To silence the haters.
If floyd cleaned out the division and unified the belts would that shut the pussy haters up??
Printable View
To silence the haters.
If floyd cleaned out the division and unified the belts would that shut the pussy haters up??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropanuke
in English please ?
I think just beating Pac would do for the vast majority
Beating Ortiz convincingly will go a long way in my books.
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by J_C
Even if floyd just grows a pair of balls and boxes manny, win or lose id be happy!! Theres not even a debate how good mayweather is, hes won/done enuff already in boxing to be classed as a hall of famer in my book! But if he doesnt fight manny thats what il mainly remember him 4, I dont see any shame losing to pacman hes the best opposition out there, floyd just has to box pacman to keep the fans happy!
;D who the hell hates pussy anyway?
;D slrrp yum yum:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus
I would say that he will have to beat Pac convincingly. Because if it's a close fight, they would just clamor for a rematch. This also goes the other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropanuke
You say that like you actually think he would do that. Nice try.
I am a woman, therefore I have a pussy, and I am a hater, so to answer your question, nope. He won't do that, so no sense in even talking about it. He'll continue with his low risk/high reward strategy. It's been working for him so far.
The "HATERS" will continue to hate. Some excuse on why Floyd won. Or some excuse that Floyd has less ring damage. Or some excuse to why he won't fight someone like Martinez. HATERS, keep on hating. Thats what makes a forum interesting!!!
Pac vs Pretty boy does need to happen but after a long time out he deserves massive respect for taking on Ortiz - potentially a lot tougher than pacmans last few opponents and more dangerous for him than a Marquez fight
The haters will never be silenced, there's always an excuse but beating pac would prove he's the best of this era.
I wasn't a Floyd hater until he started ducking opponents and fighting every couple of years or so. I wasn't a Floyd hater until he started caring more about his damn "0" than the sport itself. I could care less about Floyd's antics outside the ring. There's plenty of other losers out there who are great fighters but lousy human beings. That's THEIR business. But while Floyd "honors us" with his presence every couple of years or so... there's plenty of other fighters who stay busy and don't depend on legions (well.... dozens) of nut-hugging fans to sing his praises while he's out there counting his millions and yanking on his fan-boys' strings.
I hope this helps.
;)
Meh haters gonna hate. ;D
I don't think Floyd fights for belts - he won't pay the sanctioning fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropanuke
Honestly, the welterweight division ain't all that deep right now. It's become more of a wasteland like the middleweight division. What's he going to do - beat Jackewitz and Aydin and Jo Jo Dan?
Maywather does like to fight guys coming up in weight though (Marquez, Hatton, Ortiz), and, given the lack of comp. 147, it wouldn't all that impressive, if he cleaned out the division. It'd more impressive if he beat a top guy at 154, but I would support cleaning out the division too even if it's weak. I don't believe a boxer needs to jump up in weight to prove himself if he can dominate his own division. It would nice to see Mayweather fight more than once a year for starters.
Fighting Pac would silence a lot of people.
Are you freak'n kidding me? Of course they will say Pacquiao was too small and just say why didn't he man up and fight Martinez.
Pac and Floyd need to fight. The winner is all time top 10 for me.
In my view the following are true about Floyd (in no order)
1. He is a great fighter
2. He is perhaps a top 50 all-time in terms of accomplishment.
3. He had top ten all-time native talents
4. The gap between what he COULD have accomplished, given his talent, and what he ACTUALLY accomplished is as wide as any fighter I can think of who didn't die prematurley (Sal Sanchez, Stanley Ketchell etc.)
5. It is likely too late to meaningfully close the gap I talk about above.
This I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit ;D, but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.
How in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinThis I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit ;D, but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.
You're killing me Jazz!
I was due a well-thought out post, so now I've done that I'll get back to reporting what boxers are saying to each other on facebook ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiHow in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinThis I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit ;D, but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.
You're killing me Jazz!
as I have said for years, I was once running around saying Floyd was going to go down as a top 5 all-time fighter(I should have been the head of the Pretty Boy Floyd fanclub). But I gave up. When he moved up in weight, 140 and then 147, he didn't clean out divisions. Why didn't he fight Kostya at 140? Why didn't he face PW, Margarito, Cintron, Clottey, Berto, etc.... He could have beaten a hall of famer at 140 and become the man there. He could have rid us of all the stupid PW is the most avoided fighter crap. He could have given us some weird ending against Cintron. He would have put Clottey into the turtle shell. He would have beaten up Berto and rid us of all the bullshit HBO gimmes for Berto. And he would have proven he was an amazing fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinI was due a well-thought out post, so now I've done that I'll get back to reporting what boxers are saying to each other on facebook ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiHow in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinThis I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit ;D, but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.
