Floyd is P4P #2 ever after SRR?

[Humean]

i agree with alot your saying,, but the vargas wins i dont count as p4p caliber wins,,, vargas was completely shot and damaged goods,,,
ANd yes i get what your saying about the competition,, but have you ever thought that maybe winky, forrest, cotto, manny, floyd are p4p guys and shane since 02 has not been p4p caliber,,, he has had one big win vs margs since 02,, the rest or decent wins vs solid fighter like collazo and mayorga but nothing fantastic,, he got a gift in the oscar rematch,, So against top level p4p caliber fighters in his whole career, shane was 3-7 and really should be 2-8,,, have you ever thought that maybe shane is a gatekeeper for the p4p rankings

I don't necessarily disagree with this, I do think Mosley had/has been overrated. I still think his quality was very high if not perhaps p4p quality. I fully agree that the Mayweather-Mosley fight was not some genuine super fight like they tried to bill it as and which the diehard Mayweather fans want to present it as. However I do think it was a fairly high quality win all in all even if not a great win.

[IronDanHamza]

You say that like Eubank was some nobody. He had fought Collins two years previously in a super middleweight fight that he narrowly lost. He starts to fight at light heavyweight, has one light heavyweight fight in 1996 and another in early 1997. He was preparing for a fight at light heavyweight against another fighter when he took the Calzaghe fight at a weeks notice, he made weight and hardly looked out of shape. There is a counter balance to these claims about 'only a weeks notice' and that is that the fighter fighting the fighter who takes it on a weeks notice has been preparing, particularly with sparring and strategy, for a different opponent. Also this was Calzaghe's first world title fight and he won it very clearly. Calzaghe beat a damn good version of Eubank.

I never implied he was out of shape.

Taking a fight against Cazlaghe on a weeks notice is not a good idea. Money wise perhaps, title shot wise perhaps, but having only a week to work on how to approach a fight like that is not good.

He wasn't in the Top 10, hadn't won a legitimate fight in years and had clearly been well passed his best for years.

It wasn't a "damn good version". Not at all.

[RubenSonny]

Eubank had been looking awful for years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Perhaps your memory is short.

People wanted to see Pavlik-Calzaghe before Pavlik fought Hopkins. Calzaghe fought shot Roy Jones instead.

Again, further stating he didn't fight "everyone". And there's a long list of guys he missed.

And pavlik fought hopkins in a big fight,, there literally was like a miniscule window they could have fought, and both took better paydays, and they were probably trying to build it,, but joe retired and pavlik got his ass beat by hopkins,,, I think your grasping at straws when you throw pavlik in there,, the dude retired before that fight could even get any hype,,, there really isnt a long list,,, and floyd's list is even longer of opponents not faced

When the fights were signed perhaps? He pulled out twice with "Injuries".

And I never said there was "huge" demand. Where did I say that? Putting words in my mouth again.

Well then dont act like it was some huge duck of calzaghe, when they dont fight,, you cant be like calzaghe never fought johnson,, and then back track and say well i never said it was huge demand,
You cant say he never fought johnson,, and then say i never said there was huge demand,, just joe got injured,,, How does that make any sense when saying Joe didnt fight all comers,,,
YOu can always pick out some random guy that someone didnt fight,,
pernell never fought camacho
lennox never fougth moorer,,,
See how easy it is,, but people still consider lewis and pernell as guys that pretty much fought everyone,,,
You basically pulled the few names that were around 168 during his reign, pavlik had one fight there, ottke never going to fight anyone,, and johnson was a journeymen that got his fight cancelled twice,,,, your basically grasping at thin air to come up with names,,, with floyd you can easily say freitas, casamoyer, both champs at 130 and 135 when floyd was there, johnston, spadafora, lazcano at 135, manny, margs, 07 versions of shane and cotto, margs from07-09, williams, tim bradley, abregu is his mandatory, lara, etc

And why would I have Johnson in my Top 10 P4P for beating Jones coming off a loss?

After the Tarver win he was on the cusp of being a P4P quality guy but then he lost the rematch.

