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

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Williams beats him easy in your head.............

Let's see he didn't fight Pacman which wasn't all his fault and an ordinary Breland type beats him...

I've changed my mind.........Mayweather is crap.

Wonderful. Are you a barrister by trade?

No he's an Alastair Campbell fan boy hence why he talks so much sh1te and repeats himself ad infinitum. Unlike the British public in 1997 we are not as easily fooled by rhetoric delivered in a brain washing style.

Truss you are ruining a good debate.........grow up. We're not 12 years old remember.

Strongback wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Williams beats him easy in your head.............

Let's see he didn't fight Pacman which wasn't all his fault and an ordinary Breland type beats him...

I've changed my mind.........Mayweather is crap.

Wonderful. Are you a barrister by trade?

No he's an Alastair Campbell fan boy hence why he talks so much sh1te and repeats himself ad infinitum. Unlike the British public in 1997 we are not as easily fooled by rhetoric delivered in a brain washing style.

Truss you are ruining a good debate.........grow up. We're not 12 years old remember.

This guy is repeatedly abusing me......Not that it matters!! Go away your argument sucks....At least Haz knows his stuff!

I thought Haz bored you?

I've watched the fights I can have an opinion.

You wouldn't receive retorts if you didn't start it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

I bet I do.............Mayweather wanted and deserved a higher split Rowley..........He is American and the bigger name..But we won't go there.

Well this is kind of the point Haz has been making all along, if money was the only thing stopping the fight this is Floyd putting his bank balance in front of his legacy. In Manny he had the fight and opponent that would put his greatness beyond any shadow of a doubt and would have given a huge boost to his eventual ranking when the dust settled on his career. However rather than doing this he knocked it back over a perceived slight on the purse.

Is his choice ultimately but lets be honest agreeing to give Manny 50% instead of 45% would hardly have seen him in the poor house when you are taking about what would have been the highest grossing fight of all time. If you choose money over legacy not sure anyone should get too wound up over someone stating they feel he chooses money over legacy.

$100M for one fight would have come close to matching Mayweathers career earnings in the ring up to that point. Maybe it isn't always about the money.

A guy should get what he's worth don't you think??

You think Ali agrees to Frazier without the proper monetary incentive...Come on!!!

Calm reflection shows that..............

1. It's alright for Hagler to avoid Hearns..............
2. Louis never fought anybody but is still number 1....
3. Floyd never lost and it counts against him.
4. He was too good to be in any wars and that counts aginst him..

Reasoned logic....can't beat it!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:A guy should get what he's worth don't you think??

You think Ali agrees to Frazier without the proper monetary incentive...Come on!!!

Calm reflection shows that..............

1. It's alright for Hagler to avoid Hearns..............
2. Louis never fought anybody but is still number 1....
3. Floyd never lost and it counts against him.
4. He was too good to be in any wars and that counts aginst him..

Reasoned logic....can't beat it!

Will not respond to the four points as I have never argued any of those points so can only assume they are directed at someone else. I do think a fighter should get what he is worth but what he is worth is a totally subjective matter. I happen to think I am worth a damned sight more than my boss pays me, as am sure is the case for 90% of people on here.

However my point was if Floyd was truly concerned about being considered amongst the absolute elite of the sport he would have realised what the Manny fight meant in that regard and been a littlle more flexible in his demands, he chose not to, can have no complaints if folk hold it against him particularly when one considered the truly mind boggling figures we are talking about anyway.

The Manny fight doesn't mean anything because it didn't happen......and subsequent fights show that he was overrated...........

You are worth what you bring to the table..........He was bringing more than Pacman.....as regards appeal to American fans and status....

Right to turn 50/50 down..

You get what you're worth in this life.....................Never sell yourself short.

Manny is irrelevant.............You're judged on who you beat...The mark you make.....your skill levels and your achievements!!

Unless you are Floyd................

Well that is where we have to disagree Truss, the Manny fight is absolutely critical in where Floyd is ranked. Whatever Manny’s subsequent results there was a good two year period where both were in stunning form and were ranked the top two fighters in both the sport and their division. Not only this but there were enough people (I was never one of them) who felt Manny had a genuine chance of beating Floyd and even those that didn’t felt he would cause him problems or a real challenge. Struggle to see how anyone cannot hold their failure to settle the issue in the only way that counts against them.

1. Haggler beat Hearns so he didn't duck, slow to rematch yes.

2.Louis beat everyone in front of him and was the greatest puncher/ combination puncher of all time. He was an innovator and finished opponents in a manner that has never been repeated since. Louis is 1 or 2 on any published list I have read for heavyweights. He is also a Top 10 ATG P4P on these lists. You are the only person I have seen continually running him down with regurgitated propaganda.

3. Post Castillo Floyd cherry picked. He was never in danger of losing. There were better fights to cement his legacy.

All the top men lost including Ali. It's no shame and doesn't hurt his ranking.

4. He was too contrived to pick a fight that might be a war. He managed himself. No promoter there to push the tougher fights.

How can it be critical????.....Calzaghe is ranked regardless of missing out on big foe......

How can you rank on what could have been......................??????

Dempsey isn't hurt by not fighting the black guys....................

Strongy go away..............

Is $5 or $10 million a lot of money????????????

Floyd is ranked, every fighter is ranked. Missing his big fights does hurt Joe. I personally would rank him a damned sight higher had he got wins over Jones and Hopkins earlier in their career, similarly adding the names of Ottke and Tarver amongst others would boost him even further. Likewise I would rank Dempsey a lot higher had he had Wills on his ledger, although I view his reasons for not having that fight far more valid than Floyd and Manny can offer up for their refusal to face each other.

