Why do people defend Floyd ?

the lineal title is just some crap that Sly clings to when it suits him - doesn't mean shit.

 

Floyd relinquished his title when he fled into retirement. Pac has earned it since, he's the man.

 

I bet he picks his spots. Is he also saying DM was superior to Roy Jones due to the very same lineal title? I'm leaning towards no no he doesn't.

 

There is no such thing as a p4p linear title, the notion is absurd. By definition its a title used to conceptually compare fighters who cant fight each other.:doh:

 

Yeah but the true king is back. hence you have to kill the king to keep his throne.

Like Simba...he fled into hiding and Scar assumed the throne, but when Simba returned...scar had no choice but to

"Step down or fight!"

Shiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! :kidcool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCySTWFcnlM&feature=related

 

It's 3:40pm where I'm at. I'm guessing you're posting somewhere from Europe where it's later on in the evening cuz you sound like you had a couple of drinks.

p.s Please don't ever compare Floyd Mayweather to a lion unless it's the cowardly lion from the wizard of oz

 

Anyway..OBVIOUSLY...I'm making up this "lineal/linear P4P title" stuff for kicks.

But I use the humour to make a point.

Floyd is back now. he's no longer retired. And P4P is mythical. It's not liek a WBC belt that you relinquish when you retire and then have to win it back when you return. It's a mythical title that recognizes the best fighter in the sport. Floyd is back and he still looks prime and he's undefeated. he is therefore still THE BEST until he is beaten.

Marquez arguably beat Pacquiao twice and morales DID beat him. Pacquiao hasn't proven to be the best until he takes the title from teh one that them call Floyd.

 

Nonsense man....even at the divisional level thats shit doesn't stand up. If you retire you relinquish and you have to win it back. At the p4p level where the title is purely conceptual it's an even sillier notion. Fair enough if you wanna have Floyd No1 simply because you think he's the better fighter, full stop, but you're not gonna make this line of reasoning make sense.....

Since Floyd retired Pac has gone on in 3 fights to put Floyd's whole career accomplishments in the shade, he's the man.

 

Yup...the cowardly Lion would have taken on Mosley, tried to fight Pacquiao and fought Castillo, De La Hoya and Corrales.

perhaps you actually need a drink...it may actually make you think more clearly.

 

Mosley is 39 and rusty face the facts
"tried" to fight Pacquiao
and went 1-1 with Castillo by most unbiased accounts
Split Decision over a part time shot boxer
Corrales fight he deserves credit for sure but that was a long time ago.

And no thank you I don't drink

 

In your opinion.....fair enough. But it's purely your opinion and there's no basis for it in terms of entitlement, linearity or anything else.

That takes us back to whether p4p should just purely be a subjective measure of who we think is best or something that somebody has to earn. It's a legit debate and you're entitled to your position on that.... but you can't make any sensible argument for beating a superfeatherweight at 147lb as having earned Floyd SHIT.

 

Yes, It's subjective.

Obviously it's subjective.

Someone could claim that Hopkins is teh P4P if they want.

I happen to think that Floyd is the best fighter out there. If Pacquiao beats him, I'll change it to Pacquiao..but as it stands I'd expect Floyd to whup Pacquiao and any other fight out there around his size...

 

See that what it comes down to cuz you damn well know Floyd is not gonna make those fights happen. That's what Floyd groupies cling on to they EXPECT Floyd to beat everybody and in their mind HE WOULD beat them all thus creating no need to actually prove that.

 

He's fighting Shane who many say is the top Welterweight in the world based upon his KO of Margarito.

 

Personally I think it should go to the man who's proved himself most over the last few years. Who's better out of Pac & Floyd is purely subjective, but there's nothing subjective about who's done most to earn the accolade in recent times.

 

If and when Floyd beats Mosley impressively he once again has a legit claim to p4p, IMO.

 

but that's the same logic that had Tito as P4P over Roy Jones at the start of the last decade...and many now would disagree with that pick based upon a poll I did not too long ago.

To paraphrase Max Kellerman:

"This isn't a 'deserves' game, this is P4P, and if I say anyone other than Floyd Mayweather, I'd be lying"

 

Trust his Meshuggenah daddy to invoke the abstract in favour of the demonstrable.

It is demonstrably so that Floyd is a cuntish little ogre who picks more Cherries than the slave employees of the Man from Del Monte.

But by way of song, and dance, and superstition, Max has Floyd in at pfp #1.

 

Exactly. In that instance, the distinction didn't mean shit.