A little different from dominating and knocking out a Top P4P guy whilst being an underdog.

So you have jhonny gonzalez top 3 p4p now,, you must have had tarver top 3,, Mayorga stopped forrest,, you must have had mayorga top5 at least,,,
All those guys were underdogs and pulled of the ko,, actually quicker than shane did,,, were those guys on your p4p lists afterwards

Bad comparison.

So you have jhonny gonzalez top 5 p4p right now,,, underdog that ko'd an undefeated p4p champion in mares,,, mayorga was on your list,, he stopped forrest and decisioned him, mayorga underdog both times, tarver iced the #1 p4p guy of the last decade,,, surely tarver was top 5 now,,,

No, it wasn't.

Morales was in the Top 10 at 140, had had fights at 140, had won legit fights and had legit fights at 140 during that time.

Eubank wasn't in the top 10, hadn't won a legit fight in years and took the fight on a weeks notice.

Another bad comparison, just not the same.

See you get blinded by rankings,, Morales was top 10 at 140,, LMAO,,, he beat some random journeymen in mexico, put up a decent fight vs maidana, then beat another random journeymen cano,, cano was undefeated but should have never fought for a vacant belt, and neither should have morales,, please tell me the win that got morales ranked in the top 10 and allowed to fight for a vacant belt... If you think morales and cano were better than lucas, danny, holt or peterson or khan or judah etc, then more power to you,, just makes you look like you dont use your head, just what other people tell you about the rankings...
But that is besides the point,,, Was eubanks the best fighter joe had fought up till then in his career,, and was morales the best figher garcia had been in the ring with up till that point,,, Yes they were,,,
No really, it wasn't.

Decent domestic fight, at best.

At the time it happened, it wasn't a big fight at all.

It was bigger than calzaghe vs johnson,,, It was a grudge match long overdue,,,, Euros still debate this fight and the outcome,,,, I cant believe you cant acknowledge that

So why do you keep saying "Other than 130"?

I don't understand why you keep acting like it doesn't exist, it does.

All Mayweather does it keep fighting top ranked fighters something Calzaghe barely did ever in his career.

Mayweather fought top guys at 130, early in his career, and calzaghe fought them later in his career,,, Rankings are a joke,,
If floyd fights "top ranked" guys then how come he never fought cotto or shane or margs or williams when floyd and them basically made up the top 5,,
Floyd gets the softest ranked guys like ghost, ortiz,,, etc,, kinda like when ggg fought macklin,, macklin was a top ranked mw,,,
Right now the top welters are floyd, manny, tim, alexander, thurman, abregu, brook, broner, and we can all easily see the weakest ones would be alexander. broner, brook, abregu,, and floyd is gonna pick one of those guys or khan

Already explained why they're most of those are examples.

If a fighter dominates and stops a fighter who is a Top P4P guy, as an underdog, they're going to feature on the P4P list just like Mosley deservedly did. Especially someone with the pedigree of Mosley.

So you have jhonny gonzalez on your p4p list,,, and you had mayorga on your p4p lists and you had tarver on your p4p lists.... They all did the exact same thing and even did it quicker than shane did margs

I don't keep my lists but I and everyone else thought that was legit at the time.

It's already been broken down in past posts why they shouldn't have been above him.

I wouldnt keep lists either if they had jhonny gonzalez, tarver, mayorga, and shane on them.... well shane 98-02 yes, but not after 2002,

Shane was a good fighter,, no doubt,, I just couldnt put him on my lists because he was old and shot,,, he needed punching bags like margs and mayorga to look good,, no way would he be competive vs guys like floyd or manny or serg

You keep bringing up Ring Magazine. What does Ring Magazine have to do with this?

Again, missing my point.

You're saying everyone was wrong for Mosley. Yet, not for Whitaker?

You're using one line of thinking for Whitaker, then another for Mosley, thus my point.

You can revise history all you want but at the time Mosley was considered a Top P4P fighter and the fight was considered to be a dangerous fight and one that everyone wanted to see at that time.

