Can Pacquiao catch Floyd?

First topic message reminder :

They fight either side of a promotional and televisual divide: Pacquiao is affiliated with HBO and Bob Arum; Mayweather with Golden Boy and Showtime.

They rank alongside one another with many experts in the all time rankings - Mayweather having stolen a march on Pacquiao in the past year with easy wins over Guerrero and Alvarez while Pacquiao suffered a shocking loss to nemesis Marquez in a fight he looked poised to win via stoppage himself.

With neither likely to threaten the all time 15 (for many experts they rank outside the top 20) and with their chances of meeting as remote as ever, can Pacquiao catch Floyd in the home straight with the competition he has available to him (Rios, Alvarado, Marquez, Provodnikov, Bradley)? Mayweather seems likely to take a gimme against Amir Khan before facing Danny Garcia -- fights he'll be an overwhelming favourite to win.

Can Pacquiao close the gap - pip Mayweather even - with a series of blood and thunder victories?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:All lists are nostalgic...........Bernstein has Johnson top 7..

Which makes it stupid for the OP to comment that Floyd isn't top 10.........

He's top 10 in 30 lists on here........and for me considering Sugar has Dempsey top 10 is VALID enough....

I'll take the Captain and Chris lists over some experts anyday..

Stop saying Floyd isn't top 10 kiddo because he is on some respected lists.........

BERNSTEIN.......Hagler and Johnson top 10 and he's an expert!!.......OUCH.

I'll take expert opinion over fan boy opinion any day of the week. You really need some new lines.

Why not contribute to the debate? Why not justify why Floyd's record holds up.

Theres a unhealthy obsession with thinking being unbeaten is the be all and end all. It only encourages fighters to act like Mayweather and carefully plan their fights. If his own fans want him to take easy fights that he wont lose then no wonder he doesnt take up the biggest challenges. Give me a Moore or a Duran or a Leonard over that anyday. Challenges are what make enriches boxing. Not minimising risk. Mayweather is proof that if you carefully manage your career you can fool people into thinking your achiveiments are better than the great fighters you took on the toughest challenges. No idea how Moore can be lower than Mayweather. Much tougher career and if he was around nowadays and operated the same way as Mayweather does he would quite easily be unbeaten in 50 or 60 fights even at the age of 40.

Maybe ATG should do another thread to compile all the various 606v2 psoters' Top15 ATG lists so we can have a forum composite list?

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

Robinsons record would take some dissecting,200 fights, stopped only once through heat exhaustion and boxing till your 45, I wouldn't like to even attempt to dissect it.

Pulling out of fights with Williams, Burley, Moore and Cocoa Kid would be a good place to start if I go down the Mayweather route of evaluating boxers or I could judge him on his actual record. I have him at number one but if we're knocking Mayweather then why not everyone else. He was signed to fight Cocoa Kid but was given such hell in sparring he pulled out, the exact same thing happened against Tiger Wade who he eventually did fight.

So allegedly ducked 4 fighters in a 200 fight career,OK we'll leave it at that.

Seeing as Burley and Moore are better than anyone he did face it follows the exact same logic of using Pacquiao against Mayweather, you either apply it to both or to neither.

catchweight wrote:Theres a healthy obsession with thinking being unbeaten is the be all and end all. It only encourages fighters to act like Mayweather and carefully plan their fights. If his own fans want him to take easy fights that he wont lose then no wonder he doesnt take up the biggest challenges. Give me a Moore or a Duran or a Leonard over that anyday. Challenges are what make enriches boxing. Not minimising risk. Mayweather is proof that if you carefully manage your career you can fool people into thinking your achiveiments are better than the great fighters you took on the toughest challenges. No idea how Moore can be lower than Mayweather. Much tougher career and if he was around nowadays and operated the same way as Mayweather does he would quite easily be unbeaten in 50 or 60 fights even at the age of 40.

Great post.

Floyd doesn't even defend his objectives -- to take the best paid fights available to him. Power to him -- he'll retire as one of the few fighters in history that played the game rather than let the game play him (and use him up). He's a great fighter, one of the most successful of all time, one of the most talented, too, but not one of the greatest.

That's the point his supporters get themselves in an uproar.

Dempsey gets a free ride over ducking..........and is in Sugar's top 10 list.........

He's an "EXPERT".........Does that validate Dempsey's top 10 spot.

and does anyone really think Dempsey belongs over Floyd..

TopHat24/7 wrote:Maybe ATG should do another thread to compile all the various 606v2 psoters' Top15 ATG lists so we can have a forum composite list?

Why bother -- we know there are a lot of Floyd fans here. That doesn't change reality (even if it cheers the likes of Truss up).

Catchweight, i'm sure it would alter Moores career so much that he doesn't get knocked out in one round by Len Morrow or lose to lose to Henry Hall and Lloyd Gibson. Who I hear you ask, me neither.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

Robinsons record would take some dissecting,200 fights, stopped only once through heat exhaustion and boxing till your 45, I wouldn't like to even attempt to dissect it.

Pulling out of fights with Williams, Burley, Moore and Cocoa Kid would be a good place to start if I go down the Mayweather route of evaluating boxers or I could judge him on his actual record. I have him at number one but if we're knocking Mayweather then why not everyone else. He was signed to fight Cocoa Kid but was given such hell in sparring he pulled out, the exact same thing happened against Tiger Wade who he eventually did fight.

So allegedly ducked 4 fighters in a 200 fight career,OK we'll leave it at that.

Seeing as Burley and Moore are better than anyone he did face it follows the exact same logic of using Pacquiao against Mayweather, you either apply it to both or to neither.

Dear me, that's a hell of a stretch.

Mayweather and Pacquiao were the two best fighters in the sport, both at their peak and both in the same division. That plainly isn't the case with Robinson, Moore and Burley.

At welterweight, Robinson dealt with Gavilan -- one of the best welters of all time. Twice.

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Maybe ATG should do another thread to compile all the various 606v2 psoters' Top15 ATG lists so we can have a forum composite list?

Why bother -- we know there are a lot of Floyd fans here. That doesn't change reality (even if it cheers the likes of Truss up).

But it will be an aggregate of varying degrees of informed opinions.

