Big fights/wins were the loser came off 12+ months of inactivity

My point is simple- how you saw the fight prior to it should determine how you rate the win. That is the exact same thing you are saying. You listed why Shane's status was a "mirage". I said if you looked at it as a real boxing fan, then you'd have considered all of this when discussing the fight. I have no issue with you saying it wasn't a great win. I have an issue with those who viewed Shane completely different prior, then changed that because he lost, then judge the win. that is precisely the opposite of what i am saying, and precisely the opposite of what is the correct way to evaluate the significance of a win.

Cotto vs Martinez is tainted but you can't blame Cotto. Martinez was so crippled he could hardly spar or train properly and when your game depends so much on mobility and you lose it completely you are ****ed. But again, Sergio robbed the fans by agreeing to the fight and selling himself as healthy. All that said, Cotto still beat a corpse that night.

Walters had been out for a year I believe when faced Lomachenko.

One that gets discredited as a win is Lomachenko - Walters (11 Months)

They didn't lose. The topic is when the loser of the fight was possibly at a disadvantage due to ring rust. Oh sorry I misread the question.

Mayweather-Marquez Mayweather-Ortiz They didn't lose. The topic is when the loser of the fight was possibly at a disadvantage due to ring rust.

Mayweather-Marquez Mayweather-Ortiz

Would it have been tainted wins if these fights went the opposite direction? Once you step in the ring you're considered prepared to fight. All but one of the losers did very well early on in each fight. Martinez lasted 9 rounds being inactive and having a bad leg. Was Cotto expected to forfeit the fight and give him another opportunity down the line? No. He did what he had to, but Martinez was diminished coming into the fight and obviously the layoff probably didn't help.

I disagree for teh exact reason you stated "much smaller" + "12 month layoff" is already stacked up against gamboa and also you state "because of timing" yeah good timing for crawford bad timing for gamboa. So not a legit win cause if Crawford didn't have those 3 thing in his favor he doesn't win. He does. Their careers kind of support that theory. However, it is true he didn't beat the best of Gamboa. Nor did Gamboa face the best of him.

we are not talking about the same thing. you're trying to make fanboys eat crow, and i'm evaluating a win without giving a f#ck about what some f#ggots posted seven years ago. it was not a great win. has nothing to do with what was said prior. we know shane had little to nothing left, that he looked garbage aginst mayorga, that he was on the slide three years prior when he lost to cotto, and that the margarito win was pretty much useless and that shane had no business on the p4p list in 2009. My point is simple- how you saw the fight prior to it should determine how you rate the win. That is the exact same thing you are saying. You listed why Shane's status was a "mirage". I said if you looked at it as a real boxing fan, then you'd have considered all of this when discussing the fight. I have no issue with you saying it wasn't a great win. I have an issue with those who viewed Shane completely different prior, then changed that because he lost, then judge the win.

Would it have been tainted wins if these fights went the opposite direction? Once you step in the ring you're considered prepared to fight. All but one of the losers did very well early on in each fight. Martinez lasted 9 rounds being inactive and having a bad leg. Was Cotto expected to forfeit the fight and give him another opportunity down the line?

so what are we doing here? agreeing that crawford shouldnt get credit and just deflecting? No. Though I acknowledge that Gamboa was the much smaller man it was still a good win because of timing. Crawford was a brand new World Champ and was inexperienced at that level. It was a great fight for his development. I think had Crawford already scored the Beltran and Postol wins and then wrecked Gamboa he wouldn't get as much credit.

I would say they all get credit except crawford. Fougth someone off 12+ layoff and had to move up in weight against someone who already moving up himself. Crawford basically legally cheated to get a W. TAINTED The irony of that is that he only got the Gamboa fight because Mikey Garcia refused to fight Gamboa after calling him out

mosley's win over margarito was a mirage. the guy was only good with bricks in his gloves. mosley's rating at the time was based off of that win alone. his loss to cotto was three years prior to that, and he looked flat out bad against ricardo mayorga. then you add in that he was 38 years old and coming off of a year and a half of inactivity, and you have context. don't try to evaluate a win based on a mirage because it fits you agena. evaluate what actually happened. who fought and when, and how good they actually were knowing what we know in hindsight. brits do this with carl froch, andre ward, and lucian bute. they overrated bute for years, said ward was ducking him. then they see him fight somebody other than a tomato can and get his ass kicked, and they still want to argue that ward was ducking because they'd overrated bute. in this case we know that margarito did nothing after he was caught with plaster, and that his late power was a mirage. don't rate the win based on that mirage! rate the win on what it was, a win over mosley at the very end of his career, coming off of a layoff, and that his high ranking was based on beating a fighter whose ability was a complete fabrication and who should have never beaten miguel cotto. Well said. You are completely right.

We are saying the exact same thing, just differently. If you let your hate for Floyd cloud your judgement and drive your opinion before the fight-eat crow and call it a great win. If you took a more adult, boxing fan view before the fight, then its a win and we move on. The issue, as always, is the childlike, unintelligent, retarded, hate fueled rhetoric we get from posters before the fight being thrown back in their face when Floyd wins. we are not talking about the same thing. you're trying to make fanboys eat crow, and i'm evaluating a win without giving a f#ck about what some f#ggots posted seven years ago. it was not a great win. has nothing to do with what was said prior. we know shane had little to nothing left, that he looked garbage aginst mayorga, that he was on the slide three years prior when he lost to cotto, and that the margarito win was pretty much useless and that shane had no business on the p4p list in 2009.

