Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Tyson has multiple championship victories at the weight division he settled in. Manny settled in a welterwieght and has 0 legit championship wins in his division. There's your difference. I would say that Manny only "settled into" welterweight AFTER (or at the tail end of) his period of greatness but internet debates never end so I'll leave it at that. After all, only 2 boxers in history never surrendered their period of greatness but that certainly doesn't mean that they are the only great fighters. Edited May 4, 2015 by Chachie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) I really liked Tyson, but he faced A LOT of bums over the years. Now I understand there wasn't a lot of great heavyweights in Tyson's era, but did Tyson beat anyone of note in their primes? The first man he fought that didn't literally crap their pants, he lost. Edited May 4, 2015 by DM72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexx1240 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I would say that Manny only "settled into" welterweight AFTER (or at the tail end of) his period of greatness but internet debates never end so I'll leave it at that. After all, only 2 boxers in history never surrendered their period of greatness but that certainly doesn't mean that they are the only great fighters. So what division do you consider Manny to be great?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Right, it's about the product WE paid for, those that chose to order the PPV. I don't regret it for a second. And that's fine, I'm glad you enjoyed the whole experience I was speaking more to all the criticism the fight received from all over the place - this thread, sports radio/tv, and plenty of people I've talked to that purchased the fight. If you're not criticizing the quality of the fight, then you're not who I'm talking about I don't think one that didn't pay for the fight really should be allowed to complain about the fight though, no offense. My only complaint about the fight is that it should have happened years ago, and the fact that it didn't is part of the reason boxing is in the state its in. That's all. I didn't pay for it because I expected it to be what it turned out to be, and I refuse to willingly give 100$ to a money grab like that. Edited May 4, 2015 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 So what division do you consider Manny to be great?? Well he started as a light flyweight and ruled those extra-lower divisions, then left a path of destroyed good and great fighters from featherweight all the way up to welter. I could argue that winning titles in all those divisions makes him plenty, plenty, PLENTY great. I could even sit back and let you try to discredit that without needing to go on, but... The division where he was challenged the most was super feather, where he faced Morales, Barerra, and Marquez. He fared pret-ty well there. Dude did nothing but move up and dominate for 10+ years. That's great. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexx1240 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I'll value your opinion but respectfully disagree and we can leave it at that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I really liked Tyson, but he faced A LOT of bums over the years. Now I understand there wasn't a lot of great heavyweights in Tyson's era, but did Tyson beat anyone of note in their primes? The first man he fought that didn't literally crap their pants, he lost. Interesting note to Mayweather's career... He was 18-0 before he faced Angel Manfredy, the first fighter with any type of historical recognition at ALL. After that, he went thru 5 more opponents with no name whatsoever before he fought Diego Corrales. He fought Sharmba Mitchell, Arturo Gatti, De La Hoya and Moseley after they were past their primes.I'm not holding that against him but even an undefeated fighter gets some "asterisks" applied to his career. It's the nature of the game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexx1240 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Correct. Also as I stated, Manny has 60+ fights and nobody can name NONE of the first 40 opponents. They were a bunch of nobodies. Then he had a few early wins against a few greats but he was skipping divisions and avoiding the real comp. To no fault of his own but Roach and Arum were in full control at that point. Then outside of Marquez, his career is basically nothing after 08/09. Crazy that nobody really knew who Manny was before those years but that's when he was really getting the fighters at weight draining advantages, etc. Marquez is really his only credible foe after those years. Everyone else has an asterisk, everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Correct. Also as I stated, Manny has 60+ fights and nobody can name NONE of the first 40 opponents. They were a bunch of nobodies. In the extreme lower weight classes nobody can name any fighters at all. At the time, nobody could even name Manny Pacquiao. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 In the extreme lower weight classes nobody can name any fighters at all. At the time, nobody could even name Manny Pacquiao. Very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I want to clarify that I'm not trying to reduce Floyd's accomplishments in any way. He's a GOAT and he's going to break Marciano's record, effectively making him THE GOAT. I just think Rexx is being a little hard on who should be considered great, which is certainly Rexx's prerogative. He demands more from greatness. I consider fighters like Aaron Pryor and Salvador Sanchez to be great fighters but a lot of people would disagree with me. They all have their runs. Anyone here remember when Roberto Duran was the most-feared fighter on Earth? He doesn't fall short of greatness because he eventually wore out. (Or drank himself out.