Poll: Floyd v. Castillo I...who won?

[joepal]

I'll do what I want, because "rules of the board" don't say anything about declaring yourself intelligent or dumb. If I called Wiley dumb, for example, I'm pretty sure he would argue the point. He'd have a right to do so, aswell, because it's not true. He'd call himself smart, if you asked him, too. And that's basically what I did, because assuming I'm an idiot, is essentially asking me to disprove that notion.

I don't think Floyd is the GOAT. Robinson, Willie Pep, Aaron Pryor, Chavez..
The list goes on of fighters I find to be (in all honesty) WAY better than Mayweather.

I don't see Morales as in his prime in the third fight. He had lost a handful of fights at that point, had slowed down and could no longer take a punch that he had delt with for two fights previously. I COMPLETELY think that if you polled it, that most people would agree he was a faded fighter. The only reason I question MAB in his prime in the first fight, was because of how bad he looked. It's hard to say. Maybe it was Manny, maybe it was the fact that he slid. I will say he was close to his prime, so it's really not an issue. He beat two great fighters. I'm VERY willing to admit that.

Shouting to the world that "I AM VERY INTELLIGENT!!!" shows an utter lack of sophistication and class, because there are other more subtle ways of earning respect. Surely you're not contesting this.

Also, shouldn't you, as a self-proclaimed PacFan, have resolved the doubt in favor of Pacquiao that he beat a fully PRIME Barrera, considering that the latter racked up great wins after the fight, thereby invalidating the MAB-is-shot-theory? And yet, you cast doubt on that victory by saying that "maybe it was because MAB had slid, and it's hard to say that MAB was prime".

And then really, making a distinction between a "fully-prime" fighter and a "close-to-prime" fighter is the stuff only a hater would make.

[THe TRiNiTY]

Shouting to the world that "I AM VERY INTELLIGENT!!!" shows an utter lack of sophistication and class, because there are other more subtle ways of earning respect. Surely you're not contesting this.

Also, shouldn't you, as a self-proclaimed PacFan, have resolved the doubt in favor of Pacquiao that he beat a fully PRIME Barrera, considering that the latter racked up great wins after the fight, thereby invalidating the MAB-is-shot-theory? And yet, you cast doubt on that victory by saying that "maybe it was because MAB had slid, and it's hard to say that MAB was prime".

And then really, making a distinction between a "fully-prime" fighter and a "close-to-prime" fighter is the stuff only a hater would make.

Hopkins was passed his prime when he beat Tarver, and Wright. Passed-prime fighters can still do great things. Regardless, if you really want to call Barrera prime, I wouldn't argue with you. I would say that I just don't know. But, I wont argue.

The distinction should be made though, between close to prime and fully prime. Because your peak is you, at your best. Anytime before or after that, you're a lesser fighter. It should be mentioned in that way. Some just have higher peaks, so they stay better than the rest, for a longer period of time (like Hopkins). Others go above the rest, only to fall shortly and fade quickyl (like Naseem Hamed). Neither is to blame for it. It's just life.

And ONCE again, I know there are better ways to prove intelligence. However, I have done nothing ******, yet you referred to me, essentially as an idiot. Therefore, I resorted to stating something that I felt might atleast, keep the argument fair. Notice, throughout our whole debate, I've actually argued with you, and not called you names, or made childish remarks about you, your opinion or the way you say things. THAT, you're correct, is a better way to prove intelligence.

[joepal]

Hopkins was passed his prime when he beat Tarver, and Wright. Passed-prime fighters can still do great things. Regardless, if you really want to call Barrera prime, I wouldn't argue with you. I would say that I just don't know. But, I wont argue.

The distinction should be made though, between close to prime and fully prime. Because your peak is you, at your best. Anytime before or after that, you're a lesser fighter. It should be mentioned in that way. Some just have higher peaks, so they stay better than the rest, for a longer period of time (like Hopkins). Others go above the rest, only to fall shortly and fade quickyl (like Naseem Hamed). Neither is to blame for it. It's just life.

