Floyd, JCC and Duran

by azania Sun 14 Apr 2013, 9:44 pm

First topic message reminder :

Why are two of those guys often ranked above Floyd? Their records aren't better than Floyd's by any stretch of the imagination. OK Duran has Leonard on his ledger, but lets not forget he was pancaked by Hearns, thoroughly outboxed by Laing and lost to Benitez. Floyd has beaten everyone in front of him without looking like losing. OK he got a dubious decision against that mexican and put the record straight the very next fight.

Why people rank Chavez ahead of Floyd is beyong.

Floyd beats them both so should be ranked higher.

Thoughts

by Strongback Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:40 pm

It took two to tango. Pacquiao agreed to the test and Mayweather still said no. I have Floyd slightly more at fault but it was all a lot of bullspit.

Jeff threw up the Ibro list. Here it is with 21 to 32 added.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali       (Tie)
4. Joe Louis                 (Tie)
6. Sam Langford
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Willie Pep
10. Bob Fitzsimmons
11. Joe Gans
12. Ezzard Charles        (Tie)
12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie)
14. Jimmy Wilde
15. Eder Jofre
16. Mickey Walker
17. Archie Moore
18. Jack Dempsey
19. Jack Johnson
20. Gene Tunney

Just missing the cut: Stanley Ketchel, Barbados Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Ike Williams, George Dixon, Sandy Saddler, Roy Jones Jr., and Larry Holmes.

I'd have Floyd around the Roy Jones Jr mark in this list.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:41 pm

I'd be interested to see who you rate above him to be honest.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:44 pm

The IBRO's list has all the right names just in the completely wrong order, any list that has Charles at 12 and Tunney at 20 below Dempsey has to be severely questioned.

Speaking of Dempsey, you would have him above Mayweather despite not facing Wills?

by manos de piedra Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:45 pm

hazharrison wrote:I didn't argue he wasn't top 30 -- just that he's not an all-time great in the same bracket as the likes of Ali, Louis, Pep, Robinson, Armstrong and Greb.

I disagree on Margarito and Williams.

Oscar was past his best (although he did drag li'l Floyd up to 154 lbs -- and nearly got the nod, too, lest we forget). Hatton was too small (see Collazo fight) and Mosley was a clapped out old banger.

Here's some other opinions on the matter from a variety of writers:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/columnists/joe-rein/7461-tim-starks-special-to-tss-where-do-manny-and-floyd-rank-all-time

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/boxing--rankings--retiring-undefeated-won-t-make-floyd-mayweather-an-all-time-great.html

Well lest we remember what a poor decision it would have been if Oscar got the nod.

This is the kind of thing I think is hindsightish selection to suit an argument. In 2007 when Mayweather moved up to LMW to fight de la Hoya and then back down to fight Hatton they were more legitimate fights than Williams or Margarito. Williams wasnt even a world champion when Mayweather fought de la Hoya and Margarito was no tougher challenge at welter than Oscar was at LMW (minus the numerous millions). Hatton was considered a top ten pound for pound fighter by the ring and its easy to go back and say well he was too small (no smaller than Mayweather really). But when he was 43-0 and ranked as one of the top fighters in the world then the fight was a far bigger deal than Margarito or Williams. And lest be honest if he had chose and Margarito or Williams instead the same people would have been arguing he should be facing the unbeaten Hatton.

by hazharrison Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:49 pm

I agree but I've seen plenty on here arguing otherwise.

The other points you make are incorrect. I posted a comment from Floyd himself regarding Hatton. Doesn't come much more clear-cut that that.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:51 pm

He says that about each and every fight, Hatton at the time WAS the fight to take, it's easy to forget in hindsight that it was the fight everybody was calling for.

by Strongback Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:53 pm

I have read a bit about all the names on the IBRO list except Tony Canzoneri so I went to CBZ and had a little read. Guy has better wins on his record than Floyd.

Tony Canzoneri, along with fellow Lightweight & Junior Welterweight champion, Barney Ross, remains one of the most enduring & beloved fighters in the history of the sport. When you consider that he fought in an era of only 10 weight divisions with one champion each, it makes his career even more remarkable. Tony won 5 world titles in 3 different divisions! Featherweight, Lightweight (twice), & Junior Welterweight (twice).

