Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why does Floyd have to win 7 titles to be great?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by GT-R View Post
    Bottom line is Floyd dont give a **** about *****s and titles. He fights for checks. Skills pay the bills, Belts collect dust, the garbageman is still unpaid.

    So why are you guys fighting for him again?
    That means **** to the discussion.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by GT-R View Post
      Bottom line is Floyd dont give a **** about *****s and titles. He fights for checks. Skills pay the bills, Belts collect dust, the garbageman is still unpaid.

      So why are you guys fighting for him again?
      Cmon dont ruin the thread bro. Bring something to the table. The heavy hitters are in this one.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by IMDAZED View Post
        They don't mean much to writers. They are just the ones who get to vote. Trust me, no writer debates saying, "He won Fighter of the Decade!" That's for message boards like this.
        Well I see what you are saying. I'm not saying they are the deciding factor but they do mean alot depending on how they were earned.

        e.g. beating the top guy in the division vs winning a vacant belt or beating a paper champ

        Originally posted by IMDAZED View Post
        Those are terrible examples. Hagler was the undisputed champ in his division. So was B-Hop. Belts are only as good as the waist its on.
        How was that a terrible example. He said belts don't mean nothing but tell that to B-hop and Hagler (who prided themselves of being the MW champ and defending their titles). To be the Champ you have to have a title...which I why I brought that up to argue his statement that titles mean nothing.

        Originally posted by IMDAZED View Post
        David Diaz wasn't legit. And it's debatable who was tops at 135 or 140. I mean, was Ricky Hatton really the top 140lber? Hell no. Did Pacquiao ever beat the top 147lber? Hell no. That's just the way it goes.
        I agree which is why I said I digress. IMO Diaz was atleast a top 5 LW but to me that was one of Pac's worst wins, which is why I hardly bring it up. FWIW there was no one at 140 better than Hatton when Pac beat him. Talent wise...maybe (although I can't think of anyone) but not accomplishment wise. Also Cotto was a top 147lb. Was he the best at that time, I don't think so but he did beat Clottey Zab Quintana and Mosley....making him a very Legit fighter (top 3 IMO) at 147.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Dominicano Soy! View Post
          There is so much more to consider. For example, Cotto's WBO being on the line at 145. **** people don't forget that Lalonde's LHW title was on the line against Leonard and they faught at 168!
          Okay..I think me and you are on the same page. I never meant they were the deciding factor but they do live mental impressions on voters. Any stat or accomplishment in any sport does. I agree there is more to it though, as seen by me bringing up DLH record against ATG's.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by O.S.I.R.I.S View Post
            Well I see what you are saying. I'm not saying they are the deciding factor but they do mean alot depending on how they were earned.

            e.g. beating the top guy in the division vs winning a vacant belt or beating a paper champ
            Exactly. Like I said...Joe Calzaghe was in the running for that award . Not to knock him but...you feel me?


            How was that a terrible example. He said belts don't mean nothing but tell that to B-hop and Hagler (who prided themselves of being the MW champ and defending their titles). To be the Champ you have to have a title...which I why I brought that up to argue his statement that titles mean nothing.
            I agree. But when you bring up Hagler (and even Hopkins), you're talking about a different era, when belts meant more. Ricky Hatton had the IBO title, for goodness sake. WTF is that? And he wasn't the best fighter at 140 either so he doesn't get a pass on that side.


            I agree which is why I said I digress. IMO Diaz was atleast a top 5 LW but to me that was one of Pac's worst wins, which is why I hardly bring it up. FWIW there was no one at 140 better than Hatton when Pac beat him. Talent wise...maybe (although I can't think of anyone) but not accomplishment wise. Also Cotto was a top 147lb. Was he the best at that time, I don't think so but he did beat Clottey Zab Quintana and Mosley....making him a very Legit fighter (top 3 IMO) at 147.
            Anyone who saw Hatton against Lazcano knew he was finished. And could not possibly be the best. He was just the best name. It's like arguing that Pea was the best welter when Oscar beat him. Yeah, in magazines but anyone who saw him against Hurtado knew Tito and Quartey would beat his ass. Cotto was a top 147lber but not the top. Not after that beatdown form Margarito who was the top dog until he got beat down. Simple .

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Dominicano Soy! View Post
              There is so much more to consider. For example, Cotto's WBO being on the line at 145. **** people don't forget that Lalonde's LHW title was on the line against Leonard and they faught at 168!
              I still remember that BS that Ray Leonard pull with Lalonde till today, Like IMDAZED said its "who you beat and when"...............Hatton beat Castillo but its when he beat him.

              Comment


              • #67
                Just outta curiousity, why is Armstrong so highly rated on the ATG list? If you could name 3 reasons as to why he is there, what would they be?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Ray* View Post
                  I still remember that BS that Ray Leonard pull with Lalonde till today, Like IMDAZED said its "who you beat and when"...............Hatton beat Castillo but its when he beat him.
                  Yeah we're never gonna forget that. Again I agree Pacquiao has accomplished more but "Way More?"...I don't think so.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Titles still mean something in the sport. For guys like Pacquiao and Mayweather who are seeing much bigger checks than the dude who's 15-0 coming up looking for his first title, a title is just another trophy to hang.

                    Ask yourselves this, do you think Floyd is gonna throw out the showcase of titles he has in his house as if they mean nothing? Of course not...lol, they mean a lot to him because that paved the way to get where he is today. Does he need another belt now? No, he earned his spot in Boxing and is an attraction, something most fighters will never be.

                    He can say **** about titles now, but prior to him being a star he was all about winning the next title.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by GT-R View Post
                      Bottom line is Floyd dont give a **** about *****s and titles. He fights for checks. Skills pay the bills, Belts collect dust, the garbageman is still unpaid.

                      So why are you guys fighting for him again?
                      You act like Manny gives a **** about the *******s.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP