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

[Ray*]

Floyd is an ATG whether you guys like it or not. He doesn’t need 7 titles to be great, he already is. But if were gonna compare Pacs achievements to Floyds, He ****s on moneys record. Pacs got the historic 7th title, Floyd is undefeated. If someone serves pac a loss, his 7th record 7th stays. IF, I say IF, some beats Floyd, that 0’s gone.

So? Everyone loses at one stage so i dont get what the big deal is, Mayweather's whole career isnt based on it, Yes its something a boxer looks upon but its not like he hasnt achieve anything in his whole career.

[Kagami Taiga]

I can see what you are saying. FWIW...I'm not speaking from my perspective but how I think voters will view things. Honestly someone just told me this, I'm at school right now, but most employers won't care if you got a 2.0 or 4.0 in getting your B.S. or Masters from a school. They only care that you got it (as far as school is concerned). The way I see it is that those voters will only see FOTD and use that as a way to push Pac ahead of certain guys. Is that fair? Again that is very subjective. I only say this because I have seen them do it b4. They didn't care that Roy beat the weakest Title holder at HW but that he actually won it. Also people don't bring this up but Armstrong, a guy I admire, beat Ceferino Garcia pretty decisively at WW yet it was a huge deal when Armstrong tried to face him again at MW. No one really bring those things up, rather that the attempted and in Roy's case, got those belts.




I agree. At the same time Pac beat the best guy available at 140. Ring had him as the champ and Manny beat him. Just outta curiousity, who was better than Ricky at the time Pac faced him? The only other guy people were talking about was Ortiz and after the Maidana fiasco, no way would people wanna see Pac and Ortiz fight. Bradley is one hell of a fighter no doubt, but he wasn't as accomplished then as he is now.




I agree that Cotto wasn't the best but I still feel he was top 3. I actually had it a toss up outta between Cotto and Mosley with Pac ranked #3

*Mayweather a wild card as he had only beaten Marquez, so it was unfair to judge him, esp. after such a long layoff.*

the thing is, we all kno pac does a little belt hunting. theres nothin really wrong with that tho. but he does belt hunting. diaz at 135 was belt hunting, hatton at 140 was belt hunting. that means that about 50% of his recent fights were belt hunting, which is cool and all, but ppl should remember who those names are b4 saying how much greater one fighter is over another.

floyd fights for money, so he likes to manufacture paydays. so his last few fights were huge paydays, but even tho they werent for big belts, they were really good fights. hatton at 147, was not a bad fight. hatton had already fought at 147 and he was still undefeated. good fight. dlh at 154 was amazing, considering floyd was going up to fight a dagerous fighter. even tho he wasnt prime, he was game and he was far from washed up. now when u have manny coming up and fighting david diaz at 135 and ppl exclaim it as part of his greatness because it helped him win another title and then u have ppl questioning floyd for fighting baldomir to become lineal champ, isnt there a problem with that??

[War Dinamita]

Floyd fans can only brag about him being undefeated and his PPV sales.

just like what u said (bolded), floyd still has work to do, Pacs achieved that.

Pac's best win was against MAB and that was years ago.

He beat a damage goods fighter in Cotto, weight drained past prime DLH, overrated and shot Hatton, B-level fighter in Clottey who has no offense, etc. Got schooled by JMM and EK. Beat a shot and weight drained EK.

A win over a prime Pac is better than another fighter Manny beat.

Wins over a prime Pac, prime Martinez, very good fighter in Mosley, and someone like Berto/Williams would make his resume a lot better.

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

So? Everyone loses at one stage so i dont get what the big deal is, Mayweather's whole career isnt based on it, Yes its something a boxer looks upon but its not like he hasnt achieve anything in his whole career.

I agree 100%. Especially considering Pac has L's of his own.

[IMDAZED]

I can see what you are saying. FWIW...I'm not speaking from my perspective but how I think voters will view things. Honestly someone just told me this, I'm at school right now, but most employers won't care if you got a 2.0 or 4.0 in getting your B.S. or Masters from a school. They only care that you got it (as far as school is concerned). The way I see it is that those voters will only see FOTD and use that as a way to push Pac ahead of certain guys. Is that fair? Again that is very subjective. I only say this because I have seen them do it b4. They didn't care that Roy beat the weakest Title holder at HW but that he actually won it. Also people don't bring this up but Armstrong, a guy I admire, beat Ceferino Garcia pretty decisively at WW yet it was a huge deal when Armstrong tried to face him again at MW. No one really bring those things up, rather that the attempted and in Roy's case, got those belts.




I agree. At the same time Pac beat the best guy available at 140. Ring had him as the champ and Manny beat him. Just outta curiousity, who was better than Ricky at the time Pac faced him? The only other guy people were talking about was Ortiz and after the Maidana fiasco, no way would people wanna see Pac and Ortiz fight. Bradley is one hell of a fighter no doubt, but he wasn't as accomplished then as he is now.




I agree that Cotto wasn't the best but I still feel he was top 3. I actually had it a toss up outta between Cotto and Mosley with Pac ranked #3

*Mayweather a wild card as he had only beaten Marquez, so it was unfair to judge him, esp. after such a long layoff.*

I don't see how it could be a toss-up between Cotto and Mosley but I see how that benefits your conversation. As for Hatton, we've been through it. The bottom line is...**** the belt ****. Yeah, it means something but not the way it did when Henry Armstrong was fighting. It's who you beat and when. That's all.

