Mayweather v Berto Official for 12 September

First topic message reminder :

Looks like a done deal now. 12 Septemeber, MGM Las Vegas, Showtime PPV.

To be honest I don't care for the Floyd fight. His fight with Berto is a nothing fight.

Though I think sh1tting on his career post Corrales is harsh in my opinion.

He has been tatical with his picks at times, for sure. Many champions and big draws have done the same.

I bring GGG in to the argument, because lets face it, if he wasn't exciting to watch nobody would care. He has beat NOBODY of any worth.

The fact that an old past his best Welter is also middleweight champ, shows the state the divison is in. It's as bad as heavyweight.

If he can't unify then step up to Suppermiddle. Fight Degale,Groves,Dirrell,Abraham,Ward etc.

The above guys WILL fight him and if he is this ATG Middle, then surley moving up one diviosn would be no problem for him.

Also for the record, I would only pick one guy to beat him in that weight.

Coxy001 wrote:Truss, why do you feel the need to bring GGG in to the argument to try and put a spin on your diabolical opinion?

Because he's loved, and not American.

AdamT wrote:To be honest I don't care for the Floyd fight. His fight with Berto is a nothing fight.

Though I think sh1tting on his career post Corrales is harsh in my opinion.

He has been tatical with his picks at times, for sure. Many champions and big draws have done the same.

I bring GGG in to the argument, because lets face it, if he wasn't exciting to watch nobody would care. He has beat NOBODY of any worth.

The fact that an old past his best Welter is also middleweight champ, shows the state the divison is in. It's as bad as heavyweight.

If he can't unify then step up to Suppermiddle. Fight Degale,Groves,Dirrell,Abraham,Ward etc.

The above guys WILL fight him and if he is this ATG Middle, then surley moving up one diviosn would be no problem for him.

Also for the record, I would only pick one guy to beat him in that weight.

I find it quite bizarre comparing Mayweather to Golovkin. Golovkin still hasn't won a championshiop yet, isn't rated the best man in the sport and hasn't achieved greatness. Floyd's at the end of his career and has been heralded by some as one of the greatest fighters who ever lived.

I would have thought a more obvious comparison would be the likes of Duran, Leonard and Whitaker - who all probably rate in an all-time top 20. Boxing News recently published a list that had Jones ahead of Floyd.

Of course he has better credentials than Golovkin but no-one's running about claiming Golovkin is the best fighter who ever lived. He hasn't even managed to win the middleweight championship yet!

GGG hasn't won a championship yet

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:GGG hasn't won a championship yet

Correct. He has a few paper titles but he's yearning for a crack at Cotto, who for many is regarded as the middleweight CHAMPION due to the fact he beat Martinez, who beat Pavlik, who beat Taylor, who beat Hopkins.

Yep it's the great lineal championship folks..........

The one where the number one great featherweight of the late 80s ..Azumah Nelson was never champion BUT Stevie Cruz and Barry mcguigan were..

Sling your hook..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yep it's the great lineal championship folks..........

The one where the number one great featherweight of the late 80s ..Azumah Nelson was never champion BUT Stevie Cruz and Barry mcguigan were..

Sling your hook..

Cotto is the top man at middleweight (regardless of notional titles). Until Golovkin beats him, he won't be regarded as the de facto middleweight boss (for many).

Where do you want it?

Leave it out........Cotto isn't the top man at middle..........GGG is !!

Stop it.................Lineal is STUPID !!!!!!!

Larry Holmes bottled Greg page for the WBC and chucked away the belt !!!!...

Gets given an IBF strap and keeps his "lineal"

So when Witherspoon beat Page for the WBC- He wasn't a champion...

Leave it out..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Leave it out........Cotto isn't the top man at middle..........GGG is !!

Stop it.................Lineal is STUPID !!!!!!!

Larry Holmes bottled Greg page for the WBC and  chucked away the belt !!!!...

Gets given an IBF strap and keeps his "lineal"

So when Witherspoon beat Page for the WBC- He wasn't a champion...

Leave it out..

Both Ring Magazine and TBRB rate Cotto as the middleweight champion. HBO also have Cotto as champion and Golovkin as his heir in waiting. This is the reason Golovkin is desperate to fight him (and not vice versa).

