Mayweather would have NEVER taken such a risk

[hugh grant]

Floyd has to control the whole narrative they have to be short, slow, short armed, come forward. They have to agree to his hundreds of demands or no fight.

With all that obvious cherrypicking you have Floyd Boys still trying to say he was a risk taker

True, Floyd controls the narrative even big underdogs like Maidana Floyd had to choose gloves. With Nelo he needs a CW? Did Shane Mosely try getting any advantages over Nelo? If 40 year old SSM can fight nelo, how is it a risky fight for Floyd?

[VG_Addict]

Hearn is criticised by peoples actions. He isnt isnt seen as good as Duran and SRl as he had the advantages. Floyd had to show how good he was by disadvantaging himself but he didnt like to.

It's not Floyd's fault he had physical advantages over most of the fighters in his weight class.

If we're going to say Floyd wasn't that good because he was faster and had a longer reach than his opponents, then we might as well say Shaq wasn't that good of a basketball player because he was taller and bigger than most of the other players.

[hugh grant]

It's not Floyd's fault he had physical advantages over most of the fighters in his weight class.

But it is Floyds fault he fought the weakest underdogs, rather than strongest underdogs. I mean Maidana, Berto, Ortiz, Guerrero are weaker underdogs than Spence, THurman, Brook and Bradley.
You have to fight the toughest underdogs available otherwise its cherry picking.
Floyd used his natural advantages in height, reach and size to defeat Pac, or manufactured advantages with CWs to get the win. Having advantages helps you win, whether you do it by a CW, or whatever. But can you say its a great win with all the advantages?

[VG_Addict]

But it is Floyds fault he fought the biggest underdogs, rather than little underdogs. I mean Maidana, Berto, Ortiz, Guerrero are bigger underdogs than Spence, THurman, Brook and Bradley.
You have to fight the toughest underdogs available otherwise its cherry picking.
Floyd used his natural advantages in height, reach and size to defeat Pac, or manufactured advantages with CWs to get the win. Having advantages helps you win, whether you do it by a CW, or whatever. But can you say its a great win with all the advantages?

Floyd's win over Pacquiao is still a great win. A win over a great fighter like Pacquiao doesn't lessen in quality because Floyd used his natural advantages. Why would you NOT use your natural advantages to win a fight?

I honestly can't believe someone would even TRY to say that an athlete isn't that good because he had natural advantages over his competition. It's like criticizing Usain Bolt for being faster than everyone else. The whole point of sports is to use your natural advantages to win.

[hugh grant]

Floyd's win over Pacquiao is still a great win. A win over a great fighter like Pacquiao doesn't lessen in quality because Floyd used his natural advantages. Why would you NOT use your natural advantages to win a fight?

I honestly can't believe someone would even TRY to say that a fighter isn't that good because he had natural advantages over opponents. The whole point of boxing is to use your natural advantages to win a fight.

You use your advantages to win a fight as i said, but can it be deemed a great win is what im saying? Pac being competitive make people think Pac is greater than Floyd even if Floyd wins. Just like im sure Duran being competitive with Hagler made people think duran was greater than Hagler. Sure Hagler used his natural advantages.

[The Big Dunn]

But it is Floyds fault he fought the biggest underdogs, rather than little underdogs. I mean Maidana, Berto, Ortiz, Guerrero are bigger underdogs than Spence, THurman, Brook and Bradley.
You have to fight the toughest underdogs available otherwise its cherry picking.
Floyd used his natural advantages in height, reach and size to defeat Pac, or manufactured advantages with CWs to get the win. Having advantages helps you win, whether you do it by a CW, or whatever. But can you say its a great win with all the advantages?

Why are you elevating guys just because they didn’t fight Floyd?

He fought Ghost in 2013 and Ortiz in 2011. Are you asking he fight Brook, Thurman, Spence and Bradley then?

Or are you just mad he retired undefeated?

[The Big Dunn]

You use your advantages to win a fight as i said, but can it be deemed a great win is what im saying? Pac being competitive make people think Pac is greater than Floyd even if Floyd wins. Just like im sure Duran being competitive with Hagler made people think duran was greater than Hagler. Sure Hagler used his natural advantages.

Duran has a win over SRL who beat Hagler and is considered better all time. In addition to a spectacular body of work.

Manny had a great body of work. He doesn’t have a win over anyone that beat Floyd or a win over anyone believed to be better than Floyd.

See the difference?

That is why you can’t credibly argue he’s better than Floyd.

[hugh grant]

Duran has a win over SRL who beat Hagler and is considered better all time. In addition to a spectacular body of work.

Manny had a great body of work. He doesn’t have a win over anyone that beat Floyd or a win over anyone believed to be better than Floyd.

See the difference?

That is why you can’t credibly argue he’s better than Floyd.

Not sure whàt you mean here. Pac beat all common opponents more dominant than Floyd did. Floyd never beat anyone who beat pac apart from bloated jmm.
But Pac has more wins over jmm

[djtmal]

Floyd's win over Pacquiao is still a great win.

C'mon. Floyd getting a lackluster points win over a shopworn Manny is not a great win. Especially when the fight was years late.

This is overpedestalizing mediocrity.

[The Big Dunn]

Not sure whàt you mean here. Pac beat all common opponents more dominant than Floyd did. Floyd never beat anyone who beat pac apart from bloated jmm.
But Pac has more wins over jmm

I meant exactly what the post stated. If you can’t read English then there is a problem.

No he didn’t. They didn’t fight the same guys. Fishnets was drained against Manny. Cotto was at a cw. Floyd beat undefeated Hatton. Manny beat the one coming down in weight, post ko.

( Note- as much as you and others talk about how the ko affected Manny when he fought Floyd, it’s fair to say the Floyd ko affected Hatton. So this win by Manny is reduced, right??)

Floyd beat Shane before Manny. Floyd beat JMM decisively. Manny never beat JMM that way.

Bottom line is Manny doesn’t have any wins over someone as good as Floyd or who Floyd beat. He also lost to Floyd. You can’t credibly argue he’s better.

Duran beat SRL. He beat Hagler and is also ranked ahead of him On almost every credible list of ATGS.

That is why your post doesn’t apply to Manny.