Floyd is P4P #2 ever after SRR?

[billeau2]

So they're ducking the tough challenges now, but were they always that way throughout their title reigns?

.... Heres the way I feel about the Klitschko corporate situation, and I admit from the go this is going to be very biased: Over the years I have looked at why certain fights did not get made, when certain fighters were rematched and others not, etc. It seems that both brothers always had some sort of contract issue. Recently some fighters like Chisora, Haye and others made the point that the Klitschkos are very difficult to negotiate with. Let me give an example, for a long time Rahman was avoided. When he was finally dealt with he was obviously over the hill, Brewster similar situation regarding the rematch. These fights were during their reign prime.

Now I probably could not give a logical analysis of the situation that precludes other fighters like Jones, Mayweather etc doing similar things....Except to say that Bronte has shown himself to be a real arrogant pissant, and seems to get a pass while we correctly castigate Arum and others who are obviously profit first. In a weak division the champ could always try to find fighters that are a legitimate risk...The Klitschkos have always seemed to find a way to make others look responsible during contract negotiations, to avoid dangerous fighters when they have momentum and are ready and to studiously know when to take on certain opposition. I mean Lewis picked Tyson at a good time for him....but with the Klits why not have fought Rahmen earlier? why not give Odanier Solis a rematch? Why fight Brewster after he was over it? etc etc.

That is my gripe.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Watching that fight between Toney and Jones broke my heart.

So was i,,, i mean that was one of the biggest fights i ever got hyped for,,,

i rooted for toney, but i liked both guys,,, i was just disappointed it was so one-sided,,,,

those were the years that had big fights that ended in disappointment for one reason or another,,, bowe-holyfield, chavez-whittaker, jones-toney, benn-Gman

[Sugar Adam Ali]

@irondan I will try and summarize since me and you have a habit of ever-bigger quotes that eat up pages


1. I use oscar as an example, because like floyd and SRL, ali, tyson,, those are the only guys that can say they were the face of boxing,, the highest paid, etc... Not many fighters can say that,, Im not trying to compare oscar the fighter, but oscar the "icon" for lack of a better word,, I realize oscar isnt on the same talent level as floyd, but he was the biggest draw in the sport during his time, just like floyd,, and if you compare the guys that oscar fought and that floyd fought, Its a no contest,, Oscar delivered big fights year after year, and took on huge challenges,,, Just look at their welterweight track record,,
Oscar wins title vs pernell, floyd beat baldomir
oscar unifies vs long time champs tito, and ike,,, floyd unifies with ortiz, old shane
Oscar defends vs shane Floyd defends vs ghost
There is a huge difference of caliber of fighter that oscar, srl, ali fought and the ones floyd fought

2. Im not trying to say calzaghe was better than floyd, All i was trying to do was say that floyd outside of 130, really hasnt done that much in terms of tough fights.. In every division he has been to since going up in weight,, he has picked off a belt, and then basically sat on it,,, I dont count the 154 because floyd doesnt campaign there,, the best champ he beat above 130 was JLC and many felt he lost, at 140 gatti, at 147 baldomir, there is a pattern of not fighting other champs.. I used calzaghe as an example of a huge cherrypicker, but at least he cleaned out his division, and then went up and fought a lineal champ and took his belt,, Joe had alot of cherrypicks but at the end of the day, there isnt anyone you can say he didnt fight in his era,,, He fought eubanks, reid, lacy, kessler, hopkins, and shot jones,,, Floyd has a long list of foes not faced,, thats all i was trying to imply

3. One poster said that unifying doesnt matter and used alexander vs floyd as an example,,, yes there is always going to be a weak champ, but with 4 belts there is always a big threat that has a belt,, 160 with serg and ggg, 147 floyd vs tim, there were many unification fights that floyd could have fought,, vs frietas, casamoyer at 130 and 135, spadafora at 135, tsyzu, hatton, harris, maussa, cotto at 140, 147 he has had margs, cotto, williams, manny, tim,.. Not saying he had to fight all these guys, but when there is an apparent pattern of not looking for challenges, one has to believe that floyd chooses his fights carefully

