True or False: James Toney's win over Michael Nunn is better than any win of Floyd's?

[b00g13man]

Who's arguing Toney is greater than Mayweather? No one with a brain. Talent-wise in his prime? Debatable. Accomplishments? Mayweather by 25 miles.

But Michael Nunn is very arguably the best win on either resume.

Not you, but I recall one or two of the nutjobs trying to discredit Floyd because they fell he doesn't have a better win than that.

[BrometheusBob.]

I'm pretty sure he was.

When the odds opened he was but they got shorter by fight night.

Who cares what he opened up at if he was the favorite going into the fight? He was a slight favorite, less than 2/1, by the time the fight started IIRC. It would NOT be accurate to say "he was also an underdog going into the fight", which was in the post LacedUp quoted.

I think he was the underdog against Castillo however.

[arraamis]

u have no clue about ring age do u hahahahahahha. just because floyd is 2 years older than manny doesn't mean he is more past prime. pac has been in farrrr more tough fights where he takes a lot of wear and tear. this type of wear and tear quickly chips away at ur prime. this is why some guys in their late 20s or early 30s are finished because they've been in sooo many tough fights and wars that they've completely exhausted their prime years away. do u understand now??? manny has been a pro since 16 years old, has fought far more fights and been in farr more hard tough fights (even the fights he wins he gets beat up - look at cotto or margarito fights for example). not to mention manny suffered a HUGE KO loss against marquez. it was the type of KO loss that MANY fighters pac's age (34 at the time) would have retired on. it's a complete miracle that manny didn't come out of that loss absolutely shot.

and then look at floyd who only has 48 fights, took years in "vacation" while the rest of his competition beat eachother up, only fought once a year, and has a very defensive minded style, etc. all of tehse contribute to extending ur prime much longer than someone who is all action and willing to take punches to land big ones of his own.

Since when is prime defined by age?

Pacquiao was clearly more out of his prime than Floyd. No point in denying that.

Although both were out of their prime.

ydksab... go have a seat in the corner, son!

One thing for certain, you all are die-hard, concoct any scenario to suit their argument, Manny fans. As a Manny fan myself - But without the distorted mentality - I can honestly state that without an independent scientific analysis to support the BS you guys are spewing\spinning, both were out of prime and therefore the prime argument cannot be raised as a cause\excuse for losing. If they had fought ten years ago, Floyd would have still been older than Manny, and had they fought then, Floyd would have still beat him. No imaginary constructs involving who's more shop-worn, would ever change the fact, that Manny is just not accustomed to fighting a tactical, defensive opponent.

"If he would have stayed still, I could have hit him more"

That statement alone, speaks volumes and demonstrates and acknowledges Manny's inability to deal with a tactical, defensive opponent.

That stated, and minus the independent scientific support, the fight played out and the best man won. Still and in spite of the adopted delusions shared by many Manny fan-tards, Floyd is older than Manny.

Who would think, that this has to be re-stated again and again and is in fact indisputable?

[LacedUp]

One thing for certain, you all are die-hard, concoct any scenario to suit their argument, Manny fans. As a Manny fan myself - But without the distorted mentality - I can honestly state that without an independent scientific analysis to support the BS you guys are spewing\spinning, both were out of prime and therefore the prime argument cannot be raised as a cause\excuse for losing. If they had fought ten years ago, Floyd would have still been older than Manny, and had they fought then, Floyd would have still beat him. No imaginary constructs involving who's more shop-worn, would ever change the fact, that Manny is just not accustomed to fighting a tactical, defensive opponent.

"If he would have stayed still, I could have hit him more"

That statement alone, speaks volumes and demonstrates and acknowledges Manny's inability to deal with a tactical, defensive opponent.

That stated, and minus the independent scientific support, the fight played out and the best man won. Still and in spite of the adopted delusions shared by many Manny fan-tards, Floyd is older than Manny.

Who would think, that this has to be re-stated again and again and is in fact indisputable?

