Floyd's 49-0

First topic message reminder :

Floyd has 5 fights left on his showtime contract. If he wins them it brings him up to the legendary score of 49-0. Will Floyd do a Larry on it and fall short? He's planning to fight in September, if this happens then he looks on track to fulfil his contract by 2015, which to me would mean fighting fighters who are names now. So who takes the remaining 5 slots? and will he finish on 49-0? He must have 50-0 and out in his head??

Personally I don't see him fighting Canelo ever, I think the fact that Floyd wouldn't sign up to a September fight in return for Canelo fighting on the undercard tells you all you need to know there. Imagine how many buys there would have been had Trout v Canelo been the undercard, and how much Floyd would have made. It really could not possibly be a better deal for Floyd, 2 massive PPV's with him in the driving seat for both. So unfortunately I think that fight will only ever be speculation now.

So in your opinions, will the mythical 49-0 be achieved? and who gets beaten in the process? It can hardly have been a coincidence that the 6 fight deal ties in with the most famous record in boxing, can it?

owen10ozzy wrote:I can see what your saying Az, but given the fact he has hopped between LMW and WW in recent years I don't see why hopping between LW & WW back then would have been a problem. You said it yourself that Mayweather would probably have been more comfortable at 140 anyway....so why not go down their and take out the guy who dethroned a previous P4P fighter in Kosta Tsyzu at his best weight...that would have been some notch onto his ledger. As it was he beat a fighter who had struggled with Collazo at WW and therefore it was there for all to see that Hatton just wasn't the same when campaigning at 147.

I agree with regards top rank/gbp issues, I think that had a large effect on some of the proposed fights at the time..enough to warrant them not happening im not sure...but blame could be layed at everyones door so I don't buy into this theory that Mayweather ducked anyone per se...he just didn't go out of his way to make them happen. Everyone will have a different opinion as to whether he should have or not...that's essentially what is harming his record because on every other level the guy is a nailed on all time top 5 great.

Yes he can make the weight. But far easier to increase weight than to cut it. Far healthier also.

Why not go down to 140 and then go up to 154 and then back to 147. Don't you think that is somewhat silly seeing as he had already fought at 154 and was the 147 champ. That is taking weight hoping to silly levels.

But hey, Floyd is the ducker and ducker Hatton at 140 even though Hatton called him out.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:He avoided them?

For one reason or another the fights were not made. I think it is probably because he viewed them as to high risk.

For a fighter that is all front, he possibly may be quite insecure about himself.

OK. Pointless responding to such idiocy any further.

He is a very shrewd business man motivated by money and possessions. He's not alone, plenty of boxers would do the same.

And you know he is motivated by money? Oh yes, his nickname. Says it all. I suppose Manny is motivated by video games.

Your Floyd love is a little sad...

He wanders round with tens of thousands if dollars, throwing his money around and talking about how much his chavy watch costs. But you carry on with your inexplicable defence of him.

Love is blind.

Here we go.

And that is his real character. You're new to this aren't you? You probably only heard of Floyd after the Oscar fight.

You probably didnt know about his all American boy manner when he turned pro but how he realised that being the hip hop gangsta style made people sit up. The slave contract issue sold him to the US public as a bad ass boy. The Oscar win made him a star and made him the bad boy of boxing who people will watch hoping he would lose. But pay big money for that.

But to you its all real. For a bad boy gangsta who doesn;t drink anything stronger than milk it doesn;t look good.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:He avoided them?

For one reason or another the fights were not made. I think it is probably because he viewed them as to high risk.

For a fighter that is all front, he possibly may be quite insecure about himself.

OK. Pointless responding to such idiocy any further.

Its not idiocy. Its a fair point. Why didnt he fight them?

Oscar was the biggest threat to his zero. A much higher risk than all those named. He took the fight.

But lets start calling Floyd a ducker why not.

An old Oscar albeit it in semi decent form is most certainly not a bigger threat than any of the aforementioned.

Of course. Even though he was the number 1 LMW. The biggest star of boxing at the time But now as good as PWil who later got spanked by Lara and smacked in 2 by Martinez. If you say so mate.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:He avoided them?

For one reason or another the fights were not made. I think it is probably because he viewed them as to high risk.

For a fighter that is all front, he possibly may be quite insecure about himself.

OK. Pointless responding to such idiocy any further.

He is a very shrewd business man motivated by money and possessions. He's not alone, plenty of boxers would do the same.

