Does not fighting the best in your era in thir primes exclude u from being the best..

[Holywarrior]

I guess we have to devalue the Pacquiao-Bradley fight somehow.... after all it is Pacquiao...

Hm? I'm not following

[Holywarrior]

Very true. He did beat Gavilan though, which for Robinson is probably his best win. Burley still would've been a better win though.

Or maybe Moore had he went after him instead of Maxim.

[FilMor]

It depends who are the "best" in fans eyes.

Like Margarito is not even HOF worthy, let alone one of the best. Floyd didn't exactly miss out on a career defining win there against a HOF'er or ATG.

Cotto, better late than never. It didn't happen in Cotto's absolute prime, but it was a 35 year Floyd vs a 31 year old Cotto. So take that how you want.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao, well I can't believe that people are still using the word "duck" for this situation. Obviously, the promotional issues are the reason the fight never happened.

The rest, Mosley, De La Hoya, Tszyu, all these guys Floyd called out but 1. Mosley rejected him twice, at 135 and 147, DLH rejected Floyd because he was with Arum and DLH didn't do business with him. Tszyu got stomped by Hatton right after Floyd publicly called him out on HBO.

Lol @ out of prime Cotto being a career defining win.

[arraamis]

Ok, since you have this big thing for 'logic', then let's try logically reply to it. Your point about TR fighters and Floyd is sound. However, just because there was this 'beef' going on, doesn't mean it doesn't affect Floyd's legacy. He may not have ducked them, but he didn't fight them... we can't award fantasy wins here. We can only judge him on what he has achieved.

I agree 100% - Not fighting contracted TR guys, does affect his legacy in a major way. If the circumstance were different, I actually believe he would have fought them all. IMHO
Taking the previous into account and by the same token, he cannot be penalized and denied being in the conversation with the greats, simply because of those extenuating circumstances.

I think there's pretty decent logic in the lineal light middleweight champion fighting the lineal middleweight champion, at either weight or a catchweight or whatever. It makes far more sense then choosing between Khan and Maidana.

Agree 100% again -- But that determination has to be left up to the fighter, because perhaps and in many cases, they may not feel comfortable fighting at the heavier weigh class and also feel that he would be giving too much away in fight-night weight.

A MW can drain down to meet a catch-weight, but because their body's naturally larger, that weight can be recouped a lot faster. Meaning that during that 24hour period before the fight, he could possibly be back up to a full-blown MW. Which would and should make the contest unfair!

The feud between GBP\Floyd and TR is robbing all three of being involved in historical matches. Therefore, we're left with the Maidana's, the Khans and other GBP contracted fighters.

Can it be applied to Bradley and Pacquiao? Sure, if you feel they should be held to the same standards as the pound-for-pound consensus best in the sport. I don't agree with that one.

Sure it isn't mandatory to move up in weight. But how can you apply the logic of 'not having to' to someone who has made his name from jumping the weight classes? Can't see how that's logical. If you're as good as Floyd is, he has such a good chance of beating Martinez at 160, perhaps solidifying his own claims of being 'the greatest'.

As for the original question, 'does not fighting the best in your era, in their primes, exclude you from being the best?', I think I already answered it - we can only judge from what they have achieved. I think it's pretty rare for someone to not have fought the best yet fit the label..

Here's where the road splits - I believe all fighter's should be held to the same standard regardless of innate abilities and or talent.

If you want to customize the achievement scale every time a talented fighter hits the scene, then you will end up with many varied criterion of which only a few can meet. Making the term "Great" less and less relevant over time, because only the very talented will be able to hit the bar.

Therefore, a middle ground should always be the solution. A fighter would be judged on accomplishments inside of the ring regardless of their natural abilities and regardless of circumstances beyond their control. i.e. (The feud between TR and GBP.)

If you look back in Boxing history, every so-called Great had a potential opponent that everyone want them to fight. But due to circumstances beyond the fighter's control -- The fight never happened.

They are STILL great, but that tag of incomplete is always there. The incomplete tag doesn't take away from that fighter's greatness, just that the general consensus at the time warranted another ideal opponent.

Bottom line, you cannot penalize on one side and ignore the other. Whether they like it or not, both Pac & Floyd will be penalized historically for not fighting each other. In spite of the understandable extenuating circumstances!!!!!

Therefore the statement is correct:
"We can only judge Boxer's by what they have achieved."

Anything outside of that criterion become colored bubbles.

[umop-ap!sdn]

Clearly a "you know who" tard...