George Foreman was 45 years old and coming off a 17 month layoff when he knocked out 35-0 Michael Moorer to capture the IBF and WBA World Heavyweight titles.

Yeah, maybe Larry doesn't have time either. So I guess you have an answer to your previous threads. My point is you are over exaggerating. The negativity is mostly from those that hate Floyd because he kept winning. Just like you are doing in this thread. Had Floyd lost, there wouldn't be a need for those that do not like him to diminish his wins. No, he wasn't, but you are entitled to your opinion. Is what it is. Larry does have time. They were things he said and required a yes or no answer to support a a claim. No going back and digging up was required. He also asked me to answer an opinion based question which I did in detail and refused to answer the yes or no answers of claims made. There's a difference. Also, yes Pacquaio was rated #1 at that time. It is what it is. Doesn't mean it's true (or false), but it happened.

mosley's win over margarito was a mirage. the guy was only good with bricks in his gloves. mosley's rating at the time was based off of that win alone. his loss to cotto was three years prior to that, and he looked flat out bad against ricardo mayorga. then you add in that he was 38 years old and coming off of a year and a half of inactivity, and you have context. don't try to evaluate a win based on a mirage because it fits you agena. evaluate what actually happened. who fought and when, and how good they actually were knowing what we know in hindsight. brits do this with carl froch, andre ward, and lucian bute. they overrated bute for years, said ward was ducking him. then they see him fight somebody other than a tomato can and get his ass kicked, and they still want to argue that ward was ducking because they'd overrated bute. in this case we know that margarito did nothing after he was caught with plaster, and that his late power was a mirage. don't rate the win based on that mirage! rate the win on what it was, a win over mosley at the very end of his career, coming off of a layoff, and that his high ranking was based on beating a fighter whose ability was a complete fabrication and who should have never beaten miguel cotto. We are saying the exact same thing, just differently. If you let your hate for Floyd cloud your judgement and drive your opinion before the fight-eat crow and call it a great win. If you took a more adult, boxing fan view before the fight, then its a win and we move on. The issue, as always, is the childlike, unintelligent, retarded, hate fueled rhetoric we get from posters before the fight being thrown back in their face when Floyd wins.

As I said previously, to call the Mosley win tainted for Floyd and not great completely contradicts what was said before the fight. Prior to the fight, posters and fans claimed Floyd was afraid of Shane because he was bigger and as fast. Many people picked Shane to win. From the point Floyd got over those monster punches and didn't go down, those same people have decided to focus on Shane's age. Now, if you are a real boxing fan and didn't let hate for Floyd cloud your judgement prior to the fight, then I can see why you'd think it wasn't great. That said, if you are someone that hates Floyd and posted some of the things I documented ( and I believe you are one of these people) then how can you not consider it a great win when a man defeats someone who is bigger, as fast, and better, even if they are much older? mosley's win over margarito was a mirage. the guy was only good with bricks in his gloves. mosley's rating at the time was based off of that win alone. his loss to cotto was three years prior to that, and he looked flat out bad against ricardo mayorga. then you add in that he was 38 years old and coming off of a year and a half of inactivity, and you have context. don't try to evaluate a win based on a mirage because it fits you agena. evaluate what actually happened. who fought and when, and how good they actually were knowing what we know in hindsight. brits do this with carl froch, andre ward, and lucian bute. they overrated bute for years, said ward was ducking him. then they see him fight somebody other than a tomato can and get his ass kicked, and they still want to argue that ward was ducking because they'd overrated bute. in this case we know that margarito did nothing after he was caught with plaster, and that his late power was a mirage. don't rate the win based on that mirage! rate the win on what it was, a win over mosley at the very end of his career, coming off of a layoff, and that his high ranking was based on beating a fighter whose ability was a complete fabrication and who should have never beaten miguel cotto.

I don't have time to go digging up old threads or stuff on different social media pages that show Floyd fans saying crazy stuff. Just open them and you can see. I guess technically Pacquaio was considered the best in the world when Floyd fought Shane if we are going by BWAA, The Ring and ESPN. He remained there until Marquez knocked him off in November, 2011 (when he schooled him and got robbed). I don't care to get into why that fight didn't happen (When Pacquaio was still Pacquaio), but it didn't and that's a fact. Last part is not entirely true. Robinson was the best of his or any time and he posted great wins over great fighters in their prime despite opponents not being as good as him. Same for Leonard, for example and many other fighters perceived to be the best of their time. Yeah, maybe Larry doesn't have time either. So I guess you have an answer to your previous threads. My point is you are over exaggerating. The negativity is mostly from those that hate Floyd because he kept winning. Just like you are doing in this thread. Had Floyd lost, there wouldn't be a need for those that do not like him to diminish his wins. No, he wasn't, but you are entitled to your opinion. Is what it is.