Do You Have Mayweather In Your Top 100 ATG List?

[IronDanHamza]

Pretty much yea. By the end of the day it's just opinions from both sides. I have no problems with debating certain issues. I just don't like how some people come off sometimes, I don't know it just rubs me the wrong way. You're cool though, you can actually debate without sounding like your opinion is better than anyone else's or that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. At least when you and I are debating that is lol

Although I disagree with some of you're comments, It's obvious if you atleast weren't around to see those fights you have atleast done sufficent research. That's easily indentified and thus meaning we can have a maybe not unbiased, but civil, knowledgeable disussion. So when we debate it may vary to someone who clearly has no clue what they are talking about You know?

[badass316]

If the list is not credible then there is no reason to bring it to a debate.

I never said it wasn't credible, just that it "may not be the most credible." I choose my words wisely. And again you've missed my point, the sole purpose of that list was to present a 3rd opinion on the matter, which it was.

There a posters on this forum that can give a more credible list than that of "ESPN".

That's most likely true, but the majority of the people (boxing fans) will still favor a list provided by a credible source rather than a list put together by a random poster on a message board.

Sure, and we can also trade in the "wins" of Quartey and Sturm. There are more questionable Oscar wins than there are losses.

Nothing as big as the Tito one though.

Oscar never dominated a weight-class, not like Floyd anyway.

Like you said, it may not have been in the same manner or to a degree as Floyd's dominance at 130, but nevertheless he had his fair share of good runs.

Name me a better clear cut victory over a true top prime fighter better than the Ruelas win?

So yea...

What's the point? Anything I say you'll just say, "He was past prime" or "Are you ****ing serious, go watch some more boxing," or my personal favorite "You don't know **** about boxing history."

So yeah...

[badass316]

Although I disagree with some of you're comments, It's obvious if you atleast weren't around to see those fights you have atleast done sufficent research. That's easily indentified and thus meaning we can have a maybe not unbiased, but civil, knowledgeable disussion. So when we debate it may vary to someone who clearly has no clue what they are talking about You know?

Yep. When it comes to knowledgeable discussions such as these, I prefer to keep them civil. I try to save the name calling to people that deserve it (like that Horus guy for example, because I truly believe he is a moron). Opinions are just opinions, and in a subject as subjective as boxing history you have take everyone's with a grain of salt even if you don't agree with them.

[badass316]

Actually I can remember when I was 9 I was begging my mom to buy me ring ****zinez just to read articles that had Tito on it. I remember being 12 years old begging my mom to order PPV's. So yes I was somewhat hardcore by then. It all started when I was at the Tito-Blocker fight in San Diego. But, that's neither here nor there.

The point is that if you really think a win over 2 old past prime fighters is better than anything Floyd has done. Then I just can't see how you have Floyd near the top 50 ATG.

But, whatever.

Wow, you're a boxing historian prodigy then. I sure hope your career is somehow tied to boxing then if you love it that much.

Did you mean Oscar in your 2nd paragraph? But yes, either way, my opinion hasn't been swayed. I still think DLH has the greater body of work compared to PBF, and that there is no way there should be that significant of a gap (from around 50 to 100) between the two of them in the ATG list.

[jrosales13]

I never said it wasn't credible, just that it "may not be the most credible." I choose my words wisely. And again you've missed my point, the sole purpose of that list was to present a 3rd opinion on the matter, which it was.

No, you do not understand, I get your point. But, your point would of made sense if you would of found a credible ranking. Which you haven't. And, until then I can't take this point serious.

That's most likely true, but the majority of the people (boxing fans) will still favor a list provided by a credible source rather than a list put together by a random poster on a message board.

I think boxing fans would/should favor a more credible ranking. If a ranking has Jack Dempsey at #9 ATG, ahead of Langford and Greb, have Oscar ahead of Monzon, have JCC ahead of Charles Tyson, Barrera and Morales in the top 50 but not have Sanchez, Spinks, or Fitzsimmons on said list. Is not credible, I could careless if ESPN did it, is not credible.

Nothing as big as the Tito one though.

Of course there is.

Like you said, it may not have been in the same manner or to a degree as Floyd's dominance at 130, but nevertheless he had his fair share of good runs.

Fair share of runs, is not dominating a weight-class.

What's the point? Anything I say you'll just say, "He was past prime" or "Are you ****ing serious, go watch some more boxing," or my personal favorite "You don't know **** about boxing history."

So yeah...

Because, is true. It's either they were past their prime(you already tried JCC and Whitaker) or it wasn't clear cut, or they were not top fighters at that weight-class.

The only other true top prime fighter that Oscar clearly beat was MAGO. But, the way he destroyed Ruelas is more impressive IMO. But, that's it.

So yea...

