At 147-154, Prime for Prime, how would Floyd Mayweather Jr fair against these five Pro Boxers he beat in the past?

[Haka]

What is your point? Numb nuts, we go no further until you say what your specific point is, you don't have one.

My point is that I question the validity of the discussion based on postulate 1,2,3.

[Roadblock]

My point is that I question the validity of the discussion based on postulate 1,2,3.

And more proof you have no point, same ol BS from a hating fool, 20 pages and you cannot say what your point is.

[Haka]

And more proof you have no point, same ol BS from a hating fool, 20 pages and you cannot say what your point is.

I postulated everything from the ground up with a neutral AI that is fed cold hard facts.

[Roadblock]

I postulated everything from the ground up with a neutral AI that is fed cold hard facts.

lol why not show us the cold hard facts you fed it, is that too hard for you copy paste lol. you are as transparent as a screen door.

What is your specific point, why is it so hard for you establish your actual point, I dont want a novel of your spoon fed BS, what is your specific point?

[BodyBagz]

Timmy > HORN, Vargas, Rios, Lucas, Broner, shot DLH, Algieri*, Clottey..........

[Haka]

lol why not show us the cold hard facts you fed it, is that too hard for you copy paste lol. you are as transparent as a screen door.

What is your specific point, why is it so hard for you establish your actual point, I dont want a novel of your spoon fed BS, what is your specific point?

1. Timothy Bradley would have ranked as the #1 or #2 prime opponent on Floyd Mayweather's resume.
2. Bradley stands as the most formidable head-to-head competitor from the 2010 class, which includes JMM, Maidana, Ortiz, Guerrero, and Berto.
3. Despite his credentials, Bradley has been entirely disregarded by Mayweather.

Given these premises, I must question the credibility of the argument presented by the threadstarter (TS), as outlined in posts #190 and #191 and culminating in the conclusion articulated in Post #211. From that point onward, you have provided no substantive rebuttal to the claims in question.

Based on these premises, I pose the following: How does your reasoning reconcile Mayweather theoretically engaging with the following fighters at their peak, when historical evidence contradicts these hypothetical matchups ever materializing—even against a seemingly lesser challenge in Bradley?

• Miguel Cotto (32-0, 26 KOs) in 2008.
• Canelo Alvarez (51-1-2, 35 KOs) from 2017-2018, assuming Alvarez accepted the 155-lb catchweight he frequently employed.
• Shane Mosley (35-0, 32 KOs) in 2000.
• Oscar De La Hoya (30-0, 24 KOs) in 1999.
• Manny Pacquiao (54-3-2) in 2011.

We have verifiable documentation that none of these matchups occurred, despite being plausible at the time. How, then, do you rationalize entertaining the possibility of such hypothetical fights when none of them—including a fight with Bradley—ever came to fruition, even when they were within the realm of feasibility?

[Roadblock]

1. Timothy Bradley would have ranked as the #1 or #2 prime opponent on Floyd Mayweather's resume.
2. Bradley stands as the most formidable head-to-head competitor from the 2010 class, which includes JMM, Maidana, Ortiz, Guerrero, and Berto.
3. Despite his credentials, Bradley has been entirely disregarded by Mayweather.

Given these premises, I must question the credibility of the argument presented by the threadstarter (TS), as outlined in posts #190 and #191 and culminating in the conclusion articulated in Post #211. From that point onward, you have provided no substantive rebuttal to the claims in question.

Based on these premises, I pose the following: How does your reasoning reconcile Mayweather theoretically engaging with the following fighters at their peak, when historical evidence contradicts these hypothetical matchups ever materializing—even against a seemingly lesser challenge in Bradley?

• Miguel Cotto (32-0, 26 KOs) in 2008.
• Canelo Alvarez (51-1-2, 35 KOs) from 2017-2018, assuming Alvarez accepted the 155-lb catchweight he frequently employed.
• Shane Mosley (35-0, 32 KOs) in 2000.
• Oscar De La Hoya (30-0, 24 KOs) in 1999.
• Manny Pacquiao (54-3-2) in 2011.

We have verifiable documentation that none of these matchups occurred, despite being plausible at the time. How, then, do you rationalize entertaining the possibility of such hypothetical fights when none of them—including a fight with Bradley—ever came to fruition, even when they were within the realm of feasibility?

lol you fkn pea brain .

You told it the variables which are all your interpretations, you then asked it to rationalize your way of thinking based on your variables as input, are you this fkn gullible..


And the answer to your output was answered by AI but you stepped on over it like a moron that sees nothing.

