Quote Originally Posted by CityOfGod
Greatness is defined by 'great fights'.

Miguel Cotto has been in some barn storming fights - Torres was seat-of-your pants stuff.

Hatton again, has been fantastic to watch, blood guts & stitches.

Barrera - Naz and his awsome tear-ups with Morales where tremendous.

Tito - his thunderous stoppages and vulnerablity made him a PR legend.

But Mayweather? who is his foil? i'm sorry but a sluggish made-to-fit Baldomir is not / was not ever going to be a fight that got the juices flowing.

It just didn't have any 'heat' whatsoever - it was dull dull dull.

I'm not a hater - but i would love to see the silky skills against a Cotto or Hatton.

For me, his legacy is riddled with holes - he skipped the threats at 140 and has cherry-picked his fights at 147 to give himself maximum exposure.

It wouldn't suprise me to see a Spinks next at 154 - rather than tangle with a Mosley or a Margarito or even a Winky.

Hell i would love to see a technical-fight between Wright and Mayweather as it would be comparable style-wise...

1. Hatton
2. Cotto
3. Mosley
4. Wright
5. Margarito

Ricky Hatton has stated in his Autobiog, that he would move up to 147 any day to face Floyd as he feels he has the beating of him and his 5'6 frame could take on a 5'8 fighter.
Just because someone is exciting doesn't mean they'd beat Floyd. They may be good to watch but Floyd doesn't care how he looks just to beat you. It looks like you're defining greatness by an exciting style. Hatton is exciting but against a boxer like Collazo Hatton is about toppled.

Fighters can be exciting when stuck in with a fighter who doesn't have teh style of Mayweather in and out boxing pinpoint potshoting. It takes more then being exciting to define a great fighter. Just because they are great to watch doesn't make them great. I think too many fans confuse greatness with excitement