Marciano 49-0 vs. Mayweather 49-0.

[billeau2]

Its because either you're making up your paragraph or you're quoting idiots.

Floyd wanted a Cotto fight.
He wanted the Mosley fight.
He wanted the Manny fight.
He wanted the Antonio fight.

He was blocked from Cotto
Blocked from Mosley who rather fix his tooth than fight at the time.
Blocked from Manny

Antonio if i am mistaken his people said he wasn't ready, and Arum himself blocked that fight.

Does not matter what Floyd wanted... A fact is a fact. Floyd never beat guys comprable at prime. I don't care if floyd begged for the fight... And Im not one of those who will piss on your leg and tell you that it is raining. I mean I get Floyd not fighting guys like Margarito and Williams, neither of which would have done jack for his legacy.

On the other hand, Floyd needed a Pac fight earlier perhaps more than pac did, assuming he would have won that fight, which is open to debate. Ditto for some other guys he could have impressed us with a win over like Mosley.

[Bundana]

Then why is he so heavily criticized by fans and historians for not beating the best at their best, for either avoiding them (Margarito) or fighting them years after he should've (Pacquiao, Mosley, Cotto) and why are so many others ranked above him on ATG lists? Because maybe those guys ranked above him weren't just greatly talented like he was, but were willing to take a lot more chances and therefore have much better resumes than he does?

Because that's what boxing historians (and certain fans, who want to pretend, they really know their stuff) are always doing... putting down the present generation of boxers.

One even wrote a book ("The Arc of Boxing"), where the sole objective is to denigrate/ridicule today's boxing/boxers.

And since Mayweather represents the best of the last 20 years or so, it's of course important to take him down a peg or two. Nothing unusual about that, and only what can be expected.

[Anthony342]

Ok well now you are talking about an online Boxing forum. You said historians. Which one is it?

I shouldn't have to explain why some trolls on the internet's opinions aren't valid. Any decent poster on this site would hold Mayweather as at worst Top 3 of the last 25 years if not #1 and likely amongst the Top 20 range all time.

As for historians, like I said, name them. You can't just throw it out there and hope it sticks. Like I said last I checked, last time a panel of historians made a list of the last 80 years or whatever it was Floyd was pretty high on the list. So, what's that then?

You say THE best fighters ever are ranked higher than him like that means something. What does that mean? Ray Robinson and Armstrong and Muhammad Ali etc are ranked higher than him? The people you listed are ranked above pretty much anyone. I have answered your question, Floyd is generally considered in the Top 20 range by most reasonable fans and historians so you tell me how that is "heavily critsized" and how that equates to "the record for the least top fighters beaten" which is just a laughable statement.

You're right, you convinced me. He's the best boxer ever with the best resume ever and fought all the best opponents of his era when they were in their prime.

[Anthony342]

Anthony

Your being crucified because unfortunately in order to make a point, or to at times try to dull the pain of points made people obfiscate information.

You have Floyd loyalists like you used to have Roy Jones loyalists. Now I will bet you a dollar that what I am about to say next will start the floyd crowd, with Dan at the helm rushing in:

Floyd beating those declared number one, is great...But the fact remains, whether Floyd was responsible for it, or not...Floyd never beat a top ATG fighter at prime. This affects his legacy considerably...Ok here we go!!

I posted this because you asked a legitimate question and frankly you should not accept Bull____ like The number one gut at this time, etc. With that said putting Floyd top ten to twenty is not necessarily unreasonable.

I don't think it is either. Top 10-20 sounds completely reasonable to me. And I bolded what I agreed with the most of what you said. Never beat an ATG fighter at prime. But I will never deny his great talent or that he definitely has good wins and still achieved a good deal in his career and if he's smart and/or hires smart people to help manage his money, he should be set for life.

Maybe it's the way I put it, I don't know. Now let's see if you get the same angry responses I did.

[Anthony342]

Because that's what boxing historians (and certain fans, who want to pretend, they really know their stuff) are always doing... putting down the present generation of boxers.

One even wrote a book ("The Arc of Boxing"), where the sole objective is to denigrate/ridicule today's boxing/boxers.

And since Mayweather represents the best of the last 20 years or so, it's of course important to take him down a peg or two. Nothing unusual about that, and only what can be expected.

Especially when you don't beat an ATG opponent in their prime. Sure Hagler was a cherry pick, but at least Leonard has names like Benitez, Hearns and even Duran in his career. Although some argue Duran because it was 5 months later and Duran's problems making weight by then were known, but Leonard still fought a good fight in Duran 2 and mentally beat him. I read somewhere that fight was close and Leonard was losing on the score cards, but it looked like he fought smart and used his feet more. And showed real balls going toe to toe with him in the first fight.

[IronDanHamza]

You're right, you convinced me. He's the best boxer ever with the best resume ever and fought all the best opponents of his era when they were in their prime.

Hmmm, ok...

I never said that.

You said he Floyd holds the record for the least amount of top fighters faced which is nothing but garbage, Floyd may have the record for most #1 ranked fighters beaten in the division being fought in, if he doesn't he is definitely near the top. In boxing history. So, yeah.

You then try and justify that by saying he is "heavily criticised" by historians which again is nothing but nonsense. I'll ask again, who are these historians?

Floyd is held in very high regard and amongst the ATG's by historians, fighters, ex-fighters, trainers etc etc. He is clearly extremely highly regarded by people actually in Boxing.

[IronDanHamza]

Anthony

Your being crucified because unfortunately in order to make a point, or to at times try to dull the pain of points made people obfiscate information.

You have Floyd loyalists like you used to have Roy Jones loyalists. Now I will bet you a dollar that what I am about to say next will start the floyd crowd, with Dan at the helm rushing in:

Floyd beating those declared number one, is great...But the fact remains, whether Floyd was responsible for it, or not...Floyd never beat a top ATG fighter at prime. This affects his legacy considerably...Ok here we go!!

I posted this because you asked a legitimate question and frankly you should not accept Bull____ like The number one gut at this time, etc. With that said putting Floyd top ten to twenty is not necessarily unreasonable.

No he's being "crucified" for saying something that ain't true. Simple as that.

"Floyd is heavily criticised by historians"

Like who?

[TonyGe]

Floyd fought in a lower weight class than Rocky. Most long winning streaks took place at lower weights. At Heavyweight it's rare that someone can get to 40 fights in a row. Floyd faced better opposition and Rocky did something rare so I'd give them a draw on this. The fact that both guys retired undefeated doesn't mean much to me at least.

[Bravado]

Does not matter what Floyd wanted... A fact is a fact. Floyd never beat guys comprable at prime. I don't care if floyd begged for the fight... And Im not one of those who will piss on your leg and tell you that it is raining. I mean I get Floyd not fighting guys like Margarito and Williams, neither of which would have done jack for his legacy.

On the other hand, Floyd needed a Pac fight earlier perhaps more than pac did, assuming he would have won that fight, which is open to debate. Ditto for some other guys he could have impressed us with a win over like Mosley.

Pac was legendary yes, but i never felt Floyd needed him on his win sheet just because Bob Arum said so. I could never get why Antonio Margarito was used as a name for Floyd to fight and it flipped into he was afraid of someone who's best legit win was maybe Kermit Cintron???

So then he's the best ever? Where does he rank all time then?

Having Floyd all time in your top 100 is not debatable. I think having him number 1 is a personal preference but anything past top 20 is disingenuous.

Anthony

Your being crucified because unfortunately in order to make a point, or to at times try to dull the pain of points made people obfiscate information.

You have Floyd loyalists like you used to have Roy Jones loyalists. Now I will bet you a dollar that what I am about to say next will start the floyd crowd, with Dan at the helm rushing in:

Floyd beating those declared number one, is great...But the fact remains, whether Floyd was responsible for it, or not...Floyd never beat a top ATG fighter at prime. This affects his legacy considerably...Ok here we go!!

I posted this because you asked a legitimate question and frankly you should not accept Bull____ like The number one gut at this time, etc. With that said putting Floyd top ten to twenty is not necessarily unreasonable.

His crucifixion is based on his stance of Floyd and the historians slandering him and his fight choices.

Fact is people bring up Antonio, Paul or Pac to throw his career off as if those were names he necessarily needed.

Antonio was another plodder. I would've loved to see the fight. I know Zab was a fight he took off the strength of agreeing to, but i would've loved to see him fight Zab, Carlos, Oscar, Hatton.....and then instead of retiring, fight the winner of Antonio v Cotto. Lets say instead of him retiring, he faces Shane as Antonio and Cotto fight. Then fights the winner. Maybe instead of a Marquez fight he faces Cotto even though we saw him lose, or maybe even Paul

I doubt he gets much credit either way. It would've always been a he didn't fight this guy or that guy.

[billeau2]

Because that's what boxing historians (and certain fans, who want to pretend, they really know their stuff) are always doing... putting down the present generation of boxers.

One even wrote a book ("The Arc of Boxing"), where the sole objective is to denigrate/ridicule today's boxing/boxers.

And since Mayweather represents the best of the last 20 years or so, it's of course important to take him down a peg or two. Nothing unusual about that, and only what can be expected.

B

that is the process... One needs the patina of history, pigeons turn to eagles... then eagles to pigeons... the dialectic goes through time.

I really believe we need that time to pass to evaluate a fighter like Mayweather.