Your spurious 80's reference isn't much use here. Lineal means you only lose a title in the ring. I quite agree Holmes was still champion. Witherspoon was a paper champion.

I'm not interested in any stupid argument....That has many excellent fighters being told they were never a champion because of some stupid rule from an age where we didn't have four champions a division........

If Spinks had never fought Tyson and carried on fighting Tangstad types...Then Tyson would never had been a Heavy champion even most of the belts...??

Laughable !!!,.

Ok guys I don't want anybody moaning about who Brook fights next because he's not a World champion..

It's all an illusion !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interested in any stupid argument....That has many excellent fighters being told they were never a champion because of some stupid rule from an age where we didn't have four champions a division........

If Spinks had never fought Tyson and carried on fighting Tangstad types...Then Tyson would never had been a Heavy champion even most of the belts...??

Laughable !!!,.

If you're happy to label multiple fighters in the same division "world champions" then that's up to you. Plenty of others term them mere titlists.

Witherspoon was the champion of the WBC but he sure as hell wasn't the heavyweight champion of the world. There's only one world and Larry Holmes was the champion of it until he lost to Spinks. You can argue over semantics all you like but down the line, historians will strip out all the guff (as we do now when looking back at NBA champ and the like) and will only look to see the wood rather than the trees.

Francois Botha was never the heavyweight champion of the world; Frank Bruno was never the heavyweight champion of the world. They held manufactured versions of it and little more.

Of course, this scenario become muddled if we look at instances such as George Foreman after he dethroned Moorer. As there was little emphasis on "linear championships" the likes of Bowe, Holyfield and Lewis had little need to face him. Instead, Foreman toiled on against second-raters as the alphabets - panicking they were missing out on a potential Tyson money-spinner (when the ex-champ was released from prison) - acquiesced to the demands of King to strip him of his remaining alphabet belts (I believe he was left with the IBO title or some other spurious version). No-one hailed Shannon Briggs the heavyweight king when he eventually bumped George off - that much is true. However, in the case of Spinks - who'd clearly established himself as the heavyweight champion, that wasn't the case.

While Tyson tore through the division - proving himself the best big man in the game - he had to beat Spinks to legitimise his position. The same holds true for Golovkin and Cotto.

If Golovkin is the real champion, why doesn't he have a string of contenders lining up to depose him?

Does that mean we're now classing Derry as a world champ as he holds a belt???

Derbymanc wrote:Does that mean we're now classing Derry as a world champ as he holds a belt???

Do what you like..

Derbymanc wrote:Does that mean we're now classing Derry as a world champ as he holds a belt???

I quote: "I'm not interested in any stupid argument....That has many excellent fighters being told they were never a champion because of some stupid rule from an age where we didn't have four champions a division........"

EVERYONE'S A CHAMPION!!

hazharrison wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Does that mean we're now classing Derry as a world champ as he holds a belt???

I quote: "I'm not interested in any stupid argument....That has many excellent fighters being told they were never a champion because of some stupid rule from an age where we didn't have four champions a division........"

EVERYONE'S A CHAMPION!!

It's like arguing with a three year old kid !!

Yep if Tyson had never fought Spinks he wouldn't have a been a Heavyqweight champion.....

I don't Truss, i'm just wondering if you do now based on what you've put above. Too many belts in the divisions now and to be honest I've stopped paying attention to most of them.

If Golovkin is the real champion, why doesn't he have a string of contenders lining up to depose him?

....because they're all Poopie scared of him.

I hear Wlad is only fighting Fury, to avoid GGG and Amir Khan.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

If Golovkin is the real champion, why doesn't he have a string of contenders lining up to depose him?

....because they're all Poopie scared of him.

What is all this real champion crap ??? ...

We are living in the alphabet age................With four belts..

Does anybody really think Tyson wasn't champion between 86 and 88.....

I mean come on !!!!!!

AdamT wrote:I hear Wlad is only fighting Fury, to avoid GGG and Amir Khan.

Or maybe, unlike some 'champions', Wlad always fights his mandatories.....

Yeah if Floyd fought all his mandatories, he would probably be 42-6.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:I hear Wlad is only fighting Fury, to avoid GGG and Amir Khan.

