The Mayweather handpicking myth is a lie

[whoelsebutjames]

So now you're saying Floyd didnt grow after he turned pro at 19 years of age? I guess its possible but what is interesting is that from the age of 25 to 30, Floyd (ala Broner and probably several other boxers under Mayweather promotions) had some huge growth spurts from 130 lbs to over 150 lbs, which doesnt seem natural for a top conditioned and finely cut adult athlete.

Anyway, at Super featherweight, Floyd doesnt even attempt to fight Barrera or Morales. At Jr. Lightweight Floyd vacated rather than fight Morales, Barrerra, and Frietas. Maybe it had to do with Morales running him out of Big Bear.

At Lightweight Floyd should of fought Stevie Johnson and Spadafora instead of Ndou and Sosa.

At light welter, Floyd fought Gatti and some dude named Bruseles but should have fought Kostya Tszyu and Cotto

Floyd then moved up to Welter and fought Baldimir but skipped Margarito, Pacman, Mosley, Bradley, Cotto, etc…while they were prime. He did called out Winky Wright but then ran for the hills when Winky called his bluff.

Floyd then moved up to Light Middle to fight ol Oscar but soon moved back down to finally fight Mosley and a lil Ricky Hatton who recently had to wrassle with all his might against Urango and Collazzo.

Floyd then moves back up to light Middle to fight a recently war torn Cotto and weight-drained Alvarez but avoids Lara, Martinez, GGG.

At Jr. Middleweight Floyd held the WBA, WBC and Ring champion but is literally the only unified champ in any division in boxing history who refuses to defend his belts on the grounds that the other guy is “too big”. For instance, Floyd said he was the TBE at 154 yet insisted that Martinez come down to 150 and still ended up a duck. They should have stripped those titles much quicker than they did.

Bottom line, the TBEs of boxing often went up to fight way bigger weight discrepancies than Floyd did

Weight discrepancies yes but not height.

SRR was 5'11
SRl was 5'10
Hearns 6'1
De la Hoya 5'10
Trinidad 5'11
Sergio Martinez 5'10

So we're mainly talking about Duran, Muhammad Qawi (5'5 amazing), Langford 5'7, and Henry Armstrong 5'5. Duran 5'7 was not a dominant middleweight and I won't pretend to know **** about Armstrong or Langford other than what I've read.

Boxing historians and fans overplay weight and reach and give little credence in height and frame. While height is not a tell all its more idicative of overall success in a division then walk around weights -- since they vary so much-- and fighters cut weight often. Marciano was a short heavyweight but heavy weight weren't 6'7 then either. This is exemplified by the fact that many of the extreme old school guys fought from Welter /middle all the way to Heavyweight-- I.e. joe Walcott , Archie Moore. It takes less work to punch down then to punch up. That's basic physics.

The further you get from the past the more the weight classes have become defined and the larger the opponents become. Boxing historians and fans have a binary way of thinking which excludes a lot of common sense. It's rooted in the history of boxing rather than forward thinking and analyzation.

Tall guys generally do pretty well in shorter weight classes. Short guys generally have a harder time-- they may beat a few great people but are consistently forced to work harder than there taller opponents fight after fight. Continuing to win under these conditions are not favorable for a long period of time. 6' Forrest would have always been a problem for most welters.

Height is the reason Wvlad Lennox and Vitali were so dominant in the division. If this is the major knock on Floyd, he mostly fought opponents near his own height then so be it.

Weight classes are a semi-imaginary construct, if you were to size a person up on the street you would go by height, frame, and build. It's common sense.

For instance. Kovalev is 6' walks around at 190. Delahoya is 5'10 walks around at 180. If you saw these two guys on the street and didn't know their weight class you would assume it was a near even fight and delahoya, slightly outmatched in size would have a fair shot. Now if you saw 5'8 Floyd walking around at 160, you'd automatically assume he was overmatched. Common sense.

[whoelsebutjames]

I commend you for your well thought out, respectful, and written argument. A for effort in deed.

Although, for your argument to to be more solid-- it would be better to say Floyd didn't fight any great fighters. Prime is too subjective as you already pointed out.