Pernell looked like a p4p figher vs oscar,, yes
shane look like one vs floyd, no by a long shot,,,

Pernell had never clearly lost, whereas mosely had lost to nearly every top opponent he ever faced,,,, until someone beats him pernell had earned his spot,, whereas shane blinded everyone with one fight,,,
90% of boxing fans dont really understand boxing at all and are just fanboys,, just look at NSB... I dont care waht public opinion is,,, it saves me from the embarrassment of having shane or canelo or broner on my p4p lists

So challenges are based off how skilled you are?

Here's what it boils down to, you said Calzaghe took more challenges than Mayweather in their careers, that is flat out wrong and laughable.

That's really all it boils down to.

They both really didnt take any challenges,, but you cant even name guys joe didnt fight with grasping at straws with pavlik and johnson,,, yet no matter what division floyd was in,, he never faced everyone,, not even at 130..
And yes how skilled you are matters,
Floyd is the most skilled fighter of our generation,,
Joe was a good fighter,,
When your the best, and claim to be the best ever,, then yes you get held to a very high standard,,,
in terms of skills compared to challenges,, floyd is way more skilled but hasnt had challenged himself,,
The fights people wanted to see joe fight, he fought eventually, you cant say the same about floyd at any division

Yeah you are.

You're saying Calzaghe challenged himself as opposed to Mayweather.

You're saying one thing is ok for one fighter and not ok for Mayweather.

That's pretty clearly unfair criticism all over this thread.

What did i say that was unfair about mayweather,,, look at joes skill level and look at floyds,,,
Remind me again when joe was p4p#1 and the biggest draw in the sport,,,

The TS said Mayweather is #2 P4P, you're not debating with the TS. Everyone you're debating with have stated Mayweather isn't close to #2 P4P so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

Well i bring it up because everyone is defending mayweathers resume when in actuality compared to his skills, and status in the sport, his resume sucks,,,
To have shane #3 p4p in 2010 is some of the dumbest stuff ever,, not as dumb as when broner and ghost and canelo all got ranked in p4p but still dumb as hell

And to be honest,,, i have been trolling the joe calzaghe thing for about 3 pages now,,, I got overexcited when i wrote the first one about joe and then everyone reacted to it, so i decided to be alittle bit of a troll for payback when you and others got me good on that hopkins-johnson thread,,,
I shouldnt have compared joe and floyd,,,, but i couldnt resist because i know you will debate like crazy..

I still stand by my pernell and mosely and everything else,, just the joe part was the only trolling

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Eubank had been looking awful for years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

I will agree to this,, but it was also the biggest fight of young joe's career, and even a bad eubanks was better than the guys joe had fought up to that point

[RubenSonny]

I will agree to this,, but it was also the biggest fight of young joe's career, and even a bad eubanks was better than the guys joe had fought up to that point

That's not relevant that doesn't make it count for anything.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

That's not relevant that doesn't make it count for anything.

True in the grand scheme of things it probably doesnt,,,,,

[IronDanHamza]

And pavlik fought hopkins in a big fight,, there literally was like a miniscule window they could have fought, and both took better paydays, and they were probably trying to build it,, but joe retired and pavlik got his ass beat by hopkins,,, I think your grasping at straws when you throw pavlik in there,, the dude retired before that fight could even get any hype,,, there really isnt a long list,,, and floyd's list is even longer of opponents not faced

BEFORE the Hopkins fight.

People wanted Calzaghe-Pavlik but he fought Roy Jones instead.

And it doesn't matter who's imaginary list is longer. Calzaghe still has a list therefore he didn't "fight everyone" like you claim.

