Sugar Ray Robinson

First topic message reminder :

A concensus number 1 P4P (not mine though). My questions are simple. Will he ever be surpassed? What does a boxer either active, not born yet have to do to be able to claim that fabled mantle? Obviously no semi decent boxer is going to have over 100 fights let alone 200 fights.

What if a boxer has 50 fights and in that time wins titles and dominates his division from lightweight to middleweight and has 2 losses on his record (and avenged). Also have in mind that he beat some very good boxers who themselves can be classed as ATGs along the way. Would that do it?

Tyson got $27 million for the superfight with Spinks.......................

Spinks got $13 million.....................

Tyson was the bigger fighter..............get it????

Yeah expert opinion, see Foreman vs Ali

Hit and run kid.....

Or Douglas vs Tyson
Or Toney vs RJJ
Or Pacquiao vs Morales II..

And I would bet if you took out a couple of Pac's poorer fights i.e. Clottey which probably did very little then his average would increase as well!!

Be honest with yourselves If you bring more to the party....you want higher reward....

On another thread Haz said Whittaker beat better fighters than Floyd........

Guess Mcgirt is better than Oscar..............

Anything to put Floyd down..

kingraf wrote:Or Douglas vs Ali,
Or Toney vs RJJ
Or Pacquiao vs Morales II..

WTF are you talking about???

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather doesn't need Paccy and here is why....

1. Boxers are rated on their records......always have been and always will be.

And Floyd's record will always show a big Manny shaped hole.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tyson got $27 million for the superfight with Spinks.......................

Spinks got $13 million.....................

Tyson was the bigger fighter..............get it????

Floyd and Manny could have generated a $200,000,000 fight but Floyd turned down the fight because he was only making $110M instead of $120M. That's phony baloney behaviour.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Be honest with yourselves If you bring more to the party....you want higher reward....

And, as I've shown, Floyd brings barely a fraction more than Manny does. Whether you like that fact or not.

Im talking about how often boxing afficiandos get bouts horribly wrong

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather doesn't need Paccy and here is why....

1. Boxers are rated on their records......always have been and always will be.

And Floyd's record will always show a big Manny shaped hole.

Wrong Manny was found out by Marquez........Look don't keep saying how much a floyd-Manny fight generates....

Either a guy is worth half or he's not............PPV shows Manny wasn't..Only an idiot would agree to 50/50

Plenty of them on here apparently..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Be honest with yourselves If you bring more to the party....you want higher reward....

On another thread Haz said Whittaker beat better fighters than Floyd........

Guess Mcgirt is better than Oscar..............

Anything to put Floyd down..

Ah yes, taking the biggest name and win on Floyd's record and comparing it directly to a name and win which most definitely is not the biggest on Whitaker's record. Brilliant.

Nelson and Chavez are better than Gatti and Mitchell. I win.

Marquez, Hatton, Cotto..............

Who did Whittaker beat above them in the ATG lists.............

You can be pedantic and say a blown up Nelson who'd never fought at 135 before..........If you want..

I still don't see why neither agreed to a 60/40 split with the larger purse going to the winner. If both were as confident in victory as they supposedly said then why not...

At the end of the day even the person who lost would have still take $80 million + ...quite how you can turn down that is beyond me. No matter how rich you are that kind of cash for one nights work is madness!

owen10ozzy wrote:I still don't see why neither agreed to a 60/40 split with the larger purse going to the winner. If both were as confident in victory as they supposedly said then why not...

At the end of the day even the person who lost would have still take $80 million + ...quite how you can turn down that is beyond me. No matter how rich you are that kind of cash for one nights work is madness!

Business is business..............You get what you're worth..............Why didn't Tyson agree to $20m each with Spinks...

Truss...if your using the fact the weight wasn't natural for Nelson then the same applies to both of Mayweathers victories over Hatton & Cotto.

He fought neither person at what was generally regarded as there best weight.....

And then if your going to say well what were they doing fighting at Welterweight & Light Middle respectively before taking on Mayweather....then no excuse can be used for Floyd not taking on Alvarez!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather doesn't need Paccy and here is why....

1. Boxers are rated on their records......always have been and always will be.

And Floyd's record will always show a big Manny shaped hole.

Wrong Manny was found out by Marquez........Look don't keep saying how much a floyd-Manny fight generates....

Either a guy is worth half or he's not............PPV shows Manny wasn't..Only an idiot would agree to 50/50

Plenty of them on here apparently..

And I've shown the correct split by worth (using your metric of PPV buys) is 53:47.

Keep that head in the sand tho Trussy......

Mayweather started at 130!!!!!!!!!!!

Not 50/50 is it ..

In the words of Rodney King "can we all get along"

RIP bro.

There is no good reason for why Floyd never fought him. 'He would have beaten him anyway' doesnt count, thats what bullies say when they want to get out of a fight. Truss, mate I congratulate you if you think turning down +60 millon because you deserve 50/50 (then take a 40 million fight) makes financial sense

kingraf wrote:There is no good reason for why Floyd never fought him. 'He would have beaten him anyway' doesnt count, thats what bullies say when they want to get out of a fight. Truss, mate I congratulate you if you think turning down +60 millon because you deserve 50/50 (then take a 40 million fight) makes financial sense

Just given you a good reason....learn to read.

Double post

Truss neither were worth the reported figures they would have earned if were being pedantic because neither person had come close to earning that before...