4. difference between pernell 97 and shane 2010..... Pernel had never been clearly beaten, was slightly past his prime, but regained form vs oscar and gave a tremendous performance, It was probably one of pernel's finest performances, and he looked like a top 5 p4p guy even in defeat...
Now with shane,, he was "ranked" 3 p4p... even though since 2000 in top level fights he beat oscar twice, lost to forrest twice, lost to winky twice, lost to cotto, beat margs,
So in the decade prior to meeting floyd, he had 3 wins vs top fighters and 5 losses,, i dont understand how a guy that is 3-5 with a gift win, he should be 2-6 be considered a great win vs the best fighter in the world,,,
Can someone explain how a guy is 3-5 vs top guys in a decade and be considered a top level p4p elite guy

5. Someone said pernel was done when oscar fought him,, as proof they said he never won again,, but that is not really a fair assessment, since he got cracked out and he wasnt fighting journeymen bums, he fought a prime tito, and then got injured a year after that during a fight,,
Look at floyd's opponents and tell me what wins do they have after fighting floyd,,
Ghost, and canelo- too early to tell
cotto- no big wins,
shane- no win big wins,
ortiz- no big wins
jmm- has the manny win
Hatton- solid wins vs lazcano and pauli, but no big wins
oscar- no big wins
baldomir- no big wins
zab- no big wins
bruscles- lol no big wins
shambra- no big wins
gatti- no big wins
corley- no big wins
ndou= no big wins
sosa- no big wins
JLC in 03-- had some good wins

So in the past decade from 03-13 floyd has fought 2 guys that went on to win any type of big fight, jmm and JLC....
I just dont understand how people can praise floyd's resume when comparing it to other ATGs

[IronDanHamza]

Im not trying to say calzaghe was better than floyd, All i was trying to do was say that floyd outside of 130, really hasnt done that much in terms of tough fights.. In every division he has been to since going up in weight,, he has picked off a belt, and then basically sat on it,,, I dont count the 154 because floyd doesnt campaign there,, the best champ he beat above 130 was JLC and many felt he lost, at 140 gatti, at 147 baldomir, there is a pattern of not fighting other champs.. I used calzaghe as an example of a huge cherrypicker, but at least he cleaned out his division, and then went up and fought a lineal champ and took his belt,, Joe had alot of cherrypicks but at the end of the day, there isnt anyone you can say he didnt fight in his era,,, He fought eubanks, reid, lacy, kessler, hopkins, and shot jones,,, Floyd has a long list of foes not faced,, thats all i was trying to imply

That's not all you tried to imply. You said "Atleast Calzaghe challenged himself by fighting Kessler, Lacy and Hopkins" which is just ridiculous.

Like I said, Mayweather has fought a lot more challenges than Calzaghe. Mayweather took as many challenges if not more at 130 lbs that Calzaghe has his entire career.

Calzaghe fought 3 fighters in the Top 5 in his division, Floyd fought 15 or more.

Calzaghe was the favourite in every single fight he was in outside of Lacy in which he was a slight betting favourite.

To say Calzaghe tested himself and Mayweather didn't is flat out wrong and not true.

You keep saying things that apply for one guy and not the other.

"Atleast Calzaghe moved up and fought the Lineal Champion"

What did Mayweather do when he moved up to 135? What did he do when he moved up to 147?

Mayweather has been the Lineal Champion 5 times across in 4 different weight classes. I think it's a safe bet that some of those were decent challenges.

To say Calzaghe "fought everyone" is also wrong, there's a long list of fighters that were in the Top 5 during his Era that he didn't fight.

That's without the obvious ones - Ottke, Johnson and Pavlik.

Seems like an obvious double standard.

How can you consider Eubank as some legitimate win then discredit Mosley?

How can you name Robin Reid in a list of "Atleast he fought;" set of fighters like that was a good fight?

3. One poster said that unifying doesnt matter and used alexander vs floyd as an example,,, yes there is always going to be a weak champ, but with 4 belts there is always a big threat that has a belt,, 160 with serg and ggg, 147 floyd vs tim, there were many unification fights that floyd could have fought,, vs frietas, casamoyer at 130 and 135, spadafora at 135, tsyzu, hatton, harris, maussa, cotto at 140, 147 he has had margs, cotto, williams, manny, tim,.. Not saying he had to fight all these guys, but when there is an apparent pattern of not looking for challenges, one has to believe that floyd chooses his fights carefully

Yet your sole reasoning for Calzaghe's "top challenges" were "They were unification fights".

