Comments Thread For: Roach Admits: Floyd Mayweather is King of This Era

[Drunken Cat]

Let's take a look at this.

Tarver was suppose to destroy Hopkins. Hopkins took his manhood and utterly dominated the fight, to win the lineal light heavyweight championship, after moving up two divisions for the fight.

He next fought Winky Wright, a very awkward fighter who was avoided through most of his career, and dominated that fight.

He then took on Calzaghe, and lost a close one. I'm sure he was paid a bit, but there was no cherry picking in that one.

Next he fought Kelly Pavlik, who was the undefeated middle weight champion at the time (though they fought at super middle), and was considered a sizeable underdog in the fight. He utterly dominated it.

After a tune up, he fought and beat Roy Jones, in a grudge match.

He then twice fought Jean Pascal, who was still in good condition; drawing the first time, and winning the second, to pick up a title.

He next fought Chad Dawson, who was also in a good condition at the time, losing to him but giving it a good go; followed by Karo Murat; then Shumenov; and finally Sergey Kovalev.

That is some incredibly fine cherry picking, if you ask me.

[texasboi15]

Hopkins..his resume is a bit overrated and the very definition of cherry-picking.

BWaHAHAHaaHahahaHAHahahaHA

[Xi_]

Let's take a look at this.

Tarver was suppose to destroy Hopkins. Hopkins took his manhood and utterly dominated the fight, to win the lineal light heavyweight championship, after moving up two divisions for the fight.

He next fought Winky Wright, a very awkward fighter who was avoided through most of his career, and dominated that fight.

He then took on Calzaghe, and lost a close one. I'm sure he was paid a bit, but there was no cherry picking in that one.

Next he fought Kelly Pavlik, who was the undefeated middle weight champion at the time (though they fought at super middle), and was considered a sizeable underdog in the fight. He utterly dominated it.

After a tune up, he fought and beat Roy Jones, in a grudge match.

He then twice fought Jean Pascal, who was still in good condition; drawing the first time, and winning the second, to pick up a title.

He next fought Chad Dawson, who was also in a good condition at the time, losing to him but giving it a good go; followed by Karo Murat; then Shumenov; and finally Sergey Kovalev.

That is some incredibly fine cherry picking, if you ask me.

Losing hurts your legacy.....I don't know how you're giving him credit for losing. I know you're talking about post tarver but he also lost twice at middleweight to JT.

[hitking]

I agree with you, that such kind of ATG talk is actually quite pointless.

I think Floyd is probably the best 130 pounder of all time.

He had an incredible run.

Perhaps I rate Hopkins and Jones higher because I perceive them as having taken more risks.

To me, an undefeated record doesn't mean a lot. I prefer to see a fighter test himself.

Floyd did test himself at times. But a lot of his career was carefully managed.

That is just the nature of the business, and he did a good job making a lot of money.

But, I think Jones was more dominant, and that Hopkins tested himself more.

It is true though that ATG lists are basically meaningless.

I agree with your assessment, if I'm reading it right, that Jones was probably the one with the most natural talent among the three; Hopkins is a consummate professional. (Though Hopkins has plenty of natural talent.)

Floyd is a great fighter. But I don't rate him above Hopkins and Jones, if I must make an ATG list.

I could be off my rocker or a little bit biased, but that's how I have it.

I never thought Floyd tested himself much after moving up from 130. He just took the most convenient fights.

His fight with Gatti was the beginning of 'Money Mayweather'.

Gatti was big for his action style, and Floyd knew he had the antidote.

His match making was strictly business decisions from then on.

I think fighters tend to be appreciated more the longer they're away from the sport. I have a sense Floyd will be different because the hatred for him runs so deep. But when you talk about risk taking, that was the biggest knock on Roy towards the end of his run.

