00s-Ketchel 10s-Langford 20s-Greb 30s Armstrong 40s-Robinson 50s-Sadler 60s-Ali 70s-Duran 80s-Leonard 90s-Jones 00s-Pacquaio TBH, I think it seems MUCH fairer to group fighters into generations, based on the decade they won their first significant title. Chopping a career's accomplishment up into decades really hurts some guys.
"Just wiped out Mayorga?" DLH-Mayorga was the year prior...May 2006. DLH- Mayweather was May 2007. That's an entire year between fights. In addition, do note in my post...the last we'd seen Mayorga he'd gotten drilled by Trinidad....that was 2004. "Like I said before" DLH-Mayweather was an Oscar special...the biggest fight against the smallest guy...thagt's how he made his career. Fortunately it backfired on him twice at the end of his career. Manny wins fighter of the decade hands down. His ledger is better and quite frankly when he won his titles the guys he beat and KO'd were considered the best champions in the division plus were in or not far removed from their prime years. Mayweather can't say that.
I don't know how much better Langford's competition was, perhaps a lot, but his boxrec in the 10's is filled with red while Jimmy Wilde's is filled with green.
WRONG!!!!! He didnt want to fight Jeffries and appears to have made a name for himself as a guy who could have beaten Ali, Frazier and Holmes in the same night if he only lived long enough........:shit::shit::shit:
From my understanding the notion that he didn't want to fight Jefferie's comes from the fact that he publicly advertised himself as willing to fight any man in the world 'apart from Jefferies' - the reason being Jefferries was champ and had committed to never fight a black guy while he had the belt. So the terms of Langford's position were set by Jefferie's, not himself. :dunno: