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

[djtmal]

We don't expect floyd to have to fight ATGs in prime lockscreen did fighting SRL, benitez, hagler and hearns, but at least fight toughest in your own division

That would be the natural welterweights like Margarito Paul Williams etc.

Floyd was either on a fake retirement or fake vacation until another blown up lightweight was surfacing

[hugh grant]

That would be the natural welterweights like Margarito Paul Williams etc.

Floyd was either on a fake retirement or fake vacation until another blown up lightweight was surfacing

Yes I wanted to see margarita and Paul Williams v floyd too.
True his retirements were fake. He was He was surveying the horizon seeing who to cherry pick, plotting his next move.

[BodyBagz]

So what happened to him going undefeated vs the list of fighters from all eras

SRL
Hearns
Tito Trinidad
Aaron Pryor
Roberto Duran
Terry Norris
Pernell Whitaker
SRR
Wilfredo Benitez
Keith Thurman
Paul Williams
Margarito

This Floyd boy always talking out the side of his neck

No one would match Pac up with those killers.
Chew on that

[BodyBagz]

Mosley's biggest career win was Oscar 1 not Margarito. You said it was Margarito, got corrected, and tried to spin it somewhere else like you Floyd boys do

6/1......No matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise.

[Roadblock]

If the Welterweight (WW) division in 2010 consisted solely of the fighters —
Tim Bradley,
Juan Manuel Márquez (JMM),
Robert Guerrero,
Andre Berto,
Victor Ortiz, and
Marcos Maidana — the most likely fighter to come out on top would be Tim Bradley. Here's why:

1. Tim Bradley's Skillset and Strengths:

• Boxing IQ: Bradley was known for his high boxing IQ, excellent ring generalship, and ability to adjust his tactics during fights. He had the ability to control the tempo and make his opponents fight at his pace.
• Toughness and Stamina: Bradley's conditioning was impeccable, and he could maintain a high work rate for 12 rounds. He was durable, taking punches without being easily hurt, which would help him against the hard-hitting fighters in the group.
• Versatility: Bradley could box on the back foot, but he also had the grit and willingness to engage in a brawl when necessary. This made him adaptable to different styles, allowing him to compete with all types of opponents in this group.

2. Fighter Breakdown:

• Juan Manuel Márquez:
  • In 2010, Márquez was still a top fighter, but he was older, more seasoned, and primarily known for his counterpunching and technical boxing. However, at Welterweight, he was undersized compared to some of the bigger, more physical fighters like Bradley and Berto. His age and size disadvantage might hinder him against the younger, stronger fighters, even though his counterpunching could give him an edge in certain matchups.
• Robert Guerrero:
  • Guerrero was a solid all-around fighter, but his strength was often in his ability to outwork opponents rather than overwhelm them. At 147 pounds, Guerrero was still developing as a Welterweight and wasn't known for overwhelming power, which could limit his chances against more powerful opponents like Berto, Maidana, or Bradley.
• Andre Berto:
  • Berto was fast, powerful, and athletic, with explosive punching power that could trouble anyone in the division. However, his defense and ability to handle pressure were areas of concern. Against someone like Bradley, who could take away his offense and control the tempo, Berto might struggle. His vulnerability to skilled counterpunching (e.g., in his losses to Victor Ortiz and Robert Guerrero) makes him less likely to dominate the group.
• Victor Ortiz:
  • Ortiz was powerful and athletic, and he had a strong chin. However, his mental fortitude was often questioned — he struggled with consistency, having moments of quitting in fights (like in his loss to Maidana). Against someone as relentless and mentally strong as Bradley, Ortiz would likely find it difficult to maintain his focus for 12 rounds.
• Marcos Maidana:
  • Maidana was a dangerous and aggressive fighter with heavy hands, capable of knocking out anyone in the division. However, he lacked the technical skills and ring generalship of Bradley. Maidana's pressure and power could make him dangerous, but Bradley’s ability to move, counter, and stay out of harm’s way would give him the edge in most encounters. Maidana’s slow footwork and tendency to get outboxed by skilled fighters (like Amir Khan and Devon Alexander) would likely hurt him in a fight against Bradley.

3. Bradley vs. the Others:

• Against Berto: Bradley's tactical approach and ability to neutralize Berto's power and speed would give him an edge. Bradley could exploit Berto's defensive lapses and outwork him over 12 rounds.
• Against Márquez: Bradley’s ability to dictate the pace and his relentless work rate would make it difficult for the older Márquez to impose his counterpunching game. Bradley's physicality and stamina would likely wear Márquez down.
• Against Guerrero: Bradley's technical superiority and ability to mix defense with offense would likely give him an advantage over Guerrero, who was less versatile in terms of style.
• Against Ortiz: Bradley’s ring craft and mental toughness would exploit Ortiz's inconsistency. While Ortiz had power, Bradley would likely outpoint him over the distance.
• Against Maidana: Bradley’s movement and boxing IQ would likely frustrate Maidana, who relied heavily on raw aggression. Bradley could win by outworking and outboxing Maidana over the course of the fight.

