pbf has always been prime even his should of lost to castillo, as for pac he just reach prime or showed sign of his prime stage, so actually we've only seen maybe one prime pacman fight. so how can you easily say pbf is better if you haven't seen much of prime pacman?

and if you disagree pacman is just recently coming onto prime, then can you actually say pac was prime in his win over mab and should of s.d win over jmm or close lost to em?

actually not prime pacman has already done more the pbf, defeating better oppenent wise.

Hmm for a boxing God you certainly make some stupid postings.

By defintion prime means a boxers very best years, therefore if Floyd had always been prime then you are arguing for a logical impossibility as how you can always be the best you have ever been?

Secondly, if you do still persist in your belief that Floyd is always the best he has ever been then by definition he would have to be the number 1 p4p fighter in the world today as he keeps on getting better and better and therefore nobody could catch him, thus destroying the credibility of your own arguments.

For a boxing God I expected more