Floyd by decision against anybody in history

[Mr.0pal]

If you are always going to bet on the guy no matter who his opponent is, then you think he will win against anyone he fights. Same thing

No. That is incorrect. It means I think he has a better chance. To say that he WILL win is to predict the future.

[Mr.0pal]

You pick Floyd because you rate him, but cant you understand that there are many who dont rate him as highly as you do, so wouldnt bet on him.
There are nearly as many people in this world who dont rate him, as do rate him.
Pac beats him,
all round ability
Speed and power
angles,
southpaw,
more experience over great fighters than Floyd
etc etc

But those who don't rate him as highly as I do have all heard and are aware of why people rate him higher than they do. They simply don't have as much belief or confidence in those particular qualities.

[RlCKY]

No. That is incorrect. It means I think he has a better chance. To say that he WILL win is to predict the future.

So Floyd has a better chance to beat every fighter in history, than every fighter in history has to beat him?

[hugh grant]

But those who don't rate him as highly as I do have all heard and are aware of why people rate him higher than they do. They simply don't have as much belief or confidence in those particular qualities.

Again, back to the original thread, you put Floyd favourite against anyone because you rate him highly. There are many people who dont rate him highly and would name numerous people who they think would beat him.

YOu have said they are liars and only do that publicly, not privatley. So end of discussion really, no where to go here.

[Mr.0pal]

So Floyd has a better chance to beat every fighter in history, than every fighter in history has to beat him?

Yep... that's what I believe. It doesn't mean that he WILL win.... it means that I favor him. People who are favored do not always win mind you. Is it that hard to understand?

[mannyman]

imo floyds one of the best to ever lace em up and his defence mitigates nearly all style out there but I reckon Tommy Hearns beats him, also RJJ (P4P). Imagine a prime mosley at LW even though he ducked floyd

[Mr.0pal]

Again, back to the original thread, you put Floyd favourite against anyone because you rate him highly. There are many people who dont rate him highly and would name numerous people who they think would beat him.

YOu have said they are liars and only do that publicly, not privatley. So end of discussion really, no where to go here.

I stand by that statement, yes. But I'm not saying ALL of them are liars. Because lots of people let their dislike for Floyd as a person to dictate their responses. They name other fighters as a way of saying :fuq you: but behind closed doors with thousands of dollars on the line shyt gets real and you have to set your bias aside.

[IronDanHamza]

And the fact is, against Hearns, Leonard and others Mayweather would not be the safe bet to take against them.

In your opinion

If an established, prime Mayweather were to fight an established, prime Ray Leonard I absolutely garantee that Leonard would be at the very least a 1/3 favourite. And the majority would feel the same way.

You think.

Of course, as always, a handful would bet otherwise. But the safe bet would be considered Leonard. Which, is what you're asking.

In your opinion

The straight answer to your question is; No, Mayweather would not be the 'safe bet' against every single fighter who has fought between 130 and 147. He simply wouldn't. It can't be put any other way.

In your opinion.

My man, you have this thing where you project your OPINION as fact. Very odd. Thanks for your response.

What really is the point of this thread?

You :"Mayweather is the safest bet against EVERYONE"

Poster :"No, he's not. Hearns would be the safe bet against Mayweather at 147"

You: "In your opinion"

So this thread is basically to just tell everyone you think Mayweather is the safest bet to beat anyone? Ok


But, I mean, Hearns is obviously the safe bet against Mayweather at 147.

Whether or not one were to think Mayweather has a good chancce or not. Common sense tells you Hearns is obviously the safe bet to take.

The odds are stacked against Mayweather in that fight. Which would be why he wouldn't be the safe bet to take.

[IronDanHamza]

I stand by that statement, yes. But I'm not saying ALL of them are liars. Because lots of people let their dislike for Floyd as a person to dictate their responses. They name other fighters as a way of saying :fuq you: but behind closed doors with thousands of dollars on the line shyt gets real and you have to set your bias aside.

So what's the excuse when avid Mayweather fan's say those things?

[thatnickuh]

no one beats mayweather jr ! No one!

thats no problem for me, especially with a fighter like norris, who @ 147, could render you defenseless with one punch...he matched speed with mel taylor, and mel taylor was the fastest man on the planet at one time...

just too bad that fmj, quartey, dlh, tito, was coming up when norris was pretty much done...he was a beast @ 147, and wasn't too bad @ 154, shaky chin, but i don't think fmj would shake him, and not too many outboxed him, and if he got you hurt, was a heartless finisher, except when he spared srl because srl was his idol...

I was mainly referencing your comments regarding Hatton. Hatton isn't able to do anything with Mayweather regardless of the weight. I respect your argument for Norris and agree with you that he was a beast at his best. Mayweather hasn't faced anyone as good at 47 as Norris was at his best. Having said that though, your prediction that he would stop Mayweather isn't really logical. Not only is Mayweather a defensive wizard, he's proven that he can take a punch. Mayweather has never been stopped or come close to being stopped. I don't see what that prediction can be based on other than heart, and what you'd hope would happen.

Again, I still don't think that people realize that we have yet to see the best of Mayweather. He's never been truly tested. Those fighters of the past brought out the best in each other. Mayweather doesn't really have anyone on his level. People act as if it's blasphemous to think that he could have beaten Leonard simply because Leonard defeated stiffer competition, and to me that reasoning holds no weight. Don't try and make everything about the competition, analyze each fighter skill for skill.