Bringing up Roy, some of these same knocks about prime could be said of him. Benard was green. Toney was outboxed by Tiberi prior to fight with Roy. Virgil hill just lost to Michalczewski. Richard Hall already lost to Gannon.Pazienza Lost to Camacho and Roger years earlier. Do you consider Montell Griffin and Clinton Woods great? Didn't fight Michalczewski, Collins, Frank Lille's, Michael Nunn, Eubanks, McCellan, Watson, Calzaghe(middle to late 90's)or Benn. And in his lesser form was dominated by Calzaghe despite being close in age and being active for a similiar period of time. Calzaghes prime lasted longer.

---------------
Did Roy Jones Jr duck you?
“I was never mandated. But I asked Roy Jones about 10 or 12 years ago if he’d said back in ’93 that the one fighter he thought would give him problems and had reservations of taking on was me. He told me yes that was true.”

Did you take on all the toughest challenges in your career in your opinion?

“As world champion, what you want to avoid is a southpaw who is 6ft or more and unbeaten or been world champion. Rocchigiani and Calzaghe were fights that no other fighter would take. I took them, even though they weren’t even mandated.

“Not even Roy Jones, rated as the best pound-for-pound fighter in history by some writers, would take that fight even when it was mandated to.”

Eubanks interview.

http://www.nowboxing.com/2012/06/fan...bank-sr/24329/
-------------
People credit Jones with how he won more than anything-- with or without the ripped fuel/otc steroids. He looked like a fighter and was superhuman.

Roy Levesta never adapted to not being the most talented man in the ring and despite taking little punishment over his career his reign ended abruptly. He had little discipline which shows with how he took care of his body and never learning his craft deeper because he was too busy beating people up. With his physical gifts and dedication he could of easily been the best ever and extended his reign much further. Hopkins wasn't a monster to me until he beat Tarver. Trinidad is cool but it was a mismatch. Hopkins was never as gifted but plied his craft as a late starter.
Roy is credited as a classic fighter faster stronger and More athletic then his opponent. I apologize if it sounds disrespectful to ROY, I'm just illustrating a point of how people evaluate Floyd.

Quoted because people seem to forget the same critiscms were brought against Roy(10+ ducks) in these very forums a little over 10 years ago. Plus this and my last post go hand and hand.

Myth busters.

[billeau2]

Let me tell you this. The ability to adjust is one of the most important assets to have in a ring. It's why fighters like Roberto Duran and FMJ are heralded and it's a key measuring stick in figuring out how well a boxer does against an opponent.

Oscar not being able to adjust only shows how great Floyd is in comparison to other ATGs. But we can look through history and see that Oscar clearly adjusts to his opponents well (Felix/Vargas). Since you brought up Froch and decided to compare him to Oscar please tell me any fight Froch has adapted well? If not then could you please enlighten me on what traits/skills Froch possesses that make him superior to Oscar?

If not. Nonsensical.

Fighters adjusting has nothing to do with the issue raised, its a straw man. All fighters make adjustments and the question never was who adjusts more. The issue raised was the comparative quality of a fighter like De La Hoya. You will find, if you look that De La Hoya's relative place in boxing is often debated. There are threads here on the subject. Again thats not the issue there is plenty of information on that subject, I will look and send you a thread...there was one a few years back or so.

I think you are under the impression that De La Hoya is better than he was frankly, that is an opinion on my part. You just have to look at his career, his wins, loses, his performances and compare them to a guy like Froch. As far as Kovalev, we don't know how far he will go but he certainly is on a trajectory that appears to show possible greatness.

Your not seeing the point raised for whatever reason: that a great fighter generally has certain characteristics that, for example, Ward shows, and some of which Floyd lacked.

Rather than debate Oscar's greatness or lack thereof I will look for the thread I speak of and you can see what a lot of posters argue....I really just do not want to siddetrack debating De La Hoya lol.

[billeau2]

I commend you for your well thought out, respectful, and written argument. A for effort in deed.

Although, for your argument to to be more solid-- it would be better to say Floyd didn't fight any great fighters. Prime is too subjective as you already pointed out.

Bringing up Roy, some of these same knocks about prime could be said of him. Benard was green. Toney was outboxed by Tiberi prior to fight with Roy. Virgil hill just lost to Michalczewski. Richard Hall already lost to Gannon.Pazienza Lost to Camacho and Roger years earlier. Do you consider Montell Griffin and Clinton Woods great? Didn't fight Michalczewski, Collins, Frank Lille's, Michael Nunn, Eubanks, McCellan, Watson, Calzaghe(middle to late 90's)or Benn. And in his lesser form was dominated by Calzaghe despite being close in age and being active for a similiar period of time. Calzaghes prime lasted longer.

