floyd mayweather jr- what more could he have done?

[djtmal]

But what you're not understanding is I'm not comparing their careers.

I'm just pointing out that what you're saying for Floyd, can be said for Hagler. I'm not arguing who's at fault but the fact is Hagler beat top opponents but they weren't at their peak. That's a fact.

don't fool yourself dan, hagler beat 2 out of 3 all time greats...that's all you need to know...NOBODY argues how prime any of them were...and hagler was far more past it than sugar so just cut the s**t...

everybody would take the 2009 version of pac who tore through cotto and hatton, over the more safety cautious version Floyd fought any day of the week...

give me hagler's victory over a hearns who was 26 years old, 1 tko loss to srl, coming off of anniliating duran, to Floyd's victory over a 36 year old many pac who (no disrespect to pac or his fans), been knocked out cold by marquez and fought far more wars than hearns prior to hagler...the level of deterioration doesn't compare but I am quite sure there is an excu, er, explanation for that one as well...

[soul_survivor]

I didn't say he was way passed his prime.

I said he wasn't at his peak at 160 lbs.

Your post

"Again, not comparing them.

Not bothered at all who is and isn't an ATG and who's wins were better. Not what I'm discussing.

Hearns wasn't at his peak at all. Not even close to be honest."

You are, as usual, twisting your own words with zero logic (getting called out on it for once by someone other than me). Are you claiming that a fighter who is "not even close" to his peak can still be prime?

[soul_survivor]

don't fool yourself dan, hagler beat 2 out of 3 all time greats...that's all you need to know...NOBODY argues how prime any of them were...and hagler was far more past it than sugar so just cut the s**t...

everybody would take the 2009 version of pac who tore through cotto and hatton, over the more safety cautious version Floyd fought any day of the week...

give me hagler's victory over a hearns who was 26 years old, 1 tko loss to srl, coming off of anniliating duran, to Floyd's victory over a 36 year old many pac who (no disrespect to pac or his fans), been knocked out cold by marquez and fought far more wars than hearns prior to hagler...the level of deterioration doesn't compare but I am quite sure there is an excu, er, explanation for that one as well...

This should be a slogan we all shout at rustydan

[hugh grant]

Fkoyds not the goat so there must be things he could have done that he hasnt done

[IronDanHamza]

Your post

"Again, not comparing them.

Not bothered at all who is and isn't an ATG and who's wins were better. Not what I'm discussing.

Hearns wasn't at his peak at all. Not even close to be honest."

You are, as usual, twisting your own words with zero logic (getting called out on it for once by someone other than me). Are you claiming that a fighter who is "not even close" to his peak can still be prime?

At 160 lbs he's not close to his peak, no.

That is what I said.

[IronDanHamza]

don't fool yourself dan, hagler beat 2 out of 3 all time greats...that's all you need to know...NOBODY argues how prime any of them were...and hagler was far more past it than sugar so just cut the s**t...

everybody would take the 2009 version of pac who tore through cotto and hatton, over the more safety cautious version Floyd fought any day of the week...

give me hagler's victory over a hearns who was 26 years old, 1 tko loss to srl, coming off of anniliating duran, to Floyd's victory over a 36 year old many pac who (no disrespect to pac or his fans), been knocked out cold by marquez and fought far more wars than hearns prior to hagler...the level of deterioration doesn't compare but I am quite sure there is an excu, er, explanation for that one as well...

Once again you're comparing their careers, I'm not.

I would probably agree with you on that one regarding Hearns win over Pacquaio win. Again, not what I'm arguing.

He (arguably) beat 3 ATG's, absolutely. But not at their best though. Still impressive wins. Thus my point.

You keep giving me other reasons why they're good wins, you don't need to, I'm agreeing they're impressive wins. But you won't adknowledge that they weren't at their peak when he fought them. The same logic you're applying to Mayweather.

I also agree Hagler was past his peak for the Leonard fight for sure. But guess what? Mayweather was past his peak for the Pacquaio fight too.

[soul_survivor]

At 160 lbs he's not close to his peak, no.

That is what I said.

Can you just explain this statement to me:

"I didn't say he was way passed his prime.

I said he wasn't at his peak at 160 lbs."

[IronDanHamza]

Can you just explain this statement to me:

"I didn't say he was way passed his prime.

I said he wasn't at his peak at 160 lbs."

Ok;

I didn't say he was way past his prime, he was prime (or atleast close to it) if we are talking about the stage of his career, but he wasn't at his optimal weight.

Clear enough or shall I say it slower?

[djtmal]

Once again you're comparing their careers, I'm not.

I also agree Hagler was past his peak for the Leonard fight for sure. But guess what? Mayweather was past his peak for the Pacquaio fight too.

comparing careers or fights, you are still using hagler's timeline to make a comparison and win an argument, whats the difference...

aren't you using one of hagler's career defining fights to make your mayweather point here. hearns arguably defined hagler's career, as pac for mayweather. your clearly paralleling here.

and the last statement? so now the excuse is, mayweather was past his peak too...

[djtmal]

Ok;

I didn't say he was way past his prime, he was prime (or atleast close to it) if we are talking about the stage of his career, but he wasn't at his optimal weight.

Clear enough or shall I say it slower?

oh so now tommy wasn't at his optimal weight...did hearns even have an optimal weight?...lol

isn't this the same guy who, when he was clearly past it, beat a prime virgil hill @ 175 lbs?..