Didn't I say both were out of their prime? I like both men as much as each other, but look at Pacquiao - since 2010 he's been badly hurt by Margarito, outboxed by Marquez, knocked spark out by Marquez and had a so-so performance vs Bradley in the first fight (though he won).

Mayweather has looked good in pretty much all of his fight except Maidana 1 in that period of time and of course won ever fight - most with ease.

Once again, there's no question that Pacquiao was more out of his prime than Mayweather, but both were clearly out of their prime.

[BrometheusBob.]

One thing for certain, you all are die-hard, concoct any scenario to suit their argument, Manny fans. As a Manny fan myself - But without the distorted mentality - I can honestly state that without an independent scientific analysis to support the BS you guys are spewing\spinning, both were out of prime and therefore the prime argument cannot be raised as a cause\excuse for losing. If they had fought ten years ago, Floyd would have still been older than Manny, and had they fought then, Floyd would have still beat him. No imaginary constructs involving who's more shop-worn, would ever change the fact, that Manny is just not accustomed to fighting a tactical, defensive opponent.

"If he would have stayed still, I could have hit him more"

That statement alone, speaks volumes and demonstrates and acknowledges Manny's inability to deal with a tactical, defensive opponent.

That stated, and minus the independent scientific support, the fight played out and the best man won. Still and in spite of the adopted delusions shared by many Manny fan-tards, Floyd is older than Manny.

Who would think, that this has to be re-stated again and again and is in fact indisputable?

As an excuse for losing? Look I don't remember the context of those posts you've quoted, but the thread topic is whether Floyd has a better win than Nunn. The thread topic isn't about why Pacquiao lost the fight or whether he would have won at some other point or whatever else you are bringing up. So, with that said, based on where Nunn was in his career and where Pacquiao was in his, I cannot imagine Nunn not being a better win than Pacquiao.

It was a great win for Floyd and was an important fight even then. And Floyd is leagues above Toney when assessing the totality of their careers. But no, beating Pacquiao in 2015 was not better than beating Nunn in 1991 imho.

[IronDanHamza]

Who cares what he opened up at if he was the favorite going into the fight? He was a slight favorite, less than 2/1, by the time the fight started IIRC. It would NOT be accurate to say "he was also an underdog going into the fight", which was in the post LacedUp quoted.

I think he was the underdog against Castillo however.

Big favourite against Castillo.

Underdog against Corrales.

[LacedUp]

Big favourite against Castillo.

Underdog against Corrales.

I'd like to see some evidence that he was a clear underdog vs Corrales. That's not how I remember it at all.

This might be wrong, but I remember it as Mayweather even was a slight favourite and most people picked him to win.

[El-blanco]

As an excuse for losing? Look I don't remember the context of those posts you've quoted, but the thread topic is whether Floyd has a better win than Nunn. The thread topic isn't about why Pacquiao lost the fight or whether he would have won at some other point or whatever else you are bringing up. So, with that said, based on where Nunn was in his career and where Pacquiao was in his, I cannot imagine Nunn not being a better win than Pacquiao.

It was a great win for Floyd and was an important fight even then. And Floyd is leagues above Toney when assessing the totality of their careers. But no, beating Pacquiao in 2015 was not better than beating Nunn in 1991 imho.

This is why this obsession with p4p is utterly idiotic. Pacquiao was not the second best fighter in the world when Floyd beat him. Hes the second biggest name but there is plenty of guys who have looked better than him over the years. Using p4p for why anyone is a better win is ******. The nunn that toney beat was a much bigger threat and at a better stage of his career than pacquiao or Mosley was.

[johnm is...]

Mayweather opened against Corrales as a slight underdog and closed as a slight favorite at most books.

[LacedUp]

This is why this obsession with p4p is utterly idiotic. Pacquiao was not the second best fighter in the world when Floyd beat him. Hes the second biggest name but there is plenty of guys who have looked better than him over the years. Using p4p for why anyone is a better win is ******. The nunn that toney beat was a much bigger threat and at a better stage of his career than pacquiao or Mosley was.

Yeah also Nunn was a massive favourite and dominated the fight.