• The premise that Mayweather lacked elite prime opponents ignores that he faced multiple undefeated fighters and reigning champions at their peak, including:
  • Canelo Alvarez (42-0 at the time)
  • Ricky Hatton (43-0 at the time)
  • Diego Corrales (33-0 at their fight)
  • Zab Judah (who was considered the #1 welterweight when they fought)
• The classification of fighters like Maidana and Guerrero as "not elite-level threats" is historically inaccurate:
  • Maidana was coming off a dominant win over Adrien Broner
  • Guerrero was on a 15-fight win streak and had won titles in multiple divisions
  • Both were considered legitimate threats at the time of their fights
• The analysis significantly understates the quality of Mayweather's victories over fighters like Miguel Cotto and Shane Mosley:
  • Cotto was still in his prime at 154 lbs when they fought, having just avenged his loss to Margarito
  • Mosley, while older, was coming off a devastating knockout of Antonio Margarito
• The claim about Bradley's hypothetical placement contains circular reasoning:
  • It assumes Bradley would be one of Floyd's best opponents without evidence
  • It ignores that Bradley struggled against opponents that Mayweather dominated
  • It doesn't account for stylistic matchups that might have made Bradley less competitive
• The "quality over quantity" argument is undermined by statistics:
  • Mayweather fought 24 world champions
  • He defeated 16 fighters who held multiple world titles
  • His opponents had a combined record of 766-72-2 when he fought them
• The historical context is missing:
  • Mayweather fought and beat the available top contenders in each era
  • Many of the fights deemed "missing" from his resume (like Bradley) were complicated by promotional conflicts
  • He consistently fought the highest-ranked available opponents

The analysis attempts to diminish Mayweather's accomplishments through selective interpretation rather than examining the full context of his career and era.

[Haka]

lol you fkn pea brain .

You told it the variables which are all your interpretations, you then asked it to rationalize your way of thinking based on your variables as input, are you this fkn gullible..

Why do you dodge my question ? I answered all your questions.

[Haka]

lol you fkn pea brain .

You told it the variables which are all your interpretations, you then asked it to rationalize your way of thinking based on your variables as input, are you this fkn gullible..


And the answer to your output was answered by AI but you stepped on over it like a moron that sees nothing.

• The premise that Mayweather lacked elite prime opponents ignores that he faced multiple undefeated fighters and reigning champions at their peak, including:
  • Canelo Alvarez (42-0 at the time)
  • Ricky Hatton (43-0 at the time)
  • Diego Corrales (33-0 at their fight)
  • Zab Judah (who was considered the #1 welterweight when they fought)
• The classification of fighters like Maidana and Guerrero as "not elite-level threats" is historically inaccurate:
  • Maidana was coming off a dominant win over Adrien Broner
  • Guerrero was on a 15-fight win streak and had won titles in multiple divisions
  • Both were considered legitimate threats at the time of their fights
• The analysis significantly understates the quality of Mayweather's victories over fighters like Miguel Cotto and Shane Mosley:
  • Cotto was still in his prime at 154 lbs when they fought, having just avenged his loss to Margarito
  • Mosley, while older, was coming off a devastating knockout of Antonio Margarito
• The claim about Bradley's hypothetical placement contains circular reasoning:
  • It assumes Bradley would be one of Floyd's best opponents without evidence
  • It ignores that Bradley struggled against opponents that Mayweather dominated
  • It doesn't account for stylistic matchups that might have made Bradley less competitive
• The "quality over quantity" argument is undermined by statistics:
  • Mayweather fought 24 world champions
  • He defeated 16 fighters who held multiple world titles
  • His opponents had a combined record of 766-72-2 when he fought them
• The historical context is missing:
  • Mayweather fought and beat the available top contenders in each era
  • Many of the fights deemed "missing" from his resume (like Bradley) were complicated by promotional conflicts
  • He consistently fought the highest-ranked available opponents

The analysis attempts to diminish Mayweather's accomplishments through selective interpretation rather than examining the full context of his career and era.

You don't start from any postulates. First define "prime".

[Roadblock]

You don't start from any postulates. First define "prime".

Buddy Im tired of conversing with an idiot, you just dont have the intelligence to comprehend, your refusal to answer anything, your refusal to state the very point of your argument, your fantasy interpretations all add up to trying to converse with a caveman and Im bored, I like a real debate but your just too empty headed to mount one.

Prime is the period an athlete is at his/her physical best, fastest, highest power to weight ratio, sharpest reflexes, highest endurance, fastest recovery. to elaborate more the greatest athletes operate closer to their prime across their whole career than the average athlete does, but because prime is subjective it doesn't have an absolute other than say a runner personal best time could be said to be their prime, yet it could be best time because of a strong tail wind.

Prime is fan talk and is different than peak, just as saying Manny jumped two divisions to fight Oscar, 2 divisions sounds like a huge amount of weight in fan land, but the realty is Manny fights at 144 fight night and he was 147 while Oscar was 145 instead of his usual 163, so how much weight did Manny jump? the truth is a very clear picture.

Now whats your point, do you even have one?