Imagine boxing fans from the future: Why did Mayweather never fought Margarito in his prime ? Or why did he never fought him at all ?

[Haka]

Answers:

A - He did fight Guerrero (where nobody was waiting for) so at least he fought a Mexican.

B - He did beat Ortiz (who was giving him fits) with a faux pas punch so at least he fought a Mexcian.

C - ....

What will be the answer ?

[Mike_b]

Because he didn't want to be busted up with cinderblocks. So basically Cotto said "Margarito means nothing to me" and that was after he beat Margarito. Now the even better fighter Floyd than Cotto should have said "Cotto means nothing to me because I beat him " and then next he could say "Margarito means nothing to me because I beat Cotto and Cotto beat Margarito." Just facts

[Haka]

Because he didn't want to be busted up with cinderblocks. So basically Cotto said "Margarito means nothing to me" and that was after he beat Margarito. Now the even better fighter Floyd than Cotto should have said "Cotto means nothing to me because I beat him " and then next he could say "Margarito means nothing to me because I beat Cotto and Cotto beat Margarito." Just facts

Yes but styles make fights. Margarito had that mentality, the work rate, the size. I am talking about Margarito vs Cotto 1. That was a masterpiece from AM. If that one shows up against Floyd I would not give him any chance.

We would never know because my guess is Floyd knew what everybody else knew. Those and more will always be massive stains on a career.

[Roadblock]

Floyd would embarrass a sloth-like Margarito, people show their ignorance thinking plodder could catch Mayweather with anything.

Margarito was not very good, there are many reasons why a fight doesn't happen Floyd beat the sht out of Mosley who stopped Margo easily.

[MikeyG]

Wow, another Mayweather - Margarito thread...

[ShoulderRoll]

Take note, future fans: Bob Arum offered Floyd $8 million to fight Margarito.

Instead Floyd fought Carlos Baldomir for $8 million + $1.

[Marchegiano]

Depends. What current history is told from a non-bias or critical perspective?

You can get plenty of books covering Dempsey ducking loads of dudes. Not so much in Jack Dempsey books. More like in Harry Wills books. Read about Godfrey from a Sully book and Godfrey is minimalize. Read about Godfrey in his own book and Sully is a scared duck using his whiteness to save face.

I'm not saying no one will criticize Floyd, they will, it just won't be in the books people get to learn about Floyd. It'll be in a Margarito book instead. I'm just using names as examples don't take them as direct and only. You'll get plenty of dempsey criticism in a book that covers black boxers, doesn't got to be Wills. Point is most people who want to learn about a character buy the bio on the dude and that bio is always a nut ridding job. You get good quality criticism by looking for the bios of guys who if you wrote a glowing review for would require you to criticize another.

I have loads of books. None of them are as critical of their subject as they are the people their subject dealt with. Mayweather books will kiss his ass.

[hugh grant]

He couldn't have did better than Pac did, so no point.

[Larry the boss]

imagine boxing fans in the future even remembering Margarito..lol

[Rip Chudd]

Ortiz was giving Floyd fits!?