 

when it comes to the P4P title, the burden of proof is on the fighter. in other words, PBF is not the P4P best fighter until proven otherwise. rather, he cannot be the P4P best fighter until he proves it.

he's tried with smoke and mirrors, and with shit-talk in the media, but he's not done it in the ring. anyone with their head on straight can see this.

 

Who should he fight now that would prove that he is?

 

I think it is safe to say that Max Kellerman is biased as all hell. Anyone who even denies it needs their head examined. I mean, Wladimir Klitschko should be pfp #2 or #3, if "deserves" has fuck all to do with it.

The guy is undefeated since 2004 and has stopped Chris Byrd, Hasim Rahman, Eddie Chambers, Ruslan Chagaev, Calvin Brock, Lamon Brewster, Tony Thompson and Ray Austin, and decisioned easily Sultan Ibragimov.

Brock and Chagaev were both unbeaten fighters with solid Ammy credentials, in Chagaevs case he beat Felix Savon for the World Amateur title and in Brocks, he was the US rep at Heavyweight in Sydney. Both were totally dominated, floored, cut and stopped.

Ibrgaimov didn't want to fight and got dominated. Sultan was an Olympic Silver medallist. He also got a TD over Davarryl Williamson. Sam Peter was undefeated and was favoured to beat Klitschko.

Brewster, Rahman and Austin were passed their best, or in Austins case their best was not very good to begin with, but they all got stopped effortlessly. In Austins case, I quote none other than Sean Reed when I say the quadruple hook that stopped Austin was "Roy Esque".

Chambers was put to sleep like a stray dog.

Tony Thompson tried to fight, then tried to spoil. He was dominated and had his will broken.

By the current reckoning, Wlad should be on the pfp radar. The fucker HAS NOT LOST in 6 years. I dont care if he has a shit chin...the fact that NOBODY GET'S TO TAP IT must surely strengthen and not weaken his case.

And NOBODY who fights Wlad is being forced to concede to onerous terms such as Wlads weight, their own weight, the weight the fight takes place at, etc. Unlike Floyd, and Pacquaio too, who basically, literally and metaphorically, tip the scales in their own favour to ONEROUS degrees, every time. You don't see any jumped up middlweights being told what the limit is, and then being offered cash to keep quiet when Wlad ignores that limit.

It's BS....Wlad has dominated his division since 2004 and has faced more of the divisions top fighters than Floyd has bothered with. Floyd, at this point in time HAS STILL NOT faced Pac, Mosley, Cotto, Paul Williams, Kostya Tszyu etc..all of whom he COULD have faced, if he had really really wanted to.

 

This thread isn't about Wlad...

 

Shane and did Tito did belong above Roy. Roy simple didn't deserve any laurels at that particular time. The same priciples would apply divisionally - a guy might be the best but if refuses to prove it for an extended period then he gets stripped to uphold the legitimacy of the title and ultimately the sport.:dunno: That's the way boxing titles work.

 

P4P is different to "divisionally" and that's my point.

You keep trying to equate the two. You can't.

 

Same principles apply in this case. Nobody's entitled to any title, conceptual or otherwise, without continually PROVING himself champ.

But as I've said before, we have different opinions on that.....fair enough.

 

No. Mosely annihilated Margarito in a fight that will have happened 16 months ago when Mosley-Mayweather takes place. That's hardly a fight that "just" happened.

 

The outcome May 1st doesn't change my opinion. Pac is the best fighter on the planet. Period. Say what you want but over the past eight or nine years there's no argument Pac has fought and beaten better guys than Floyd.

He beat those guys in their primes and at their best weights and knocked them out...we're talking about guys on the top 10 P4P list too...how many guys has Floyd fought on that list in the past seven or eight years. Then look at how long it's been between he fought those guys at their best weight and when.

It's clear and decisive for Pac no matter what the outcome.

His resume and results top that of Floyd's starting in 2001 through 2010. It's as clear as day to me.

 

No. Even if he KO's Shane, in the last year he'll have beaten a fat featherweight, and Mosley.

In the last year Pacquiao has destroyed Cotto, a guy that beat Mosley, and given a one sided beating to Clottey, a decent welterweight that lost a close decision to Cotto.

And to top it off, Pacquiao is a significantly smaller man than Floyd.

Floyd's going to have to do more than beat a 38 year old Mosley impressively to have a claim as the pound for pound best. A win over Williams or Martinez at 154 would do it.

 

Yep, Musze knows the score.