Crowd theory begins to kick in and you arguably get something more useful and indicative/reliable than people picking and choosing whichever 'historian' has opinion best suited to their own.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Dempsey gets a free ride over ducking..........and is in Sugar's top 10 list.........

He's an "EXPERT".........Does that validate Dempsey's top 10 spot.

and does anyone really think Dempsey belongs over Floyd..

Sugar's dewey-eyed nostalgia toward Dempsey doesn't invalidate all expert opinion (making it as valid as a bunch of forum posters).

I'd rank Floyd higher.

You judge everything on what you read on boxrec and thinks this makes you an expert which is why you get so dismissive when actual experts dont fit. Its laughable when you get people on here that have probably never boxed, trained fighters or read boxing history believing themselves to be experts because they watch boxing on tv and can look up a fighters record on the net.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Maybe ATG should do another thread to compile all the various 606v2 psoters' Top15 ATG lists so we can have a forum composite list?

Why bother -- we know there are a lot of Floyd fans here. That doesn't change reality (even if it cheers the likes of Truss up).

But it will be an aggregate of varying degrees of informed opinions.

Crowd theory begins to kick in and you arguably get something more useful and indicative/reliable than people picking and choosing whichever 'historian' has opinion best suited to their own.

Just use Boxing News' recent list -- comprised of various historians, experts, commentators, fighters if an aggregate of informed opinion is what you're after (I suspect it isn't).

I'm sure Haz regards the guys that do the Boxing Hall of fame as experts.....

If you can tell me how Mcguigan is in there and Curry isn't.........??

shows you what baloney this EXPERT stuff is.

Curry flattered to deceive.

He walked to the edge of the cliff and when he got there fell off.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

Robinsons record would take some dissecting,200 fights, stopped only once through heat exhaustion and boxing till your 45, I wouldn't like to even attempt to dissect it.

Pulling out of fights with Williams, Burley, Moore and Cocoa Kid would be a good place to start if I go down the Mayweather route of evaluating boxers or I could judge him on his actual record. I have him at number one but if we're knocking Mayweather then why not everyone else. He was signed to fight Cocoa Kid but was given such hell in sparring he pulled out, the exact same thing happened against Tiger Wade who he eventually did fight.

So allegedly ducked 4 fighters in a 200 fight career,OK we'll leave it at that.

Seeing as Burley and Moore are better than anyone he did face it follows the exact same logic of using Pacquiao against Mayweather, you either apply it to both or to neither.

Dear me, that's a hell of a stretch.

Mayweather and Pacquiao were the two best fighters in the sport, both at their peak and both in the same division. That plainly isn't the case with Robinson, Moore and Burley.

At welterweight, Robinson dealt with Gavilan -- one of the best welters of all time. Twice.

It's no stretch at all Haz, he was signed to fight both Cocoa Kid and Charley Burley but pulled out, prior to winning the title it's hard to argue that Robinson and Burley were the best welterweights in the world. The common denominator in all of it is money as it was for the proposed fight with Moore, all of these fights were possible but didn't.

Strongback wrote:Curry flattered to deceive.

He walked to the edge of the cliff and when he got there fell off.

you have Mcguigan higher.....?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Curry flattered to deceive.

He walked to the edge of the cliff and when he got there fell off.

you have Mcguigan higher.....?

McGuigan's in there because the yanks think he's Irish.

So you agree then..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Truss, one thing I will say is you would be better served to say he's unbeaten and fought in 25 world title fights instead of this 16 years nonsense.

I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone, the career of Archie Moore is more fascinating than that of Mayweathers but they are not untouchable. It's almost considered blasphemy to have any criticism of Robinson or Moore, they like anyone else can have their records dissected.

Robinsons record would take some dissecting,200 fights, stopped only once through heat exhaustion and boxing till your 45, I wouldn't like to even attempt to dissect it.

Pulling out of fights with Williams, Burley, Moore and Cocoa Kid would be a good place to start if I go down the Mayweather route of evaluating boxers or I could judge him on his actual record. I have him at number one but if we're knocking Mayweather then why not everyone else. He was signed to fight Cocoa Kid but was given such hell in sparring he pulled out, the exact same thing happened against Tiger Wade who he eventually did fight.

So allegedly ducked 4 fighters in a 200 fight career,OK we'll leave it at that.

Seeing as Burley and Moore are better than anyone he did face it follows the exact same logic of using Pacquiao against Mayweather, you either apply it to both or to neither.

Dear me, that's a hell of a stretch.

Mayweather and Pacquiao were the two best fighters in the sport, both at their peak and both in the same division. That plainly isn't the case with Robinson, Moore and Burley.

At welterweight, Robinson dealt with Gavilan -- one of the best welters of all time. Twice.

It's no stretch at all Haz, he was signed to fight both Cocoa Kid and Charley Burley but pulled out, prior to winning the title it's hard to argue that Robinson and Burley were the best welterweights in the world. The common denominator in all of it is money as it was for the proposed fight with Moore, all of these fights were possible but didn't.

Doug Fischer's take on Robinson-Burley:

One point that both got wrong (which I hope you noticed) was the argument of whether Sugar Ray Robinson ducked Charley Burley. Both guys made it sound like Robinson came before Burley, but it was the other way around.

Burley turned pro in 1936 at welterweight. Robinson turned pro in 1940 at lightweight. Burley had fought top middleweights at middleweight – such as Billy Soose, Holman Williams, Nate Bolden and Georgie Abrams – before Robinson turned pro. Robinson didn’t grow into a welterweight (and a small one at that) until 1942, when Burley was fighting primarily above 150 pounds and butting heads with top young middleweights, such as Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall and Williams. Burley retired in 1950, the year Robinson officially moved from welterweight to middleweight.

I would have pointed that out and argued that Robinson didn’t duck Burley.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm sure Haz regards the guys that do the Boxing Hall of fame as experts.....

If you can tell me how Mcguigan is in there and Curry isn't.........??

shows you what baloney this EXPERT stuff is.

"Do" the hall of fame?

They generally get it right, however, there are writers with votes whose opinions are less informed. Lower weight fighters generally get a raw deal.