And you know he is motivated by money? Oh yes, his nickname. Says it all. I suppose Manny is motivated by video games.

Your Floyd love is a little sad...

He wanders round with tens of thousands if dollars, throwing his money around and talking about how much his chavy watch costs. But you carry on with your inexplicable defence of him.

Love is blind.

Here we go.

And that is his real character. You're new to this aren't you? You probably only heard of Floyd after the Oscar fight.

You probably didnt know about his all American boy manner when he turned pro but how he realised that being the hip hop gangsta style made people sit up. The slave contract issue sold him to the US public as a bad ass boy. The Oscar win made him a star and made him the bad boy of boxing who people will watch hoping he would lose. But pay big money for that.

But to you its all real. For a bad boy gangsta who doesn;t drink anything stronger than milk it doesn;t look good.

He has about 8 Bentleys...

What is his really character than. A woman beating scum bag?

Floyd can obviously do no wrong in your eyes. Clearly he has not fought the best available.

Until boxing can force these types of fights it will always suffer from fighters cherry picking easy fights for big money.

azania wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Floyd fights for money, mainly low risk high reward! It took shane mosley to gatecrash his post fight conference after marquez to get the fight. Regardless of the result with Shane my point is if shane didn't gatecrash the ring that day he would never have got the fight.

Heaven forbid a professional fighter fighting for money. Why not fight for free to prove himself to the sceptics on 606v2.

. The fight with .anny was high reward and high risk, hence he wanted the testing etc! 6loyd holds bargaining power over anyone except Manny because at the tim they both showed egos as did Arum. AGain my point remains he takes fights where he has bargaining power and low risk. On the flip side against Oscar why did he take less share?

Going into the Floyd fight de la Hoya had fought twice in about 3 years. One if them he was knocked out I think as well...

Scintillating.

As if Mayweathers schedule is so jam packed he couldnt fight Oscar AND Cotto/Williams/Margarito.

He had about a 2 year period after de la Hoya and Hatton where he could have fought Cotto, Margarito and Williams. He fought none of them. He disappeared.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:He avoided them?

For one reason or another the fights were not made. I think it is probably because he viewed them as to high risk.

For a fighter that is all front, he possibly may be quite insecure about himself.

OK. Pointless responding to such idiocy any further.

He is a very shrewd business man motivated by money and possessions. He's not alone, plenty of boxers would do the same.

And you know he is motivated by money? Oh yes, his nickname. Says it all. I suppose Manny is motivated by video games.

Your Floyd love is a little sad...

He wanders round with tens of thousands if dollars, throwing his money around and talking about how much his chavy watch costs. But you carry on with your inexplicable defence of him.

Love is blind.

Here we go.

And that is his real character. You're new to this aren't you? You probably only heard of Floyd after the Oscar fight.

You probably didnt know about his all American boy manner when he turned pro but how he realised that being the hip hop gangsta style made people sit up. The slave contract issue sold him to the US public as a bad ass boy. The Oscar win made him a star and made him the bad boy of boxing who people will watch hoping he would lose. But pay big money for that.

But to you its all real. For a bad boy gangsta who doesn;t drink anything stronger than milk it doesn;t look good.

He has about 8 Bentleys...

What is his really character than. A woman beating scum bag?

Floyd can obviously do no wrong in your eyes. Clearly he has not fought the best available.

Until boxing can force these types of fights it will always suffer from fighters cherry picking easy fights for big money.

And he has a Mayback Mayweather. He isn;t the first and wont be the last boxer to live a lavish lifestyle. His investments are solid also.

So because he got convicted for domestic vilence it means he ducked those fights?

You're an idiot sir.

Manos that's very true, the problem is put yourself in floyds shoes he's guaranteed a certain amount of money! Whether he fights canelo or khan he's still making same for each fight. He will not take riskier option, like he says 'belts only collect dust' he dosent care about legacy he only cares about money. Someone like Hopkins is what you call cares about legacy.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:

azania wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Floyd fights for money, mainly low risk high reward! It took shane mosley to gatecrash his post fight conference after marquez to get the fight. Regardless of the result with Shane my point is if shane didn't gatecrash the ring that day he would never have got the fight.

Heaven forbid a professional fighter fighting for money. Why not fight for free to prove himself to the sceptics on 606v2.

. The fight with .anny was high reward and high risk, hence he wanted the testing etc! 6loyd holds bargaining power over anyone except Manny because at the tim they both showed egos as did Arum. AGain my point remains he takes fights where he has bargaining power and low risk. On the flip side against Oscar why did he take less share?

