Floyd, JCC and Duran

First topic message reminder :

Why are two of those guys often ranked above Floyd? Their records aren't better than Floyd's by any stretch of the imagination. OK Duran has Leonard on his ledger, but lets not forget he was pancaked by Hearns, thoroughly outboxed by Laing and lost to Benitez. Floyd has beaten everyone in front of him without looking like losing. OK he got a dubious decision against that mexican and put the record straight the very next fight.

Why people rank Chavez ahead of Floyd is beyong.

Floyd beats them both so should be ranked higher.

Thoughts

If Floyd had been in Duran's shoes, do you really think he'd have taken the same risks in challenging Leonard, Hearns and Hagler?

The guy didn't even risk taking on Pacquiao and that has to be held against him. When did he last take a challenging fight?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He's above Leonard...........Who beat Hagler (p4pno1) Duran, Benitez, Hearns, Kalule and won 5 titles at different weights.........

We aren't getting anywhere are we.............so we'll disagree....

Last word... no one who gets humiliated against Hearns like that deserves to be anywhere near a top 10 list!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was pathetic..............

At a weight 28lbs above where he started?

Weight didn't bother him against Hagler..............

Well he did though didn't it Truss, it wasn't a fight fought between physical equals was it and it's a testament to his ability that he was even able to compete against the bigger men.

Going from Marcel at featherweight aged 18 to Castro at super middleweight aged 47 is an achievement no matter how you spin it.

Are you telling me that the weight difference was the reason he lost to Hearns ??

So you don't think the weight difference played any part or the 12 inch reach difference?

Didn't worry Tyson.......................

The jab was so hard and quick he was intimidated and couldn't/wouldn't get inside...

Curry fought mccrory who was much taller and had a reach just as long!!

So let me get this straight, you don't think the size difference had any impact on that fight at all?

Mayweather has cherry picked.........Duran didn't. Floyd could have fought PAC but then again Uncle Rog was afraid of the A-Sides.

Leonard waited until Hagler looked bad against Mugabi before he wanted to fight.

There is consensus on this stuff. It's in 95% of boxing history books and articles for the book lovers out there.

The jab was too good...........and quick obviously the height difference helped but there have been 6 foot lightweight...........So so what...

Oh hello Mayweather is a ducker now!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Are you telling me that the weight difference was the reason he lost to Hearns ??

Look at Hearns muscle and definition in one corner and the midget Michelin Man in the other corner.

Why shouldn't Duran be able to get past a jab...???

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The jab was too good...........and quick obviously the height difference helped but there have been 6 foot lightweight...........So so what...

Oh hello Mayweather is a ducker now!!

Lets throw Leonard in with Ezzard Charles or Bob Foster and see how he fares shall we. Duran wasn't 6 foot though was he, the fact that someone like Arguello or Saddler is taller than him has little relevance to Duran himself. Nobody who starts there career at featherweight has any chance of beating Hearns at 154lbs nor should they be able to take Hagler into deep water.

I know it bothers you immensely that the most highly rated boxer since Ali is panamanian but at least try and be reasonable.

Leonard beat Hearns........so he fared quite well..........

Curry beat Mccrory so he fared quite well..

Leonard and Curry were welterweights facing welterweights, what part of that do you not understand?

Truss.
Against Hearns, who possessed many physical advantages, Duran was waaay above his starting weight class and had 80 something fights behind him.

Against Camacho, who possessed few natural advantages like Hearns' mighty reach, Leonard was two weight classes up from his starting weight class and had 39 fights behind him.

So why don't you hold getting battered by Camacho (who isn't anywhere near as devastating a fighter as Hearns) against Leonard?

Duran was target practice against Hearns...........He didn't land a meaningful punch and didn't want a rematch....

Watch the fight he's too scared to come inside and is trying to outjab Tommy.

I cannot believe you can make excuses for Hearns-Duran..........It was awful..

He was out of his depth because of the weight advantage...even though he won a title 6 pounds heavier!!

How did Tyson manage to beat guys that were 6 inches taller.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Leonard beat Hearns........so he fared quite well..........

Curry beat Mccrory so he fared quite well..

Leonard was better than Hearns by any definition or weight class. He might have ducked Tommy a bit before the second fight but Leonard did that type of thing.

So If they had catchweight and Hearns weighed in at say 142 the day before the fight...

All you guys would pick Duran???

What weight did Tyson start at and did he not have incredible power?

Obviously Tyson must have started at middleweight or something to have any relevance to Duran facing Hearns, how do you think Leonard fares against Foster at light heavyweight?

Talking about these guy and then Floyd in the same breath is a bit of a joke.

In 30 years Floyd won't be Top 30. There was a German guy who never lost a fight, he cherry picked as well.

Hearns had a dodgy chin but Duran ws too intimidated to get inside to find it...

Tyson gave away height and weight too....

Just leave it.... he was outclassed just admit it!!!!!!!

Give me strength..

Hearns never had an easier fight apart from shuler...Who did more in 50 seconds than Duran did in 5 minutes.

you win...Duran slipped and it was a terrible stoppage..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So If they had catchweight and Hearns weighed in at say 142 the day before the fight...

All you guys would pick Duran???

Look at the state of Duran in the fight. It was bullspit, easy money for Duran.

No one in the history of Boxing has ever been anything but humiliated against a taller and bigger foe!!............

Tommy Burns how did he do it..

Is the little baby losing the argument so has resorted to spitting his dummy out again.

Tyson was a heavyweight facing heavyweights who were good by no stretch of the imagination great, he was a short very stocky guy with serious power, he has absolutely no relevance to Duran at all.

Out of interest how did Hearns and Leonard do against Spinks?

After reading this thread I was starting to doubt mine and conceived wisdom on Duran.

I just watched a few video. The universe hasn't perceptibly altered after all

Nice little KO video: http://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=ml3oxk2q4#/watch?v=XTYcJRbhIks



Breaking news: couple of bombs went off at the Boston marathon.

Strongback wrote:Talking about these guy and then Floyd in the same breath is a bit of a joke.

In 30 years Floyd won't be Top 30. There was a German guy who never lost a fight, he cherry picked as well.

But talking about Mayweather and Ottke in the same breath makes perfect sense!

manos de piedra wrote:

Strongback wrote:Talking about these guy and then Floyd in the same breath is a bit of a joke.

In 30 years Floyd won't be Top 30. There was a German guy who never lost a fight, he cherry picked as well.

But talking about Mayweather and Ottke in the same breath makes perfect sense!

I was making a point about cherry picking and the '0' being what its all about for some fighters. Floyd's careful selection of opponents will go against him. He doesn't take any risks.

Its hardly a case of taking no risks with Mayweather and hes got hardly any relevance to Ottke at all other than being unbeaten. I dont even think Ottke did particularly cherry pick. He just relied on dodgy hometowning against most of the other top SMW contenders he fought. Ottke "0" is based on complete fraud. Mayweather has only had one controversial decision go his way against a vastly superior list of opposition.

I havent been a fan of the "all roads lead to Mayweather" position he has occupied since his move to welter with one fight every year at best. There are criticisms there I would fully agree with. But at the same time I dont think in order to be an all time great a fighter should be obliged to extend themselves the way Duran did. Because as admirable as it was, he ended up 1-5 against the top dogs he fought. Theres a middle ground between being a cherry picker who takes no risks and someone like Duran.

I would be interested to see a list of fighters who you think Mayweather has ducked Strongback. Other than Pacman (I hold it against the pair of them that they didnt fight), I cannot think of anyone significant.

You might say Martinez, but the truth is that he is just too big for Floyd. No reasonable person could use that as a stick to beat him with.

joeyjojo618 wrote:I would be interested to see a list of fighters who you think Mayweather has ducked Strongback. Other than Pacman (I hold it against the pair of them that they didnt fight), I cannot think of anyone significant.

You might say Martinez, but the truth is that he is just too big for Floyd. No reasonable person could use that as a stick to beat him with.

Ducked maybe too strong a word for Floyd, but there's no doubt to me at least that he's very careful when selecting his opponents as was Manny and most other PPV stars.

Martinez once said that he could make 154lbs for Floyd and Floyd has fought at 154lbs before so I'm not sure why he's too big. Paul Williams like I mentioned before is another fighter that I would have liked to have seen Floyd fight, it's too late now though.

Martinez's ring weight is huge compared to Floyd, he would be in against a middleweight essentially. Mayweather is not a big WW. I would have liked to have seen the fight, but cant blame Mayweather for not taking it.

manos de piedra wrote:Its hardly a case of taking no risks with Mayweather and hes got hardly any relevance to Ottke at all other than being unbeaten. I dont even think Ottke did particularly cherry pick. He just relied on dodgy hometowning against most of the other top SMW contenders he fought. Ottke "0" is based on complete fraud. Mayweather has only had one controversial decision go his way against a vastly superior list of opposition.

I havent been a fan of the "all roads lead to Mayweather" position he has occupied since his move to welter with one fight every year at best. There are criticisms there I would fully agree with. But at the same time I dont think in order to be an all time great a fighter should be obliged to extend themselves the way Duran did. Because as admirable as it was, he ended up 1-5 against the top dogs he fought. Theres a middle ground between being a cherry picker who takes no risks and someone like Duran.

Ottos ddn't leave Germany and was protected, it was all about the '0'. Floyd is the same, he has been very selective particularly given his ridiculous level of ability. Look at the P4P Top 10, it is littered with guys who did amazing things jumping across the weights taking on the best. Armstrong was defeated many times but his peak was ridiculous in terms of who he was willing to fight. That's why we hold him in such high esteem. Floyd will never be seen in these terms.

joeyjojo618 wrote:I would be interested to see a list of fighters who you think Mayweather has ducked Strongback. Other than Pacman (I hold it against the pair of them that they didnt fight), I cannot think of anyone significant.

You might say Martinez, but the truth is that he is just too big for Floyd. No reasonable person could use that as a stick to beat him with.

Cotto at 140.
Margarito at 147.
Mosley at 147 before he got old.
Pacquiao at 147.
Paul Williams at 154.
Martinez at 154.

Check out Floyds record post Castillo, he really lost that first fight and hasn't taken a risk since generally fighting old men after that. As Floyd says himself it's all about the '0'.

i mark both mayweather and manny down for not facing each other. manny around 2010 would have sealed mayweathers greatest and be his career defining fight, something now that he doesn't really have. an unbeaten record is great, but when you haven't fought your toughest test its not as meaningful, just like calzaghe

at least with duran we have a better idea because he fought everyone that he needed to, and shouldn't have even been fighting at middleweight, probably shouldn't have fought above welter given his natural size.

id have mayweather beating duran at anything from welter above. lightweight prime duran would be a lot closer though, he was undefeated at the weight after all. think this one is a difficult one to judge as all are when considering a current fighter. be much easier once mayweather has retired (permanently this time) and given some time to reflect on his career. there's a good chance in ten years that i think he will easily rank above duran

Mayweather will never rate above Duran with historians. He missed the boat on that one.

But he will go down as an all time great, barring some appalling end to his career.

I will be pretty annoyed if Floyd does take a ridiculous ranking in years to come but not suprised. Avoiding Manny is a huge disappointment for me and he should be ranked accordingly, it's easy to say Floyd would have wiped the floor with Manny now but not when he was on Fire.

I think Floyd’s legacy will hang largely on how much you hold the Manny thing against him. Have less desire to revisit the particular blame game in that one than I have to listen to a Westlife box set but what is not going to change is for at least a two year period the top two fighters in the world were operating in the same division. Manny was for Floyd the only guy in his weight class with a realistic chance of beating him (same is true for Floyd with Manny it should be said) and for whatever reason they did not fight.

We can count to historical precedents such as Johnson and Langford, Dempsey and Wills but the colour line and societies attitude to black people was very different. When we cut through all the smoke and mirrors there is really no reason beyond egos and nonsense as to why the fight could not and should not have happened and for me that has to count against Floyd and indeed Manny to some extent, how much you count it against him is largely a subjective matter, personally it keeps him outside the top ten for me. However I would add that whilst he can never remove the stain a win at 36 or 37 against the winner of Trout or Canelo would go some way to lessening how much it hurts him.

Strongback wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its hardly a case of taking no risks with Mayweather and hes got hardly any relevance to Ottke at all other than being unbeaten. I dont even think Ottke did particularly cherry pick. He just relied on dodgy hometowning against most of the other top SMW contenders he fought. Ottke "0" is based on complete fraud. Mayweather has only had one controversial decision go his way against a vastly superior list of opposition.

I havent been a fan of the "all roads lead to Mayweather" position he has occupied since his move to welter with one fight every year at best. There are criticisms there I would fully agree with. But at the same time I dont think in order to be an all time great a fighter should be obliged to extend themselves the way Duran did. Because as admirable as it was, he ended up 1-5 against the top dogs he fought. Theres a middle ground between being a cherry picker who takes no risks and someone like Duran.

Ottos ddn't leave Germany and was protected, it was all about the '0'. Floyd is the same, he has been very selective particularly given his ridiculous level of ability. Look at the P4P Top 10, it is littered with guys who did amazing things jumping across the weights taking on the best. Armstrong was defeated many times but his peak was ridiculous in terms of who he was willing to fight. That's why we hold him in such high esteem. Floyd will never be seen in these terms.

I think it’s a weak comparison, Ottke and Mayweather, whatever way you look at it. You are comparing chalk and cheese with era’s between Armstrong and Mayweather. I haven’t seen anyone on here make a case for Mayweather ranking above Armstrong in any case. Your saying he wont be seen as top 30 material in the coming decades which given some of the fighters boxing historians and authorities have in their top 30 at the moment I think is way off. He might well fall outside the top ten but top 30, not a chance unless he does a Roy Jones.

There are valid criticisms of Mayweathers career, many of which I agree with. But I think they are being exaggerated. His overall career has been excellent. There have been some names he could have fought of varying relevance which he hasn’t faced that he should have. Some would have added something to his record, some not particularly. He could have done more, but its not enough to wipe out what he has achieved.

Whenever I see anyone compared to Ottke, be it Calzaghe or Mayweather (!!!) the one thing I always think that gets overlooked and makes the comparison a fairly specious one is the fact that Ottke frequently had to rely on favourable judging or refereeing to get the job done. The same is rarely true of those being compared to him. Floyd has one genuinely close call on his record, Castillo one, and it was a close call not a robbery and he granted him an immediate rematch and put it beyond doubt. Ottke rarely if ever did likewise.

Floyd will not go down as an all-time great -- even in this day and age when "great" becomes the norm and "champion" means nothing of the sort.

Mayweather just hasn't taken the tough fights that would have put him in the mix. Since Corrales and Castillo -- back when he really was something -- he's largely chased money and box-office over career-defining fights.

Fighters such as Leonard, Ali, Jones and Hagler had such monumental egos, they gravitated towards their greatest challenges. Floyd didn't do that. And the Pacquiao debacle should be held against both men (although I appreciate that Mayweather wanted a clean contest).

Mayweather could have had himself a field day at welterweight some years back against the likes of Margarito, a still-useful Mosley, Cotto, Williams and eventually Pacquiao. In the last 10 and a bit years he's had only 14 fights against moderate to decent opposition (a large number of whom were not at their best, either in terms of age or weight). That's hardly all-time great material.

Beating Alvaraz or Trout won't change where he'll eventually rate. The only huge challenge left for him would be Martinez at middleweight. That would make a difference to where he'll eventually end up but with this Showtime deal, why bother?

Floyd will be happy to retire rich and healthy and good on him but he'll not be rated as an all-timer.

manos de piedra wrote:

Strongback wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its hardly a case of taking no risks with Mayweather and hes got hardly any relevance to Ottke at all other than being unbeaten. I dont even think Ottke did particularly cherry pick. He just relied on dodgy hometowning against most of the other top SMW contenders he fought. Ottke "0" is based on complete fraud. Mayweather has only had one controversial decision go his way against a vastly superior list of opposition.

I havent been a fan of the "all roads lead to Mayweather" position he has occupied since his move to welter with one fight every year at best. There are criticisms there I would fully agree with. But at the same time I dont think in order to be an all time great a fighter should be obliged to extend themselves the way Duran did. Because as admirable as it was, he ended up 1-5 against the top dogs he fought. Theres a middle ground between being a cherry picker who takes no risks and someone like Duran.

Ottos ddn't leave Germany and was protected, it was all about the '0'. Floyd is the same, he has been very selective particularly given his ridiculous level of ability. Look at the P4P Top 10, it is littered with guys who did amazing things jumping across the weights taking on the best. Armstrong was defeated many times but his peak was ridiculous in terms of who he was willing to fight. That's why we hold him in such high esteem. Floyd will never be seen in these terms.

I think it’s a weak comparison, Ottke and Mayweather, whatever way you look at it. You are comparing chalk and cheese with era’s between Armstrong and Mayweather. I haven’t seen anyone on here make a case for Mayweather ranking above Armstrong in any case. Your saying he wont be seen as top 30 material in the coming decades which given some of the fighters boxing historians and authorities have in their top 30 at the moment I think is way off. He might well fall outside the top ten but top 30, not a chance unless he does a Roy Jones.

There are valid criticisms of Mayweathers career, many of which I agree with. But I think they are being exaggerated. His overall career has been excellent. There have been some names he could have fought of varying relevance which he hasn’t faced that he should have. Some would have added something to his record, some not particularly. He could have done more, but its not enough to wipe out what he has achieved.

Ottke cherry picked to keep his '0' so does Floyd, that is the comparison it has nothing to do with who has greater ability, that's a different argument. Mayweather has/had the talent to beat anybody up to light middle but he chose the safest path possible after the Castillo fight. That is my point I'm not comparing abilities just their approach to maintaining an unbeaten record. Only a retardo would suggest Ottke is in Mayweathers class and I certainly never said that.


When the Gene Tunney's and Archie Moore's are just about scraping into the Top 20 I certainly see no place for Floyd based on his desire to fight the best. Floyd fought in a period where there is a proliferation of belts which weakens his argument as he never sought to be the man at any weight. As a talent Mayweathers is right up there but talent never won the race.