McGuigan, like Gatti, scored high on their impact -- which fits the criteria. Neither were as good as Curry but I don't think induction is strictly dependant on ability.

I must be imagining Robinson being too pretty to fight Burley then Haz but if Fischer says otherwise who am I to argue.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I must be imagining Robinson being too pretty to fight Burley then Haz but if Fischer says otherwise who am I to argue.

Regardless of he says she says it is pointedly different from Pac-May.

If anything it's more shocking that Robinson never got in the ring with the best black fighters of the time, Burley had no problem facing Charles, Moore or the rest of the BMW and vice versa. Robinson came ever so slightly later but he ducked Burley and Cocoa Kid because he wanted more money, almost identical to Mayweather wanting more money to face Pacquiao.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If anything it's more shocking that Robinson never got in the ring with the best black fighters of the time, Burley had no problem facing Charles, Moore or the rest of the BMW and vice versa. Robinson came ever so slightly later but he ducked Burley and Cocoa Kid because he wanted more money, almost identical to Mayweather wanting more money to face Pacquiao.

Ok genius - show me a timeline that illustrates how Robinson avoided all of these fighters (and more importantly, how that's exactly the same scenario as Mayweather walking away from the one fighter deemed good enough to challenge him -- his greatest rival and the biggest fight in boxing history).

Cliff Rold's top five welterweights all time (Robinson went 3-0 against Gavilan and Armstrong and guess what? Both black!):

5) Kid Gavilan (1943-58)
Record: 108-30-5, 28 KO
World Champion 1951-54, 7 Defenses
Welterweight Titlists/Champions Faced – 5: (Sugar Ray Robinson, Johnny Bratton, Carmen Basilio, Johnny Saxton, Tony DeMarco)

Born Gerardo Gonzalez, the “Cuban Hawk” was a big star in the early television era, flashy and involved in a series of classics. Beginning as a sixteen-year old featherweight, Gavilan quickly grew into the Welterweight class and by 1948 was gaining valuable experience, losing a distance battle with former Lightweight king Ike Williams, narrowly edging veteran contender Tommy Bell, and giving Robinson all he could handle in a spirited ten round non-title affair. Two revenge defeats of Williams and the quality of the Robinson loss helped to land Gavilan his first title shot in July 1949, defeated on points over 15 against Robinson. Gavilan bounced right back with wins over the tough Rocky Castellani and former Lightweight champ Beau Jack. 1950 opened with a debated split decision loss to Hall of Famer Billy Graham, the birth of what would become a memorable four bout rivalry. It would be the first of three losses in four fights to open a 15-fight campaign for the year which ended 10-4-1 and included a narrow revenge decision over Graham before the year was out. Unbeaten in twelve 1951 contests, Gavilan would enter his finest years, defeating Johnny Bratton in May for the NBA title and assuming the title vacated by Robinson who moved to Middleweight. Gavilan would in fact lose only one non-title affair between November 1950 and an April 1954 challenge of then-Middleweight champ Bobo Olson, a span of 36 bouts which included all seven of his title defenses. Those thwarts of contenders included wins over Graham, Bratton, Gil Turner, and Basilio along with a wildly hyped stoppage of undefeated former NCAA champion Chuck Davey. He followed the Olson loss with a points defeat to Johnny Saxton in October 1954 to end his championship days and begin the inevitable slide. Gavilan would lose 15 times in his final 26 bouts after Saxton.

Why He’s Here: During his peak years, Gavilan kept the sort of schedule which was already rapidly becoming a thing of the past, facing the best of his time almost always more than once. His record was occasionally peppered with odd losses but with so many fights, it’s not hard to fathom. In total, at Welterweight, he beat six World champs of Hall of Famers and many more top contenders. Gavilan was an inaugural member of the IBHOF in 1990

4) Joe Walcott (1890-1911)
Record: 92-25-24, 58 KO, 21 no decisions, 2 no contests
World Champion 1901-04, 2 Defenses
Welterweight Titlists/Champions Faced – 5: (“Mysterious” Billy Smith, Rube Ferns, Dixie Kid, Honey Mellody, Jimmy Gardner)

Before “Jersey,” there was the “Barbados Demon.” Standing just shy of 5’2, the stout Walcott fought classic talents from Lightweight to Heavyweight never scaling much outside the 140s. Walcott worked his way through the ranks methodically, drawing twice with Welterweight champion Billy Smith and losing twice to Lightweight great George Lavigne, the second time by stoppage for the Lightweight crown in 1897. His second chance at a title went only slightly better because he finished, Walcott losing a twenty round decision to Smith in December 1898. He rebounded, winning 23 of 26, including two non-title wins over Smith, a decision over future Light Heavyweight champion George Gardner, and a seventh round knockout of Heavyweight contender and Hall of Famer Joe Choynski. He earned another crack at the Welter crown and broke through with a fifth-round knockout of the historically underrated “Rube” Ferns in December 1901. While he didn’t defend frequently, Walcott fought often. He lost a rematch with Gardner, avenged a controversial loss to Tommy West, stopped Smith in four, and drew with Light Heavyweight great “Philadelphia” Jack O’Brien. Disqualified in the twentieth round, Walcott lost his title to Dixie Kid though the reason for the DQ was hard to find and the verdict highly disputed. Walcott continued on, billed often as still the champion, while facing many of the best of the day including draws with Sam Langford and Lightweight champion Joe Gans. Any doubts about his claim to the title were eliminated in October 1906 when he lost on points to Honey Mellody and the following month by stoppage (Mellody had defeated Dixie Kid for the lineal crown). Walcott continued on, but with little positive affect. Walcott was added to the IBHOF in 1991.

Why He’s Here: Fighters from this era can be hard to assess. Limited film, awkward written accounts, and the possibility of being forced to throw fights (as alleged after the first bout with West) is tough to compare to fighters with more voluminous, live action documentation. Walcott stands out no matter the comparisons. A small Welterweight with big guts and heavy hands, his quality of competition was phenomenal, among Welterweights and generally. If the Dixie loss was as disputed as documented, one can see evidence of Walcott being the best Welterweight in the world for more than half a decade while putting solid scares, and official losses, to quality Middleweights and Light Heavyweight. A true pioneer, Walcott is one of boxing’s seminal historical figures.

