Which of These Two Fighters do You Have Ranked Higher All-Time RIGHT NOW?

[New England]

Pacquiao, hasn't definitively beat any prime hof'ers......he lost every jmm fight and Barrera wasn't prime....morales definitely wasn't prime. No one with any credibility ranks pacquiao above Floyd..... Since 2009 Floyd has distanced himself from pacquiao by a large margin.

he should have a win over marquez in the first fight. one of the judges literally made an error on a scorecorecard, and neglected to count a legitimate knockdown.

he was awarded a win in the second fight, which was close. you cannot simply pretent that a fighter who wins a close fight didn't get a win because you don't like him.

barrera was one year removed from the first morales fight, and two years removed from his win over hamed. he's closer to a prime all time great than anybody on floyd's resume.


people have forgotten how good barrera, marquez, and morales were at FW. they're a hell of a lot better than any of floyd's WW competition.

[soul_survivor]

Using the criteria you posted. Mike Tyson would be seen as greater than Lennox Lewis. He was the youngest heavyweight champion ever, he was one of the most exciting fighters of all time, and he is far more recognizable to the mainstream than Lennox Lewis is.

But can you honestly call Mike Tyson greater than Lennox Lewis? NO, Lewis not only beat Tyson head to head, he beat every man he was in the ring with, including men who beat Tyson.

That's aboslutely ridiculous if you think you can use my criteria to come to that conclusion. You clearly haven't read the rest of what I've written either.

Anyway, to easily dispute your point:

In ring performances - Tyson was phenomenal, no doubt throughout the late 80s, knocking most guys out but he did struggle against a handful boxers who could move and defend well. Lewis too, had some exceptional in ring performances and he did so against one of the best ever in Holyfield. Any time Lewis lost, he rebounded with a performance twice as good. Just ask Rehman and McCall. No way a brief period of good performances is better than a decade of good performances. Plus Lewis had more to his game than just a punch.

Achievements - Both men were undisputed champions. Lewis beat HOlyfield for the claim. A guy Tyson never even came close to beating in 2 attempts. Plus Lewis won more championships and won the biggest fights of his career. Tyson lost them.

Dominance - This is the easiest point of all. I won't bother.

Mainstream - Tyson wins hands down.

Class dismissed.

[Santa_]

Pacquiao. Prime VS Prime I think he beats Mayweather.

[Johnwoo8686]

that's a good example

Thanks, Too bad this guy won't get it.

That's aboslutely ridiculous if you think you can use my criteria to come to that conclusion. You clearly haven't read the rest of what I've written either.

Anyway, to easily dispute your point:

In ring performances - Tyson was phenomenal, no doubt throughout the late 80s, knocking most guys out but he did struggle against a handful boxers who could move and defend well. Lewis too, had some exceptional in ring performances and he did so against one of the best ever in Holyfield. Any time Lewis lost, he rebounded with a performance twice as good. Just ask Rehman and McCall. No way a brief period of good performances is better than a decade of good performances. Plus Lewis had more to his game than just a punch.

Achievements - Both men were undisputed champions. Lewis beat HOlyfield for the claim. A guy Tyson never even came close to beating in 2 attempts. Plus Lewis won more championships and won the biggest fights of his career. Tyson lost them.

Dominance - This is the easiest point of all. I won't bother.

Mainstream - Tyson wins hands down.

Class dismissed.

You just proved my point. Using the three criteria you have listed Tyson would be seen as equal to or greater than Lennox. Tyson was both undisputed champion and the youngest heavyweight champion in history. Both guys were dominant in their primes. And Tyson wins mainstream by a huge margin. Tyson edges Lewis by your own criteria but you can't actually say Tyson is greater than Lewis. Just like you can't say Pacquiao is greater than Mayweather.

[Beater_of_ass]

Pacquiao. Prime VS Prime I think he beats Mayweather.

It didn't happen prime vs prime because Manny was afraid of needles. Ironically, he lost though because he couldn't get a shot...

You can't make this **** up.

[soul_survivor]

Thanks, Too bad this guy won't get it.



You just proved my point. Using the three criteria you have listed Tyson would be seen as equal to or greater than Lennox. Tyson was both undisputed champion and the youngest heavyweight champion in history. Both guys were dominant in their primes. And Tyson wins mainstream by a huge margin. Tyson edges Lewis by your own criteria but you can't actually say Tyson is greater than Lewis. Just like you can't say Pacquiao is greater than Mayweather.

You have completely ignored everything I have said. I listed 4 criteria btw.

In ring performance
Achievements
Dominance
Main stream

Lewis trumps Tyson in 3 of the 4. If you think he doesn't then I don't care.

Take some english lesson.

[GoldenGloveLove]

Lineal titles: Floyd
Lineal title fights: Floyd
Regular title fights: Floyd
Wins VS Losses: Floyd
H2H: Floyd

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd, Floyd, Floyd, Floyd, Floyd, Floyd, threw more, landed more.

[IMDAZED]

At this point your hate is borderline creepy if you can't admit Floyd is the greater fighter.

[LoadedWraps]

At this point your hate is borderline creepy if you can't admit Floyd is the greater fighter.

[-PBP-]

Floyd winning a poll by 20+ votes on NSB is like 100-0 in the real world.