that posters seem to forget that when making an argument about negative. If the focus of the sport is on winning and losing AS IT SHOULD BE AND USED TO BE, then the "negative" or "boring" aspects would take care of itself because fighters would keep trying to win. Floyd/Rigo style fighters would fight his way, the opponent would keep fighting, then we'd have a definitive conclusion and excitement. If nothing else the opponent might get a lead and force Floyd/Rigo to fight differently to win.

I find it curious that they ignore how he fought from 130-140. As if it doesn't matter. Floyd is 38. He was 33 when he fought Mosley. 30 when he fought Oscar. In these divisions, you start losing it at that point. So to point to these fights as a barometer really says a lot. Nothing curious about it, there's nothing to dispute at that weight class. He was more exciting. But I'm not going to be convinced that he was past prime vs Oscar or Shane for that matter.

This IS prime Floyd. Didn't you get the memo? Yeah, it's silly. They claim they want real debate but hate facing facts they don't agree with. And so then they start with the Floyd fan nonsense because they really want that argument, nothing else. Nah man, you're just wrong and acting like a petulant four-year-old. It's clear Floyd entered welter at the tail end of his prime and has slowly regressed since. His staying power, like Hopkins, is a testament to his ring IQ.

No, they are not in any way, shape or form. You can't say that without giving me who you think are the top two guys in those divisions. #2 at 160 is very much open, Stevenson is not definitely better than Pascal and who is definitively better than Provo at 140 with Garcia all but moved up? Either way, none of the PBC bouts have even come close to putting the best versus the best.

I find it curious that they ignore how he fought from 130-140. As if it doesn't matter. Floyd is 38. He was 33 when he fought Mosley. 30 when he fought Oscar. In these divisions, you start losing it at that point. So to point to these fights as a barometer really says a lot. This IS prime Floyd. Didn't you get the memo?

If Floyd is trailing, he fights like hell to get the lead. That isn't a negative fighter IMO. Since his move to ww when Floyd has a big lead in a fight, he sits on the lead. If that to you and New England is negative, so be it. IMO the guy trailing has got to do more, same as I would expect Floyd to do when he is behind in a fight. I find it curious that they ignore how he fought from 130-140. As if it doesn't matter. Floyd is 38. He was 33 when he fought Mosley. 30 when he fought Oscar. In these divisions, you start losing it at that point. So to point to these fights as a barometer really says a lot.

but this list is focusing on the best versus the best? I'm not sure any of those PBC fights can be characterised as the best versus the best. GGG-Murray (160), Kovalev-Pascal (175) and Matthysse-Provodnikov (140) might well be. No, they are not in any way, shape or form.

Yeah for sure , PBC has left HBO instead of focusing on being #1 , now their focusing their attention on having their marquee fighters matched up against competition in which they'll lay likely lay a beat down and make it crowd friendly fight . Just off the top of my head this year HBO headliners have been or will be Rios / Alvarado GGG / Murray Klitchko / Jennings Canelo / Kirkland Kovalev / ,Pascal GGG / Monroe Bradley / Vargas Ruslan / Matthysse. That list isn't focusing on Best vs best it's seems like their hoping for beatdowns and Wars more often than not. Now compare it to the PBC headliners and at least for me it's not even close as far as being competitive fights Thurman / Guerrero Garcia / Peterson Lee / Quillen Adonis / Bika Lopez / Berto Dirrell / Jack Dirrell / Degeale Porter / Broner Burns / Figueroa Khan / Algieri but this list is focusing on the best versus the best? I'm not sure any of those PBC fights can be characterised as the best versus the best. GGG-Murray (160), Kovalev-Pascal (175) and Matthysse-Provodnikov (140) might well be.

It's a disengaging style that is effective. I'm not blaming him for it but I'm also not going to believe that this welterweight version of him, save the last three fights, is past prime. The fact that he's had two competitive fights in the last decade is impressive but to suggest he's not a negative fighter is nuts to me. If Floyd is trailing, he fights like hell to get the lead. That isn't a negative fighter IMO. Since his move to ww when Floyd has a big lead in a fight, he sits on the lead. If that to you and New England is negative, so be it. IMO the guy trailing has got to do more, same as I would expect Floyd to do when he is behind in a fight.

He used his legs at welterweight, sometimes to a chorus of boos. He's able to move but he also knows he can slip punches in the pocket and return clean scoring punches. Moving all fight and tapping wouldn't result in him winning, he knows that. After the Baldomir fight, I'm not sure I agree. He mixed in movement with clinching and spoiling aggression but his pegs were nowhere near what they once were.