Well then dont act like it was some huge duck of calzaghe, when they dont fight,, you cant be like calzaghe never fought johnson,, and then back track and say well i never said it was huge demand,
You cant say he never fought johnson,, and then say i never said there was huge demand,, just joe got injured,,, How does that make any sense when saying Joe didnt fight all comers,,,
YOu can always pick out some random guy that someone didnt fight,,
pernell never fought camacho
lennox never fougth moorer,,,
See how easy it is,, but people still consider lewis and pernell as guys that pretty much fought everyone,,,
You basically pulled the few names that were around 168 during his reign, pavlik had one fight there, ottke never going to fight anyone,, and johnson was a journeymen that got his fight cancelled twice,,,, your basically grasping at thin air to come up with names,,, with floyd you can easily say freitas, casamoyer, both champs at 130 and 135 when floyd was there, johnston, spadafora, lazcano at 135, manny, margs, 07 versions of shane and cotto, margs from07-09, williams, tim bradley, abregu is his mandatory, lara, etc

What are you talking about?

You said Calzaghe fought everyone. You. Not me.

Johnson is another one that people wanted that he didn't fight. I never said it was a "huge duck". Does something have to be "huge duck" if someone doesn't fight them?

You said Calzaghe fought everyone. I'm naming fighters he didn't fight.

I'm not talking about people who Floyd didn't fight. Do you see me saying "Floyd fought everyone"? No, you don't.

See you get blinded by rankings,, Morales was top 10 at 140,, LMAO,,, he beat some random journeymen in mexico, put up a decent fight vs maidana, then beat another random journeymen cano,, cano was undefeated but should have never fought for a vacant belt, and neither should have morales,, please tell me the win that got morales ranked in the top 10 and allowed to fight for a vacant belt... If you think morales and cano were better than lucas, danny, holt or peterson or khan or judah etc, then more power to you,, just makes you look like you dont use your head, just what other people tell you about the rankings...
But that is besides the point,,, Was eubanks the best fighter joe had fought up till then in his career,, and was morales the best figher garcia had been in the ring with up till that point,,, Yes they were,,,

You are the one that brought up rankings Again, not me.

You are the one who said; "Whitaker was Top 3 P4P and Lineal Champion" there wasn't on the slide.

All I was doing to responding to that and highlighting your double standard. I didn't mention rankings once until you mentioned how Whitaker was P4P and how that somehow meant he wasn't on the slide.

It was bigger than calzaghe vs johnson,,, It was a grudge match long overdue,,,, Euros still debate this fight and the outcome,,,, I cant believe you cant acknowledge that

I was around then, in the UK. It wasn't that big of a fight it was a decent domestic fight.

Mayweather fought top guys at 130, early in his career, and calzaghe fought them later in his career,,, Rankings are a joke,,
If floyd fights "top ranked" guys then how come he never fought cotto or shane or margs or williams when floyd and them basically made up the top 5,,
Floyd gets the softest ranked guys like ghost, ortiz,,, etc,, kinda like when ggg fought macklin,, macklin was a top ranked mw,,,
Right now the top welters are floyd, manny, tim, alexander, thurman, abregu, brook, broner, and we can all easily see the weakest ones would be alexander. broner, brook, abregu,, and floyd is gonna pick one of those guys or khan

Mayweather fought Top guys his whole career. He's consistently fought guys that were ranked in the Top 5 in every division he's been in.

And again, you brought up the rankings. You are the first one to mention rankings in this thread.

They both really didnt take any challenges,, but you cant even name guys joe didnt fight with grasping at straws with pavlik and johnson,,, yet no matter what division floyd was in,, he never faced everyone,, not even at 130..
And yes how skilled you are matters,
Floyd is the most skilled fighter of our generation,,
Joe was a good fighter,,
When your the best, and claim to be the best ever,, then yes you get held to a very high standard,,,
in terms of skills compared to challenges,, floyd is way more skilled but hasnt had challenged himself,,
The fights people wanted to see joe fight, he fought eventually, you cant say the same about floyd at any division

Like earlier stated, Mayweather has taken plenty of chances.

He fought everyone at 130.

He's been Lineal Champion 5 times across 4 different weight classes. I'd say that's a challenge or two.

What did i say that was unfair about mayweather,,, look at joes skill level and look at floyds,,,
Remind me again when joe was p4p#1 and the biggest draw in the sport,,,

You have clear double standards.