And when you talk aboyt careful matchmaking. That's Bernard Hopkins' career in a nutshell. We talk about the 20 title defenses. But look at some of the names. He fought Robert Allen three times. He fought Antwan Echols twice. He showed no interest in a rematch with Roy. He had no interest in going across the pond to fight Calzage. He signed to James Toney and then backed out. And he basically waited around for the welterweight superstars to come to him. I'm not knocking him. But that's careful matchmaking, the same thing you accuse Floyd of. And even after he had overstayed his welcome at middleweight and lost the title to Taylor. Yes, he moved up and took the light heavy title from Tarver. But, he went back to his old ways of picking on lil guys. Fighting a couple middleweights in Pavlik amd Winky. And Wink was actually more of a jr middleweight. And of course he would lose the title to Calzage, who was moving up. And after Pavlik, dude basically disappeared at the top level of the sport because he didn't wanna fight Dawson. Only to reemerge when an underdog champ in Pascal knocked Dawson off. Hopkins is getting a lotta love from today's fight fans as a "risk taker" for fighting the boogeyman Kovalev. But his history tells me that he saw something in Kovalev he thought he could exploit because that's always been his style. He didn't wanna rematch with Roy, until Roy was done. He didn't wanna move up to fight Calzage. But fought him when Joe was moving up. He backed outta a Toney fight. Had no interest in Tarver, until Glen Johnson beat him. Didn't wanna fight Dawson, until Pascal beat him. Flatout admitted he didn't want anything to do with Ward. Come on man.

[Drunken Cat]

Losing hurts your legacy.....I don't know how you're giving him credit for losing. I know you're talking about post tarver but he also lost twice at middleweight to JT.

Those were close fights, and Taylor was quite good, in his prime.

That post was in direct response to the notion that he cherry picked post-Tarver.

I actually thought Hopkins won the second fight with Taylor; both fights were very close.

I am not giving credit for losing, but I don't fault for losing, either.

Every fight has a winner and a loser.

Hopkins tested himself.

The notion he cherry picked is ridiculous (and that was basically the extent of what I was getting at).

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

I think fighters tend to be appreciated more the longer they're away from the sport. I have a sense Floyd will be different because the hatred for him runs so deep. But when you talk about risk taking, that was the biggest knock on Roy towards the end of his run.

And when you talk aboyt careful matchmaking. That's Bernard Hopkins' career in a nutshell. We talk about the 20 title defenses. But look at some of the names. He fought Robert Allen three times. He fought Antwan Echols twice. He showed no interest in a rematch with Roy. He had no interest in going across the pond to fight Calzage. He signed to James Toney and then backed out. And he basically waited around for the welterweight superstars to come to him. I'm not knocking him. But that's careful matchmaking, the same thing you accuse Floyd of. And even after he had overstayed his welcome at middleweight and lost the title to Taylor. Yes, he moved up and took the light heavy title from Tarver. But, he went back to his old ways of picking on lil guys. Fighting a couple middleweights in Pavlik amd Winky. And Wink was actually more of a jr middleweight. And of course he would lose the title to Calzage, who was moving up. And after Pavlik, dude basically disappeared at the top level of the sport because he didn't wanna fight Dawson. Only to reemerge when an underdog champ in Pascal knocked Dawson off. Hopkins is getting a lotta love from today's fight fans as a "risk taker" for fighting the boogeyman Kovalev. But his history tells me that he saw something in Kovalev he thought he could exploit because that's always been his style. He didn't wanna rematch with Roy, until Roy was done. He didn't wanna move up to fight Calzage. But fought him when Joe was moving up. He backed outta a Toney fight. Had no interest in Tarver, until Glen Johnson beat him. Didn't wanna fight Dawson, until Pascal beat him. Flatout admitted he didn't want anything to do with Ward. Come on man.

good post!!!!!!!

[IMDAZED]

Let's take a look at this.

Tarver was suppose to destroy Hopkins. Hopkins took his manhood and utterly dominated the fight, to win the lineal light heavyweight championship, after moving up two divisions for the fight.

He next fought Winky Wright, a very awkward fighter who was avoided through most of his career, and dominated that fight.

He then took on Calzaghe, and lost a close one. I'm sure he was paid a bit, but there was no cherry picking in that one.