And ONCE again, I know there are better ways to prove intelligence. However, I have done nothing ******, yet you referred to me, essentially as an idiot. Therefore, I resorted to stating something that I felt might atleast, keep the argument fair. Notice, throughout our whole debate, I've actually argued with you, and not called you names, or made childish remarks about you, your opinion or the way you say things. THAT, you're correct, is a better way to prove intelligence.

No, you have actually called me names before, stop being such a hypocrite.

You won't admit that Pac beat a fully-prime Barrera in the first fight. I see.

It's funny how you use the distinction of full-prime on Pacquiao (I thought you liked him?), when you won't use it on Mayweather (I thought you hate him?).

So was Chico "fully-prime" when he fought Floyd? Or Gatti? Or Judah?

Somebody is guilty of using double standards in here.

[THe TRiNiTY]

No, you have actually called me names before, stop being such a hypocrite.

You won't admit that Pac beat a fully-prime Barrera in the first fight. I see.

It's funny how you use the distinction of full-prime on Pacquiao (I thought you liked him?), when you won't use it on Mayweather (I thought you hate him?).

So was Chico "fully-prime" when he fought Floyd? Or Gatti? Or Judah?

Somebody is guilty of using double standards in here.

I wasn't using double-standards. Gatti wasn't against Mayweather. Judas was passed his, though his was never that impressive to me, and Corrales was a bit too young to be in his prime against Mayweather, but he was pretty damn close.

Pacqauio beat Morales in his prime, and Barrera, essentially, in his prime, or as close to it, as he could have. The only time I came close to calling you a name was saying you were close-minded, ignorant, or when I ASKED you if you were dumb. I was talking more about your opinion on that topic though. No you, as a person. For the mistake I SERIOUSLY apologize. I wouldn't insult you as a person, I don't know you.

[Sweet Pea 50]

Criminal investigation?
Why don't you sit down and watch Pea vs Chavez?
Or better yet, Taylor vs Chavez?
Criminal investigation?
Watch those two fights. And then come back and sit your monkey ass down and try again.
You ****ing fraud...

[joepal]

I wasn't using double-standards. Gatti wasn't against Mayweather. Judas was passed his, though his was never that impressive to me, and Corrales was a bit too young to be in his prime against Mayweather, but he was pretty damn close.

Pacqauio beat Morales in his prime, and Barrera, essentially, in his prime, or as close to it, as he could have. The only time I came close to calling you a name was saying you were close-minded, ignorant, or when I ASKED you if you were dumb. I was talking more about your opinion on that topic though. No you, as a person. For the mistake I SERIOUSLY apologize. I wouldn't insult you as a person, I don't know you.

OK man, you got yourself in a corner here. WHAT ELITE FIGHTER IN HIS FULL-PRIME DID FLOYD BEAT THAT MAKES HIM YOUR P4P KING?

[THe TRiNiTY]

OK man, you got yourself in a corner here. WHAT ELITE FIGHTER IN HIS FULL-PRIME DID FLOYD BEAT THAT MAKES HIM YOUR P4P KING?

Castillo. I also don't think that that is what qualifies you for that title, though. I think it's overall performance, what you do in your fights, the overall quality of the fighters you've beaten, and how well you've looked in the majoirty of your fights. He's never, to me, beaten an ELITE PRIME fighter. He's beaten a lot of very good fighters, and two or three great fighters though. He's still undefeated, and has an upside to him, in terms of what he can still accomplish. I go by The Ring ratings system, in terms of how they conduct them, and he fits that mold. It's better to beat a lot of very good fighters, on a regular basis, then to beat one or two great fighters, and basically a bunch of nobodies. Mayweather has Judah, De La Hoya, Corrales, Manfredy, Castillo (atleast once), Baldomir (though you can argue he's only pretty good). Gatti aswell was a very good fighter. And now, I think he has a GREAT shot at beating Hatton. I happen to think that makes you p4p. So does, The Ring Magazine, Dan Rafael, Bert Sugar, and a million more people I could, but wont, name.