Why not have the best testing for the biggest fight? If you're using the testing issue as a rod to beat Floyd with then you don't mind boxers juicing.

He took the less share because he knew Oscar was the bigger draw. He still got a career high payday. Against Manny he was the bigger draw yet Manny wanted 50/50. Go figure. Call Floyd unreasonable why don''t you.

manos de piedra wrote:As if Mayweathers schedule is so jam packed he couldnt fight Oscar AND Cotto/Williams/Margarito.

He had about a 2 year period after de la Hoya and Hatton where he could have fought Cotto, Margarito and Williams. He fought none of them. He disappeared.

He took a sabatical for a couple of years. After Oscar he fought sparingly. I wish he hadn't as I would appreciate seeing such a talent more often.

SO because he took a break it means he was ducking them. Seriously?

It meant he wasnt interested in fighting them.

I commend you Az....But you're wasting energy on idiots..

It meant he wasnt interested in fighting anyone hence a break from boxing.

But what a return.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I commend you Az....But you're wasting energy on idiots..

Azania ur just going to disagree with everything I say, even if spell the word 'boxing' you will say I'm wrong. .anny also had a huge following and bought summat to the table k it may not have been 50/50 as floyds ppv figures were higher but at the time they both needed each other equally to get fight on so therefore 50/50 was about right. In terms of his legacy if he really wanted to silence his doubters he should have taken fight or was it because it was high risk low reward?

So If I'm more marketable than you and sell more seats...

We should get paid the same...

And it hurts him because they were big fights for him. He missed out. Like he missed out on Pacquiao. It adds up. His post de la Hoya career could have been so much more.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Azania ur just going to disagree with everything I say, even if spell the word 'boxing' you will say I'm wrong. .anny also had a huge following and bought summat to the table k it may not have been 50/50 as floyds ppv figures were higher but at the time they both needed each other equally to get fight on so therefore 50/50 was about right. In terms of his legacy if he really wanted to silence his doubters he should have taken fight or was it because it was high risk low reward?

So even though you're clearly wrong I'm supposed to agree with you?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So If I'm more marketable than you and sell more seats...

We should get paid the same...

They're communists.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:He avoided them?

For one reason or another the fights were not made. I think it is probably because he viewed them as to high risk.

For a fighter that is all front, he possibly may be quite insecure about himself.

OK. Pointless responding to such idiocy any further.

He is a very shrewd business man motivated by money and possessions. He's not alone, plenty of boxers would do the same.

And you know he is motivated by money? Oh yes, his nickname. Says it all. I suppose Manny is motivated by video games.

Your Floyd love is a little sad...

He wanders round with tens of thousands if dollars, throwing his money around and talking about how much his chavy watch costs. But you carry on with your inexplicable defence of him.

Love is blind.

Here we go.

And that is his real character. You're new to this aren't you? You probably only heard of Floyd after the Oscar fight.

You probably didnt know about his all American boy manner when he turned pro but how he realised that being the hip hop gangsta style made people sit up. The slave contract issue sold him to the US public as a bad ass boy. The Oscar win made him a star and made him the bad boy of boxing who people will watch hoping he would lose. But pay big money for that.

But to you its all real. For a bad boy gangsta who doesn;t drink anything stronger than milk it doesn;t look good.

He has about 8 Bentleys...

What is his really character than. A woman beating scum bag?

Floyd can obviously do no wrong in your eyes. Clearly he has not fought the best available.

Until boxing can force these types of fights it will always suffer from fighters cherry picking easy fights for big money.

And he has a Mayback Mayweather. He isn;t the first and wont be the last boxer to live a lavish lifestyle. His investments are solid also.

So because he got convicted for domestic vilence it means he ducked those fights?

You're an idiot sir.

You're the one arguing the Floyd isn't motivated by money and I'm the idiot.

On that note I think I'll leave you a truss so salivate over Floyds 6 pack. I'm off to bed.

manos de piedra wrote:And it hurts him because they were big fights for him. He missed out. Like he missed out on Pacquiao. It adds up. His post de la Hoya career could have been so much more.

It may have hurt his bank balance but not his top 10 status imo.

You want to have more early nights....

Ah the true signs of intelligent posters, reverting to name calling and putting everyone in the same bracket when people choose to have a different 'opinion' than their own!