---------------
Did Roy Jones Jr duck you?
“I was never mandated. But I asked Roy Jones about 10 or 12 years ago if he’d said back in ’93 that the one fighter he thought would give him problems and had reservations of taking on was me. He told me yes that was true.”

Did you take on all the toughest challenges in your career in your opinion?

“As world champion, what you want to avoid is a southpaw who is 6ft or more and unbeaten or been world champion. Rocchigiani and Calzaghe were fights that no other fighter would take. I took them, even though they weren’t even mandated.

“Not even Roy Jones, rated as the best pound-for-pound fighter in history by some writers, would take that fight even when it was mandated to.”

Eubanks interview.

http://www.nowboxing.com/2012/06/fan...bank-sr/24329/
-------------
People credit Jones with how he won more than anything-- with or without the ripped fuel/otc steroids. He looked like a fighter and was superhuman.

Roy Levesta never adapted to not being the most talented man in the ring and despite taking little punishment over his career his reign ended abruptly. He had little discipline which shows with how he took care of his body and never learning his craft deeper because he was too busy beating people up. With his physical gifts and dedication he could of easily been the best ever and extended his reign much further. Hopkins wasn't a monster to me until he beat Tarver. Trinidad is cool but it was a mismatch. Hopkins was never as gifted but plied his craft as a late starter.
Roy is credited as a classic fighter faster stronger and More athletic then his opponent. I apologize if it sounds disrespectful to ROY, I'm just illustrating a point of how people evaluate Floyd.

Ill bold off what I am responding to in order from your post.

I don't know that Prime is subjective, there is a period of time that can be debated about a fighter's prime, but we certainly do know what prime is not... and that is a helpful distinction. So for example, we may one day have a problem defining what Ward's prime was, and even his best weight... but we know that the Zab Judah, Manny Pacman that Floyd fought were not prime.

I don't think you are being disrespectful to Jones... when Jones reignes supreme though? the cult of Roy was a force to be reconed with lol! Think of your comment regarding Roy in reverse: So here I will help you: "it was alleged Toney did not train for the fight with Roy and was always a mecurial fighter who often underperformed... Hopkins was green as a sapling, etc. I would argue that these type imperfections are precisely why a criteria like fighting at least one atg at prime, and dominating the competition, not just winning, is so important. They are objective standards. Even when a fighter does not do both if he at least accomplishes one. Hank Armstrong, for example, was not a pretty boxer who outclassed opponents...but he beat great fighters, prime atg fighters, consistently and he did it enough that one could argue that he didn't need another measure to show his dominance.

And that is why the distinction is all the more important. Its the most objective we can get: we know that Toney was defeated by Jones in his prime regardless of any circumstances...keep in mind that we can always explain away any fight. "Ai beat Foreman but george was heat stroked... etc etc." Its a meaningful fact when an atg fighter has beat a similar great fighter during his prime...and it might, in and of itself not be the whole enchilada, that I will give you, but its one measure.

Roy Jones did two things that matter here: He defeated an atg at prime and he outclassed fighters who were considered excellent. Once you start going over these fights with a fine toothed comb, then you do that for everybody and eventually any victory can be explained away, for any fighter.

So for example, Sugar Ray Robinson fought all commers right? ...actually there are people who will swear that he ducked Charlie Burley. Or Ward defeats the guy considered at the time one of, if not the best pound for pound fighter (Dawson) and suddenly DAwson is weight drained, a shell of himself.

When we look at Floyd what we don't see is a career defining victory over a fighter of similar calibre at a similar time of career. Duran versus Leonard for example.

Logically speaking, if you take from peter and Paul is his little brother (his six foot four all muscled little brother) you have to take from Paul! f I give a pork chop to one of my four leggeds I better have one for the other lol. Meaning: If you explain away the performances of one fighter, you will have to make a case as to why Floyd is a special case that can not be explained away...So some of those contraversal fights he won? the way Madanna had success, and even De La Hoya's success...and many other situations would have to be a special circumstance compared to Toney's condition before the Jones fight, etc.