Floyd cleaned out 130. When Floyd was a contender the Top fighters were Hernandez, Corrales, C.Hernandez, Manfredy and he beat all of those aswell as another Top 5 in Chavez.

Freitas and Casamayor came onto the scene as he was leaving the division.

difference between pernell 97 and shane 2010..... Pernel had never been clearly beaten, was slightly past his prime, but regained form vs oscar and gave a tremendous performance, It was probably one of pernel's finest performances, and he looked like a top 5 p4p guy even in defeat...
Now with shane,, he was "ranked" 3 p4p... even though since 2000 in top level fights he beat oscar twice, lost to forrest twice, lost to winky twice, lost to cotto, beat margs,
So in the decade prior to meeting floyd, he had 3 wins vs top fighters and 5 losses,, i dont understand how a guy that is 3-5 with a gift win, he should be 2-6 be considered a great win vs the best fighter in the world,,,
Can someone explain how a guy is 3-5 vs top guys in a decade and be considered a top level p4p elite guy

The "difference" is irrelevant.

Your reasoning for why Whitaker wasn't on the slide was because he was P4P #3 and the Lineal WW Champion.

The exact same applies for Shane yet that doesn't matter.

Again, an obvious double standard.

Then when questioned you discredit The Ring's P4P list but again, Shane was #3 P4P on pretty much every single list going for his performance against Top P4P ranked Margarito.

Someone said pernel was done when oscar fought him,, as proof they said he never won again,, but that is not really a fair assessment, since he got cracked out and he wasnt fighting journeymen bums, he fought a prime tito, and then got injured a year after that during a fight,,
Look at floyd's opponents and tell me what wins do they have after fighting floyd,,
Ghost, and canelo- too early to tell
cotto- no big wins,
shane- no win big wins,
ortiz- no big wins
jmm- has the manny win
Hatton- solid wins vs lazcano and pauli, but no big wins
oscar- no big wins
baldomir- no big wins
zab- no big wins
bruscles- lol no big wins
shambra- no big wins
gatti- no big wins
corley- no big wins
ndou= no big wins
sosa- no big wins
JLC in 03-- had some good wins

So in the past decade from 03-13 floyd has fought 2 guys that went on to win any type of big fight, jmm and JLC....
I just dont understand how people can praise floyd's resume when comparing it to other ATGs

He was well passed his best, his last two fights were clear indicator's of that and that's why Oscar fought him. Oscar did that quite a lot.

Most of those fighters had good wins in the prior fight before fighting Mayweather thus were ranked at or near the top of the division.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

[QUOTE=IronDanHamza;13940992]

Like I said, Mayweather has fought a lot more challenges than Calzaghe.

Calzaghe fought 3 fighters in the Top 5 in his division, Floyd fought 15 or more.

Calzaghe was the favourite in every single fight he was in outside of Lacy in which he was a slight betting favourite.

To say Calzaghe tested himself and Mayweather didn't is flat out wrong and not true.

You keep saying things that apply for one guy and not the other.

"Atleast Calzaghe moved up and fought the Lineal Champion"

What did Mayweather do when he moved up to 135? What did he do when he moved up to 147?

Mayweather has been the Lineal Champion 5 times across in 4 different weight classes. I think it's a safe bet that some of those were decent challenges.

To say Calzaghe "fought everyone" is also wrong, there's a long list of fighters that were in the Top 5 during his Era that he didn't fight.

That's without the obvious ones - Ottke, Johnson and Pavlik.

Ottke wasnt fighting anyone, and his record shows it,, when was pavlik campaigning at 168?????? he had one fight there vs taylor in the rematch.. Johnson wasnt near the top of the division, I would have liked to seen those fights, but johnson had his best success at lightheavy when joe was still at 168.. And joe retired before he could fight anyone at 175 minus a payday fight vs roy

Seems like an obvious double standard.

How can you consider Eubank as some legitimate win then discredit Mosley?