You're killing me Jazz!
I am very pissed off with Floyd.
I guess that's my problem. How much better is his resume if he'd fought Stevie Johnston and Paul Spadafora and Popo and Casamyor and Kostya and Shane earlier and Hatton at 140 and Cotto, Margarito, Williams. Isn't he the favorite against all those guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by captainanddewas I have said for years, I was once running around saying Floyd was going to go down as a top 5 all-time fighter(I should have been the head of the Pretty Boy Floyd fanclub). But I gave up. When he moved up in weight, 140 and then 147, he didn't clean out divisions. Why didn't he fight Kostya at 140? Why didn't he face PW, Margarito, Cintron, Clottey, Berto, etc.... He could have beaten a hall of famer at 140 and become the man there. He could have rid us of all the stupid PW is the most avoided fighter crap. He could have given us some weird ending against Cintron. He would have put Clottey into the turtle shell. He would have beaten up Berto and rid us of all the bullshit HBO gimmes for Berto. And he would have proven he was an amazing fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinI was due a well-thought out post, so now I've done that I'll get back to reporting what boxers are saying to each other on facebook ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiHow in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinThis I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit ;D, but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.
You're killing me Jazz!
I am very pissed off with Floyd.
Can you imagine if he was 41-0 including THAT crew? HOLY CRAP!
Heck, if he's 39-2 it's still more impressive to me that where he is now.
I don't disagree with the folks who think he'd have beaten all those guys. I just don't confuse me THINKING that with him DOING it.
Pac might be in the top 10 already.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
tell me who and then i will teach him a way of a man.. ahhaha..Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropanuke
no. floyd is a piece of shit human being. a disgrace to true boxing warriors, and not a rolemodel for young people at all. he is scared to death of manny and has always been. hell, he was even scared of margacheato & paul williams!!! even though he prob woulda won.
no, gayweather is a chickenshit who likes to make/fabricate excuses.
and im tired of reading about him making a mockery/joke of the justice system, all because he has $$$.
i hope ortiz beats his ass...
In fairness Corrales was rated the #1 guy @ 130 when he fought him & #5 in the Rings P4P, Castillo was the #1 at 135 when they fought the 1st timeQuote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiI guess that's my problem. How much better is his resume if he'd fought Stevie Johnston and Paul Spadafora and Popo and Casamyor and Kostya and Shane earlier and Hatton at 140 and Cotto, Margarito, Williams. Isn't he the favorite against all those guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by captainanddewas I have said for years, I was once running around saying Floyd was going to go down as a top 5 all-time fighter(I should have been the head of the Pretty Boy Floyd fanclub). But I gave up. When he moved up in weight, 140 and then 147, he didn't clean out divisions. Why didn't he fight Kostya at 140? Why didn't he face PW, Margarito, Cintron, Clottey, Berto, etc.... He could have beaten a hall of famer at 140 and become the man there. He could have rid us of all the stupid PW is the most avoided fighter crap. He could have given us some weird ending against Cintron. He would have put Clottey into the turtle shell. He would have beaten up Berto and rid us of all the bullshit HBO gimmes for Berto. And he would have proven he was an amazing fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinI was due a well-thought out post, so now I've done that I'll get back to reporting what boxers are saying to each other on facebook ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiHow in the hell am I supposed to argue with such sound reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinThis I think is one of the key problems with rating a fighter while he & his opposition are still active or in our recent memory. I read a very interesting article from The Times about Ray Leonard (my personal fave of all time) just prior to the Hagler fight that made very similar assertions about him as I regularly see about Mayweather. It made the argument that he'd never beaten a prime great (it argued that neither Hearns or Benitez were actual greats) & that the Duran he beat was past his prime. It also argued that he'd ducked Pryor, Curry & Milton McCrory. As a fanboy, I think that's all utter shit ;D, but what it did bring home was that guys really SHOULDN'T be placed historically until we have some perspective on their careers & those of their opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
I think the only one of these that can really be said to be true as of now is #1. The rest will be decided by history.
You're killing me Jazz!
I am very pissed off with Floyd.
Can you imagine if he was 41-0 including THAT crew? HOLY CRAP!
Heck, if he's 39-2 it's still more impressive to me that where he is now.
I don't disagree with the folks who think he'd have beaten all those guys. I just don't confuse me THINKING that with him DOING it.
I don't really question his actions until he moved up from 135
But haters will always be around