[joepal]

Castillo. I also don't think that that is what qualifies you for that title, though. I think it's overall performance, what you do in your fights, the overall quality of the fighters you've beaten, and how well you've looked in the majoirty of your fights. He's never, to me, beaten an ELITE PRIME fighter. He's beaten a lot of very good fighters, and two or three great fighters though. He's still undefeated, and has an upside to him, in terms of what he can still accomplish. I go by The Ring ratings system, in terms of how they conduct them, and he fits that mold. It's better to beat a lot of very good fighters, on a regular basis, then to beat one or two great fighters, and basically a bunch of nobodies. Mayweather has Judah, De La Hoya, Corrales, Manfredy, Castillo (atleast once), Baldomir (though you can argue he's only pretty good). Gatti aswell was a very good fighter. And now, I think he has a GREAT shot at beating Hatton. I happen to think that makes you p4p. So does, The Ring Magazine, Dan Rafael, Bert Sugar, and a million more people I could, but wont, name.

The Castillo fights only showed Floyd's weaknesses, so that fight is irrelevant to Floyd's p4p ascendancy to the throne.

By overall performance do you mean how he fought DelaHoya or Corley or Bruseles? Those were not good performances. Beat a lot of very good fighters compared to nobodies? Who are you to say that Manfredy is better than a Sasakul or Ledwaba? Ledwaba was fringe top 15 p4p when Pac fought him, and Sasakul was THE MAN at his weight. Even Judah after the KT fight doesnt compare to these two.

I am not even going into THE MANNER that Floyd beat them. How did he beat them? Did he just coast along to victory, or did he KO them? Did he actually hurt his opponents? I am saying this because if you would compare the manner of his victory to erstwhile p4p fighter Pacquiao, he loses by a frigging mile.

And really, MAB, MAB, Morales, Morales, Morales, JMM, and Larios is a string of talent that is cannot be in good conscience be matched by any string of fighters in Floyd's resume. Not by a long shot.

[THe TRiNiTY]

The Castillo fights only showed Floyd's weaknesses, so that fight is irrelevant to Floyd's p4p ascendancy to the throne.

By overall performance do you mean how he fought DelaHoya or Corley or Bruseles? Those were not good performances. Beat a lot of very good fighters compared to nobodies? Who are you to say that Manfredy is better than a Sasakul or Ledwaba? Ledwaba was fringe top 15 p4p when Pac fought him, and Sasakul was THE MAN at his weight. Even Judah after the KT fight doesnt compare to these two.

I am not even going into THE MANNER that Floyd beat them. How did he beat them? Did he just coast along to victory, or did he KO them? Did he actually hurt his opponents? I am saying this because if you would compare the manner of his victory to erstwhile p4p fighter Pacquiao, he loses by a frigging mile.

And really, MAB, MAB, Morales, Morales, Morales, JMM, and Larios is a string of talent that is cannot be in good conscience be matched by any string of fighters in Floyd's resume. Not by a long shot.

Well, you have a right to your opinion. Either way, Mayweather and Pacman will never fight. The argument isn't even really that important to me. I swear. If The Ring wanted to call Manny the number one guy, I wouldn't complain. p4p is mythical for a reason, because in REALITY, it doesn't change a single fight. I like both Manny and Floyd for different reasons. Floyd for his skill and Manny for his excitement. Regardless, they are my top two fighters. I don't really care what order they go in.

[joepal]

Well, you have a right to your opinion. Either way, Mayweather and Pacman will never fight. The argument isn't even really that important to me. I swear. If The Ring wanted to call Manny the number one guy, I wouldn't complain. p4p is mythical for a reason, because in REALITY, it doesn't change a single fight. I like both Manny and Floyd for different reasons. Floyd for his skill and Manny for his excitement. Regardless, they are my top two fighters. I don't really care what order they go in.

Is somebody throwing in the towel here in the p4p debate?