They were only worth that kind of money if they were fighting one another. I can see where your coming from regards Mayweather being worth slightly more because when you line up the PPV figures then he was, but not enough to squabble over a few percent when that much money was on the line.

Mayweather wanted more and deserved more...............

So it's a redundant argument........After all Manny was in for his biggest payday too...

Mayweather was the bigger name..period.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Marquez, Hatton, Cotto..............

Who did Whittaker beat above them in the ATG lists.............

You can be pedantic and say a blown up Nelson who'd never fought at 135 before..........If you want..

So Chavez and Nelson don't outrank those names? McGirt would probably rate higher than Hatton, too. Make a big issue of the weight against Nelson if you want, but the truth is that Zoomy was just outclassed by the better fighter, just as Hatton was against Mayweather. Why does Mayweather get praise from you for beating a 140 pounder at 147, but Whitaker gets derided for beating a (great) 130 pounder at 135?

Sorry Truss, but the Oscar win really wasn't anything to get too excited about, for me. Years past his best, performances after Floyd showed that he had basically nothing left, had been shown up to be far less than invincible by plenty of fighters already going back a good few years and totally gassed in the final few rounds. A good enough win but outweighed by the likes of the Hernandez, Corrales, Cotto and perhaps even Castillo and Hatton on Floyd's record in my opinion.

Drew with Chavez..........................Nelson had never fought at 135..

That the best you can do..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not 50/50 is it ..

Never said it was.

You keep making things up to help your argument/make you feel better.

You said 60/40 and that Floyd's was a massively bigger draw.

I've shown he isn't/wasn't.

unless you're saying 53:47 is/was fair and reasonable and PBF would've accepted it….??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather wanted more and deserved more...............

So it's a redundant argument........After all Manny was in for his biggest payday too...

Mayweather was the bigger name..period.

What was that you were saying about learning to read....?? Bought time you took your own advice.

You always gleefully proclaimed on another thread that you never said anything you couldn't back up. Care to provide some evidence to prove any of the statements in bold?

HINT: PPV numbers won't help you.......

Your saying he ducked Manny and should have took the 50/50.............

Whilst agreeing with me that he deserved more.......

Some serious bull manure being written here.

Bottom line is Manny refused to take the test citing all manner of excuses which would make a spoilt child blush.

But blame Floyd. Many boxers now test positive for juice but Floyd ducked Manny by insisting on a clean and fair fight.

88Chris05 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Marquez, Hatton, Cotto..............

Who did Whittaker beat above them in the ATG lists.............

You can be pedantic and say a blown up Nelson who'd never fought at 135 before..........If you want..

So Chavez and Nelson don't outrank those names? McGirt would probably rate higher than Hatton, too. Make a big issue of the weight against Nelson if you want, but the truth is that Zoomy was just outclassed by the better fighter, just as Hatton was against Mayweather. Why does Mayweather get praise from you for beating a 140 pounder at 147, but Whitaker gets derided for beating a (great) 130 pounder at 135?

What's it Truss always like to say? "WHERE'S THE CONSISTENCY??!!"

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your saying he ducked Manny and should have took the 50/50.............

Whilst agreeing with me that he deserved more.......

I'm saying that the most that could be statistically justified is 53:47 and that if he wanted to make the fight and cared more about his CV than his '0' he'd should've taken 50:50.

Mayweathers biggest payday before ODLH was $8 million, you really think he was worth the same as ODLH at the time? He got 50/50 because it takes two create a super fight... Why wouldnt the same apply with Pac-May?

Because Mayweather started at 130 dumbass!!!

McGirt was a one armed fighter. His left shoulder was permanently damaged prior to the fight.

Other than that it was a great win. Berbick beating Ali was also a great win.

Mcgirt the guy that lost every round to Taylor before being stopped!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Because Mayweather started at 130 dumbass!!!

When you refuse to use the quote function it's you that gets the as your posts make no sense!

Edited your post!! You loser..

Mayweather only got about 30% against de la Hoya. Oscar got the lions share.

Exactly...Oscar was the bigger name....

He was huge.............all about economics.

Quite right manos. But let's now allow a few facts to get in the way of concocting a story.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Edited your post!! You loser..

Eh? Again, who are you referring to??!

You basically look like the weirdo sat in the corner on his own laughing to himself at the moment.

You're superfluous to this debate Az..............run a long.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Edited your post!! You loser..

Eh? Again, who are you referring to??!

You basically look like the weirdo sat in the corner on his own laughing to himself at the moment.

We both know I'm not...

SRR got smacked like somebodies b!tch against jake yet excuses are vomited out. Floyd has a zero and he gets accused of ducking someone schooled a few times by a guy Floyd slapped about for fun.

Beyond double standards.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Exactly...Oscar was the bigger name....

He was huge.............all about economics.

azania wrote:Quite right manos. But let's now allow a few facts to get in the way of concocting a story.

Exactly. And those 'facts' would show that Oscar was a PPV superstar whereas Floyd was a relative nobody by PPV standards. In fact, it may even have been Floyd's first ever PPV fight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-per-view

Whereas, as shown, the situation with Floyd and Pac in 08-10 type time was a world of difference. Two biggest PPV draws in the world.

I agree, economics should dictate and we should listen to that facts - which leads us to 53:47. Thank-you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're superfluous to this debate Az..............run a long.

Is that a new word

Okay fine, I got my facts confused (read 25, when it was 52), crucify me!!!