In 1927, at the callow age of 19, Canzoneri fought to a draw in his first title fight as a bantamweight against Bud Taylor. In 1928, he won the featherweight title from Benny Bass (W-15), only to lose it later the same year to France's Andre Routis (L-15). Two years later he won his first lightweight crown with a sensational one round kayo of Al Singer.

The following year, 1931, Tony claimed the Junior Welter title by knocking out the legendary Jackie "Kid" Berg in three rounds in a lightweight title fight, then defended defended his titles against the tough Cecil Payne (W-10), Berg (W-15), Phillie Griffin (W-10) & the also legendary Kid Chocolate (W-15).

In 1932, Canzoneri lost the Jr. Welterweight championship to Johnny Jadick (L-10) & also lost a rematch (L-10). Tony capped off the disappointing year by successfully defending the Lightweight title against another all-time great, Billy "The Fargo Express" Petrolle (W-15).

Tony regained the Jr. Welter title from Battling Shaw in May of 1933 (W-10). Shaw had only held the crown since February when he beat Jadick by 15 round decision. Canzeneri went on to lose both of his titles later in '33 when Barney Ross decisioned him twice (L-10, L-15). He closed out the year by beating future Jr Lightweight champion, Frankie Klick (W-10), Kid Chocolate KO-2), & Cecil Payne (KO-5).

In 1935, Canzoneri won his last title beating the great Lew Ambers (W-15), for the vacant Lightweight championship. The title had been vacated by Ross when he won the Welterweight title from Jimmy McLarnin. Tony defended the title once in '35 beating Al Roth by 15 round decision.

Canzoneri began 1936 with a series of non-title fights. The most notable opponents being his old nemesis, Johnny Jadick (W-10), yet another all-time great, Jimmy McLarnin (W-10), and Midget Mexico (KO9). In September he lost the title in a rematch with Ambers (L-15).

Tony's last title fight was in 1937, when he again lost a 15 round decision to Ambers. Canzoneri fought on for two more years. He finally retired in '39 after suffering the first KO loss of his career to the star-crossed Al "Bummy" Davis in 3.

Following his retirement, Tony became an actor & restauranteur & was a well loved boxing figure in New York City; where he died after a heart attack on December 9 1959. Tony Canzoneri was absolutely one of the greatest fighters pound for pound in the history of boxing.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:56 pm

Canzoneri is also interesting in that he lost more world title fights than anyone in his history, he has good wins but by and large he lost to them all to. As great as Canzoneri is he by no means should be above Pacquiao or Jones let alone Mayweather.

by Strongback Tue 16 Apr 2013, 8:56 pm

Oscar was an old man. Floyd was way behind on the scorecards until Oscar gassed. The fight against Manny showed up De La Hoya well and truly as being gone.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 16 Apr 2013, 9:00 pm

Strongy we have eyes to see that De La Hoya was behind at all points in that fight, he had a decent spell in the middle but the scorecards for that fight were abysmal.

by Strongback Tue 16 Apr 2013, 9:14 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Canzoneri is also interesting in that he lost more world title fights than anyone in his history, he has good wins but by and large he lost to them all to. As great as Canzoneri is he by no means should be above Pacquiao or Jones let alone Mayweather.

I think Tony is high up because of his weight jumping and there only being 10 weight divisions at the time. He held the belt in two divisions simultaneously.

He fought in the 30's the greatest period for fighters his weight and boxing in general. He was beating all time Top 10 divisional greats all over the place. That's a fighting man. He won and he lost but he held 3 titles at different weights in the 30's. That is the stuff of legend.

Roy or Floyd have nothing on that in terms of opponents.

by Strongback Tue 16 Apr 2013, 9:24 pm

Can't agree on Oscar v Floyd. I scored the fight to Floyd but thought Oscar was ahead up until the last 4 or 5 rounds when his work rate deteriorated and Floyd started having his way. The final judges scores were a bit silly I agree but not up to the middle of the fight.

by manos de piedra Tue 16 Apr 2013, 10:52 pm

hazharrison wrote:I agree but I've seen plenty on here arguing otherwise.