[IMDAZED]

the thing is, we all kno pac does a little belt hunting. theres nothin really wrong with that tho. but he does belt hunting. diaz at 135 was belt hunting, hatton at 140 was belt hunting. that means that about 50% of his recent fights were belt hunting, which is cool and all, but ppl should remember who those names are b4 saying how much greater one fighter is over another.

floyd fights for money, so he likes to manufacture paydays. so his last few fights were huge paydays, but even tho they werent for big belts, they were really good fights. hatton at 147, was not a bad fight. hatton had already fought at 147 and he was still undefeated. good fight. dlh at 154 was amazing, considering floyd was going up to fight a dagerous fighter. even tho he wasnt prime, he was game and he was far from washed up. now when u have manny coming up and fighting david diaz at 135 and ppl exclaim it as part of his greatness because it helped him win another title and then u have ppl questioning floyd for fighting baldomir to become lineal champ, isnt there a problem with that??

Agree with the bolded.

[Khalid X]

the thing is, we all kno pac does a little belt hunting. theres nothin really wrong with that tho. but he does belt hunting. diaz at 135 was belt hunting, hatton at 140 was belt hunting. that means that about 50% of his recent fights were belt hunting, which is cool and all, but ppl should remember who those names are b4 saying how much greater one fighter is over another.

floyd fights for money, so he likes to manufacture paydays. so his last few fights were huge paydays, but even tho they werent for big belts, they were really good fights. hatton at 147, was not a bad fight. hatton had already fought at 147 and he was still undefeated. good fight. dlh at 154 was amazing, considering floyd was going up to fight a dagerous fighter. even tho he wasnt prime, he was game and he was far from washed up. now when u have manny coming up and fighting david diaz at 135 and ppl exclaim it as part of his greatness because it helped him win another title and then u have ppl questioning floyd for fighting baldomir to become lineal champ, isnt there a problem with that??

well Hatton was a way better champ than baldomir. The thing eveyone says but has yet to provide an answer to is this; who was better than Hatton at 140 when Pac faced them. I have asked this for months (whenever it is brought up) and no one has given me an answer. Can anyone honestly name a better fighter than Hatton at 140 during that time. Even with Cotto, how many fighters at 147 can you name better than Cotto. Pac faced the best possible opponents. Shane and Cotto have always been about even in my book, so picking one over the other isn't cherry picking similar to a fighter picking williams over martinez or vice versa.

[Khalid X]

I don't see how it could be a toss-up between Cotto and Mosley but I see how that benefits your conversation. As for Hatton, we've been through it. The bottom line is...**** the belt ****. Yeah, it means something but not the way it did when Henry Armstrong was fighting. It's who you beat and when. That's all.

I agree it's not the same thing (as far as comparing it to Armstrong) but at the same time a fighter can only control what is in front of him. Hatton was the best guy at 140. No way could anybody make an arguement that Bradley or Ortiz were more deserving to be ranked higher otherwise they would have been the lineal/ring champ.

As far as Cotto & Molsey. Cotto beat Mosley regardless of when it happened an was on a better run at WW than Shane. Shane did beat Marg...so that is why I say it's debatable as to who is better. People say Cotto got the **** beat out of him by Tony, but Honestly Shane got crushed by Forrest twice at WW.

[IMDAZED]

well Hatton was a way better champ than baldomir. The thing eveyone says but has yet to provide an answer to is this; who was better than Hatton at 140 when Pac faced them. I have asked this for months (whenever it is brought up) and no one has given me an answer. Can anyone honestly name a better fighter than Hatton at 140 during that time. Even with Cotto, how many fighters at 147 can you name better than Cotto. Pac faced the best possible opponents. Shane and Cotto have always been about even in my book, so picking one over the other isn't cherry picking similar to a fighter picking williams over martinez or vice versa.

Hatton was a better champ than Baldomir. And believe me, I don't think much of Baldomir. But Ricky Hatton was damaged goods. He was not the Hatton of before. Like Baldomir, he wasn't the best fighter at 140.

As for cherry picking, David Diaz was the epitome of cherry picking. Fighting no one at 140 but Hatton was cherry picking. And choosing Cotto over Mosley--when everyone regarded Mosley as the bigger threat (hello! It's too early to try to change history ) was cherry picking.

[IMDAZED]

I agree it's not the same thing (as far as comparing it to Armstrong) but at the same time a fighter can only control what is in front of him. Hatton was the best guy at 140. No way could anybody make an arguement that Bradley or Ortiz were more deserving, otherwise they would have been the lineal champ.

Again, sometimes you have to apply some deeper thinking. Like I said, Pernell Whitaker was the #1 welter when Oscar fought him. So what? We all knew he was, at best, #3. And looking at his fight prior to Oscar (Hurtado) proved this. Furthermore, anyone who saw Hatton against Lazcano knew that he was not the best 140lber. Simple.

As far as Cotto & Molsey. Cotto beat Mosley regardless of when it happened an was on a better run at WW than Shane. Shane did beat Marg...so that is why I say it's debatable as to who is better. People say Cotto got the **** beat out of him by Tony, but Honestly Shane got crushed by Forrest twice at WW.

See...you are making a cardinal error. More important than who is when, my friend. Ray Leonard was beaten by Terry Norris regardless of when it happened...get my drift.

Please let's not try and change history. Cotto was a serious threat to Pac, yes. Was he considered better than Mosley AT THE TIME HE FOUGHT PAC? NO. And you'd have to be a pretty good liar to say otherwise.