3) Sugar Ray Leonard (1977-97)
Record: 36-3-1, 25 KO
Lineal World/WBC Champion 1979-80, 1 Defense; 80-82, 3 Defenses
WBA titlist 1981-82, 1 Defense
Welterweight Titlists/Champions Faced – 3: (Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns)

A media darling before he ever turned pro, Leonard captured the public imagination as a Gold Medalist at the 1976 Olympics and kept it for a generation. Loved and despised in almost equal measure at his professional peak, there was no denying the speed, power and boxing ability on display when Leonard was at his best. Joining the paid ranks in February 1977, Leonard quickly amassed 25 wins to earn a shot at the lineal World champion, a 38-0-1 future Hall of Famer in Wilfred Benitez, dropping Benitez in the third and stopping him with a flurry in the fifteenth. A nasty knockout of Dave “Boy” Green led to an epic showdown with the great Roberto Duran in Montreal in June 1980. Leonard battled gamely but was outworked and outmanned by perhaps the best Duran there ever was in a classic. A rematch in November reversed the result as Leonard turned both boxer and psychologist, spurring Duran to turn his back and quit in round eight and handing the World title back to Leonard in the eighth round. The build began in earnest to the next major event, Leonard defending once and moving to 154 lbs. to knock off lineal/WBA titlist Ayub Kalule, before a unification showdown with undefeated WBA titlist Thomas Hearns in September 1981. Troubled with the size and length of Hearns, Leonard turned attacker, hurting Hearns badly in the sixth and rallying from behind on the cards to score a knockdown in round thirteen. One round later Leonard pummeled Hearns along the ropes to force the stoppage. A single defense followed before a detached retina forced an early retirement in 1982…but Leonard would of course return many times over, if not at Welterweight. Most notably, in 1987 Leonard emerged to win the Middleweight championship from the great Marvin Hagler.

Why He’s Here: Leonard had a short run at the top of the Welterweight class and lacks in terms of length of title reign and number of total fights. Where he does not lack is in the quality department. If one is going to build a championship legacy in little more than two years, Leonard is the road map on how it is done. He was the first man to officially defeat Benitez (though Bruce Curry could argue he’s already done it and been robbed); the first to defeat Hearns; and the Duran he faced had lost only once in over seventy professional contests. All three were or will be selected to the Hall of Fame. All went on to titles in one or more weight classes after Leonard defeated them. Of all the men on this list, it might be the best trio of scalps collected over a two year period. While he may have occasionally been a pain at the negotiating table, he was also a seminal figure in terms of control of one’s own career and generation of income. Would it have been nice to see what happened in the bulk of the time he was off (minus one night with Kevin Howard) between 1982-87; nice to see Leonard-Donald Curry, with Hagler earlier, or in rematches with Hearns and Duran sooner? Certainly…but the consummate showmen always leave the crowd wanting more. Leonard was added in the IBHOF in 1997.

2) Henry Armstrong (1931-45)
Record: 151-21-9, 101 KO
World Champion 1938-40, 18 Defenses
Welterweight Titlists/Champions Faced – 3: (Barney Ross, Fritzie Zivic, Sugar Ray Robinson)

Previously rated in the top ten at Lightweight, and top three at Featherweight, Armstrong makes what will be his last of three top ten appearances. That’s how good a fighter “Homicide” Hank was. In between winning the Feather and Lightweight crowns, Armstrong stepped up to Welterweight and battered Ross for the crown over fifteen in May 1938, birthing the greatest title reign ever seen at 147 lbs. He would lose only one of his next 23 bouts into October 1940, splitting a pair for the Lightweight title with Lou Ambers and racking up a record 18 consecutive defenses of the Welterweight crown along with a non-title knockout of then-reigning Lightweight champion Lew Jenkins and a still-debated draw for the Middleweight title with Ceferino Garcia in March 1940. Garcia would be the first contender for Armstong’s Welterweight crown in November 1938 as well, defeated on points over 15. While the competition was not always spectacular, Armstrong added tough defenses against Hall of Famer Pedro Montanez, longtime Featherweight and Lightweight rival Baby Arizmendi, and contenders like Davey Day and Paul Junior. The blitzkrieg reign would end in by decision in October 1940 versus Fritzie Zivic. The rematch four months later went worse, ended with a 14th round stoppage to bring Armstrong’s championship years, if not career, to a close. Armstrong would continue on through the war years, gaining a measure of revenge with a decision win over then-former champion Zivic in October 1942 and a knockout of future Jr. Welterweight champion Tippy Larkin, and decision over Lightweight great Sammy Angott versus losses to excellent fighters like a young Robinson and Beau Jack. Armstrong was an inaugural member of the IBHOF in 1990.

Why He’s Here: A case can be made that Armstrong really didn’t beat many great Welterweights, but Ross and Zivic give him two and Garcia was a hell of a fighter as well. He was small for the class, often weighing less than 140 lbs. early in his title reign. However, 18 title defenses, in little more than two years, are hard to ignore as is his general quality of competition. While perhaps not the greatest Welterweight of all time, he was by far its greatest champion and that counts for a lot. There are few Welterweights in history that would not have been forced through hell against the Armstrong of the late 1930s, a fighter who was almost unbeatable in three weight divisions for almost half a decade.

1) Sugar Ray Robinson (1940-65)
Record: 173-19-6, 108 KO
World Champion 1946-50, 5 Defenses
Welterweight Titlists/Champions Faced - 5: (Marty Servo, Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan)

Born Walker Smith Jr. in Georgia and reared in Harlem, New York, Robinson built on a stellar amateur career with a quick succession through the professional ranks beginning in October 1940. Fighting much of his first year nearer the Lightweight limit, Robinson bested Lightweight great Sammy Angott before three fights in a row against future and former World Welter champs Marty Servo and Fritzie Zivic from September 1941 to January 1942. The run began with a decision in ten over Servo followed by a decision and then 10th round stoppage of Zivic, running his record to 27-0 before he’d even hit his 21st birthday. Robinson continued winning, adding additional victories over Servo and Angott along with his first win in defining rivalry with Middleweight Jake LaMotta in October 1942, giving up over 12 lbs. on the scale and winning a decision. Five fights and six months later, they would face off again with Robinson being dropped and suffering his first loss via unanimous ten round vote, outweighed by some 16 lbs. He bounced back just three weeks later to avenge the slight and added a victory over an aging Armstrong later in the year.