Or maybe, unlike some 'champions', Wlad always fights his mandatories.....

He's waiting for GGG to become a world champion Adam !!

GGG is the best fighter at middle. Stevie Wonder can see that!

AdamT wrote:GGG is the best fighter at middle. Stevie Wonder can see that!

You can be the best fighter and not be a champion in all due respect..

But seeing he's been defending a World title for the last 5 years that doesn't exist .....Maybe he should be arrested !!

Yet Cotto is seen as the 'genuine' middleweight world champion Adam, I think that's a big problem but as it stands at the moment it's nothing new. Until enough people start changing the channel and refusing to watch the guff that's spewed up sometimes then it ain't gonna change anytime soon

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:GGG is the best fighter at middle. Stevie Wonder can see that!

You can be the best fighter and not be a champion in all due respect..

But seeing he's been defending a World title for the last 5 years that doesn't exist .....Maybe he should be arrested !!

The title definitely exists - you can see it when he holds it up (and he pays sanctioning fees to keep carrying it). He's yet to prove he's the best middleweight in the world, though. He sure looks like the best middleweight in the world but he needs to knock off Cotto in order to prove it. There's a difference between the two.

Jeff Lacy once looked like the best super middleweight in the world until he fought Calzaghe.

Bottom line is you like GGG so because he's fought stiffs for five years it's okay because he's not a world champion....

But Mayweather beating Alvarez and Manny is cherrypicking because you don't like him and he's a real champion...

Got it !!!!

AdamT wrote:GGG is the best fighter at middle. Stevie Wonder can see that!

How can it be that obvious when he's fighting a load of rubbish (according to some on here)?

Because the rest of the divison is gash, hence the so called past his best Cotto being champ.

Floyd beats Cotto, that isn't a great win accorrding to some, that don't rate his career since 01.

However it's a valid win for GGG? Why is this?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bottom line is you like GGG so because he's fought stiffs for five years it's okay because he's not a world champion....

But Mayweather beating Alvarez and Manny is cherrypicking because you don't like him and he's a real champion...

Got it !!!!

I haven't sought to justify Golovkin's opposition based on the fact he isn't a champion. I would justify it on the basis that more marquee fighters (such as Martinez, Quillin, Sturm, Cotto etc.) have shown no inclination to face him. He's also had to build up his profile on HBO slowly and steadily (due to the fact he's foreign and speaks little English).

Mayweather is the welterweight boss because he beat the only other claimant in Pacquiao. He proved he was the boss at 154 in beating Alvarez.

I've already stated my criticism of his opposition since Corrales.

MCCallum couldn't get a unification with Hearns...........So all those years as WBA champion beating Mccrory, Curry types were spent as a contender....

Kalambay, Meldrick Taylor, Qawi, Nelson, Page, Bramble, Breland, Witherspoon, Thomas, Brown, Tyson, Berbick, Weaver, Dokes.... Hearns at welter, Duran at 154 (Haz likes him so let's make an exception !!)..

If Holy had avoided Lewis he never would have been a champion.....

Gotta laugh..

All to stick up for a stiff munching Rusky..

AdamT wrote:Because the rest of the divison is gash, hence the so called past his best Cotto being champ.

Floyd beats Cotto, that isn't a great win accorrding to some, that don't rate his career since 01.

However it's a valid win for GGG? Why is this?

Because it would establish a dominant force at 160. That wouldn't make it a better win than when Floyd fought him - Cotto hasn't got any better since then. Golovkin would be heavily favoured to roll straight over him.

Cotto was probably Floyd's best win post Castillo/Corrales.

Is there anyone that honestly doesn't think that Mayweather is the best of our generation?

Even with some of the catchweights etc, I don't think it can be denied that he is the no.1 at the moment and has been for a while.

I also don't get the hate for the Manny fight, thought it was a brilliant chess match but maybe i'm just getting stranger in my old age

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:MCCallum couldn't get a unification with Hearns...........So all those years as WBA champion beating Mccrory, Curry types were spent as a contender....