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You think if Mayweather retires undefeated, he'll be the GOAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You think if Mayweather retires undefeated, he'll be the GOAT? Mayweather could go undefeated and not sniff THE goat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You think if Mayweather retires undefeated, he'll be the GOAT? I think it will be hard to dispute in technical terms. I personally don't think he'd have beaten Hearns or Leonard at welterweight but my opinion won't matter when he's 50-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I think it will be hard to dispute in technical terms. I personally don't think he'd have beaten Hearns or Leonard at welterweight but my opinion won't matter when he's 50-0. His going undefeated and claims he is THE goat will be a little like the one eyed man being the king in the land of the blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 His going undefeated and claims he is THE goat will be a little like the one eyed man being the king in the land of the blind. Like I say, personally I'm with you but I just don't know if one can really "argue against" fifty wins and zero losses, never being really hurt by another fighter. Dude is just amazing in the squared circle. He's definitely one of the GOATs right now so retiring undefeated is a pretty solid case for best ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I think it will be hard to dispute in technical terms. I personally don't think he'd have beaten Hearns or Leonard at welterweight but my opinion won't matter when he's 50-0. I don't believe too many consider Marciano the GOAT. I can't see too many people claiming Floyd to be the GOAT if he goes 50-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Definitely imo the second best defensive fighter of the last 30 years, behind only Pernell Whitaker 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Can't argue with that. Dude does not get hit often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Definitely imo the second best defensive fighter of the last 30 years, behind only Pernell Whitaker That I can agree with. Can't take that away from him. Edited May 4, 2015 by HOF44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I don't believe too many consider Marciano the GOAT. I can't see too many people claiming Floyd to be the GOAT if he goes 50-0. Maybe I'm operating on all the recent hype. I'll probably see this issue as you do after a week or two has passed. I definitely consider Marciano to be one of the GOATs. I think being undefeated gets a fighter in that discussion for sure. He did it ugly but he did it. Floyd has done it pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) The thing is people are short-selling Floyd's style merely because they don't find it as entertaining. Just because he is a defensive fighter doesn't mean it was foreseen that he would be this darn spectacular at it. I am sure plenty of guys try to avoid getting hit but they can't. It's not just that he is a defensive fighter, it's that he is a master at it. Guys like Winky Wright, Hopkins etc etc were known as defensive fighters as well but opponents still managed to eventually find ways to get inside and beat them. Whether you like it or not it is pretty frickin' significant that Floyd has managed to not lose being a defensive fighter combined with the fact that he out-lands most of his opponents by a significant amount while doing so. His knowledge of boxing and his opponent's gameplan, almost being able to anticipate their next 10 moves before they even make them is quite remarkable. It'd be different if say he was only landing 5-10 shots a round but that isn't the case. He manages to have a pretty stellar output without putting himself in danger of getting beat up. Edited May 4, 2015 by NoCalMike 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 The thing is people are short-selling Floyd's style merely because they don't find it as entertaining. Just because he is a defensive fighter doesn't mean it was foreseen that he would be this darn spectacular at it. I am sure plenty of guys try to avoid getting hit but they can't. It's not just that he is a defensive fighter, it's that he is a master at it. Guys like Winky Wright, Hopkins etc etc were known as defensive fighters as well but opponents still managed to eventually find ways to get inside and beat them. Whether you like it or not it is pretty frickin' significant that Floyd has managed to not lose being a defensive fighter combined with the fact that he out-lands most of his opponents by a significant amount while doing so. Yeah, I agree. It's incredible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I plan to get back into boxing die-hard again. The main problem I'm having is there are too many ****ing belts. Good lord, they have like 4 belts for every weight class, which imo, there are too many freaking weight classes. Not hating, I just wish they would expand the weight range and consolidate some of the lower weight classes into smaller groups. It's hard to follow when there is a class for what seems every 5-7 lbs in weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Weight thing is indeed the hardest part about watching boxing. Everything lower than Bantamweight should just be eliminated. The belt thing is flat out stupid and that part is about money. Thus the reason for unification. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now