With the Welterweight title frozen while champion Freddie Cochrane served in World War II, Robinson simply kept winning and waiting. He defeated LaMotta twice more in 1945, besting contenders Tommy Bell, Izzy Jannazzo and Jose Basora along with another win over Angott. In 1946, Servo won the crown from a returning Cochrane but quickly vacated. Robinson was matched with Bell for the vacant title in December 1946, his record showing 73 wins against a single loss and draw. Bell dropped Robinson in round two only to have the act revenged late in the bout on the way to a unanimous verdict for Robinson. During his title reign, Robinson flirted often with non-title affairs inside the Middleweight limit but made quality defenses against tough contender Charley Fusari and the great Kid Gavilan, the latter in a rematch of an exciting non-title win. Fusari would in fact be the final defense and bout at Welterweight in August 1950. Already having won the Middleweight title (as recognized in Pennsylvania), Robinson was off to chase LaMotta, and ultimately five Middleweight titles, over his final fifteen years as a pro. When his hand was raised at the end of the decision over Fusari, Robinson’s record was an astonishing 110-1-2.

Why He’s Here: It’s hard to say if, without the war, Robinson couldn’t have been the champion sooner. If he had, who knows numbers he could have cultivated. It doesn’t really matter; Robinson was great without the title. Four of five wins, in six fights, with LaMotta came while he was regularly at Middleweight and only in one did he weigh a few pounds over 147. Servo and Angott, the first times, came in his first year and the first Zivic win was just a couple weeks shy. While Armstrong was aging, he was still a real contender and real world class fighter and those are just a few names and Gavilan was a great final rivalry for the class.

None of this gets at the obvious.

“Sugar” Ray Robinson is almost casually argued as the greatest fighter who ever lived. There is a reason for that. Some of it comes in the numbers (110-1-2 bears repeating) and some in the high quality of opposition. There is also the hushed awe of those who saw him in his Welterweight prime, an era not adequately filmed but well documented. The greatest of all time was at his very best, at the height of his speed and power, at Welterweight.

This list is Robinson and everyone else.

And, of course, he was an inaugural member of the IBHOF. He was probably the first selection.

You don't need a timeline to work it out Haz maybe go and refer to one of your books and find out the actual facts of the time.

Cocoa Kid- Signed to fight in 1949 but pulled out after being dropped in sparring
Burley- Wouldn't enter into negotiations because he was too pretty to fight Charley Burley

Now you may wish to ignore any criticism of the old timers but I struggle to accept it's just a coincidence that the only three welterweights of the 40's Robinson didn't face were Burley, Cocoa Kid and Williams.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't need a timeline to work it out Haz maybe go and refer to one of your books and find out the actual facts of the time.

Cocoa Kid- Signed to fight in 1949 but pulled out after being dropped in sparring
Burley- Wouldn't enter into negotiations because he was too pretty to fight Charley Burley

Now you may wish to ignore any criticism of the old timers but I struggle to accept it's just a coincidence that the only three welterweights of the 40's Robinson didn't face were Burley, Cocoa Kid and Williams.

Old wive's tales and supposition. You've merely googled "Did Robinson duck anyone?". Why fight Burley for peanuts (above welterweight)? Do you really believe that Robinson -- who liked a pound note as much as any man -- wouldn't have taken Burley on for the biggest purse in boxing history?

Robinson ducked Burley like Floyd ducked Winky Wright.

I've googled nothing Haz, strange how to resort to the same childishness every time you are questioned. You may wish to believe they're old wive's tales but I do not, I struggle to accept it is coincidence that the low reward high risk fights never materialised. He toyed with Gavilan in their first fight to make their title fight appear a more attractive proposition to the public but he knew he would. It is also the reason he fought Armstrong, a name who could no longer trouble him, he faced Wilson as an easy comeback fight after losing to LaMotta. I don't use it against him but he like everyone else has avoided fighters in his career, you are told by the historians he is the greatest so follow that theory.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't need a timeline to work it out Haz maybe go and refer to one of your books and find out the actual facts of the time.

Cocoa Kid- Signed to fight in 1949 but pulled out after being dropped in sparring
Burley- Wouldn't enter into negotiations because he was too pretty to fight Charley Burley

Now you may wish to ignore any criticism of the old timers but I struggle to accept it's just a coincidence that the only three welterweights of the 40's Robinson didn't face were Burley, Cocoa Kid and Williams.

Old wive's tales and supposition. You've merely googled "Did Robinson duck anyone?". Why fight Burley for peanuts (above welterweight)? Do you really believe that Robinson -- who liked a pound note as much as any man -- wouldn't have taken Burley on for the biggest purse in boxing history?

Robinson ducked Burley like Floyd ducked Winky Wright.

Hard to believe Haz anyone could accuse Robinson the greatest boxer ever lived as a serial ducker,if you sat in a room of 1000 boxing fans and experts and suggested this you'd get laughed out the place.I've heard it all now.

I personally do not think the comparison between Mayweather Manny and Robinson Burley is wholly fair. There was never a time when Robinson and Burley were universally accepted as number one and two in the world as was certainly the case for a good couple of years with the former two, as such the fight was not an absolute must, as such the level of criticism due should be tailored accordingly.

However for all that any suggestion that Robinson is completely without blame is more than a little disingenious. Firstly Robinson fought LaMotta in 1943 so the idea he was not flirting with middleweight until Burley was safely in retirement is simply not true. Also most accept that Burley did not desert welter or outgrow it, he moved up through a lack of opportunities. Had a title shot been on the table pretty much accepted he could have made welter throughout his career.

Guess none of us will know the truth and no doubt Charley's less than crowd pleasing style and limited financial rewards played a factor, but enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that Robinson just plain did not fancy Burley. As HH has already said there is the famous I'm too pretty to fight Charley Burley story that does the rounds. However it is a pretty well told story that when Robinson was asked about fighting Charley he said he would only do a three fight series if Burley agreed to throw the first and they could have the second two on the level, an offer he rightly turned down.