Kalambay, Meldrick Taylor, Qawi, Nelson, Page, Bramble, Breland, Witherspoon, Thomas, Brown, Tyson, Berbick, Weaver, Dokes.... Hearns at welter, Duran at 154 (Haz likes him so let's make an exception !!)..

If Holy had avoided Lewis he never would have been a champion.....

Gotta laugh..

All to stick up for a stiff munching Rusky..

Holyfield beat Douglas and Bowe - he was a two-time champion in my book.

I regard all titlists as just that, unless they established dominance at their weight legitimately in the ring. That has precisely nothing at all to do with Golovkin.

Cotto was probably Floyd's best win post Castillo/Corrales. [/quote]

Won't argue with that.

Not as good as Daniel Geale ..

Derbymanc wrote:Is there anyone that honestly doesn't think that Mayweather is the best of our generation?

Even with some of the catchweights etc, I don't think it can be denied that he is the no.1 at the moment and has been for a while.

I also don't get the hate for the Manny fight, thought it was a brilliant chess match but maybe i'm just getting stranger in my old age

Depends how long you regard this era? There's an argument that Jones and Pacquiao have better resumes (depending what you value).

Does Mayweather have anything to equal Roy's wins over Hopkins and Toney? Pacquiao's over Barrera, Morales and Marquez?

I'd probably nudge him ahead of both - but Jones has a very real claim.

AdamT wrote:
Cotto was probably Floyd's best win post Castillo/Corrales.

Won't argue with that.[/quote]

Would you argue that Cotto wasn't past his best at this point?

For gods sake, you can't argue Pacquaio has a better resume.

You could argue he "might" have a couple of better wins, but his bad losses counter that and more.

Cotto was slightly past it, as was Floyd.

AdamT wrote:For gods sake, you can't argue Pacquaio has a better resume.

You could argue he "might" have a couple of better wins, but his bad losses counter that and more.

He very definitely has the better wins: Morales, Barrera and Marquez (all of whom he beat at or around their best weight). You regard Cotto as Floyd's best win since he left lightweight. Well Pacquiao beat a better version. He also beat Mosley, Hatton and De la Hoya in a more convincing manner.

I'd have Floyd ahead but there isn't much daylight between them.

AdamT wrote:For gods sake, you can't argue Pacquaio has a better resume.

You could argue he "might" have a couple of better wins, but his bad losses counter that and more.

Manny probably has got a slightly better resume.....

Unfortunately he's lost five times at least..............including to Floyd so that renders it meaningless in an alltime list...

Ok Manny has the better wins, I will give you that. Also I don't remember him "really" beating Marquez, but I will give the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Does Manny's losses not count?? Or did they not happen?

Yes Truss, Floyd ranks higher. Manny is great but has suffered too many set backs to rank with Floyd.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:For gods sake, you can't argue Pacquaio has a better resume.

You could argue he "might" have a couple of better wins, but his bad losses counter that and more.

Manny probably has got a slightly better resume.....

Unfortunately he's lost five times at least..............including to Floyd so that renders it meaningless in an alltime list...

You walk in the rain, you're going to get wet. Morales, Barrera and Marquez are a trio of legendary Mexicans. Pacquiao fought them nine times.

If he beat JMM......He lost to Bradley................Or vice versa......Manny fans try to have it both ways..

Only an idiot has Manny higher.....But as you know we have some on here...

"10/1 Murray is a great win...3/1 Manny isn't worth watching!!"

He lost 3-4 times to Marquez.

AdamT wrote:Ok Manny has the better wins, I will give you that. Also I don't remember him "really" beating Marquez, but I will give the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Does Manny's losses not count?? Or did they not happen?

Yes Truss, Floyd ranks higher. Manny is great but has suffered too many set backs to rank with Floyd.

They count to an extent but they aren't critical. Roberto Duran lost 16 fights. Thomas Hearns lost 5. Yet Duran rate higher all-time (despite losing to Hearns).

I'd have Floyd ahead but not by much.

AdamT wrote:He lost 3-4 times to Marquez.

No... If you're a Manny fan he beat JMM and got ripped off against Bradley !!

AdamT wrote:He lost 3-4 times to Marquez.

I've seen plenty of people say Mayweather is 1-1 with both Castillo and Maidana.

Only the record books count.