Conclusion:


Tim Bradley’s combination of skills — boxing IQ, toughness, stamina, and versatility — would likely make him the most complete and dangerous fighter in this group in 2010. While each of the other fighters had strengths, Bradley’s ability to adjust to different styles, his durability, and his work ethic would give him the upper hand in most matchups.

Did the idiot find AI lol , haters are an intellectual joke.

[Haka]

Did the idiot find AI lol , haters are an intellectual joke.

Turns out you are the hater and AI agrees.

[Roadblock]

Turns out you are the hater and AI agrees.

Why do you never make sense, its like when something confronts you your mind stutters and goes of into the blue yonder.

Ask your new friend what is the psychological science in the mind of a hater of a celebrity they will never know personally.

Im what you call a forced hater, Im forced to hate haters. I find them extremely ignorant, easily lead, they are willing to distort, lie, coverup or leave out truth, all so they can justify their own beliefs, I find haters to be very weak people as the traits come from flaws within them not the figure they are hating on.

[Haka]

Why do you never make sense, its like when something confronts you your mind stutters and goes of into the blue yonder.

Ask your new friend what is the psychological science in the mind of a hater of a celebrity they will never know personally.

Im what you call a forced hater, Im forced to hate haters. I find them extremely ignorant, easily lead, they are willing to distort, lie, coverup or leave out truth, all so they can justify their own beliefs, I find haters to be very weak people as the traits come from flaws within them not the figure they are hating on.

Type of Argument:

1. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack):
   • Instead of addressing specific points or countering arguments directly, the poster attacks "haters" as a group, attributing negative personal traits to them (e.g., "ignorant," "easily led," "willing to distort, lie, cover up, or leave out truth").
2. Generalization:
   • The poster creates a sweeping claim about all "haters" without providing evidence for these assertions. Statements like "I find haters to be very weak people" generalize the behavior and character of an entire group based on personal bias.

What is Wrong with the Argument:

1. Lack of Specific Evidence:
   • The poster does not present any examples or evidence to substantiate their claims about "haters." This makes the argument an unfounded opinion rather than a logical point.
2. Logical Fallacy - Ad Hominem:
   • Attacking the character of a group ("haters") does not address the actual topic or critique being discussed. This undermines the argument's validity and shifts focus away from the issue at hand.
3. Emotional Bias:
   • The poster acknowledges they are a "forced hater," which introduces emotional bias into their argument. This makes their reasoning less objective and more about personal frustration.
4. No Counterargument or Relevance:
   • The poster doesn't engage with the topic under discussion or counter any points made. Instead, they rant about their disdain for "haters," making their argument disconnected from the original debate.

Conclusion:


The argument relies on emotional appeals and logical fallacies rather than reasoned discussion. To improve, the poster should focus on addressing specific points of disagreement and providing evidence-based counterarguments.

[Roadblock]

Type of Argument:

1. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack):
   • Instead of addressing specific points or countering arguments directly, the poster attacks "haters" as a group, attributing negative personal traits to them (e.g., "ignorant," "easily led," "willing to distort, lie, cover up, or leave out truth").
2. Generalization:
   • The poster creates a sweeping claim about all "haters" without providing evidence for these assertions. Statements like "I find haters to be very weak people" generalize the behavior and character of an entire group based on personal bias.

What is Wrong with the Argument:

1. Lack of Specific Evidence:
   • The poster does not present any examples or evidence to substantiate their claims about "haters." This makes the argument an unfounded opinion rather than a logical point.
2. Logical Fallacy - Ad Hominem:
   • Attacking the character of a group ("haters") does not address the actual topic or critique being discussed. This undermines the argument's validity and shifts focus away from the issue at hand.
3. Emotional Bias:
   • The poster acknowledges they are a "forced hater," which introduces emotional bias into their argument. This makes their reasoning less objective and more about personal frustration.
4. No Counterargument or Relevance:
   • The poster doesn't engage with the topic under discussion or counter any points made. Instead, they rant about their disdain for "haters," making their argument disconnected from the original debate.

Conclusion:


The argument relies on emotional appeals and logical fallacies rather than reasoned discussion. To improve, the poster should focus on addressing specific points of disagreement and providing evidence-based counterarguments.

You realise your argument applies to you on so many levels. Are you so naive that you can't comprehend what it tells you?

[Haka]

You realise your argument applies to you on so many levels. Are you so naive that you can't comprehend what it tells you?

Why don't you state you position as to reason towards the truth. Up until now these are the cold hard facts: Bradley is a #1 or #2 of best "prime" opponent and also that Bradley > JMM, Guerrero, Berto, Ortiz, Maidana.