Most biased article ever

[bopbopbbe]

I mean Mayweather is one of the most complete fighters ever in terms of skill set, thats easily realistic. It doesnt mean hes unbeatable though.

[BigAlexSand]

Journalism has two sides.. being Unbiased Writer and Writing on your own opinion. Though you may think differently, the writer was successful from the aspect he spread his view (through you to many) now more know and some are willing to listen to more.

Though I disagree with him in some aspects, he is speaking his mind. So no quarrel with me.

[BigAlexSand]

No worse than Fat Dan..

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

People here get easily mistaken that if you dont agree with mayweather(or stuff written about him)You automaticly are rooting for Pac..Its not the case..I just really think that I could make the same case with a lot of fighters..I disagree with a lot of things the writer said..Do I think an overall skill set belongs to mayweather?,yes..But do I think he could lose against Pac,thats a bigger yes..And if I think that,and it happens,I cannot put mayweather above pac..Im not saying pac will be above him,but you cannot rate a fighter higher than the one he just lost to...Thats my humble opinion.

understood!!!!!

[Hewito]

So you can't rate Pacquiao ahead of Marquez or Ali ahead of Holmes?

Boxing is not black and white,we seen it with triangle theories..I dont get your question.

[The Gambler1981]

He did a decent job making that case and I think it is a fair case to make in terms of being a complete fighter in this generation but it is not the only case to be made.

There is journalism and editorializing, journalism is giving the facts while editorializing is giving ones opinion. There is a problem with them getting mixed up and confusing people, but in this instance it is clearly marked for what it is and written as an opinion piece.

Is it biased? The guy is positive on Floyd Mayweather in preference to other fighters so yea to a degree but he is clearly stating why he believe this. I would say it is not the most biased ever because he is using evidence to back up his whole thought process.

[bigjavi973]

Laughable the writer admits not even watching boxing that long. Ill take that writers words with a grain of salt

[SplitSecond]

Ring voted Floyd the 12th best fighter since WWII, ahead of roy, bhop, holyfield etc. so its not a unique opinion.

Just one opinion, doesn't mean its biased just because the author didn't write it about someone you like.

at points i've seen roy jones and pacquiao in the top 10 in plenty of lists

you gotta let the hype die down so people can look at things objectively

[manoamano]

Dude made himself look like a fan boy. That's all.

[Beater_of_ass]

Anyone who thinks Floyd is a complete fighter don't know **** about boxing really. He's a defensive wizard, he's far from a complete fighter. To me a complete fighter means being versatile, that is not Floyd he fights one way and has his entire career. A complete fighter to me and I know I'll get crap for it are guys like Cotto and GGG.

They can box very well, maybe not as well as Floyd but they do it well. They can also cut off the ring and fight coming forward great. Floyd, cannot and does not fight coming forward. Oh, he walks toward a guy occasionally, that is not fighting forward don't even bother trying to defend it. I'm not saying these guys are better fighters than Floyd, Floyd is the better boxer but those guys are more complete because they can box better than Floyd can be an aggressor and really its simply because they do it and Floyd doesn't. Maybe he COULD do it, but he doesn't.