'The carefully applied criteria' I applied are called 'facts': 1. It is a FACT that Baldomir was universally regarded as a very weak linear 147lb champion. 2. It is a FACT that Ricky Hatton had one fight at 147lb (which many thought he lost) before fighting Mayweather. 3. It is a FACT that Shane Mosely was 39 years old when he fought Mayweather. 4. It is a FACT that JMM was the reigning Lightweight Champion when he stepped up 9lbs to fight Mayweather at the highest weight he had fought at to date. 5. It is a FACT that he retired when Williams, Cotto, Margacheato, Clottey, Pac etc were fighting each other to decide who was the best welterweight among them, which resulted in criticism of Mayweather from some boxing media and fans. 6. It is a FACT that Mayweather then deliberately prevented a fight with Manny happening by insisting on unheard of demands such as drug testing. 7. It is a FACT that Mayweather didn't fight any of the above mentioned welterweights on his return and instead fought Victor Ortiz; a man who was widely criticised in the past for essentially quitting against Maidana and who was knocked out by a shot he didn't see after a clinch. 8. It is a FACT that Robert Guerrero had his major career success at feather/super-featherweight and had had only two prior fights at 147lbs. 9. It is a FACT that Maidana left 140lbs because he couldn't beat Amir Khan. It is also a FACT that he lost to Devon Alexander at 147lb and only got the fight with Mayweathert because he beat Broner. 10. It is a FACT that Mayweather agreed to fight Pac three years after Pac had been knocked out by JMM in their 4th fight and that there was much public and media criticism after the fight because of Mayweather's extremely negative fight tactics. These are FACTS. Every one of them is an asterix against Mayweather's welterweight championship 'reign'. MTF
Saying FACT and FACTS sound clever if you're dealing with a chump. Sighting the odd fact here and there doesn't by themselves prove an overall narrative. Since when does "spin" not use facts? Facts cleverly applied I theories context can create a false narrative. Obamas re-election is an example. Republican touted "facts" we're that he's the first president to achieve re election since God knows when, where he had a smaller majority in the popular vote than he did in the first election. This is in fact a FACT! But the narrative Republicans were trying to sell with this FACT was that he somehow failed, . Another FACT was that he was the first president since Regain to achieve over 51% of the vote in two successive elections. That FACT creates a different narrative. Everything I said in response to your drivel were also FACTS, however they are more meaningful facts for the evaluation of his achievements, especially in the context of boxing history. Yours is just meaningless spin like my Republican example above.
None of what you just posted deals with the facts of Mayweather's welterweight reign. Just strawmen and irrelevant bits and pieces about politics. 'The odd fact here and there' - there is a genuine asterix against EVERY SINGLE ONE of Mayweather's welterweight fights, as indicated above. The narrative of Maywesather's welterweight reign is clear, observable and recognised by anyone who doesn't have Floyd's ballsac bouncing off their chin. MTF
who cares? his resume is still easily first ballot hall of fame caliber. mayweather jr himself admitted he planned on cherry picking after he beat gatti and then delahoya. when he was about to fight berto, some guy who works for top rank (the promotional outfit who built him from ground zero, and who he left right before he started to actually make money) said he earned the right to go out with an easy fight because he'd fought everyone that mattered, whether or not it was at the exact right time.
Floyd was great from 130-135 for sure. But his reign at 147-154 is littered with questionable opponents and cherry picking.
Please, I've already debunked the essence of it with my post on Baldomir, De La Hoya and Hatton. Read it and be educated. If I wanted to I'm sure I could come up with similar arguments for the careers of Leonard and Hagler. Every champion has certain defense as that can be questioned and there are always opponents that you could name that they didn't fight. Mtf has an agenda and he's just cherry picking facts to support it. Anyone with an iota of intelligence and time on their hands can do the same
To reiterate - the 'certain defenses' I questioned are ALL of Mayweather's welterweight fights. Every single one of them. MTF
Floyds run at welter in strengthened by beating DLH, Cotto, and Canelo at 154. DLH was past prime and seemed to blow the fight as much as PBF won it and Canelo is looking like a limited hypejob. But Cotto was a good win.
How can someone's 'run at welter' be strengthened by wins at 154? That's before you consider, as you say, that DLH was old and nearly won and that Cotto was miles past his best when Floyd finally got round to fighting him (and winning a close fight). MTF
Myth. Baldomir was champ. Judah was still handy. De la Hoya was considered a dangerous fight. Hatton was undefeated and was a top 5 p4p guy. Mosley had destroyed Margarito in his previous fight and so was a viable opponent, Ortiz was a decent prospect on account of beating Berto for a version of the title, Cotto was still as handy as ever, Canelo was young and undefeated with a reputation growing by the second, MaidAna and Guerrero was when Floyd was close to 40...how did Leonard do close to 40? How did Chavez and Duran do? You have no case
Because he was a welter when he fought there. It says something that his best opponents above 135 were prime at welters but he fought them at 154, though.
I think Ike would control much of the fight with his jab and coming through with some right hands for good measure, keeping Shane at bay and more cautious/frustrated. Mosley would have his moments, possibly dropping or hurting Quartey at one point, but Ike takes 8 rounds and wins a decision.