The other points you make are incorrect. I posted a comment from Floyd himself regarding Hatton. Doesn't come much more clear-cut that that.

Argue what? That de la Hoya beat Mayweather? By plenty do you mean a small minority?

The quote from Mayweather about Hatton doesnt really prove much beyond money is his prime motivator. Fan demand and the "experts" at Ring magazine would say that Hatton was a bigger fight than Margarito or Williams. Mayweather also said he was better than Ray Robinson while we are on quotes so I assume we can take him as clear cut on that also.

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 1:32 am

Bigger as in more lucrative. Not bigger in terms of more challenging.

Proof will be in the pudding in any case. Most experts and historians will rate him lower than a handful of forum posters who feel that in taking on an old Oscar and Ricky Hatton, he faced his biggest challenges.

by TheMackemMawler Wed 17 Apr 2013, 6:12 am

1). Who is saying ODH and Rcky Hatton are Floyyds biggest challenges?

2) who aside from Paccy should Flloyd have fought since becoming super-featherweight champion in 1998?

Cheers.

by manos de piedra Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:15 am

hazharrison wrote:Bigger as in more lucrative. Not bigger in terms of more challenging.

Proof will be in the pudding in any case. Most experts and historians will rate him lower than a handful of forum posters who feel that in taking on an old Oscar and Ricky Hatton, he faced his biggest challenges.

We can say that now, because Mayweather beat Hatton decisively and Hattons reputation fell a lot after his subsequent defeat to Pacquaio. But at the time the fight made more sense every which way. The top rated, unbeaten light welterweight against the top rated unbeaten welterweight. Both ranked in the top ten fighters in the world. Its naïve to expect any boxer, not just Mayweather, to target a less heralded opponent for way less money in a less public interest fight.

If I had a criticism of Mayweather, its that he wasn’t active enough and he could have added Margarito to his record as well as Hatton. But had he beaten Margarito easily as I would expect he would have just become another Baldomir on his record that was easy to downplay. I don’t agree that it was seen as a tougher challenge than Hatton at the time. Hatton was considered a top pound for pound fighter. Margarito was not.

by milkyboy Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:26 am

Haz' point earlier is the key to mayweather, as his his self proclaimed nickname. He can't be accused of ducking anyone at the lower weights. As he's moved up he's sought the fights with the most money, not necessarily the most challenging. Easier to sell de la Hoya and hatton over margarito and Williams, not necessarily the greater challenges. He also appears to have got more and more protective of the '0'. Even allowing for the US public's love of face first pugs like gatti, tszyu would have sold pretty well and been seen as more of a challenge.

Where does PAC fit in... He didn't take the biggest fight out there. Whatever the resl reasons, a stain on his legacy and on his self professed money making goal.

But hey, you can take apart anyone's record. He's a great fighter who's beaten a lot of very good fighters of all shapes sizes and styles. It would have been nice if he'd sought out tszyu, Williams, margarito, Martinez, and especially pac... and fought some of the guys he did fight when they were nearer their primes. But boxing careers rarely pan out like we fans would like.

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:27 am

manos de piedra wrote: Hatton was considered a top pound for pound fighter. Margarito was not.

Hence the phrase "pound-for-pound". Hatton was too small to prove challenging for Floyd or indeed any other welterweight. At welterweight he lost 2 and won one very contentious decision. He was not the same force at 147 lbs that he was at 140.

Margarito, meanwhile, was a huge welterweight. Iron-chinned and relentless. He was red-hot back then and a far sturdier proposition than Hatton. Had Floyd taken on the tough guys at 147 lbs in Williams, Margarito, Cotto and Mosley then he'd have added to his legacy rather than his bank balance. As I said earllier, I can't blame him for choosing money over a challenge -- that's his main objective.

by milkyboy Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:35 am

manos de piedra wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Bigger as in more lucrative. Not bigger in terms of more challenging.

Proof will be in the pudding in any case. Most experts and historians will rate him lower than a handful of forum posters who feel that in taking on an old Oscar and Ricky Hatton, he faced his biggest challenges.

We can say that now, because Mayweather beat Hatton decisively and Hattons reputation fell a lot after his subsequent defeat to Pacquaio. But at the time the fight made more sense every which way. The top rated, unbeaten light welterweight against the top rated unbeaten welterweight. Both ranked in the top ten fighters in the world. Its naïve to expect any boxer, not just Mayweather, to target a less heralded opponent for way less money in a less public interest fight.

If I had a criticism of Mayweather, its that he wasn’t active enough and he could have added Margarito to his record as well as Hatton. But had he beaten Margarito easily as I would expect he would have just become another Baldomir on his record that was easy to downplay. I don’t agree that it was seen as a tougher challenge than Hatton at the time. Hatton was considered a top pound for pound fighter. Margarito was not.

Genuine question manos. The demand, money and rating was there, so i certainly don't blame him for taking the fight, but did you personally see hatton as a top p4p fighter? Would you have seen him as a greater threat than Marg at the time? I know I didn't and wouldn't.

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:38 am

milkyboy wrote:Haz' point earlier is the key to mayweather, as his his self proclaimed nickname. He can't be accused of ducking anyone at the lower weights. As he's moved up he's sought the fights with the most money, not necessarily the most challenging. Easier to sell de la Hoya and hatton over margarito and Williams, not necessarily the greater challenges. He also appears to have got more and more protective of the '0'. Even allowing for the US public's love of face first pugs like gatti, tszyu would have sold pretty well and been seen as more of a challenge.

Where does PAC fit in... He didn't take the biggest fight out there. Whatever the resl reasons, a stain on his legacy and on his self professed money making goal.

But hey, you can take apart anyone's record. He's a great fighter who's beaten a lot of very good fighters of all shapes sizes and styles. It would have been nice if he'd sought out tszyu, Williams, margarito, Martinez, and especially pac... and fought some of the guys he did fight when they were nearer their primes. But boxing careers rarely pan out like we fans would like.

I agree. And for those attempting to defend Floyd's record -- surely you have to place Pacquiao ahead of him all-time?

Pacquiao holds victories over Barrera (twice), Marquez and Morales. Those trump Mayweather's wins over Hernandez, Castillo and Corrales.

As they rose through the weights, Pacquiao fought all the guys Mayweather did but he beat Cotto, Hatton and Oscar in more emphatic fashion (save Marquez, who hadn't yet jumped on board with Memo Heredia). He also crippled Margarito and Clottey -- two big and dangerous welterweights. Pacquiao, too, will be marked down for not facing Mayweather.

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:42 am

And Mosley.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:46 am

Hatton and DelaHoya were P4P fightes at the time..

What nonsense..

by manos de piedra Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:54 am

milkyboy wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Bigger as in more lucrative. Not bigger in terms of more challenging.

Proof will be in the pudding in any case. Most experts and historians will rate him lower than a handful of forum posters who feel that in taking on an old Oscar and Ricky Hatton, he faced his biggest challenges.

We can say that now, because Mayweather beat Hatton decisively and Hattons reputation fell a lot after his subsequent defeat to Pacquaio. But at the time the fight made more sense every which way. The top rated, unbeaten light welterweight against the top rated unbeaten welterweight. Both ranked in the top ten fighters in the world. Its naïve to expect any boxer, not just Mayweather, to target a less heralded opponent for way less money in a less public interest fight.

If I had a criticism of Mayweather, its that he wasn’t active enough and he could have added Margarito to his record as well as Hatton. But had he beaten Margarito easily as I would expect he would have just become another Baldomir on his record that was easy to downplay. I don’t agree that it was seen as a tougher challenge than Hatton at the time. Hatton was considered a top pound for pound fighter. Margarito was not.

Genuine question manos. The demand, money and rating was there, so i certainly don't blame him for taking the fight, but did you personally see hatton as a top p4p fighter? Would you have seen him as a greater threat than Marg at the time? I know I didn't and wouldn't.

I dont see Hatton as a top pound for pound fighter no. With the additional benefit of hindsight I would say that him being ranked in the top ten at the time was over-inflating his actual ability.