How many all time greats have there been then? 10? Ridiculous to say he wont rank along with guys like Dempsey, Wilde, Marciano, Canzoneri or many of the other fighters considered all time greats.

Strongback wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Strongback wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its hardly a case of taking no risks with Mayweather and hes got hardly any relevance to Ottke at all other than being unbeaten. I dont even think Ottke did particularly cherry pick. He just relied on dodgy hometowning against most of the other top SMW contenders he fought. Ottke "0" is based on complete fraud. Mayweather has only had one controversial decision go his way against a vastly superior list of opposition.

I havent been a fan of the "all roads lead to Mayweather" position he has occupied since his move to welter with one fight every year at best. There are criticisms there I would fully agree with. But at the same time I dont think in order to be an all time great a fighter should be obliged to extend themselves the way Duran did. Because as admirable as it was, he ended up 1-5 against the top dogs he fought. Theres a middle ground between being a cherry picker who takes no risks and someone like Duran.

Ottos ddn't leave Germany and was protected, it was all about the '0'. Floyd is the same, he has been very selective particularly given his ridiculous level of ability. Look at the P4P Top 10, it is littered with guys who did amazing things jumping across the weights taking on the best. Armstrong was defeated many times but his peak was ridiculous in terms of who he was willing to fight. That's why we hold him in such high esteem. Floyd will never be seen in these terms.

I think it’s a weak comparison, Ottke and Mayweather, whatever way you look at it. You are comparing chalk and cheese with era’s between Armstrong and Mayweather. I haven’t seen anyone on here make a case for Mayweather ranking above Armstrong in any case. Your saying he wont be seen as top 30 material in the coming decades which given some of the fighters boxing historians and authorities have in their top 30 at the moment I think is way off. He might well fall outside the top ten but top 30, not a chance unless he does a Roy Jones.

There are valid criticisms of Mayweathers career, many of which I agree with. But I think they are being exaggerated. His overall career has been excellent. There have been some names he could have fought of varying relevance which he hasn’t faced that he should have. Some would have added something to his record, some not particularly. He could have done more, but its not enough to wipe out what he has achieved.

Ottke cherry picked to keep his '0' so does Floyd, that is the comparison it has nothing to do with who has greater ability, that's a different argument. Mayweather has/had the talent to beat anybody up to light middle but he chose the safest path possible after the Castillo fight. That is my point I'm not comparing abilities just their approach to maintaining an unbeaten record. Only a retardo would suggest Ottke is in Mayweathers class and I certainly never said that.


When the Gene Tunney's and Archie Moore's are just about scraping into the Top 20 I certainly see no place for Floyd based on his desire to fight the best. As a talent Mayweathers is right up there but talent never won the race.

Ottke didn’t cherry pick. He fought the majority of the ranked fighters in his division. Johnson, Mitchell, Brewer, Reid, Madsen, Tate and a half dozen other guys that Calzaghe also beat. Ottkes 0 was all about his hometown decisions and a record his talent didn’t had little to do with achieving. It’s a completely different scenario to Mayweather.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali (Tie)
4. Joe Louis (Tie)
6. Sam Langford
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Willie Pep
10. Bob Fitzsimmons
11. Joe Gans
12. Ezzard Charles (Tie)
12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie)
14. Jimmy Wilde
15. Eder Jofre
16. Mickey Walker
17. Archie Moore
18. Jack Dempsey
19. Jack Johnson
20. Gene Tunney

The following list is the top 20 according to the IBRO, just to pick a name from the lower reaches has Floyd really been anymore selective in his choice of opponents than Johnson was during his title reign?

So from 1997 when Ottke turned pro there were no better opponents at super middle and light heavy that Ottke could have fought. James Toney, Roy Jones Jr, Bernard Hopkins is just three of many he avoided. Any fighter that won't leave Europe is ducking, Ottke more so because he knew few of the best would be willing to fight in Germany with corrupt officials in place.

That list is ridiculous. How on earth can Ali be tied with Louis? Louis should be in the lower reaches of the top 20. How Duran is above SRL is beyond me. Greb is all myth also.

Strongback wrote:So from 1997 when Ottke turned pro there were no better opponents at super middle and light heavy that Ottke could have fought. James Toney, Roy Jones Jr, Bernard Hopkins is just three of many he avoided. Any fighter that won't leave Europe is ducking, Ottke more so because he knew few of the best would be willing to fight in Germany with corrupt officials in place.

Hopkins was never a SMW. Toney and Jones had moved up also.