Floyd is P4P #2 ever after SRR?

[IronDanHamza]

ok, i did find it, slipped past me the first time,, but its a total double standard,

pedigree of shane,, yeah he was good till 2000,, then didnt win a big fight till margs,,,

how can you say shane was p4p elite in 09-10,,, he had one big win in a decade,,
He had lost by a wide margin to forrest twice and winky twice, and lost a competitive fight with cotto,, got a gift vs oscar in the rematch,,,

his wins were vs collazo, shot vargas twice, shot mayorga and he struggled with mayorga,,,


And so yes beating gonzalez now would be a nice win,, just as beating shane like floyd did,, nice win,,,,,,, Not a great legacy win vs some alleged p4p fighter,, just a good win,,,


I cant believe people hype up an old shane-- basically what your saying is that shane has a big name and hype so you consider him p4p after margs, totally ignoring the fact that he had lost vs every other top fighter for a decade, and struggled with the likes of raul marquez and mayorga, both of which were way past primes.

By your logic, if cotto beats serg he would be p4p elite because he has a good "pedigree" and would ignore the fact that cotto had lost to margs, manny, floyd, trout in the previous years-- just because of "pedigree"

and what the hell is "pedigree" does that mean you have a big name and you won meaningful fights like a decade ago,,

There is absolutely no ev

No "pedigree" doesn't mean name You keep repeating that like I said it.

It means how good a fighter you are. Mosley beating Margarito in 09 is different to Gonzalez beating Mares in 2013.

Not a double standard, more an exception and a difference in scenario.

If Cotto beat Martinez he'd like be somewhere on the P4P list or atleast up for debate.

I don't really care to be honest. Like I said you were the one who actually brought up rankings to support your argument but now they're the worst thing in the world

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Mosley struggled but knocked out Mayorga, not a good performance but his fight prior to that he had a very close fight with P4P Cotto and the Collazo win was solid aswell. Much much much better that what Gonzalez had done prior.

Mosley in 2009 is just much better than Gonzalez is now in general.

Beating Margarito like he did is much better than beating Mares like he did. Albeit both very impressive.

Gonzalez is more an exception to the rule because he's really not been at the top level for a while whereas Mosley was atleast competing at the top level I always thought that Mares wasn't really Top P4P myself though.

Irondan,, first all i just want you to know that i highly respect your opinions and im glad we can have these discussions because they are very fun, you totally owned me on the calzaghe thing,

I will agree that shane was better in 09 than jhonny is right now,, that makes total sense,,
I just dont think shane was p4p material in 09-10. He was still a good fighter, but i really couldnt have him on any p4p lists since 2002..
And your right that gonalez doesnt deserve to be on p4p lists, but i think the same thing about shane...

Shane has always been a warrior and always has taken big fights, but i think his skills get overrated alot since he has such a huge name,, he basically hasnt done anything but lose to elite fighters since his big oscar win in 2000

[IronDanHamza]

Irondan,, first all i just want you to know that i highly respect your opinions and im glad we can have these discussions because they are very fun, you totally owned me on the calzaghe thing,

I will agree that shane was better in 09 than jhonny is right now,, that makes total sense,,
I just dont think shane was p4p material in 09-10. He was still a good fighter, but i really couldnt have him on any p4p lists since 2002..
And your right that gonalez doesnt deserve to be on p4p lists, but i think the same thing about shane...

Shane has always been a warrior and always has taken big fights, but i think his skills get overrated alot since he has such a huge name,, he basically hasnt done anything but lose to elite fighters since his big oscar win in 2000

Everything you've said here is fair enough.

I can understand your point of view.

But, every single list had Shane on the P4P list. Every single one.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's right but they did. It was a universal view at that time.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

No "pedigree" doesn't mean name You keep repeating that like I said it.

It means how good a fighter you are. Mosley beating Margarito in 09 is different to Gonzalez beating Mares in 2013.

Not a double standard, more an exception and a difference in scenario.

If Cotto beat Martinez he'd like be somewhere on the P4P list or atleast up for debate.

I don't really care to be honest. Like I said you were the one who actually brought up rankings to support your argument but now they're the worst thing in the world

there is no way cotto sniffs a p4p list even if he beat serg,,, h2h same size he would get beat by floyd, manny, jmm, froch, roman, donaire, rigo, mikey, danny, trout, lara, ward, kovolev would ko him, vasquez, wlad
Dont get caught up in names, and think one good win makes a big name p4p.

to be p4p you have to show consistancy, and not just one big win and all the losses prior get erased

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Everything you've said here is fair enough.

