Greater RESUME/ATG RANKING; Floyd Jr. or Mike Tyson

[V.WEBB]

...and Mr. Irrelevant finds himself in another thread.

[studentofthegam]

All I gotta say is mike stepped in the ring with 4 ATG's (granted he lost to two of them) where as Floyd is still waiting for his first. Its tough because of his losses and short "prime" but I give the edge to Tyson for his pre-prison run.

Floyd stepped in with 3 future all-time greats and has one on the menu. He beat all three easy. Am I missing something. I had to leave space for arguement on Mayweather vs Roy but I gotta put my foot down on this one.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

...and Mr. Irrelevant finds himself in another thread.

& i see i find mr.irrelevant's mistress still defending him.

[Vasyl’s dad]

lmao...ur trying too hard.

i can give mike tyson razor ruddock, and maybe spinks and holmes...both old when he beat them and maybe golota. im trying but i dont see it.

Spinks was 32 and Holmes was 39 when they fought Iron Mike.

With the exception of Hatton, all of Floyds past 5 opponents, were older than 34.


You don't want to bring the "old" card into this.

[Kagami Taiga]

Spinks was 32 and Holmes was 39 when they fought Iron Mike.

With the exception of Hatton, all of Floyds past 5 opponents, were older than 34.


You don't want to bring the "old" card into this.

but if those two are the best fighters on ur resume then wat?? ignore it? smh...at least try to make sense.

[Vasyl’s dad]

in boxing years he was rather old. his career was on a downturn, dont think he was shot but he definitely wasnt prime. it was a good win, does it count for as much as u claim it does? no way.

So, if these guys were in their mid to late 30s in real time years,

Baldomir
DLH
Marquez
Mosley,


what does that make them in "boxing years"?

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

All I gotta say is mike stepped in the ring with 4 ATG's (granted he lost to two of them) where as Floyd is still waiting for his first. Its tough because of his losses and short "prime" but I give the edge to Tyson for his pre-prison run.

what's worse is the first HALL OF FAME opponent floyd faced, oscar, it took floyd to be 32 years of age to do it not to mention vs a 35 year old oscar. If you compare all the other great hall of famers in history, they faced hall of fame opposition MUCH YOUNGER than floyd did. For example, pac faced his first hall of fame opponent when he was green & in his mid 20s.

You can do this with almost every great fighter. Floyd took a really long time to face his first hall of fame opponent & it was against oscar.

Floyd stepped in with 3 future all-time greats and has one on the menu. He beat all three easy. Am I missing something. I had to leave space for arguement on Mayweather vs Roy but I gotta put my foot down on this one.

Floyd has never ever faced a great hall of fame opponent in their prime.

btw,

oscar, shane, & marquez ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS. Hall of Famers yes, but not all time greats.

[Rassclot]

but if those two are the best fighters on ur resume then wat?? ignore it? smh...at least try to make sense.

you are mentally ******ed. seek help.

[Vasyl’s dad]

but if those two are the best fighters on ur resume then wat?? ignore it? smh...at least try to make sense.

I did make sense.

You simply choose to ignore it since it batters your agenda of saying Mike fought old fighters.


Only one of those guys can truly be considered, "old".

You just tried to dismiss both of them because of their age when you didn't even know how old Spinks was.

[Kagami Taiga]

So, if these guys were in their mid to late 30s in real time years,

Baldomir
DLH
Marquez
Mosley,


what does that make them in "boxing years"?

ummm floyd has other names on his resume...and even with that said, he has more names on his resume as well. theres no way holmes + spinks = or > than:

baldo
dlh
marquez
mosely
hernandez
corralles
castillo
hatton

that argument is ludicrous.