I applaud you Sir, your name calling has shown me the error of my ways. I realise now that I was wrong and that I must share your opinion that Floyd is the greatest of all time without any shadow of doubt. He shall not be held accountable for anything that has occurred in his career...nor shall he endure the same analysis which is afforded most boxers who by pass any challenges during their career.

Floyd Mayweather Jnr is the greatest in history....I have said it..I am on board. Case closed, nothing else needs to be said...close the thread this debate is over!

At least you're admitting your wrong that's the first step..

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:He avoided them?

For one reason or another the fights were not made. I think it is probably because he viewed them as to high risk.

For a fighter that is all front, he possibly may be quite insecure about himself.

OK. Pointless responding to such idiocy any further.

He is a very shrewd business man motivated by money and possessions. He's not alone, plenty of boxers would do the same.

And you know he is motivated by money? Oh yes, his nickname. Says it all. I suppose Manny is motivated by video games.

Your Floyd love is a little sad...

He wanders round with tens of thousands if dollars, throwing his money around and talking about how much his chavy watch costs. But you carry on with your inexplicable defence of him.

Love is blind.

Here we go.

And that is his real character. You're new to this aren't you? You probably only heard of Floyd after the Oscar fight.

You probably didnt know about his all American boy manner when he turned pro but how he realised that being the hip hop gangsta style made people sit up. The slave contract issue sold him to the US public as a bad ass boy. The Oscar win made him a star and made him the bad boy of boxing who people will watch hoping he would lose. But pay big money for that.

But to you its all real. For a bad boy gangsta who doesn;t drink anything stronger than milk it doesn;t look good.

He has about 8 Bentleys...

What is his really character than. A woman beating scum bag?

Floyd can obviously do no wrong in your eyes. Clearly he has not fought the best available.

Until boxing can force these types of fights it will always suffer from fighters cherry picking easy fights for big money.

And he has a Mayback Mayweather. He isn;t the first and wont be the last boxer to live a lavish lifestyle. His investments are solid also.

So because he got convicted for domestic vilence it means he ducked those fights?

You're an idiot sir.

You're the one arguing the Floyd isn't motivated by money and I'm the idiot.

On that note I think I'll leave you a truss so salivate over Floyds 6 pack. I'm off to bed.

He's a pro boxer. What else motivates them? He gets more for being the bad boy role he plays. To me he is not the most exciting fighter around. I prefer watching Pac. Like Pernell who couldn;t draw flies, but if he had character he would have made more money and headlines.

Yes a fight of that magnitude should be looked upon in that way! As a fan of the sport don't you want to see him tested against the best?

owen10ozzy wrote:Ah the true signs of intelligent posters, reverting to name calling and putting everyone in the same bracket when people choose to have a different 'opinion' than their own!

I applaud you Sir, your name calling has shown me the error of my ways. I realise now that I was wrong and that I must share your opinion that Floyd is the greatest of all time without any shadow of doubt. He shall not be held accountable for anything that has occurred in his career...nor shall he endure the same analysis which is afforded most boxers who by pass any challenges during their career.

Floyd Mayweather Jnr is the greatest in history....I have said it..I am on board. Case closed, nothing else needs to be said...close the thread this debate is over!

And saying he should have gone down to 140, then back up to 154 and then down to 147 is what other than puerile nonsense?

Marquez, DelaHoya, Guerrero, Hatton, Cotto, mosley, Judah, Castillo, Corralles.....

Four current at the time p4pers...

No fighters since Leonard/Robbo can boast about a record like that....

Apart from Whittaker who beat Greg Haugen and Rafael Pineda..and should be higher apparently..

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Yes a fight of that magnitude should be looked upon in that way! As a fan of the sport don't you want to see him tested against the best?

Where have I even insinuated that?

I have said countless times that I want to see him have an easy workout when he fights Saul. You're getting twisted by saying he is a 154 champ yet asked why he didn;t go down to 140 to fight Hatton who was also a 147 champ as was floyd. You want to make him move to the opponent's weight it seems.

It's funny Az but i always thought a top 10 p4per was one of the best??

Shame Larry Holmes, Marvin Hagler, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis never beat one of them...

and Mayweather has beaten 4 of them...

No one moaned about them being tested..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Marquez, DelaHoya, Guerrero, Hatton, Cotto, mosley, Judah, Castillo, Corralles.....

Four current at the time p4pers...

No fighters since Leonard/Robbo can boast about a record like that....