[whoelsebutjames]

Ill bold off what I am responding to in order from your post.

I don't know that Prime is subjective, there is a period of time that can be debated about a fighter's prime, but we certainly do know what prime is not... and that is a helpful distinction. So for example, we may one day have a problem defining what Ward's prime was, and even his best weight... but we know that the Zab Judah, Manny Pacman that Floyd fought were not prime.

I don't think you are being disrespectful to Jones... when Jones reignes supreme though? the cult of Roy was a force to be reconed with lol! Think of your comment regarding Roy in reverse: So here I will help you: "it was alleged Toney did not train for the fight with Roy and was always a mecurial fighter who often underperformed... Hopkins was green as a sapling, etc. I would argue that these type imperfections are precisely why a criteria like fighting at least one atg at prime, and dominating the competition, not just winning, is so important. They are objective standards. Even when a fighter does not do both if he at least accomplishes one. Hank Armstrong, for example, was not a pretty boxer who outclassed opponents...but he beat great fighters, prime atg fighters, consistently and he did it enough that one could argue that he didn't need another measure to show his dominance.

And that is why the distinction is all the more important. Its the most objective we can get: we know that Toney was defeated by Jones in his prime regardless of any circumstances...keep in mind that we can always explain away any fight. "Ai beat Foreman but george was heat stroked... etc etc." Its a meaningful fact when an atg fighter has beat a similar great fighter during his prime...and it might, in and of itself not be the whole enchilada, that I will give you, but its one measure.

Roy Jones did two things that matter here: He defeated an atg at prime and he outclassed fighters who were considered excellent. Once you start going over these fights with a fine toothed comb, then you do that for everybody and eventually any victory can be explained away, for any fighter.

So for example, Sugar Ray Robinson fought all commers right? ...actually there are people who will swear that he ducked Charlie Burley. Or Ward defeats the guy considered at the time one of, if not the best pound for pound fighter (Dawson) and suddenly DAwson is weight drained, a shell of himself.

When we look at Floyd what we don't see is a career defining victory over a fighter of similar calibre at a similar time of career. Duran versus Leonard for example.

Logically speaking, if you take from peter and Paul is his little brother (his six foot four all muscled little brother) you have to take from Paul! f I give a pork chop to one of my four leggeds I better have one for the other lol. Meaning: If you explain away the performances of one fighter, you will have to make a case as to why Floyd is a special case that can not be explained away...So some of those contraversal fights he won? the way Madanna had success, and even De La Hoya's success...and many other situations would have to be a special circumstance compared to Toney's condition before the Jones fight, etc.

Exaxtly, this has been my whole point the entire thread. People are explaining away Floyds accomplishments. So you inadvetently agree with the logical structure of my argument, go figure. Nuff said.

[maracho]

Weight discrepancies yes but not height.

SRR was 5'11
SRl was 5'10
Hearns 6'1
De la Hoya 5'10
Trinidad 5'11
Sergio Martinez 5'10

So we're mainly talking about Duran, Muhammad Qawi (5'5 amazing), Langford 5'7, and Henry Armstrong 5'5. Duran 5'7 was not a dominant middleweight and I won't pretend to know **** about Armstrong or Langford other than what I've read.

Boxing historians and fans overplay weight and reach and give little credence in height and frame. While height is not a tell all its more idicative of overall success in a division then walk around weights -- since they vary so much-- and fighters cut weight often. Marciano was a short heavyweight but heavy weight weren't 6'7 then either. This is exemplified by the fact that many of the extreme old school guys fought from Welter /middle all the way to Heavyweight-- I.e. joe Walcott , Archie Moore. It takes less work to punch down then to punch up. That's basic physics.

The further you get from the past the more the weight classes have become defined and the larger the opponents become. Boxing historians and fans have a binary way of thinking which excludes a lot of common sense. It's rooted in the history of boxing rather than forward thinking and analyzation.

Tall guys generally do pretty well in shorter weight classes. Short guys generally have a harder time-- they may beat a few great people but are consistently forced to work harder than there taller opponents fight after fight. Continuing to win under these conditions are not favorable for a long period of time. 6' Forrest would have always been a problem for most welters.

Height is the reason Wvlad Lennox and Vitali were so dominant in the division. If this is the major knock on Floyd, he mostly fought opponents near his own height then so be it.