[jrosales13]

Wow, you're a boxing historian prodigy then. I sure hope your career is somehow tied to boxing then if you love it that much.

Did you mean Oscar in your 2nd paragraph? But yes, either way, my opinion hasn't been swayed. I still think DLH has the greater body of work compared to PBF, and that there is no way there should be that significant of a gap (from around 50 to 100) between the two of them in the ATG list.

I do actually love it that much, but no prodigy at all when it comes to boxing history... Again there are plenty of posters in this very own website, that know way more than I do. TheGreatA, NChristo, GJC, Silencers, just to name a few. But, there are plenty more.

No I mean Floyd in my 2nd paragraph. Again, if beating 2 old past prime fighters and one of those wins is very disputable. Is better than anything Floyd has done. Then there is no way Floyd is top 100 ATG.

It just makes no sense.

[UmarImranKhalil]

Yet you just claimed Whitaker struggled with Roger? Which he didn't.

Yet you just claimed Whitaker was almost KTFO by Roger? Which he wasn't.

Who are you fooling? It's in black and white writing you saying these things that didn't come close to happening.

Somebody didn't watch that fight. They should, it's Pea at his most fun to watch.


Rog got some licks in, but he also got his ass whooped emphatically,

[badass316]

No, you do not understand, I get your point. But, your point would of made sense if you would of found a credible ranking. Which you haven't. And, until then I can't take this point serious.

"No, I do not understand." lol

You obviously don't since you've failed to acknowledge that my using of that list is for the simple purpose of bring a 3rd opinion on the matter. It was the first credible source I can find. If you want a more respectable source to use instead of the one I present go do your own research.

This is my 4th post regarding this matter. I think this is a good place to stop since it's obvious my point isn't getting across.

I thing boxing fans would/should favor a more credible ranking. If a ranking has Jack Dempsey at #9 ATG, ahead of Langford and Greb, have Oscar ahead of Monzon, have JCC ahead of Charles Tyson, Barrera and Morales in the top 50 but not have Sanchez, Spinks, or Fitzsimmons on said list. Is not credible, I could careless if ESPN did it, is not credible.

Again you're floating around into a different topic. The point is that ESPN, however credible you may think their list is, will still be held in higher regards as opposed to some random poster's list. Quite frankly because they are a known entity and actually publish their work. So even if you think it isn't credible the majority of people that see it may.

Of course there is.

Fair share of runs, is not dominating a weight-class.

I think he dominated the lower divisions he fought in (130-135), but mostly because he was bigger than everyone else (but that's another matter). The point is I think he dominated those divisions, it may not have been floyd like, but dominated in the sense that he beat the people he fought there quite handily.

Because, is true. It's either they were past their prime(you already tried JCC and Whitaker) or it wasn't clear cut, or they were not top fighters at that weight-class.

The only other true top prime fighter that Oscar clearly beat was MAGO. But, the way he destroyed Ruelas is more impressive IMO. But, that's it.

So yea...

Whether they were prime or not is highly subjective. You may not think JCC or Whitaker wasn't prime, but it doesn't mean everyone else will.

I'd love to continue this never ending debate, but we'll have to continue this when I get back lol

So yeah...

[IronDanHamza]

Somebody didn't watch that fight. They should, it's Pea at his most fun to watch.


Rog got some licks in, but he also got his ass whooped emphatically,

I know The thing is, it isn't even a likely scenario that Roger gave Whitaker problems. So why even say it? When there is a great chance that people actually saw the fight. I don't understand that.

But man, I'm a huge fan of Roger Mayweather. Loved watching the guy, he's the reason I followed Lil Floyd when he was a teenager because of Roger. He was a real throwback, would fight anybody.

But man, Whitaker really, clowned him really, Dominant performance by Pea. Roger, already an established fighter at the time was that fight were you knew Sweet Pea was something. Although 135 showed to be Roger's worst division and he pretty much did next to nothing there. A good win for Pea none the less considering he was still pretty much learning at the time.

[jrosales13]

I know The thing is, it isn't even a likely scenario that Roger gave Whitaker problems. So why even say it? When there is a great chance that people actually saw the fight. I don't understand that.

But man, I'm a huge fan of Roger Mayweather. Loved watching the guy, he's the reason I followed Lil Floyd when he was a teenager because of Roger. He was a real throwback, would fight anybody.

But man, Whitaker really, clowned him really, Dominant performance by Pea. Roger, already an established fighter at the time was that fight were you knew Sweet Pea was something. Although 135 showed to be Roger's worst division and he pretty much did next to nothing there. A good win for Pea none the less considering he was still pretty much learning at the time.

Because, it's easy to go to boxrec, read that Whitaker was dropped late and assume he almost got KTFO.