How can you name Robin Reid in a list of "Atleast he fought;" set of fighters like that was a good fight?

I will agree that eubanks wasnt prime, but still a solid win for a young joe, much like garcia beating morales was a good win for a young danny..An old shane is not a great win for a p4p #1 fighter and biggest draw in the sport.. There is a HUGE difference between young joe, and p4p elite mayweather. I only mentioned reid because people wanted to see that fight, there was public demand for it,, wasnt trying to say that reid was some great elite p4p guy, just that people wanted to see that fight and it happened,, unlike mayweather where there is a bunch of fights people wanted to see that never happened

Yet your sole reasoning for Calzaghe's "top challenges" were "They were unification fights".

Floyd cleaned out 130. When Floyd was a contender the Top fighters were Hernandez, Corrales, C.Hernandez, Manfredy and he beat all of those aswell as another Top 5 in Chavez.

Freitas and Casamayor came onto the scene as he was leaving the division.

Mayweather took as many challenges if not more at 130 lbs that Calzaghe has his entire career.

Frietas and casamoyer were champs for nearly 2 years when floyd left 130, and they were also champs at 135 when he was there.. I do agree and have said many times that floyd at 130 was the only division where he nearly cleaned it out....

The "difference" is irrelevant.


Your reasoning for why Whitaker wasn't on the slide was because he was P4P #3 and the Lineal WW Champion.

The exact same applies for Shane yet that doesn't matter.

Again, an obvious double standard.

Then when questioned you discredit The Ring's P4P list but again, Shane was #3 P4P on pretty much every single list going for his performance against Top P4P ranked Margarito.

How is it irrelevant,,,, Who had shane beaten in a decade, oscar and margs,, who did shane lose to,, winky twice, forrest twice, arguable de la hoya rematch, cotto,,,,, I dont care what the general consensus is,,, People have canelo and broner and ghost on p4p rankings, honestly just post your top 10 list p4p for may 2010,,, lets see your list,,, you wont post it, because you know there was alot more deserving guys that should be over shane,

Please explain how a guy that is basically 2-6 vs top fighters deserving of top 3 p4p.....
How many loses to top level fighters had pernel had and how many big wins did he have the decade prior,,, Please name his losses and compare to shanes,,,,
Then after that compare shane's performance vs floyd to pernel's vs oscar,,, now which guy looked better,, which one looked elite, who looked old and shot
I would say all that is relevant,,, what is irrelevant is just saying guys are ranked, nearly every list had him #3,, Everyone was wrong and ****** if they had him that high

He was well passed his best, his last two fights were clear indicator's of that and that's why Oscar fought him. Oscar did that quite a lot.

Most of those fighters had good wins in the prior fight before fighting Mayweather thus were ranked at or near the top of the division.

can you please name these great wins,, yes shane beat margs,, thats about it,,,, Is berto now a great win in your book,,, Canelo gassing and barely getting a split decision vs trout a great win,, or how about cotto when he beat the p4p greats mayorga, one-legged foreman, and one-eyed margs,,, are those great wins,,, Who are these great wins


I actually cant believe someone is defending floyd;s resume and calling it an ATG resume...... That is the basis of this thread,,

Floyd does have a great resume, but in terms of ATGs, his resume sucks, i cant believe you defend it so much,,, For the bast decade since 2003, floyd has basically avoided all threats and challenges,,,, Plain as day

[Humean]

I think looking at what a fighter did AFTER a big fight is a bad way to evaluate fighters for the following reasons

1: The big fight defeat may have physically diminished them
2: The big fight defeat may have psychological diminished them, taking away their confidence.
3: The big fight defeat may have diminished their motivation because of the size of purse they got for the fight.

I think it is generally better to evaluate a fighter for what he was or looked to be going into the fight, not what he didn't achieve subsequently. If a fighter looked good or great after then you should look at it, if he didn't then I don't think we should assume that that means they weren't any good for at least one of the reasons I offered.

Mayweather's record is a lot better than people give credit. Also Mayweather has dominated virtually all his fights, only Castillo I was very close. De La Hoya and Cotto were closer than normal Mayweather fights but still clear victories. Mayweather beat quality but not absolute best versions of a number of fighters, certainly De La Hoya and Mosley and perhaps Cotto are examples of that. However if you look back in history you can find countless examples of that in the records of great fighters.

