Does Floyd Mayweather Jr have a top 5 resume (of the last 25 years)

[ADP02]

Lad the amounts of championships won, divisions fought and were successful in, level of fighters beat is all part of a resume. I think you're in the wrong thread if you're having trouble with the concept of it.

Saying "lewis resume is better don't say Floyds is" means nothing when you're providing nothing to back it up.

Here is the concept:

Not when we compare a Floyd with someone who has fought HW all his life. Floyd can move up or down in weight but Lennox nor many of his opponents couldn't. So with just one division, you will not be able to have so many opportunities to be a champ or fight a champ or fight for the title.

See the difference?

One can have a winning streak but if he is fighting lesser quality opponents, does that make his resume better? No!

So I don't look at titles, I look at who they fought. I don't look at a winning streak, I look for who they fought and did they fought everyone they could have fought. eg Beating Baldomir was for the title. So what!

[Cinci Champ]

lol why is there 5 new threads a day almost exactly the same as this cant you just bump one?

[ToyBulldog]

Here is the concept:

Not when we compare a Floyd with someone who has fought HW all his life. Floyd can move up or down in weight but Lennox nor many of his opponents couldn't. So with just one division, you will not be able to have so many opportunities to be a champ or fight a champ or fight for the title.

See the difference?

One can have a winning streak but if he is fighting lesser quality opponents, does that make his resume better? No!

So I don't look at titles, I look at who they fought. I don't look at a winning streak, I look for who they fought and did they fought everyone they could have fought. eg Beating Baldomir was for the title. So what!

Because beating fighters that became champions is important when looking at resumes.

[ToyBulldog]

I never like to compare heavyweights -especially a super heavyweight to a 5'7 former light weight.

The concept just don't work. Heavyweights is a entire different world.. for instance Andrew Golota at his very best is arguably a more dangerous opponent than any version of Miguel Cotto or Ricky Hatton.

BUT Because Golota is stuck in one division.. he don't have the titles or the acclaim.. etc

Exactly. Lewis shouldn't be in the discussion really. It should be between Floyd, Pac and maybe Delahoya.

[Goldie]

I know the poster and we have discussed in other threads. When I strongly disagree on a posters comments, its just that, a disagreement. Nothing more .... but Corner is a huge Floyd fan and often tries to make Floyd look better than he deserves to be. Sometimes in a subtle way but I catch on and so do other posters.


Corner's exact words were:

************************************************** ********
Oscar's last 8 years of his career (01-08) he beat Gatti, Vargas, and Sturm. In Floyd's last 8 years (05-12) he's beaten Gatti, Judah, Baldomir, De La Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, Ortiz, and Cotto. Prior to that Oscar had been on top for 7 years (94-00) and prior to that for Floyd, he'd also been on top for 7 years 98-04.

Floyd's still beating top fighters at 35-36 years old. Oscar wasn't
************************************************** ********


Now, I'm presuming that you followed boxing back then.
- Well beating Gatti at WW was not a big accomplishment. Oscar said at the time "If I lose to Gatti at WW, I might as well retire". Gatti did NOT belong at WW.
- Sturm: Many people thought Oscar should have lost that but got the close win.

Did Corner use the word "crap"? No he did not. If you read what he had to say, he might as well have said Oscar was crap since all he did during those 8 years was have 1 good win against Vargas and two questionable ones against Gatti and Sturm.


Floyd fought that version of Oscar at the tale end of that 8 year span. Yet, Corner put that version of Oscar on that list. That is my point!

You're still being disingenuous because it's not as if he was hyping Floyd's win over DLH in some type of over the top fashion. His point was that Floyd's wins during the last 8 years(including DLH) are more impressive than DLH's wins during the last 8 years of his career. You have no point other than trying to be obtuse.

[ToyBulldog]

You're still being disingenuous because it's not as if he was hyping Floyd's win over DLH in some type of over the top fashion. His point was that Floyd's wins during the last 8 years(including DLH) are more impressive than DLH's wins during the last 8 years of his career. You have no point other than trying to be obtuse.

Oscar was an excellent win for Mayweather. Oscar was past it but wasn't Holyfield?

[ADP02]

You're still being disingenuous because it's not as if he was hyping Floyd's win over DLH in some type of over the top fashion. His point was that Floyd's wins during the last 8 years(including DLH) are more impressive than DLH's wins during the last 8 years of his career. You have no point other than trying to be obtuse.

Its my opinion that Corner wanted to have his cake and eat it too. This was but one of those examples where he brought down Oscar's resume but then he contradicted himself by saying the reason that Floyd's resume was great was because he beat that version of Oscar. You may not like the way I'm presenting his statements but that is what it came down to when you look at his statements.

Actually, Corner's facts are not too far off as I have stated similar remarks in other threads but not to say that he only had those wins in 8 years. Oscar should get some credit for facing Hopkins, Mosley, Floyd ... even though he lost ..... BUT that said, by the time Oscar fought Floyd and Manny, he was but a part time fighter who was trying to be a full time promoter.

So I call it what it is.

[ToyBulldog]

Its my opinion that Corner wanted to have his cake and eat it too. This was but one of those examples where he brought down Oscar's resume but then he contradicted himself by saying the reason that Floyd's resume was great was because he beat that version of Oscar. You may not like the way I'm presenting his statements but that is what it came down to when you look at his statements.

Actually, Corner's facts are not too far off as I have stated similar remarks in other threads but not to say that he only had those wins in 8 years. Oscar should get some credit for facing Hopkins, Mosley, Floyd ... even though he lost ..... BUT that said, by the time Oscar fought Floyd and Manny, he was but a part time fighter who was trying to be a full time promoter.

So I call it what it is.

That's actually a fair point. and to add to that Oscar's career early is every bit as good as Mayweather's and Pacquiao's. Not to mention Mosley was also cheating in the Oscar bouts a case could be made he truly only ever lost in his prime to Trinidad (well, you know)

[ADP02]

Because beating fighters that became champions is important when looking at resumes.

Up to a certain point. A Floyd win over Baldomir would not be better than if Mosley beat Floyd for a non-title event. See what I did?

Again, Floyd moved up divisions so he had the opportunity to get more titles. It doesn't mean that he fought better quality opponents.

[Goldie]

Its my opinion that Corner wanted to have his cake and eat it too. This was but one of those examples where he brought down Oscar's resume but then he contradicted himself by saying the reason that Floyd's resume was great was because he beat that version of Oscar.

It's not a contradiction at all. He never trashed that version of DLH, he simply said that the last 8 years of Mayweather's career has been more impressive than the last 8 years of DLH's career. The only comparison that he made was the quality of wins regarding Floyd and Oscar. You're wrong my man.