The two situations are not really the same so don't think Burley is as big a stick to beat Robbo with as Manny is for Floyd (or vice versa) but neither is it a situation where Robbo should be awarded a complete pass on by any means.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I've googled nothing Haz, strange how to resort to the same childishness every time you are questioned. You may wish to believe they're old wive's tales but I do not, I struggle to accept it is coincidence that the low reward high risk fights never materialised. He toyed with Gavilan in their first fight to make their title fight appear a more attractive proposition to the public but he knew he would. It is also the reason he fought Armstrong, a name who could no longer trouble him, he faced Wilson as an easy comeback fight after losing to LaMotta. I don't use it against him but he like everyone else has avoided fighters in his career, you are told by the historians he is the greatest so follow that theory.

Robinson's competition is first rate, as is his record. I don't need a historian to tell me he's the greatest of all time.

You've offered nothing concrete -- nothing more than a hunch. It's the equivalent of saying Mayweather didn't fancy Wright or Casamayor -- low reward high risk fights that were neither realisable (due to where both were in their careers) or economically viable.

Robinson was notorious for pulling strokes when it came to negotiations -- he pulled the same trick on Basilio and others. Was he trying to avoid them also?

Nico the gman wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't need a timeline to work it out Haz maybe go and refer to one of your books and find out the actual facts of the time.

Cocoa Kid- Signed to fight in 1949 but pulled out after being dropped in sparring
Burley- Wouldn't enter into negotiations because he was too pretty to fight Charley Burley

Now you may wish to ignore any criticism of the old timers but I struggle to accept it's just a coincidence that the only three welterweights of the 40's Robinson didn't face were Burley, Cocoa Kid and Williams.

Old wive's tales and supposition. You've merely googled "Did Robinson duck anyone?". Why fight Burley for peanuts (above welterweight)? Do you really believe that Robinson -- who liked a pound note as much as any man -- wouldn't have taken Burley on for the biggest purse in boxing history?

Robinson ducked Burley like Floyd ducked Winky Wright.

Hard to believe Haz anyone could accuse Robinson the greatest boxer ever lived as a serial ducker,if you sat in a room of 1000 boxing fans and experts and suggested this you'd get laughed out the place.I've heard it all now.

Glad it's not just me. Nothing's sacred when you have Mayweather's honour at stake!

Rowley wrote:I personally do not think the comparison between Mayweather Manny and Robinson Burley is wholly fair. There was never a time when Robinson and Burley were universally accepted as number one and two in the world as was certainly the case for a good couple of years with the former two, as such the fight was not an absolute must, as such the level of criticism due should be tailored accordingly.

However for all that any suggestion that Robinson is completely without blame is more than a little disingenious. Firstly Robinson fought LaMotta in 1943 so the idea he was not flirting with middleweight until Burley was safely in retirement is simply not true. Also most accept that Burley did not desert welter or outgrow it, he moved up through a lack of opportunities. Had a title shot been on the table pretty much accepted he could have made welter throughout his career.

Guess none of us will know the truth and no doubt Charley's less than crowd pleasing style and limited financial rewards played a factor, but enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that Robinson just plain did not fancy Burley. As HH has already said there is the famous I'm too pretty to fight Charley Burley story that does the rounds. However it is a pretty well told story that when Robinson was asked about fighting Charley he said he would only do a three fight series if Burley agreed to throw the first and they could have the second two on the level, an offer he rightly turned down.

The two situations are not really the same so don't think Burley is as big a stick to beat Robbo with as Manny is for Floyd (or vice versa) but neither is it a situation where Robbo should be awarded a complete pass on by any means.

Had a Burley fight offered Robinson the biggest purse in boxing history he'd have been there with bells on Jeff.

Everybody back home knew and commented on the fact that Holmes gave up the WBC belt  because Page was his mandatory.......

Page was a very highly thought of amateur and pro back then.........Before he became a slob..

Holmes gets a free ride...............

Mayweather's honor isn't at stake.........Because they couldn't agree a deal...and most people think he wins anyway.......

After all he's better than Morales and JMM...........

Cherry picker.........Coward.......call him what you want.......But as Dempsey and Holmes show us.......

Standings are based on who you fight.......and not on who you don't..

Records come under scrutiny..Not imaginary fights.

hazharrison wrote:Rios has been selected to walk onto Pacquiao's bombs. This could be another startling knockout.

Partly, I get that. However, Pacquiao is coming off of 2 official losses, the last being one of the most shuddering KO's in recent years. I can see why Rios has been selected and think it's understandable in some ways and crazy in others - What happens if Rios soaks up punishment, doesn't go anywhere and manages to catch up to Manny with a half decent right hand during an exchange? Might be a slim chance, but it could still go very wrong for Pac, as we have no idea what that KO did to him.

Also, if it is a startling KO for Manny, I'll give him credit as he's had an awful 18 months in the ring and is coming back from a KO that would have retired many world class fighters to face a guy who may be limited and hittable, but has a granite chin, seemingly 3 balls and almost always lands something big against his opponents. Remember, Abril is 5' 11" and was able to use his height as well as his skills to nullify Rios. Manny is only 5' 6" (though looks 5' 5" to my eye) and of course doesn't have the silky boxing pedigree and skills of Abril. The fact he's chosen to box on, impresses me alone, though it's not impossible that he looks like a shell and wilts against Rios I concede.

Alas, of course many people will play an impressive victory down due to Rios' style. Which brings me to my final point (just to make it clear, I am a fan of both Floyd and Manny) - What I find interesting is that, whenever Floyd has faced a pressure fighter such as Gatti, Hatton, Cotto, Ortiz, etc., we marvel at how he is in his element, taking apart an opponent who constantly comes forward and we wax lyrical about how these guys "bring the best out of Floyd", etc. Yet when Pac faces the same kind of opponent, such as Cotto or Hatton, we are supposed to say things like "Oh, so what. He beat a guy that kept putting him under pressure, he's supposed to look good..Not impressed...I don't want to see him in there with guys who make him look good...". I'm surprised more people don't see the contradiction here?!

What has the greatness of a fighter got to do with whether he took on all comers?

