Quote Originally Posted by Deanrw
Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo
Ok allow me to play Devil's Advocate here and call the author of that little piece a fucktard.

His crappy little piece was just a snide at Floyd that didn't even need answering.

First off, who are these 'pretty boys' who proclaim that Floyd can walk on water, beat fighters with one hand tied behind his back and own any fighter who ever lived? I consider myself a hardcore insanely addicted boxing fan and yet I've never heard a single commentator, writer or respected expert say anything of the sort.

In fact the only comments made by experts concerning Floyd Mayweather are similarly snide remarks from hasbeens like Emmannuel (I can't train a fighter for S*** any more) Steward and Larry (all that Gin has clouded my brain and made me go all warm and fuzzy) Merchant.

In fact I'd like to be pointed in the direction of a single expert or boxing analyists writings proclaiming Floyd to be as good as Ray Robinson or Ali. I'm serious somebody please find me the link


Ok then, so now we;ve established that this fucktard author was 'responding' to claims of greatness that have never actually been made by anyone other than Floyd himself let's take this a step further.

He says that Floyd is not in the company of Ali, Robinson, Leonard etc and I agree he's not quite there YET.

For F***'s sake the guy is still in his prime and hasn't finished his career yet but some people still want to bash him and tell us how his legacy isn't as good as these other guys. WELL HELLO! HE'S STILL IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING HIS LEGACY DOUCHEBAG!!

Now let's look at his next statement. Boxers must fufil two criteria to be considered great.

1.) Fight the best available.
2.)Dominate 1 divison.

Here I completely disagree. This'fucktard' believes that it is better and more meaningful to dominate a crap division than it is to move up the weights. What kind of shitty logic is that?

So according to dogshite boxing writer if Floyd would have stayed at super featherweight and still remained undefeated his legacy would be better than in is?

Hmm ok, now doesn't this contradict rule 1. Fight the best available?

Now unless I'm mistaken Floyd HAS pretty much fought and beat the best available.

He beat Diego Coralles and Jose Luis Castillo who are clearly the best two lightweights in recent years. He's beaten Ricky Hatton who was the undisputed Ring Light welterweight champ, he's beaten Zab Judah who was considered the best welterweight in the world just a couple years ago and he's beaten Oscar De La Hoya who has won more titles in more weight classed than any other boxer in history and more impressively Floyd beat him whilst fighting 4 divisions above his original weight.

Now as for him not fighting the best at welterweight yet I readily agree he still has to face Miguel Cotto and possibly Paul Williams and Shane Mosely. Almost certainly he will.

And lets' not forget Cotto has only been at welterweight for around 12 months so there hasn't been time for that fight to happen yet, but rest assured it will.

The dogshite writer is also at pains to point out that remaining undefeated isn't that important. Well once again I beg to differ. OF COURSE IT'S IMPORTANT YOU THICK F****** DOGSHITE WRITER'

People who criticise Floyd always use his worst performances and compare them to the best performances of the greats. Look at his fight with Baldomir they say, where he ran all night, a real champion would have traded and gone for the knockout.

Well let's look at it like this. That was possibly Floyd's worst career performance and he still won and on most people's cards he won every F****** round.

Not let's compare to Ray Leonard's worst performance, getting KO'd by Hector Camacho or Roberto Duran, losing to Kirkland Laing or getting destroyed by Thomas Hearns.

Let's look at Ray Robinson losing his middleweight title to Randy Turpin and 4 other guys. Let's look at Ali almost getting KO'd by a journeyman Henry Cooper or almost coming unstuck against Doug Jones.

When you compare the worst peformances of any boxer in history to the worst performances of Floyd Mayweather well even the most biased observer will have to admit that Floyd ALWAYS performs.

He's never been knocked down (legitimately), never been beaten up, never even been truly extended.

It seems to me that if he would have been then his critics would rate him higher.

If anything Floyd's biggest problem has been that he is simply so much better than the competition that he is too good to be involved in the furious ring wars and toe to toe brawls that allowed his more illustrious predecessors to gain boxing immortality.

Anyway I'm harping on as this article really winded me up. I think it's worth stating that I don't myself regard Floyd on the level of Leonard, Duran, Robinson and Ali just yet, he still has more to do. But to criticise a fighter's legacy before he has even finished just seems a farcical thing to do.

But then I wouldn't expect anything more from a writer at dogshite boxing.
I agree with many of your points, but cannot agree with all of them.

Now unless I'm mistaken Floyd HAS pretty much fought and beat the best available. That is open for debate. Yes he did fight the best available at the lower weight classes, but has carefully selected his opponents for the past few years.

He beat Diego Coralles and Jose Luis Castillo who are clearly the best two lightweights in recent years. He's beaten Ricky Hatton who was the undisputed Ring Light welterweight champ, he's beaten Zab Judah who was considered the best welterweight in the world just a couple years ago and he's beaten Oscar De La Hoya who has won more titles in more weight classed than any other boxer in history and more impressively Floyd beat him whilst fighting 4 divisions above his original weight.
 . I give him full props for beating Diego and Jose, they were great wins from a great fighter. Hatton was a fish out of water fighting at welterweight. Zab I think was just waiting to get beat. Oscar was also 4 divisions above his original weight and was past his prime, so I cannot call them great wins. Good wins yes, but not great wins.

He's never been knocked down (legitimately), never been beaten up, never even been truly extended. None of those points will determine if a fighter is to be considered great or not in my opinion. Great fighters have gotten knocked down, have gotten beaten up and have been extended. This is part of the reason Floyd gets picked on. He has not fought any other great fighters to test him. He fought some great names, but the ones he did were ages ago or past their prime. Boxing is kinda weak right now when it comes to talent. If you look in that other thread and compare now to the 80's for example, you will see what I mean. It is not all Floyd's fault that he has so many detractors, but he has to take some of the blame as he could have been out there setting up fights with the other young, hungry Welterweight champions instead of Hatton.
To be honest I find many of these points irrational. Hatton was 43-0 and was the undisputed Ring Magazine lightweight champion of the world. IOn addition to that he was also a former WBA WELTWERWEIGHT champion.

I hate how boxing fans, and Hatton fans in particular have just excused Hatton's defeat by saying well he just wasn't a natural welterweight. That's a lame excuse and just detracts from Floyd. It's irrelevent anyhow as Floyd isn't a welterweight either and could easily probably campaign at lightweight now.

As for Oscar you are right he started in the lower weight classes but at 5 ft 10 is still much bigger naturally than Floyd. Furthermore Oscar IS now fighting at his natural weight, he couldn't go any lower now whereas Floyd could clearly move back down if he wanted.

It's interesting when looking at other great fighters how weight considerations were never applied to them. Duran had only been a welterweight for 12 months when he fought Ray Leonard. If would have lost their first fight would Leonard have been similarly discredited with having merely fought a blown up lightweight?

Furthemore Floyd is naturally smaller than Leonard, Hearns and Duran. He began as a super featherweight so direct comparisons are unfair imo. However I believe he would have fared very well against them at welterweight or especially at his prime weights of super feather/lightweight. If you think the other guys would be at a disadvantage competing at such lightweights then it just shows the hypocrisy at work when judging Floyd. He beats a genuine p4p undefeated fighter but it means nothing because he was not fighting at his natural weight, however people want and expect the right to be able to compare Floyd to Leonard, Hearns etc at welterweight, a weight far above his own natural weight.

And just for the record, I think Floyd beats Duran at lightweight or junior welterweight..