I can understand your point of view.

But, every single list had Shane on the P4P list. Every single one.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's right but they did. It was a universal view at that time.

You are right, shane was pretty much on every list,, but it was wrong, that is why i never try and pay attention to media rankings, they are usually off basis, and guys that dont have big names like uchiyama or roman gonzalez fall thru the cracks

[Brockton Lip]

Top 35 or so. Threads like these are why so many people want Floyd to lose. You're doing a disservice to your man .

[Cardinal Buck]

Top 35 or so. Threads like these are why so many people want Floyd to lose. You're doing a disservice to your man .

He's definitely higher than top 35 at this point.

[Humean]

Because it isn't just about being in shape.

It's about preparing mentally, game plans, certain things you need to work on. All in just one week and whilst in shape he'd still likely have to cut a little weight considering he was on weight for 175 not 168. Sparring, had he even had any sparring with a southpaw? Just not a good idea just no time to work on anything for the fight.

Calzaghe's in a different position because he's young and fresh, Eubank was at the end of his career so he's not in a position where taking that kind of fight on a weeks notice is a good idea. Yeah, he had the experience on his side but still. .

This is weak. Both fighters were in the same position in regards to the circumstances, both were preparing for someone very different. Eubank was in shape and he had a lot of experience, you have no leg to stand on with this line of argument. There is no way that this aspect of your argument diminishes the win for Calzaghe.

I don't think fighting a well passed prime Eubank who hadn't looked impressive in years who had a week to prepare for the fight is a "damn good version" of him. I just don't think that's accurate.
Plus, Joe was on weight unlike Eubank which is another thing to add.
How is it misleading? It's a fact.
When was the last time he won a legitimate fight in 1997?
And I don't consider moving up two weight classes and having some decent losing efforts to mean anything either.
Euabnk was looking bad as early as 1993-1994. People considered him passed his best for the second Benn fight.
Looked awful against Close, Rocchigiani, Schommer.
Didn't look good against Wharton either IMO despite the contrary belief that that was a good performance. Certainly not in my mind.
Definitely well beyond his best for the Collins fights.
By 1997 he hadn't won an actual meaningful fight in Lord knows how long and didn't win one again.
Most definitely not a "high quality opponent". Far from it.

It is misleading because Eubank had been in significant fights that he had indeed lost but lost very narrowly. Steve Collins was a fantastic super middleweight, to run him close in two hard fought fights is hardly evidence of what you are saying. That is more relevant than saying 'when did he last win a meaningful fight'. IF he was losing to poor quality opposition then that claim may have some significance but not when he had been fighting the likes of Steve Collins. Moving up to cruiserweight and fighting well is evidence than Eubank was far from finished is it not? Eubank was so past his best against Benn II that he got a not totally undeserved draw. By your estimation about half of Eubank's 'world level' career he was not only well past his best but was 'awful'. That is not even remotely credible.

[fight_professor]

This has been a very interesting thread. A lot of guys downplay Floyd owing to his CV, but its not bad at all. I place great emphasis on skill, ability, ring generalship and comparative domination. Previously, I said #2 may have been a bit of 'fanboyism', and that top 10 was more broadly accurate.

That I stand by.

[Humean]

there is no way cotto sniffs a p4p list even if he beat serg,,, h2h same size he would get beat by floyd, manny, jmm, froch, roman, donaire, rigo, mikey, danny, trout, lara, ward, kovolev would ko him, vasquez, wlad
Dont get caught up in names, and think one good win makes a big name p4p.

to be p4p you have to show consistancy, and not just one big win and all the losses prior get erased

I think Cotto could be considered in the lower range of p4p top ten should he beat Martinez or even if he should beat Canelo. To me the difference between being something like 7th or 8th p4p and being 15th or 20th p4p is often very little, not always of course, but often. It is the guys right at the top, usually only 1, 2 3 or 4 guys at any given time are the guys who are unequivocably p4p guys. Mosley's position at #3 after the Margarito win probably was too high but I think that 2009 there really were only two proper p4p guys in Pacquiao and Mayweather, the rest had enough reason not to rank them anywhere near those two. I also think the guys you lose to and the manner you lose is important. That you can rebound quicker in the p4p stakes after losing to a really top guy if you then beat a really top guy.