I say it's similar Rowley because just like Mayweather, Robinson wanted the negotiations to go his way and as a man of honour Burley was not willing to accept. I don't quite understand why it is sacrilege to show any criticism of Robinson and Haz it's hard to come up with concrete facts when none of us were present to know exactly what happened. The influence of the mob on boxing at the time makes it a complicated era, you either agreed to their demands or didn't get anywhere.

As others have already said, Robinson could play hard ball with the best of them and was a notoriously tough and cynical negotiator with an ego to match his talent.
 
It's unclear whether the "I'm too pretty to fight Charley Burley" line was sincere, tongue in cheek or simply a work of fiction has never been completely verified, but as Rowley has said it's much closer to common knowledge that Robinson wanted the safety net of a fixed first fight against Burley before having a further two on the level, which makes Mayweather's 'negotiations' and demands with regards to Pacquiao somehow look reasonable!
 
Thing is, Ray might have had his way with any other member of the BMR, but he picked the wrong man to try and dictate to in Burley. Burley likewise possessed a stubborn streak which never wavered even when those around him begged him to alter his style in to a more fan-friendly one in the hope that it would convince one of the Welter / Middle champions of the day to accommodate him, and he was even more resolute when it came to "playing the game", unlike other shunned black fighters of the time such as Bivins and Williams who allowed themselves to feature as chess pieces now and then in the hope of career advancement (albeit that strange 'No Contest' in 1943 between Burley and Williams will always have a bit of a stench surrounding it).
 
Burley was a kind of Whitaker figure in his own era, not so much in how they fought but because they both had the ability to make even very good fighters look clumsy and awkward, but crucially not always doing so in a way that was easy on the eye for spectators. By 1942 Robinson was already being called 'the uncrowned Lightweight champion' (having beaten Angott in a couple of title fights but so far not having been given a championship opportunity) and was learning the hard way that he couldn't afford many slip ups if he wanted to finally corner the champions of his day in to taking a fight with him, hence Burley represented a potentially huge risk in a career where he already had a lot stacked against him.
 
Easy to forget that, although he'd had the upper hand on La Motta before either of them had won the 160 lb title, Ray still found himself victim of boxing politics when La Motta, at that stage 1-4 down to Robinson, leapfrogged over him to get a title shot against Cerdan thanks to his dive against Billy Fox and his $60,000 pay off to Mr. Carbo!
 
Kind of understandable, all things considered, that Robinson was looking to drive a hard bargain against Burley, but not to the point where his offer of fixing the first fight before granting Burley a further two is anything other than deplorable.
 
Ultimately though, Robinson-Burley just ain't the same as Mayweather-Pacquiao. In the latter case, both men were already established as huge stars and all-time greats, a fight between them would have been by a country mile the most lucrative going, there were far fewer 'political' obstacles in the way of it, and it was the single fight which all boxing fans wanted to see. None of that really applies to the former case.
 
As a side note, just to illustrate how Robinson being as tight as a camel's backside in a sand storm rubbed people up the wrong way and occasionally got him in to hot water, there's a great little story in Herb Boyd's biography of Ray. One of the lesser known BMR fighters, Aaron 'Tiger' Wade, was employed as Robinson's sparring partner in the late forties. Sugar had apparently promised Wade a handsome pay packet for giving him a good work out, but at the last minute he informed Wade he'd only be getting half of the promised amount.
 
Wade stormed out of the session and waited outside Robinson's Harlem training spot to confront him over the issue. Robinson apparently started mouthing off to Wade that, if he carried on, he'd be lucky to receive any pay for his sparring services at all, at which point, according to the 'Boston Post', Wade hurled himself at Robinson, knocked him to the floor with his best Sunday punch before Ray had even finished his sentence and continued to give him a "brisk going over" on the sidewalk.
 
Must have been some encounter as, within an hour of that, Robinson and his team had contacted Steve Belloise (Robinson's upcoming opponent who Wade had been helping him to prepare for) to let him know that their upcoming bout was now off!

How on earth are people putting Rios on a par with Guerrero? In the last 2 years and his last 3 fights all he has done is come in overweight against Abril and get the worst decision I have ever witnessed go his way, then go 1-1 with the very average Alvarado, the only thing Rios had going for him was being a bit of a monster at Lightweight, shift him up a decision and like all face first plodders who rely on size and walking people down he becomes very ordinary, it was only his size and strength that separated him from John Murray, not his boxing. Also he hasn't even fought at Welterweight yet.

Guerrero actually has wins at the weight he fought Floyd at, decent operators like Berto and Aydin. Nothing to really strike fear into someone of Floyd's quality but similar level to fighters to Abril and Alvarado, difference being he beat them both and they were actually Welterweights. Do people really think Rios would do any better against Floyd than Guerrero did?

There would be outrage on these boards if Floyd fought Rios. I think thats because he is judged by higher standards than the likes of Pacman. Im not slating Manny - hes very very good, but I dont think I have ever seen anybody even try to make a case for him being top 10 ATG. There is definitely an argument for Floyd though, some have him up there and some dont.

Fact is Manny needs a rebuilding fight. Floyd has never needed one, hes too far ahead of the pack to lose unless he gets old overnight or fights a middleweight.

There would be outrage if Mayweather fought Rios but there would also be a steady stream of verbal diarrhea you would get from his worshippers about how Rios was the best fight or made the most sense. There is talk of him fighting Khan ffs and people defend it as if their life depends on it. You have great boxers like Moore and Robinson who fought literally hundreds of fights and people try to diminish them against Mayweather who can fight about once a year and wait for his opponents to become past it or avoid them completely if it suits him. How would Mayweather compare if he had to have 200 fights and couldnt pick and choose? Part of greatness is taking on the biggest challenges. Its also easier to look great against selective opponents. Cotto and de la Hoya were past it when they faced Mayweather and pushed him. Mosley was also past it and rocked him to his boots. What would happen if Mayweather had to face them every few months when they were at their best? Or what about even greater fighters like Leonard, Duran, Hagler or Hearns? Theres a big, big differance.

catchweight wrote:There would be outrage if Mayweather fought Rios but there would also be a steady stream of verbal diarrhea you would get from his worshippers about how Rios was the best fight or made the most sense. There is talk of him fighting Khan ffs and people defend it as if their life depends on it. You have great boxers like Moore and Robinson who fought literally hundreds of fights and people try to diminish them against Mayweather who can fight about once a year and wait for his opponents to become past it or avoid them completely if it suits him. How would Mayweather compare if he had to have 200 fights and couldnt pick and choose? Part of greatness is taking on the biggest challenges. Its also easier to look great against selective opponents. Cotto and de la Hoya were past it when they faced Mayweather and pushed him. Mosley was also past it and rocked him to his boots. What would happen if Mayweather had to face them  every few months when they were at their best? Or what about even greater fighters like Leonard, Duran, Hagler or Hearns?  Theres a big, big differance.

