Quote Originally Posted by powerpuncher View Post

again, i will mention augustus. supposedly floyds toughest fight. an awkward, tough fighter that gave floyd fits. do you not think that there were many of those types of fighters around back in the day? i believe that floyd would have a few losses on his record if he fought as often as old fighters because you just run into problem matchups and bad days. pac is the same way. i think that he could definitely run into fighters that would give him major problems if he fought that frequently.

i just dont think that most of peps fights were against bums. he probably had a few that were against fighters that just werent very good, but i would guess that most of his fights were against solid opponents that gave effort which is tiring after a while.
I think you're reading way too much into Augustus, who Floyd fought injured and took lightly, but I do agree that some of those guys who had shitty records were probably a lot tougher than their record gave them credit for. I'm sure he ran into the odd Freddie Pendleton or Emmanuel Augustus.

But herein lies the double standard: people will praise Pep for quantity and fighting so many people and different styles with no mention of quality. We are willing to give Pep the benefit of the doubt: we assume that he fought a lot of tough guys, even if their records would indicate that they were bums or club fighters at best. Then when we talk about Floyd Mayweather or another modern great, we'll go through his record with a fine toothed comb and accuse him of not fighting anybody.

Floyd has fought nothing but champions and top 10 opposition since 1998, which included just about every style and body type you can think of. Why aren't we willing to give Floyd and his opposition the benefit of the doubt?

Why is a club fighter from the 1940s better than a club fighter from 2014?