Second to Sugar Ray Robinson no but very high up there then yes.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I think looking at what a fighter did AFTER a big fight is a bad way to evaluate fighters for the following reasons

1: The big fight defeat may have physically diminished them
2: The big fight defeat may have psychological diminished them, taking away their confidence.
3: The big fight defeat may have diminished their motivation because of the size of purse they got for the fight.

I think it is generally better to evaluate a fighter for what he was or looked to be going into the fight, not what he didn't achieve subsequently. If a fighter looked good or great after then you should look at it, if he didn't then I don't think we should assume that that means they weren't any good for at least one of the reasons I offered.

Mayweather's record is a lot better than people give credit. Also Mayweather has dominated virtually all his fights, only Castillo I was very close. De La Hoya and Cotto were closer than normal Mayweather fights but still clear victories. Mayweather beat quality but not absolute best versions of a number of fighters, certainly De La Hoya and Mosley and perhaps Cotto are examples of that. However if you look back in history you can find countless examples of that in the records of great fighters.

Second to Sugar Ray Robinson no but very high up there then yes.

I agree with that,,, I only brought up the aftermath of floyd's opponents because someone posted that pernel was not elite in 97 and never won another fight,,, So if your using that logic, and then apply it to floyd's opponents, you can see that nearly all his opponents never did anything afterwards,,
I look at how they did in the fight itself,, and its pretty easy to say that pernel performed at an elite level vs oscar, maybe not in the 2 previous fights, but vs oscar he was great,,, Shane performed nowhere near that level vs floyd

[IronDanHamza]

Ottke wasnt fighting anyone, and his record shows it,, when was pavlik campaigning at 168?????? he had one fight there vs taylor in the rematch.. Johnson wasnt near the top of the division, I would have liked to seen those fights, but johnson had his best success at lightheavy when joe was still at 168.. And joe retired before he could fight anyone at 175 minus a payday fight vs roy

And? He still didn't fight him.

And Ottke did fight the great Robin Reid and a lot of the other bums than Calzaghe defending his title against.

Pavlik was a fight that the world wanted to see when Calzaghe beat Hopkins. Of course he didn't fight him.

Johnson another fight people wanted, he pulled out "injured" twice.

But he fought everyone!

Calzaghe didn't fight everyone. Not atleast by your standard on Mayweather.

I will agree that eubanks wasnt prime, but still a solid win for a young joe, much like garcia beating morales was a good win for a young danny..An old shane is not a great win for a p4p #1 fighter and biggest draw in the sport.. There is a HUGE difference between young joe, and p4p elite mayweather. I only mentioned reid because people wanted to see that fight, there was public demand for it,, wasnt trying to say that reid was some great elite p4p guy, just that people wanted to see that fight and it happened,, unlike mayweather where there is a bunch of fights people wanted to see that never happened

No it wasn't a solid win.

Eubank hadn't won a legit fight years, wasn't ranked in the Top 10 at 168 and took the fight on a weeks notice. How is that a legit win?

People wanted to see the Reid fight? What?

You say there was demand for the Reid fight (Laughable) so what about Mayweather-Mosley? There was huge demand for that fight.

Yet another clear double standard.

Frietas and casamoyer were champs for nearly 2 years when floyd left 130, and they were also champs at 135 when he was there.. I do agree and have said many times that floyd at 130 was the only division where he nearly cleaned it out....

So why does 130 not count for Mayweather?

Why do you keep saying "Outside of 130"?

Why outside of 130?

Floyd did better work at 130 than Calzaghe did in his entire career.

How is it irrelevant,,,, Who had shane beaten in a decade, oscar and margs,, who did shane lose to,, winky twice, forrest twice, arguable de la hoya rematch, cotto,,,,, I dont care what the general consensus is,,, People have canelo and broner and ghost on p4p rankings, honestly just post your top 10 list p4p for may 2010,,, lets see your list,,, you wont post it, because you know there was alot more deserving guys that should be over shane

No, I and everyone else thought Shane was deserving a Top P4P spot after destroying a P4P ranked fighter in Margarito.