Spot on.

I think that catchweight is being biased the other way though. I admit I dont know a whole lot about the old timers (compared to some on here), but were they really fighting boxers of the caliber of Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler (or even Mosely, ODLH, Cotto) every few months? I think there is a fair amount of padding in the records of the old timers who had 200 odd fights. Also, its not like Mayweather is the first guy to wait for his opponent to look old before taking a fight. SRL springs to mind, Im sure there are countless examples.

Im not sure why SRR keeps cropping up, I dont think anyone seriously ranks Floyd above him.

Whilst anyone who tells you guys in the Robinson Burley era were fighting great fighters each and every fight is stretching things to an extent do think on the whole fighters were matched pretty tough. The thing to remember is this was the days before TV and PPV so the only way a promoter could make a living was on what they took over the gate so they had to guarantee decent cards and competitive match ups. Also boxing was way more popular back then so in major cities such as Chicago and New York it is not much of an exaggeration to say there could be shows on every day of the week, so consumers could be pretty discriminate in which shows they chose to attend. Only have to look at the record of a guy like Moore or Burley to see how frequently they were chucked in with guys from the BMR and other quality fighters like the Hogue Twins to see how tough they were matched.

yes but again it's conditioned by the period isn't it? Much like LJ defended Johnson for fighting tomato cans once he got the belt because that was what heavyweights did back then (I paraphrase), equally it's unfair to criticise Mayweather for not having 200 fights like Moore...

Robinson and LaMotta once split a pair of ten rounders three weeks apart (in 1943); LaMotta fought 13 times in a year (circa 1945) -- facing Robinson and Tommy Bell twice apiece.
 
Boxing of course runs to a different model now -- TV dates dictate when a fighter fights (on the whole).
 
Some might complain that, based on this model, a modern fighter can never threaten the greats from history but that isn't the case. Leonard showed how to pack a lot into a (relatively) short career and with fighters suddenly being able to remain young into their 40s (Leonard lost a good number of years due to injury), there's enough time to compile an all-time great career should a fighter take on their biggest challenges.
 
Mayweather has had almost total autonomy over his career for a number of years. As a result, he's earned handsomely, taken very little punishment and remained unbeaten -- but you can't have it both ways. And who can blame him? Would Robinson have fought all of those middleweight championship fights had Jim Norris not had control over him? Would he have faced LaMotta as many times as he did (above his fighting weight) if he hadn't had to in order to get a title shot?
 
Had Mayweather and Pacquaio settled their superiority in the ring (perhaps through a series of bouts) then they'd have put themselves in the argument for a top 25 placing.
 
As it stands, I don't think they're far apart and so the end game for both could be crucial in terms of where they end up (which was the gist of the thread).

Wow, could you list the (at least) 25 guys you rank above Floyd haz? If you dont have time to compile a list then fair enough, but that seems low. Does anyone from the modern era make it in above him?

joeyjojo618 wrote:Wow, could you list the (at least) 25 guys you rank above Floyd haz? If you dont have time to compile a list then fair enough, but that seems low. Does anyone from the modern era make it in above him?

From the modern era: Ali, Duran, Whitaker and Leonard definitely.

I don't think he's a certainty to rate above Hagler, Chavez, Monzon and Jones either. He is still going, of course, and so has the capability to eclipse that lot depending on how he fares.

Some would argue he isn't that far removed from Hearns, Spinks, Pacquiao, Holyfield, Hopkins and Jofre. Persoanlly, I think Pacquiao has an argument for being ahead of him -- based on his wins over the lower weight fantastic four.

joeyjojo618 wrote:There would be outrage on these boards if Floyd fought Rios. I think thats because he is judged by higher standards than the likes of Pacman. Im not slating Manny - hes very very good, but I dont think I have ever seen anybody even try to make a case for him being top 10 ATG. There is definitely an argument for Floyd though, some have him up there and some dont.

Fact is Manny needs a rebuilding fight. Floyd has never needed one, hes too far ahead of the pack to lose unless he gets old overnight or fights a middleweight.

Joey, Floyd is undefeated and has taken very little punishment in his career. So of course fighting a limited opponent would draw criticism. You're forgetting that Pacquiao has lost 2 fights (officially) in a row, the last by brutal KO and you have to take the consideration that goes with that. It does'nt make sense to marvel at the Marquez KO in a "Wow, he just got KTFO!! It's over Pactards, etc, etc.." and then criticise the guy for choosing Rios as his comeback fight - A guy who may be limited, but has no quit and telling power.

When Roy Jones Jr was KO'd by Tarver, he chose Glen Johnson as his comeback opponent - An opponent not dissimilar to Rios in the sense of his never say die attitude and high pressure approach. But Glen had only won 2 out of his last 6 fights at that time and was seen as a guy that would make Roy look good, assuming he was'nt badly affected by the KO. You know the rest. But I don't think we hold it against Roy for choosing Johnson and why should we? And he was coming off 1 loss, not 2. I also think Pacquiao is held to a much higher standard of scrutiny, particularly in this case, for the sake of it.

I didnt forget that Pacquiao is on a losing run, I say at the end that Manny needs a rebuilding fight now. Ive got no problem with Rios for Manny.

Floyd has never needed an easy(ish) fight to get back to winning ways. Hes judged by higher standards because he is on a different level to the rest of the chasing pack in and around his natural weight (140-154). People are going to slate Mayweathers opponents from now regardless of who it is, unless its a top 5 MW. They expect him to beat anyone less because he is great.