Weight classes are a semi-imaginary construct, if you were to size a person up on the street you would go by height, frame, and build. It's common sense.

For instance. Kovalev is 6' walks around at 190. Delahoya is 5'10 walks around at 180. If you saw these two guys on the street and didn't know their weight class you would assume it was a near even fight and delahoya, slightly outmatched in size would have a fair shot. Now if you saw 5'8 Floyd walking around at 160, you'd automatically assume he was overmatched. Common sense.

Interesting so I think what you're saying is that Floyd was just too short to be TBE or like so many other greats who moved way up in weight?

Well Wolcott at 5.1' ,Joe Gans at 5.5', Greb at 5.7', and a whole bunch of other little dudes were successful at fighting great champions up to four times the weight discrepancy that Floyd fought. Manny Pacquiao at 5.5' went up double the weight Floyd did. 5.7' Duran started at featherweight like Floyd but did dominate at Middle and supermiddle just not always against the best of all times. Marciano likewise fought guys way taller and heavier

[whoelsebutjames]

Interesting so I think what you're saying is that Floyd was just too short to be TBE and like so many other greats who moved way up in weight?

Well Wolcott at 5.1' ,Joe Gans at 5.5', Greb at 5.7', and a whole bunch of other little dudes were successful at fighting great champion giants. Manny Pacquiao at 5.5' went up double the weight Floyd did. 5.7' Duran went up almost triple the weight of Mayweather and did dominate at Middle and supermiddle just not always against the best of all times. Marciano likewise fought guys way taller and heavier

Your bringing up guys who were active from 1890-1930s. We all want to keep suspended beleif- but it would never happen today. Pacquiao on his best day would never beat Vitali, Wlad, Ortiz, or Wilder. Never.

The fighters were the past certainly tougher, had 100's of fights, and far stronger endurance. If you want to argue that they were more technically brilliant, from grainy, one point of view, soundless-footage-- that's on you. In fact some have almost no footage. They also were overall smaller. I've seen somewhere that the average height of heavyweight is 6'3 today. Which virtually means the shortest heavyweight today would be among the tallest of the past.

Weightclass today are more defined and the fighters in the weightclasses are visibly bigger. I think I've highlighted my best arguments on the differences in size today vs the past, you can ponder them or ignore them it's up to you. Boxing analytics from past to current are one dimensional and stale. If sports personalities focused on evolving our understanding of the game rather than marketing fights- I wouldn't be among the few people to bring theses types of things up-- it would be well known.

I brought up Leonard, Hearns, and Robinson since they are the gold standard of weight jumping in the near-modern era. They are undeniably great but they aren't as small as people make them out to be.

Duran went up two more weightclasses then Floyd if you want to call this double the weight-- cool. Duran was not the man to beat at either of these weight classes as a bit of perspective. Duran may have been the true exception but he didn't topple Hagler. I'm not debating about Iran Barkley. Duran is a super man, period. If fact if you remove No Mas from his record he'd probably be the GOAT in most people's eyes and should be at least number 3 anyway.

Weight classes are a semi-imaginary construct, if you were to size a person up on the street you would go by height, frame, and build. It's common sense.

[JK1700]

So now you're saying Floyd didnt grow after he turned pro at 19 years of age? I guess its possible but what is interesting is that from the age of 25 to 30, Floyd (ala Broner and probably several other boxers under Mayweather promotions) had some huge growth spurts from 130 lbs to over 150 lbs, which doesnt seem natural for a top conditioned and finely cut adult athlete.

Anyway, at Super featherweight, Floyd doesnt even attempt to fight Barrera or Morales. At Jr. Lightweight Floyd vacated rather than fight Morales, Barrerra, and Frietas. Maybe it had to do with Morales running him out of Big Bear.

At Lightweight Floyd should of fought Stevie Johnson and Spadafora instead of Ndou and Sosa.

At light welter, Floyd fought Gatti and some dude named Bruseles but should have fought Kostya Tszyu and Cotto

Floyd then moved up to Welter and fought Baldimir but skipped Margarito, Pacman, Mosley, Bradley, Cotto, etc…while they were prime. He did called out Winky Wright but then ran for the hills when Winky called his bluff.

Floyd then moved up to Light Middle to fight ol Oscar but soon moved back down to finally fight Mosley and a lil Ricky Hatton who recently had to wrassle with all his might against Urango and Collazzo.