Apart from Whittaker who beat Greg Haugen and Rafael Pineda..and should be higher apparently..

McGirt and Nelson both comfortably inside the pound for pound top tens and had been for a good while. Chavez top of many people's list for the previous three years. Whitaker 4-0 against them if we're being honest, 3-0-1 if you want to put him down, which I know you will.

Just trying to drill it in to your head before you spout your nonsense "Whitaker beat nothing but stiffs and never beat a pound for pounder" line yet again.

Mcgirt wasn't in the top 10 p4p sorry...try again.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mcgirt wasn't in the top 10 p4p sorry...try again.

Yes he was. Take a look if you don't believe me.

http://www.theboxinghistorian.com/ring-magazine-awards/pound-for-pound-history

We got Mosley, Marquez, Cotto an Unbeaten Hatton and Guerrero...

and this guy is throwing on ancient feather who'd never fought at lightweight and a guy he knows damn well isn't anywhere near a top 10 p4per....



and he lost four times.....Please..

Can't see him but it might be true he snuck in...........

How many Mayweather opponents are in there??

Mosley a few years past his best and could have fought him sooner...

Marquez a blown up LW who had never been in at 147 before Mayweather....

Cotto - Avoided him for the best part of 2 years until Manny had dealt him a pasting of the highest order, suddenly he was interested in fighting him.

Hatton - Didn't fancy the fight at 140...and even if you don't want to use that line everyone knows that Hatton at 147 was a shell of the Hatton who had been fighting at LWW.

Guerrero - If you think he is P4P yet dismiss McGirt you need to have a word with yourself. Give me name on Guerrero's record that makes him P4P worthy...Berto at best...and he had already been beaten by the average Ortiz!

Hagler beat Hearns and Duran. Dempsey would have struggled to beat a pound for pounder given the concept hadn't been invented by the time he retired.

Even though, Floyd ranks higher than the fighters you mentioned.

Cotto, Hatton, Mosley, Marquez, Castillo, Corrales, Guerrro

That's seven p4pers Mayweather's beat.............

Two for Whittaker.............????

Thanks for making my argument for me..

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:And it hurts him because they were big fights for him. He missed out. Like he missed out on Pacquiao. It adds up. His post de la Hoya career could have been so much more.

It may have hurt his bank balance but not his top 10 status imo.

Yeah fair enough, in your opinion. But for alot of other people it has. As these numerous Floyd threads can testify to. Its the differance between being a top 10 and not with me anyhow.

Duran wasn't p4p when Hagler beat him.....Lost to Leonard and Laing....and Benitez..

owen10ozzy wrote:Mosley a few years past his best and could have fought him sooner...

Marquez a blown up LW who had never been in at 147 before Mayweather....

Cotto - Avoided him for the best part of 2 years until Manny had dealt him a pasting of the highest order, suddenly he was interested in fighting him.

Hatton - Didn't fancy the fight at 140...and even if you don't want to use that line everyone knows that Hatton at 147 was a shell of the Hatton who had been fighting at LWW.

Guerrero - If you think he is P4P yet dismiss McGirt you need to have a word with yourself. Give me name on Guerrero's record that makes him P4P worthy...Berto at best...and he had already been beaten by the average Ortiz!

Mcgirt had lost every round to Meldrick Taylor...............
Nelson was a small lightweight and had never fought there...

We can all find detail.....

Didn't realise you meant current. Don't keep up with the modern lists but would be surprised if Guerrero and Cotyo were top 10 when Floyd faced them.

Yeah, great reply Truss. Well done. I just demonstrated that McGirt was a top ten (top five in fact, when Pea beat him first time) pound for pounder and, like a kid once more, you reply with a laugh icon and that's it, you've won. So when the Ring rank Guerrero as a top ten pound for pounder, you happily accept that. When they rank McGirt as one, it's a load of tripe to fit your argument. Great. So which is it? Are the Ring's pound for pound rankings legitimate in your eyes or not? Let me guess.....Legitimate when they make a Mayweather opponent look good, not if they do so for an opponent of anyone else, though.

Nelson at 32 was 'ancient', but you go mad for Mayweather beating a 38 year old Mosley. You cry about the fact that Nelson was going up in weight, but it's ok for Floyd to beat a career 140 pounder in Hatton up at 147.

I'm really not even bothered about trying to argue over Mayweather and Whitaker's respective rankings anymore - I'll only be an "idiot" if I back Pea in any case, even if I debate politely and concede that he's only a small shade ahead.