You consider rankings to be legitimate when it supports your argument then consider them a joke when it doesn't.

You say Calzaghe took challenges because he fought Kessler, Lacy and Hopkins then say Mayweather didn't take any challenges. You seem to be backtracking on that stance with Calzaghe now though.

You seem to strangely act as if Mayweather's 130 career doesn't count with things such as "Other than at 130" "Except for at 130" "03-13, after the left 130". Why leave out 130? That's where Mayweather did some of his best work so it's very relevant.

It's just clear and obvious double standards and consistently in this thread in regards to Mayweather as opposed to others.

Well i bring it up because everyone is defending mayweathers resume when in actuality compared to his skills, and status in the sport, his resume sucks,,,
To have shane #3 p4p in 2010 is some of the dumbest stuff ever,, not as dumb as when broner and ghost and canelo all got ranked in p4p but still dumb as hell

And to be honest,,, i have been trolling the joe calzaghe thing for about 3 pages now,,, I got overexcited when i wrote the first one about joe and then everyone reacted to it, so i decided to be alittle bit of a troll for payback when you and others got me good on that hopkins-johnson thread,,,
I shouldnt have compared joe and floyd,,,, but i couldnt resist because i know you will debate like crazy..

I still stand by my pernell and mosely and everything else,, just the joe part was the only trolling

Well, if you've been trolling then fine.

As long as it's clear that Calzaghe absolutely didn't take more challenges than Mayweather in his career and that even the idea of that is laughable then that's all good.

After all, that's all I actually commented on in this thread.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

BEFORE the Hopkins fight.

People wanted Calzaghe-Pavlik but he fought Roy Jones instead.

And it doesn't matter who's imaginary list is longer. Calzaghe still has a list therefore he didn't "fight everyone" like you claim.

Yes but you have to admit, there was a very narrow window when that fight could have happened,,, I always wanted to see joe vs pavlik, froch, tarver, and dawson, but he retired so i cant really complain,, Its not like he did a fake retirement like floyd...

What are you talking about?

You said Calzaghe fought everyone. You. Not me.

Johnson is another one that people wanted that he didn't fight. I never said it was a "huge duck". Does something have to be "huge duck" if someone doesn't fight them?

You said Calzaghe fought everyone. I'm naming fighters he didn't fight.

Yeah fought everyone that was a champ at that weight,, kessler had 2 belts and lacy one, plus they wanted to see him fight at lhw and we went up and took on the champ, overseas i might add

I'm not talking about people who Floyd didn't fight. Do you see me saying "Floyd fought everyone"? No, you don't.

No you havent,,, point taken

I was around then, in the UK. It wasn't that big of a fight it was a decent domestic fight.

Still it was a fight that people wanted to see,, would have been much bigger in 97-97,,

Mayweather fought Top guys his whole career. He's consistently fought guys that were ranked in the Top 5 in every division he's been in.

really????,, so sosa and NDOU were considered better fighters than jlc, freitas, casamoyer, lazcano, spadafora.....
corley, bruscles, gatti were better than tsyzu, hatton, cotto, harris, witter, and floyd
at welter when the top 5 was cotto, margs, williams, clottey and floyd,,, i dont remember any of those fights,, i remember shambra and hatton
even since floyd cameback top 5 has pretty much been floyd, manny, tim, jmm, shane, so yes he did fight one,, i cant consider ortiz or ghost top 5 because they only beat berto,,

Like earlier stated, Mayweather has taken plenty of chances.

He fought everyone at 130.

He's been Lineal Champion 5 times across 4 different weight classes. I'd say that's a challenge or two.

Not everyone at 130,, almost and 80% but frietas and casamoyer were both champs there and at 135

You have clear double standards.

You consider rankings to be legitimate when it supports your argument then consider them a joke when it doesn't.

