A fighter can be world class with a losing record and no Ws over a top fighter.

[-Reflexes-]

I don't think undefeated records = great.

Great is a perspective.

You can't assume that three old men with scorecards can judge greatness in a close fight.

When did I say undefeated means great??? I never did.

Is Clottey great?

Is Judah great?

Is Juarez great?

[ThePunchingBag]

When did I say undefeated means great??? I never did.

Is Clottey great?

Is Judah great?

Is Juarez great?

Is Mosley great?

Is Cotto great?

Is Margarito great?

Is Pacquiao great?

Is Mayweather great?



All of the above have losses except Mayweather.

Does that automatically make Mayweather greater?

[-Reflexes-]

Is Mosley great?

Is Cotto great?

Is Margarito great?

Is Pacquiao great?

Is Mayweather great?



All of the above have losses except Mayweather.

Does that automatically make Mayweather greater?

Are we really playing the "answer questions with questions" game?

Cotto is great.

Margarito is NOT.

Pac is great.

Floyd is great.

Its not that Floyd is undefeated its the skills, he accomplishments, the brillaince in the ring.

I think Floyd and Pac are in a close race to determine whos greater.

[ThePunchingBag]

Are we really playing the "answer questions with questions" game?

Cotto is great.

Margarito is NOT.

Pac is great.

Floyd is great.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of the Socratic method.

One more question, by your earlier definition Cotto didn't get the job done against Margarito or Pac.

Pacquaio didn't get the job done against Morales or Marquez in their first fight.

So why do you say they're great fighters?

Also you forgot Mosley, who didn't get the job done against Cotto or Winky Wright.

[ThePunchingBag]

Its not that Floyd is undefeated its the skills, he accomplishments, the brillaince in the ring.

I think Floyd and Pac are in a close race to determine whos greater.

Sure, but that's a perspective.

Roger Mayweather doesn't think Pacquiao is great.

Neither do a lot of *****s.

There's a lot of *******s who don't think Floyd is great.

Greatness is a perspective in which the consensus view is left to the boxing writers and historians to decide.

[-Reflexes-]

Yeah, I'm a big fan of the Socratic method.

One more question, by your earlier definition Cotto didn't get the job done against Margarito or Pac.

Pacquaio didn't get the job done against Morales of Marquez in their first fight.

So why do you say they're great fighters?

Also you forgot Mosley, who didn't get the job done against Cotto or Winky Wright.

Are you implying that because they lost before they arent great? Wtf?

Hopkins lost how many times again?

Cmon man your making no sense. Now your comparing Cotto, Pac and Mosley to Juarez, Judah and Clottey?

I cant believe I have to explain to someone why Cotto, Floyd, Pac and Shane are great fighters

[ThePunchingBag]

Are you implying that because they lost before they arent great? Wtf?

Hopkins lost how many times again?

Cmon man your making no sense. Now your comparing Cotto, Pac and Mosley to Juarez, Judah and Clottey?

Great fighters get the job done. "ALMOST" doesnt count.

Your words.

Not mine man.

You can determine who is world class by watching a fighter's performance in the ring, so it's more objective.

Determining who is great is a matter of opinion and perspective.

[-Reflexes-]

Sure, but that's a perspective.

Roger Mayweather doesn't think Pacquiao is great.

Neither do a lot of *****s.

There's a lot of *******s who don't think Floyd is great.

Greatness is a perspective in which the consensus view is left to the boxing writers and historians to decide.

This is a different post.

But anyway anyone who doesnt think floyd AND Pac are great should have their head examined. Only cokksukkers of both groups say dumb **** like that.

The historians had Floyd as an ATG since 2005.

[Eastbay Giant]

world-class (wûrldkls)
adj.
1. Ranking among the foremost in the world; of an international standard of excellence; of the highest order: a world-class figure skater.
2. Great, as in importance, concern, or notoriety.

Main Entry: 1fore·most
Pronunciation: \-ˌmōst\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English formest, from Old English, superl. of forma first; akin to Old High German fruma advantage, Old English fore fore
Date: before 12th century

1 : first in a series or progression
2 :of first rank or position : preeminent

[JAB5239]

Lets say hypothetically speaking that a ww fighter has his pro debut against a hot prospect and shockingly wins by ko. Then in this fighters 2nd and 3rd fights he beats 2 old vets.

By is 4th fight he is able to land a fight with Quintana who is looking for a W against this kid whom is the cause of some buzz. In the fight he stops Carlos in 5.

then he fights Clottey gets a draw and after that fight he has fights with Pac, Cotto, Mosley, Margarito, and Floyd losing all of them.

Two of the losses against these 5 were close debatable SDs, two he was UDd in close fights, and in one he was stopped late while being up on the cards.....it doesn't really matter by who in which of the 5 fights and the manner in which he lost to whoever.

After all of this, the hypothetical fighter would have a record of 4-5-1 but is world class because of how he did against who he fought.

When I thought of this earlier, it made me realize even more how worthless an unbeaten record really is. Its all about the opposition you face and how you do against those opponents win or lose.....do you have any idea how good a fighter would have to be to get to the 12th round with Cotto or SSM? Or how good someone has to be to win a round against Floyd?

See the career of Fritzie Zivic who's record was 157-65-9 and had wins over Burley, Armstrong, Al Davis, Lou Jenkins, Jannazzo, Basora and Angott, and losses to Ambers, Robinson, Conn, Burley, Armstrong, Cochrane, LaMotta, Zannelli. Bob Montgomery and Beau Jack. The guy fought a multitude of great fighters yet his record is scattered with losses throughout. In other words.....losses mean **** when they come against other great fighters.