If a guy completely destroys and knocks out a Top P4P fighter whilst being the underdog of course he's going to be on the P4P list after that.

It's irrelevant because you're using one set of logic as reasoning for one fighter and then brushing it off for the next.

Please explain how a guy that is basically 2-6 vs top fighters deserving of top 3 p4p.....
How many loses to top level fighters had pernel had and how many big wins did he have the decade prior,,, Please name his losses and compare to shanes,,,,
Then after that compare shane's performance vs floyd to pernel's vs oscar,,, now which guy looked better,, which one looked elite, who looked old and shot
I would say all that is relevant,,, what is irrelevant is just saying guys are ranked, nearly every list had him #3,, Everyone was wrong and ****** if they had him that high

So, everyone was wrong and ****** to have Shane that high, but, everyone was right with having Whitaker that high I assume?

Reoccurring theme here.

can you please name these great wins,, yes shane beat margs,, thats about it,,,, Is berto now a great win in your book,,, Canelo gassing and barely getting a split decision vs trout a great win,, or how about cotto when he beat the p4p greats mayorga, one-legged foreman, and one-eyed margs,,, are those great wins,,, Who are these great wins

Where did I say the word "great"?

I said most had good wins prior which they did and why they were ranked at or near the top of the division.

I actually cant believe someone is defending floyd;s resume and calling it an ATG resume...... That is the basis of this thread,,

Floyd does have a great resume, but in terms of ATGs, his resume sucks, i cant believe you defend it so much,,, For the bast decade since 2003, floyd has basically avoided all threats and challenges,,,, Plain as day

Putting words in peoples mouths again, same thing you did with Joseph.

All I've disputed is your ridiculous view that Calzaghe challenged himself and Mayweather didn't. Which again, is absolutely ridiculous.

Mayweather is an ATG with a good resume, he's no where near the top ATG's but an ATG none the less.

I think it's abundantly clear that you're highly and unfairly critical of Mayweather whilst having clear double standards and give passes to others.

[IronDanHamza]

I agree with that,,, I only brought up the aftermath of floyd's opponents because someone posted that pernel was not elite in 97 and never won another fight,,, So if your using that logic, and then apply it to floyd's opponents, you can see that nearly all his opponents never did anything afterwards,,
I look at how they did in the fight itself,, and its pretty easy to say that pernel performed at an elite level vs oscar, maybe not in the 2 previous fights, but vs oscar he was great,,, Shane performed nowhere near that level vs floyd

The person who said that (Scott) didn't say anything about Mayweather so why would you apply it to Mayweather's opponents? This isn't a Mayweather Vs Oscar thread. All Scott was saying was Whitaker was well passed his best which he was.

I think Shane showed he could still punch pretty hard when he fought Floyd.

The difference is Floyd did what he was supposed to do and dominated a passed prime Shane whereas Oscar struggled badly with a passed prime Whitaker.

[Humean]

I agree with that,,, I only brought up the aftermath of floyd's opponents because someone posted that pernel was not elite in 97 and never won another fight,,, So if your using that logic, and then apply it to floyd's opponents, you can see that nearly all his opponents never did anything afterwards,,
I look at how they did in the fight itself,, and its pretty easy to say that pernel performed at an elite level vs oscar, maybe not in the 2 previous fights, but vs oscar he was great,,, Shane performed nowhere near that level vs floyd

I know why you made that point I was just wanting to make the point I was making in general because it is something I see all the time in these kinds of arguments.

Anyway to your post i'd say that one problem is the capacity for great fighters to make other fighters look very ordinary. Mayweather made Mosley look very ordinary even though Mosley looked very good indeed in his previous fight smashing Margarito to bits. Unless really clear evidence to the contrary (evidence relating to their preparation and such like) I tend to give the fighters the benefit of the doubt and therefore if Mosley looked bad against Mayweather it was because Mayweather is that good not because Mosley was bad.

I think I do agree though that the version of Whitaker that De la Hoya beat was better than the version of Mosley that Mayweather beat. Too often in these debates there is an all or nothing mentality, a fighter is either in his prime and therefore at his best or is past his prime and therefore is nothing much at all.