Quote Originally Posted by Rantcatrat View Post

From your point, won/loss records at that time meant less because fighters fought way more often to make ends meet. In other words, a guy who was 25-25 might have only been a professional for two years, and because of the number of fights, might still be a novice at the professional game. So, it's difficult to accurately gauge how good some of the guys with so-so records actually were.

As to Floyd, I'm sorry but there is real reason for criticism at the choice of Maidana. Floyd is a former Olympian, undefeated professional, with a record of 46-0. We can poke holes in his record, and talk about the guys he missed on his way up, sure, but no one can deny he's at least one of the best in the last 20 years.

Floyd's facing Marcos Maidana. The odds are 15-1 in favor of Floyd. Speaking of built up records, in a day and age where fighters fight 2-3 times per year, Maidana, who is 35-3, fought guys with losing records until his 14th professional fight and, even then, in his fourteenth fight fought a guy he had previously knocked out. Moreover, he did that in this day and age, not when fighters fought 50 times per year. He didn't even fight anyone recognizable until his 27th fight, when he lost to Kotelnik--which means that he has only been operating at the world level for approximately ten fights. His only notable wins have come against Broner and Ortiz. Ortiz never won a big fight and Broner, well, Broner is Broner. Devon Alexander took Maidana to school. So, yes, Maidana is better than the 3-5 guy on Greb's record, but he ain't nothing to write home about either.

Floyd's the biggest name in boxing. He's the self-proclaimed TBE - The Best Ever. Frankly, the question is not why people would be hard on Floyd when he fights twice a year for choosing Maidana as an opponent: the question is why wouldn't they? If he fought five times a year, Maidana is maybe just ok as an opponent. If he fought 10 times, which is far less than Greb did, Maidana makes more sense. Conversely, if he fought 30 times a year, Maidana as an opponent might be damn impressive. If he fights twice, however, fighting a guy who has faced guys with losing records in approximately half his fights, not so much.

Speaking of Ruslan, he has 25 total fights. In this day and age when fighters fight two or three times a year, 10 of 25 of his opponents were against guys with losing records. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, there are probably six recognizable names on his resume. He lost to two of six.

So, how can we be certain Maidana and Ruslan are quality when almost half of their opponents have losing records and they have lost on multiples times when they step up? How much credit do we give Floyd and Manny for facing them?

Greb fought 30 times in 1919. Keeping in mind there are 52 weeks in a year, he fought Battling Levinsky, who is in the Hall of Fame, three times. He fought Billy Miske, a tremendous fighter. He fought Mike McTigue, another tremendous fighter. He fought Willie Meehan, antother great fighter. In the same year. Maidana isn't making the Hall Of Fame unless he shocks people come Mary 3rd. So, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and same somehow he compares on a p4p sense to McTigue or Miske Or Meehan. Greb fought three guys at his level in the same year that he faced a Hall of Famer in Battling Levinksy three times and fought a total of 30 times. By the way, 1919 wasn't Greb's best year.
Listen, you're not going to pump up losing records. If a guy has a losing record, he has no business in the ring with a champion, I don't give a shit what era we're talking about. Once again, it's the hypocrisy of gushing over QUANTITY, (the great Greb fought 30 times in one year, what a guy, 30 times can you believe that) as an accomplishment in and of itself, irregardless of quality (I know you listed 3 quality guys he fought in that time, but you're still operating under the premise that quantity is an accomplishment in and of itself).

Now I'm going to pose this question again. I've posed this question several times over the years and nobody has ever answered it for whatever reason. So once again I will ask to you and those in this thread who are gushing over a big number...

If Floyd was to fight 30 times in a year - that would include 2 or 3 quality guys (and yes, Maidana does count as a quality guy) and the rest would be club fighters with records the likes of 14-20, 1-3, 0-1, ect ect... WOULD ANY OF YOU BE IMPRESSED?

Two or three fights vs high ranked, quality opposition, and 28 fights sprinkled in vs guys who he wouldn't even consider qualified to be his sparring partners. Guys he probably wouldn't break a sweat dispatching. Fights that would be easier than one of his daily sparring sessions. Would any of you give a sweet fuck, or would it be "FUCK FLOYD! FUCKIN PUSSY IS TRYING TO PAD HIS RECORD!!!"

Greb fought a bum a week and he's p4p royalty. George Foreman fought 5 bums in one night and he was a laughing stock in the boxing world. We're operating under the false pre tense that the 20s were this magical time where men were men and even a club fighter was a highly skilled, fine tuned athlete. IT'S IDIOCY. Most of these mother fuckers with the losing records were probably poor, broke motherfuckers who were doing anything they could to earn a buck. The majority of them worked shitty jobs all day and fought at night. Does that make them tough? Sure. Does it mean they are quality opposition? Fuck no.