Rather, I'm just trying to highlight how inconsistent you're being.

More worryingly, it's how unpleasant you're being as well. You and Az, in fact. Tell me, if people are presenting you with sound evidence and fact and you're still just calling them all "idiots" and telling us that anyone who dares to critique Mayweather's career ever so slightly must just automatically "hate" him, then what is the point of even trying to debate with either of you?

Both of you have just completely ruined any topic that's even semi-mentioned Mayweather over the past couple of weeks. And neither of you have been concerned with inviting friendly debate, either. It's just been a case of "Mayweather can do no wrong, agree with us or you're idiots with issues" and the usual nonsense. Basically everything you post with regards to Mayweather oozes with animosity, double-standards and hypocrisy.

V2 is meant to be fun as well as a few other things, but that's become impossible when either of you two decide to start another of your Mayweather love ins.

Yeah, I know Truss. I'm an idiot. Yes Az, I must be a Floyd hater. Wonderful stuff.

How have I made your argument for you?!

The whole problem with P4P is that it is a mythical list..weighted hugely towards the flavour of the month at the time and usually involving a couple of old names who have a mixed record in recent times yet are still big draws. Placing them in the list allows fights to be made out bigger than they normally would be.

Yet again I make points with regards to the opponents he faced and you breeze past it and mention nothing. You say they are P4P fighters who are on his list...that may be but that doesn't tell the whole story as I have already shown you with my counter points. Instead of going back to McGirt all the time why don't you argue the points im actually making...do you believe Mosley was the same fighter he was 2/3 years previous when he had already been calling Floyd out with no response?! Do you truly believe Guerrero is legitimately P4P number 8 in the world despite have at best a B- ledger?! You think the version of Cotto Floyd fought was better than the one which was destroying WW division back in 2006-2008?!

Guerrero was 8.............Marquez was 5......Hatton was 8.............Corrales was 5.....

At the time that's four current ones......No one can match that apart from Leonard.

Certainly not Whittaker.

15 years at the top compared to Whittaker's seven..............Four current and seven overall p4pers..............on his winning ledger...

and he's never lost.....

Apart from that Whittaker has had the better career..

Why didn't Whittaker fight Terry Norris ???

135-154............Less of a stretch than 130-154 to fight Canelo.............

Never mind though.............hey.

owen10ozzy wrote:Mosley a few years past his best and could have fought him sooner...

Marquez a blown up LW who had never been in at 147 before Mayweather....

Cotto - Avoided him for the best part of 2 years until Manny had dealt him a pasting of the highest order, suddenly he was interested in fighting him.

Hatton - Didn't fancy the fight at 140...and even if you don't want to use that line everyone knows that Hatton at 147 was a shell of the Hatton who had been fighting at LWW.

Guerrero - If you think he is P4P yet dismiss McGirt you need to have a word with yourself. Give me name on Guerrero's record that makes him P4P worthy...Berto at best...and he had already been beaten by the average Ortiz!

Floyd is a blown up SFW.

Hatton asked for the fight and was bigger on fight night.

He beat Cotto without stips.

Any more excuses?

Again you just keep using the Ring list and not actually responding to my questions. The simple fact is that you can't argue against what I am saying so you just revert to type. 88chris05 already made the point that you never actually debate anything...you just come out with the same regurgitated sentence over and over again.

I'm not and haven't been talking about Whittaker in the slighest, my argument is that there are marks against Mayweathers record that are hard to ignore. Yes he has beaten 7 P4P and 4 current ones but almost everyone one of them can be debated as to the legitimacy of either a) whether they belonged there & b) was the win as good as their ranking suggested....

At least with Az he actually comes back with some retort and views, you just sit on the same argument time and again adding nothing new.

Az - Earlier you were saying Floyd is a natural WW...now all of a sudden he is a blown up SFW?! Make your mind up.

Cotto had been beaten twice and on both occasions was absolutely battered. He was no where near the fighter he was back in 2006-2008, before Marg got to him. He had been seeking a match with Mayweather before Marg and it had been touted but for whatever reason it didn't happen. The reasons why aren't important...the point is that a win over Cotto earlier would have been a heck of a lot better.

As for Hatton I'm not saying it wasn't a good win. It was...the guy was unbeaten and was the man at 140...what I said was beating him at 147 wasn't as good as beating him at 140 where everyone knew he was a better fighter.