Next he fought Kelly Pavlik, who was the undefeated middle weight champion at the time (though they fought at super middle), and was considered a sizeable underdog in the fight. He utterly dominated it.

After a tune up, he fought and beat Roy Jones, in a grudge match.

He then twice fought Jean Pascal, who was still in good condition; drawing the first time, and winning the second, to pick up a title.

He next fought Chad Dawson, who was also in a good condition at the time, losing to him but giving it a good go; followed by Karo Murat; then Shumenov; and finally Sergey Kovalev.

That is some incredibly fine cherry picking, if you ask me.

I said post-Tarver. I was one of the few on boards to pick Hops to beat Tarver.

Anyway, his resume since has been pretty uneven.

The loss to Calzaghe.

Pavlik was never good above 160.

Winky at 170? Silly.

He did beat Jean Pascal if you find that very super impressive.

Not mind blowing.

[texasboi15]

Losing hurts your legacy.....I don't know how you're giving him credit for losing. I know you're talking about post tarver but he also lost twice at middleweight to JT.

If you know their talking about post tarver why would jump off subject?

And the debate was cherry picking

Winning or losing has no bearing on resume as far as cherry picking goes.

[Xi_]

Those were close fights, and Taylor was quite good, in his prime.

That post was in direct response to the notion that he cherry picked post-Tarver.

I actually thought Hopkins won the second fight with Taylor; both fights were very close.

I am not giving credit for losing, but I don't fault for losing, either.

Every fight has a winner and a loser.

Hopkins tested himself.

The notion he cherry picked is ridiculous (and that was basically the extent of what I was getting at).

Pavlik was a true definition of a cherry pick....cw fight vs a style that bhop always destroyed......the only argument against it being a cherry pick were the vegas odds but if you studied bhop's career and styles you can see what it was a cherry pick.

[Drunken Cat]

I think fighters tend to be appreciated more the longer they're away from the sport. I have a sense Floyd will be different because the hatred for him runs so deep. But when you talk about risk taking, that was the biggest knock on Roy towards the end of his run.

And when you talk aboyt careful matchmaking. That's Bernard Hopkins' career in a nutshell. We talk about the 20 title defenses. But look at some of the names. He fought Robert Allen three times. He fought Antwan Echols twice. He showed no interest in a rematch with Roy. He had no interest in going across the pond to fight Calzage. He signed to James Toney and then backed out. And he basically waited around for the welterweight superstars to come to him. I'm not knocking him. But that's careful matchmaking, the same thing you accuse Floyd of. And even after he had overstayed his welcome at middleweight and lost the title to Taylor. Yes, he moved up and took the light heavy title from Tarver. But, he went back to his old ways of picking on lil guys. Fighting a couple middleweights in Pavlik amd Winky. And Wink was actually more of a jr middleweight. And of course he would lose the title to Calzage, who was moving up. And after Pavlik, dude basically disappeared at the top level of the sport because he didn't wanna fight Dawson. Only to reemerge when an underdog champ in Pascal knocked Dawson off. Hopkins is getting a lotta love from today's fight fans as a "risk taker" for fighting the boogeyman Kovalev. But his history tells me that he saw something in Kovalev he thought he could exploit because that's always been his style. He didn't wanna rematch with Roy, until Roy was done. He didn't wanna move up to fight Calzage. But fought him when Joe was moving up. He backed outta a Toney fight. Had no interest in Tarver, until Glen Johnson beat him. Didn't wanna fight Dawson, until Pascal beat him. Flatout admitted he didn't want anything to do with Ward. Come on man.

You make some fair points. But you seem to have undue scorn for Hopkins.

He is a great fighter.

I accept your points.

Saying that the Kovalev fight was something untoward seems very ridiculous.

Surely he took the fight because he thought he could win.

Kovalev is considered the best fighter in the world at his weight.

That is, frankly, a bit ridiculous of a comment which you made.

Much of what you said is quite ridiculous, in my opinion. But you also made some fair points.