But it doesnt change thats where he was ranked at the time which made it a bigger fight. I dont rate Margarito all that highly. Hes more durable than Hatton, but slower. Its alot easier to say now that he posed a bigger threat (for thats worth as its very little threat at all) but if the tables were turned and Mayweather had beaten a relatively unheralded Margarito and not fought Hatton who was calling him out, had public support and was ranked as one of the top fighters at the time then people would be saying he avoided Hatton who was a bigger challenge.

As I said above, I would be critical of Mayweathers inactivity around this time. I don’t like his one fight a year approach. But I don’t think Margarito would have added anything to his legacy. He just wasn’t a good enough fighter. Pacquaio I can understand. I would be critical of that not happening as most people would. But at the same time I don’t think picking every challenger across 5 weight classes and expecting Mayweather to fight them all is reasonable. The names he did fight generally carried high rankings which is a decent indicator of how his opponents were perceived at the time. The same Margarito that is now being seen as a greater challenge was taken apart by Mosley who was in turn beaten by Mayweather who in turn is getting little or no credit for that win. Its this kind of phenomenon that I think is an overly critical approach.

by joeyjojo618 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 9:57 am

Pacmans 'wins' over marquez count over Floyds? Manny's demolition of an on-the-slide Hatton and ODLH's cadaver are more impressive than PBF's? Not very objective haz. Neither is my comment to be fair.

Mosley was a shell in both.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:00 am

Hatton was rated higher than Williams at the time!!

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:04 am

joeyjojo618 wrote:Pacmans 'wins' over marquez count over Floyds? Manny's demolition of an on-the-slide Hatton and ODLH's cadaver are more impressive than PBF's? Not very objective haz. Neither is my comment to be fair.

Mosley was a shell in both.

Hatton was at least at 140 lbs -- his best weight. I agree the Oscar Floyd beat was better than the version Manny beat but there wasn't a lot in it -- he was past his best both times.

Merely pointing out that Floyd's record is comparable to Pacquiao's (there's not a lot between them).

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:05 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hatton was rated higher than Williams at the time!!

Pound for pound? So was Ivan Calderon. Williams was still a bigger threat than both.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:07 am

What I'm saying is he's getting hammered for taking on the higher rated fighter....

Now If that is ducking then......Williams was a poor Man's Breland!!

by joeyjojo618 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:10 am

hazharrison wrote:
joeyjojo618 wrote:Pacmans 'wins' over marquez count over Floyds? Manny's demolition of an on-the-slide Hatton and ODLH's cadaver are more impressive than PBF's? Not very objective haz. Neither is my comment to be fair.

Mosley was a shell in both.

Hatton was at least at 140 lbs -- his best weight. I agree the Oscar Floyd beat was better than the version Manny beat but there wasn't a lot in it -- he was past his best both times.

Merely pointing out that Floyd's record is comparable to Pacquiao's (there's not a lot between them).

Agreed. I would put Floyd ahead of Pacman on the basis that I think he is the most talented of our generation and would beat Manny in a hypothetical matchup. It stinks that it is purely hypothetical though.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:17 am

I can't believe there is any doubt that he's miles ahead of Pacman......

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:19 am

joeyjojo618 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
joeyjojo618 wrote:Pacmans 'wins' over marquez count over Floyds? Manny's demolition of an on-the-slide Hatton and ODLH's cadaver are more impressive than PBF's? Not very objective haz. Neither is my comment to be fair.

Mosley was a shell in both.

Hatton was at least at 140 lbs -- his best weight. I agree the Oscar Floyd beat was better than the version Manny beat but there wasn't a lot in it -- he was past his best both times.

Merely pointing out that Floyd's record is comparable to Pacquiao's (there's not a lot between them).

Agreed. I would put Floyd ahead of Pacman on the basis that I think he is the most talented of our generation and would beat Manny in a hypothetical matchup. It stinks that it is purely hypothetical though.

Hypothetical doesn't count.

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:20 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What I'm saying is he's getting hammered for taking on the higher rated fighter....

Now If that is ducking then......Williams was a poor Man's Breland!!