Floyd then moves back up to light Middle to fight a recently war torn Cotto and weight-drained Alvarez but avoids Lara, Martinez, GGG.

At Jr. Middleweight Floyd held the WBA, WBC and Ring champion but is literally the only unified champ in any division in boxing history who refuses to defend his belts on the grounds that the other guy is “too big”. For instance, Floyd said he was the TBE at 154 yet insisted that Martinez come down to 150 and still ended up a duck. They should have stripped those titles much quicker than they did.

Bottom line, the TBEs of boxing often went up to fight way bigger weight discrepancies than Floyd did

I've already answered a lot of things you posted here in the thread already and shut your arguments down several times, but what the hell let's do it one more time! Floyd started his boxing career at 106 (when he was an amatuer) and went up basically 50lbs which is more than anyone else I can think of. The only ATG fighter who went up a similar amount of weight is Sugar Ray Robinson who went up 40lbs and his era was more than 60 years ago. He started his pro career at 125 and went up 30lbs but let's be real he basically capped out at 147 and only fought at 154 to make big fights for the fans like Cotto, Canelo, DLH etc. Nobody's gone up more weight divisions than that and beat top guys. I guess you could say Pacquiao, but he never fought at 154 and unlike him Floyd never got beat and also beat the best guys in every division. You never saw him cherry pick people who were coming off losses. He fought guys coming off big wins in which they looked great. DLH, Hatton, Mosley, Ortiz, Cotto and Maidana were all coming off some of the best or the best performances of their careers while Pacquaio did the opposite.

Barrera had only just moved up from 122 when Floyd was at Lightweight you douchebag, the same thing with Morales. You seriously think these guys would've beat him, when they were way smaller and Morales lost every round to Zahir Raheem of all people? Mayweather called out Freitas several times and the same with Casamayor. Look what he did to Corrales, then AFTER that he goes on and beats Casamayor AND Freitas. Go figure. Neither of those guys wanted to fight Floyd. He called out Cotto who said himself that he wasn't ready. Lara? LOL!

So he should've fought no-name barely top 5 Margarito instead of fighting the #1 ranked WW in the world who hadn't lost in almost 10 years? Just stop it. Tszyu? He would've got the fight but Hatton beat him so Hatton got the fight instead. Bradley? Seriously? The guy who barely beat Ruslan Provodnikov, couldn't crack an egg and needed a gift decision to beat a 40 year old JMM? Really? You're clutching at straws and trying to say the man ducked people who were two weight classes bigger than him. Of all the guys you named who he didn't fight nobody was calling for those fights at the time. It's easy to bring up guys people didn't fight, you can do that for ANYONE, but it goes without saying that if he fought those guys instead of the guys he fought you'd be criticizing him even more. Bottom line Floyd beat the best guys in every division he fought in & also beat the lineal champ in all of these divisions as well. There's no one else in history who has done that, in all of boxing history.


I'm done with you now. That's enough ownage for one thread.

[Jc8804]

Dispelling the myth that Mayweather fought his opponents at the wrong time. The short sightedness of fans is off the charts. One fan says it and All the boxing analyst run with it.

Genaro hernandez. Only lost to delahoya in the mid 90s before Floyd was factor

Angel Manfreddy. Was a feared boxer at the time and hadn't lost in years before Floyd. Lasted two or 3 rounds

Diego corralles. Undefeated and Floyd was considered the underdog.

Castillo went on to beat corralles and Joel Casamayor afterwards.

Chop chop. This was his first fight at jr welter and he went toe to toe with him Chop chop had two losses at the time and one was to Judah. This is notable since in this fight Larry Merchant and the HBO cast said Gatti and sharmba Mitchell would beat Floyd and Floyd would not fight him. 2004(watch it on YouTube to hear, it was a good fight anyway)

Gatti 2005. Only took one fight before this. But By the time this fight started regardless of what was said and forgotten two fights earlier- Floyds now the favorite. Gatti was still on his win streak since Mickey Ward2003. What changed ?

