Who are the current top five most versatile Boxers in Boxing?

[bojangles1987]

Exactly, equal to,but not better. That's without even digging deep, thanks for agreeing, now lets move on to something else & stop resurecting this dead topic, shall we?

Doesn't this post pretty much say you were done with the conversation anyway Bushbaby? You want to keep arguing after you said to stop arguing?

[Bushbaby]

I don't need backup, have never asked for backup, and don't make sh** personal because you have an unpopular opinion that a lot of people disagree with.

You're overrating Pascal himself, he is why that win isn't better than many of Floyd's best wins. Being the best in a division doesn't always mean that much. Hopkins beating him is only a notable accomplishment because of age, not the opponent. Even Natas and Walt and the other big Hopkins fans would tell you that.

I factored in the age, which I clearly stated. I never overrated Pascal, or maybe you simply don't comprehend. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't agree with ya'll either. B-Hop's age which is the deciding factor cannot be overlooked just to make a case for Floyd, it can't.

[bojangles1987]

I should've added him in the place of Cotto. He can adjusts to any styles consistently unlike Cotto who has had trouble against pressure and volume puncher fighters.

I'm definitely biased towards Bradley, but the guy is seriously versatile. He had a reputation as just a move forward volume puncher, but the Peterson fight showed that wasn't true. Everyone expected Peterson to have a lot of success outboxing Bradley, and it ended up being the other way around.

[RubenSonny]

Because beating those fighters higlighted is better than beating Jean Pascal?

Pretty self explanitory.

Age aside, they are still better wins than Jean Pascal.

Exactly, being past prime does make a win better but generally the quality of the opponent should be the number 1 factor. Haglers win over Mugabi isn't better than his win against Hamsho, Minter, Antuofermo(respectively).

[IronDanHamza]

Actually it isn't.

Mosley was shot,(I don't like to discredit that win),but you leave me no choice.

Before the fight; "Mosley will beat Floyd!"

After the fight; "Mosley is shot"

Self explanitory.

That version of Shane Mosley is better than Pascal. Any version of Pascal.

Castillo was not the best in the division, Floyd was.

Mayweather had never even had a fight at Lightweight before the first fight with Castillo.

And when Mayweather fought Castillo again Castillo was the best Lightweight in the world.

And better than any version of Jean Pascal.

Rip to Genero. But He was aging as well.

Early 30's. And the best Jr Lightweight in the World.

Mayweather was a young kid. Fighting a seasoned veteran who was the best Jr Lightweight in the World.

Pascal was prime, top fighter in his weightclass B-Hop was 46.

It doesn't matter if B-Hop was 66. It's still not better that those wins.

It doesn't matter how many sensless technicalities you try and use and how many times you want to say it.

Jean Pascal is simply not that good a fighter. It's a good win for Hopkins solely because of his age. Without that, it's an average, solid win.

And with the age certainly not as good as those wins.

[bojangles1987]

I factored in the age, which I clearly stated. I never overrated Pascal, or maybe you simply don't comprehend. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't agree with ya'll either. B-Hop's age which is the deciding factor cannot be overlooked just to make a case for Floyd, it can't.

Natas pretty much said the exact same words I did after that fight. It was all about the age, Pascal as the opponent wasn't the impressive part. You're insulting Hopkins by regarding Pascal as such a good win for him.

[RubenSonny]

Actually it isn't.

Mosley was shot,(I don't like to discredit that win),but you leave me no choice.

Castillo was not the best in the division, Floyd was.

Rip to Genero. But He was aging as well.

Pascal was prime, top fighter in his weightclass B-Hop was 46.

Erm what the **** are you implying? You are a ****ing idiot.

[IronDanHamza]

Erm what the **** are you implying? You are a ****ing idiot.

I think that's an easy question to answer.

[Bushbaby]

Before the fight; "Mosley will beat Floyd!"

After the fight; "Mosley is shot"

Self explanitory.



I have never discredited that win & i defended Floyd for that fight, your short memory strikes again. But Mosley was shot, therefore Pascal is a better win, self explanitory.



That version of Shane Mosley is better than Pascal. Any version of Pascal.



Get serious, that's the dunbest **** I've ever read from you. Mosley couldn't even beat mora his next fight out.



Mayweather had never even had a fight at Lightweight before the first fight with Castillo.



He already beat the guy with a broken hand. Was he not supposed to healthy??


And when Mayweather fought Castillo again Castillo was the best Lightweight in the world.

And better than any version of Jean Pascal.



Early 30's. And the best Jr Lightweight in the World.

Mayweather was a young kid. Fighting a seasoned veteran who was the best Jr Lightweight in the World.



Early 30's in lightweight years equal time to hang em up. that's lightweight not heavy weight, don't confuse yourself.





It doesn't matter if B-Hop was 66. It's still not better that those wins.

It doesn't matter how many sensless technicalities you try and use and how many times you want to say it.

Jean Pascal is simply not that good a fighter. It's a good win for Hopkins solely because of his age. Without that, it's an average, solid win.

And with the age certainly not as good as those wins.

I never said Pascal was great fighter, but neither are Castillo or Corrales, Hernandez could be considered borderline. Floyd has never even beaten a prime HOFmer to date. Truth.

[Carpe Diem]

Keep going. lol