Hatton wasn't a higher rated welterweight than Williams. He wasn't even a welterweight.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:21 am

Was Hatton-Mayweather a superfight..

by joeyjojo618 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:23 am

Pacman got slapped around early in his career and has a bogeyman in Marquez. Does that count?

by milkyboy Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:24 am

I think with Williams the size, reach, workrate made it interesting. Marg at the time was on a run and considered a beast at the weight. I reiterate, I don't have a problem in the slightest with mayweather taking the other options.

I look at fights where I think the opposition might present a genuine threat to someone like mayweather.. Key word being 'might'. I gave hatton no chance, because he'd been extremely well managed and was out of his depth. I appreciate that the blue moon brigade and numerous boxing experts saw it differently.

I repeat for truss' benefit. This is not a criticism of mayweather, I'm saying which fights I'd have preferred to have seen at the time. No probs with the Oscar fight... We were all wondering if he could roll back the years, and For a while in the fight it looked possible.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:26 am

Lost to Bradley and Morales...........

Mayweather hasn't lost to anybody...............Williams has been shown bless him to be ordinary...........No different to Breland........and Starling owned him.......A similar fighter...

You guys are clutching at straws and finding ways to mark him down....It really is pathetic..

Just admit you don't like him!!

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:28 am

Before my finger ends drop off I'll just reiterate my point and then move on: Floyd's overall standing will be damaged because he didn't take on the most formidable opponents available to him. We can argue "he did, he didn't" until the cows come home but this will be evident when the next expert list is put together (when Mayweather has long gone).

One of the most talented fighters of all time? Definitely.
An all-time great fighter? No, and that's entirely down to him. He could have beaten all the guys he elected not to fight. And then there'd have been no argument.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:29 am

Just move on.............

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:30 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lost to Bradley and Morales...........

Mayweather hasn't lost to anybody...............Williams has been shown bless him to be ordinary...........No different to Breland........and Starling owned him.......A similar fighter...

You guys are clutching at straws and finding ways to mark him down....It really is pathetic..

Just admit you don't like him!!

There's no shame in losing to Morales. Pacquaio avenged that emphatically. The Bradley verdict was highly contentious.

Williams would have given Mayweather all kinds of problems at welterweight. It would have been nice to see him work that one out.

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:32 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just move on.............

I'm going to start another thread and just agree with myself on there. Whistle

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:33 am

Williams beats him easy in your head.............

Let's see he didn't fight Pacman which wasn't all his fault and an ordinary Breland type beats him...

I've changed my mind.........Mayweather is crap.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:33 am

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just move on.............

I'm going to start another thread and just agree with myself on there.

How mature..

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:35 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just move on.............

I'm going to start another thread and just agree with myself on there.

How mature..

Lighten up man. Jesus.

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:36 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Williams beats him easy in your head.............

Let's see he didn't fight Pacman which wasn't all his fault and an ordinary Breland type beats him...

I've changed my mind.........Mayweather is crap.

Wonderful. Are you a barrister by trade?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:37 am

You bore me..

by hazharrison Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:38 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You bore me..

You ELECTRIFY me.

by Rowley Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:39 am

In all fairness Truss, you no more know where the fault lies for him not facing Manny than the rest of us do.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 17 Apr 2013, 10:40 am

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You bore me..

You ELECTRIFY me.

I bet I do.............Mayweather wanted and deserved a higher split Rowley..........He is American and the bigger name..But we won't go there.

Hagler turned down Hearns............but Haz likes Hagler!!

by Strongback Wed 17 Apr 2013, 11:20 am

Genaro Hernández
Diego Corrales
Carlos Hernández
José Luis Castillo
Philip N'dou
Oscar De La Hoya
Ricky Hatton
Juan Manual Marquez
Shane Mosley
Miguel Cotto

From my reading these are the names on which Mayweathers greatness will be judged. There are a couple of other names but of lower distinction.

After Castillo the cherry picking starts.

by milkyboy Wed 17 Apr 2013, 11:24 am

Hagler turned down hearns? Should that read hagler nailed down hearns to the canvas?

by Sponsored content