No not really any double standards,,, ONce again you never answer any questions i pose,,, a double standard would be saying shane was legit #3 p4p because he was an underdog and beat a p4p guy margs,, yet when you use the same logic, jhonny gonazlez, mayorga, tarver, even hatton must have been considered upper tier top 5 p4p,, and they all beat highly regarded p4p fighters and some ATG,, shane beat a walking punching bag in margs..
So once again i will ask you,, did you have jhonny gonzalez, mayorga, tarver, hatton on your p4p lists when they pulled upsets and beat p4p guys..Because if you dont, then that would be a double standard,,, So please tell me where you rank jhonny gonzalez if you dont have double standards

You seem to strangely act as if Mayweather's 130 career doesn't count with things such as "Other than at 130" "Except for at 130" "03-13, after the left 130". Why leave out 130? That's where Mayweather did some of his best work so it's very relevant.

I give floyd full credit for his 130 run,, its comparable to joe's run at 168, slightly better because floyd actually beat a champ in genaro but outside of that its pretty even
manfredy, famoso, corrales, chavez are about the same as kessler, lacy, bika, reid,
But like i said floyd's is slightly better because of the genaro win, but joe was the only one to fight all the champs, and take all 4 titles, except they vacant or strip guys for fighting the other champs,,,

It's just clear and obvious double standards and consistently in this thread in regards to Mayweather as opposed to others.

Where is jhonny gonzalez on your p4p list right now, if you wanna talk about double standards,,, he destroyed unbeaten mares who was on a tear thru multiple divisions and has more solid wins than anything margs has ever done, and he was on p4p lists before the underdog jhonny gonzalez ko1 him..
Double standard would be putting shane up high at #3 and jhonny nowhere to be found,, thats a double standard.
But dont worry, i know you fell for the hype,, happens to the best of us sometimes

Well, if you've been trolling then fine.

As long as it's clear that Calzaghe absolutely didn't take more challenges than Mayweather in his career and that even the idea of that is laughable then that's all good.

After all, that's all I actually commented on in this thread.

AT first i wasnt,, i just got over excited and blathered on about joe in my first post, I was gonna totally admit i was foolish, but decided since it got such a reaction to go along with it,,,,
But in all seriousness, floyd has accomplished alot in his career,, yes he has carefully navigated and hasnt taken the challenges like an ali, SRL and Oscar did, but to do all he has done is very remarkable,,, I just wish he had done more, especially since 07 when floyd became the biggest force in boxing,, with that status you can make any fights you want, plus TR and GBP were working together on alot of big fights, and floyd bailed out into a fake retirement, which was a clear duck in my book,, only to come back once the margs, williams, cotto, and shane all beat each other up and were shells of themselves,,, and then never making the manny fight is also a big damper, and canelo catchweight also ******, but in actuality, the cathcweight made no difference, if anything it probably made canelo get in better shape and better stamina

[Humean]

I never implied he was out of shape.

Taking a fight against Cazlaghe on a weeks notice is not a good idea. Money wise perhaps, title shot wise perhaps, but having only a week to work on how to approach a fight like that is not good.

He wasn't in the Top 10, hadn't won a legitimate fight in years and had clearly been well passed his best for years.

It wasn't a "damn good version". Not at all.

He'd been in training for another fight, you deny the insinuation that he was out of shape so why is the weeks notice so relevant then? Calzaghe also had only one week to approach the fight as he was preparing to fight a different opponent unless you think Eubank's style was similar to Collins's? Two years before Eubank fought a strong fight against Collins, sayng he hadn't won a legitimate fight in years is such a misleading thing to say. He wasn't ranked because he had moved up in weight plus he'd been fairly inactive, something which I personally don't think is the weakness that people say it is, particularly not at the back end of a career. After the Calzaghe loss Eubank fought two strong fights at cruiserweight against a more natural cruiserweight of high quality. What does saying that Eubank was 'well passed his best' really mean? That he was no longer a high quality opponent? If that is your contention then you are definitely wrong.

Eubank had been looking awful for years prior to the Calzaghe fight.

When did he start looking awful, the two years previous to the Calzaghe fight when he lost a split decision to Collins who was one of the best super middleweights there has been?