Obsessed with the '0'

[The MiZ]

What's so great about Mayweather's resume? Granted, he possesses extraordinary gifts and he's done well to pick up belts at multiple weights. But precisely WHO has he beaten?

Call me crazy but in order to be ranked in the top 10 ATG category surely you must have to beat ATG fighters?

When he was still green at 21, he was world champion. You know his record, you know who his beat, i dont have to name names. actually, ill name one, just to piss you off, Zab 'SUPER' Judah. HAHAHHAHAHA

[BigStereotype]

Pacquaio, Martinez would boost him up the ATG rankings. If only they HAD to fight these people.

Maybe but I don't think he'd beat Martinez. He's giving up too much size to a guy that's too good. Great little guy vs. a very very good big guy, you know? And with Martinez's hand speed and recent showings of crushing power...I don't like Floyd or Pacquiao's chances.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Pacquiao is the only name on that list worth a damn in a historical sense.

no shyt considering Khan Ortiz and Canelo aren't even 25 yet

[The MiZ]

Maybe but I don't think he'd beat Martinez. He's giving up too much size to a guy that's too good. Great little guy vs. a very very good big guy, you know? And with Martinez's hand speed and recent showings of crushing power...I don't like Floyd or Pacquiao's chances.

yeah, i think your right, Martinez would tax both there asses because of the size and his skills. might be the only meaningful fight for Pac or May for the winner.

[Mugwump]

When he was still green at 21, he was world champion. You know his record, you know who his beat, i dont have to name names. actually, ill name one, just to piss you off, Zab 'SUPER' Judah. HAHAHHAHAHA

I know exactly who Floyd beat. But the question is valid nonetheless. After all, if Floyd is to be elevated to the level of, say, a Sugar Ray Leonard then he needs to have beaten fighters of the same calibre as Hearns, Duran and Hagler.

I don't see anyone on Floyd's resume who is in that class.

[kendom]

That's exactly true. I'm a pretty recent follower of the sport and I have to fight my instinct to dismiss a fighter after a loss. I know that it's unreasonable but I've been conditioned to think that a loss means that you're trash.

Yeah I sort of dismissed Khan after he lost, but it's made him less arrogant, another thing is this, fighters don't avenge their losses like they use to in the past, as they don't want to take the chance,if Khan gave Prescott a rematch and beat him he would be able to get over the stigma of his loss. Padded records are bad, a fighter looks good until you put him against quality competition, like what happened to Danny Jacobs, no doubt his career lost momentum after that loss. I remember first reading Ezzard Charles record thinking "WOW he had a lot of losses". Then I researched him and the resume he fought and that most of those losses happened past his prime. Many young fans today just don't realize that when you constantly face good competition you're going to get losses, no matter who you are.

[Steak]

That's exactly true. I'm a pretty recent follower of the sport and I have to fight my instinct to dismiss a fighter after a loss. I know that it's unreasonable but I've been conditioned to think that a loss means that you're trash.

thats because nowadays if you lose(depending on the stage of your career of course), you very well might be trash.

today promoters try to feed their fighters a steady list of bums to build their record, and if you lose to one of those bums and havent learned anything by fighting those bums, youre not going far. example: Deontay Wilder. The man has fought nothing but bums. thats why hes 17-0 with 17KOs. If he loses to that kind of sad competition, you may as well kiss his career goodbye.


back in the day where fighters had to fight a lot of top competition over and over and in sometimes compromisable circumstances, losses simply happened and it wasnt a big deal, especially early in the fighters career...they didnt have the ability to scout or promote as easy as they did now, and had to truly work their way to the top.

In my mind, a fighter with 1 win over top competiton but 20 losses is still better than a fighter with 20 wins but hasnt fought anyone. Legacy wise, at least.

[BigStereotype]

thats because nowadays if you lose(depending on the stage of your career of course), you very well might be trash.

today promoters try to feed their fighters a steady list of bums to build their record, and if you lose to one of those bums and havent learned anything by fighting those bums, youre not going far. example: Deontay Wilder. The man has fought nothing but bums. thats why hes 17-0 with 17KOs. If he loses to that kind of sad competition, you may as well kiss his career goodbye.


back in the day where fighters had to fight a lot of top competition over and over and in sometimes compromisable circumstances, losses simply happened and it wasnt a big deal, especially early in the fighters career...they didnt have the ability to scout or promote as easy as they did now, and had to truly work their way to the top.

In my mind, a fighter with 1 win over top competiton but 20 losses is still better than a fighter with 20 wins but hasnt fought anyone. Legacy wise, at least.

lol that's true

I really hate that it's an event if you have two good fighters fighting each other. I realized yesterday that that's the only reason I was excited for Judah vs. Khan. Say what you want about Judah, at the very least, he's a marquee name. Two big names fighting shouldn't be something to get excited about, it should be par for the course.

It's not as bad for me because I don't know any better, but I can't imagine having been a fan in the 80's and 90's even, when you'd get great cards on free tv all the time and then having to put up with all this fugazi bullshit.

[IronDanHamza]

I knew before I opened the thread, that even in the history section, Floyd Mayweather will be mentioned multiple times. Low and behold it is.

I really don't know. I guess considering how much easier it is go fr in yor career with no loss's or very little loss's, some fighters like to reitre having never ever been beaten.

[Capaedia]

It looks pretty, that's all.

Mayweathers mistake is thinking it says something about his skills as a fighter. All it says is something about the skills of his manager