Sharmba. 2005 Coming of lost to Tzu but still everybody said Floyd Couldn't beat him 3 fights earlier and e had already lost to Tzu back in 2003

Judah was coming off loss to Carlos baldomir. This was floyds first fight at welter. Hardly cherry picking when moving up in weight

Baldomir. Had just beaten Judah and Gatti. Had no recent losses. Only the losses he already had prior to beating Judah

Delahoya. Was partially inactive before Mayweather other than a tuneup. Had been fighting at super welter and middle in his fights before being inactive

Ricky Hatton. Was undefeated and had beat the feared kosta tzu

Shane mosely had just beat the breaks of margarito one fight prior to Mayweather.

Cottos only losses were PAC and margarito at the time

Guerrero only had one loss and back then people on this forum thought he was the second coming. Had no recent losses.

Victor Ortiz had beat berto and Nate cambell prior to the fight

Canelo. Was undefeated. Had beaten cintron and mosely

*** never fought TZU who was done after Hatton in 2005. Two years after Floyd entered the jr Welters
*** never fought margarito at 147 who was proven to be a cheater later
*** never fought Vernon Forrest, Quintana, Paul Williams
*** mosely, Trinidad, and Vargas were in the welterweights when Floyd fought corralles at featherweight/lightweight

The only the knock on Floyd is that he didn't fight PAC at the time when PAC destroyed Cotto. People just wanted Floyd to loose. He faced most of his biggest opponents within 2 fights of people calling them out for him. With the exception of Judah and PAC the handpicking myth is a lie. The real issue is that Floyd had a 13 year prime while most fighters primes only last 5 years.

Lmao. Yes he did

Sharmba sucked

Judah came off a loss and still knocked floyd down .

Baldomir was very overated and slow , his claim to fame was beating an overated zab judah.

Oscar was a part time has been .

Hatton was a small fighter moving up and arguably lost to collazo going into the floyd fight.

Mosley was old and was coming off a 15 month layoff after beating a great style matchup for himself in margarito

Cotto was solid , but he wasnt at his gest after getting pounded by margarito. He was a shell of himself and has cherry picked ever since he was knovked out by margo

Ghost gurrreo sucked azz . Very overated , especially at 147

Ortiz was always known as a head case quitter.

Canelo was green and was coming off beat josesito lopez and alfonzo gomez at 154 (two 140 fighters brought up, Then wins a controversial fight with trout in texas)

He missed margarito, vargas, trinidad ,paul williams, vernon forrest ,winky wright , erislandry lara , and a prime pacman just to name a few.

Berto was a waste and so was a very very green connor who he carried . His last three fights were gimme wins . Instead of fighting andrade or charlo .

[slipcatchroll]

Fighters adjusting has nothing to do with the issue raised, its a straw man. All fighters make adjustments and the question never was who adjusts more. The issue raised was the comparative quality of a fighter like De La Hoya. You will find, if you look that De La Hoya's relative place in boxing is often debated. There are threads here on the subject. Again thats not the issue there is plenty of information on that subject, I will look and send you a thread...there was one a few years back or so.

I think you are under the impression that De La Hoya is better than he was frankly, that is an opinion on my part. You just have to look at his career, his wins, loses, his performances and compare them to a guy like Froch. As far as Kovalev, we don't know how far he will go but he certainly is on a trajectory that appears to show possible greatness.

Your not seeing the point raised for whatever reason: that a great fighter generally has certain characteristics that, for example, Ward shows, and some of which Floyd lacked.

Rather than debate Oscar's greatness or lack thereof I will look for the thread I speak of and you can see what a lot of posters argue....I really just do not want to siddetrack debating De La Hoya lol.

'If you can't define what constitutes a great fighter in his prime is then the whole argument is nonsensical anyway'

It's true 'all fighters make adjustments in the ring' but the degree to which this is utilized constitutes how a fighter is judged, alongside power, offensive/defensive tools etc. But, make no mistake, some qualities should be revered above others simply because they're more important. When comparing Oscar to Froch all of those traits need to be taken into consideration as the rest of the argument then devolves into judging a 'win's win's win and forever recurring like that'. It's right here in this thread where we can end the cycle.

Ultimately. Judging the fighter on how close he was to his physical and psychological prime is all we can do. The reason I use Oscar is because not only did he possess all of those traits but the man could adjust his tactics and outbox his opponents well (Mosley2). If you want to go into depth on how Froch is better then send me gifs or show/tell me videos which back your claim.

You say I'm missing the point but fail to give me the characteristics that Ward shows which Floyd lacks.