Nobody is saying Floyd is not rated all anyone is saying is some of his choice of opponents stop him being ranked as highly as his talents probably justify.

Am not ranking on what could have been am downgrading on what should have been and wasn't.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How can it be critical????.....Calzaghe is ranked regardless of missing out on big foe......

Come on now, Truss. Calzaghe himself was never considered a pound for pound number one, and much less had the number two guy in his own weight class at the same time! Do you think the call for Calzaghe-Ottke was ever even in the same stratosphere as the call for Mayweather-Pacquiao? As I said on the other thread, between 2009 and 2011, the ongoing saga between Floyd and Manny dominated the boxing media. It was all over BBC 606 and 606v2, mentioned in length (and often appeared on the cover) of countless publications, was mentioned in every post-fight interview either of the pair did and so on. It was the fight which boxing needed more than any other. No casuals would be drooling over the thought of Calzaghe-Ottke. Almost anyone who was a sports follower in any capacity was interested in Mayweather-Pacquiao, however.

To argue that his failure to meet Pacquiao when the two of them were dominating all and sundry three or four years ago is crazy, in my opinion. Do you think that anything on either man's ledger carries as much weight? A win for either Manny or Floyd against the other would have blown all of their previous or subsequent victories totally out of the water.

It's not often you get the pound for pound numbers one and two campaigning in the same weight class and pretty much both in their primes at the time. It happened with Hearns and Leonard in the early eighties, and they fought. It happened with Chavez and Whitaker in the early nineties, and they fought. Mayweather doesn't have a fight of that magnitude on his record and, annoyingly, it's not through a lack of opportunity. It will always be a stain on his record, unfortunately.

Is Dempsey overrated by history or underrated??

and If it's the former then it doesn't count for him!!

Manny could have taken less and 99% see Mayweather winning anyway.

Never said Calzaghe was number 1 Mate..........and If a fight falls through it falls through.......

Don't see why an exceptional fighter who's record stands up to other top 10 fighters gets maligned........

Every other fighter in history is ranked according to their achievements.. not a fight that didn't happen..

Am I right ??

I do think all fighters get some degree of criticism for the fights they did not take. I raised an eyebrow at someone ranking Johnson in the top ten of all time, which didn’t sit right with me given his failure to face the likes of Langford, Jeannette and McVea as champion. Hell have even seen people criticize Leonard for his failure to beat Pryor. Fairly sure a fighter losing some places for a failure to take on certain opponents is not exclusive to Floyd or Manny.

Seem to recall as well Truss you questioning Lewis’ ranking on the back of his lack of defining fight, which would suggest to me you would have him higher had he secured either Bowe when it was mooted or Tyson when he still had something left.

I think there should be some room given to Mayweather in terms of taking fights that advance his career and reputation. He wasn’t always the figure he is now. In fact Id say it was really only after the de la Hoya fight that he became a mega star with the kind of earning power he has now. He wasn’t always in a position to sit back and have his choice of opponents. His career below welterweight cant really be criticised in my opinion. He fought the quality smaller who were all highly ranked. When he moved to light welterweight, it wasn’t a case of Mayweather having his choice of his opponents due to being a mega draw superstar. If anything, there were established fighters none too keen to face him. He had to fight an eliminator to get his light welter weight shot at Gatti. I don’t think you can criticise him for taking this fight because Gatti was a big draw, the fight was big and it was a great opportunity for Mayweather. I cant really see how he can be criticised for taking care of Judah or Baldomir at welterweight either.

The de la Hoya fight gets criticised as Mayweather putting dollars before legacy. But its this fight that really turned him from a star among the boxing hardcore to a star among the wider public. De la Hoya was past his best but at light middleweight he was no push over either. Its not the duff fight some people argue. I cant really understand people saying he should have fought guys like Margarito or Williams instead. No fighter in that position would.

My criticism of Mayweather would only start when he did actually become the “all road lead to Mayweather” fighter after his brief post Hatton retirement. He could have done a lot more in that welter division and I would say an unbeaten Cotto and Pacquiao were very poor fights to miss out on as well as being too inactive and not pushing himself as hard as he could to take on the toughest challenges.

When you take his whole career with the good and the bad though I find it very difficult to argue he isn’t an all time great worthy of a top 30 berth. Especially when you consider the faults of many fighters ahead of him. Its possible to be an all time great but still have elements of your career that can be faulted. However on this particular thread it comes across like Mayweather is the only fighter guilty of things that plent of other all time greats could be faulted for as well.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never said Calzaghe was number 1 Mate..........and If a fight falls through it falls through.......

Don't see why an exceptional fighter who's record stands up to other top 10 fighters gets maligned........

Every other fighter in history is ranked according to their achievements.. not a fight that didn't happen..

Am I right ??

Nobody is maligning Mayweather as far as I can see. There's been plenty of praise for his talent, dedication and achievements on this thread, just as there is on every other thread which has ever been posted about him. That doesn't mean he's beyond questioning though, and rather than maligning him I think most people are just highlighting that, in failing to meet Pacquiao, he did himself out of the opportunity to be considered even greater than he already is. To call that maligning is a bit of an overreaction, for me.

As for your second point - well like I said earlier, there is basically no other fighter in Floyd's league (so in short, someone who would command a place in the top twenty or so pound for pound fighters in history) who has such a cloud hanging over them in terms of making a certain fight not happen. If the case of Mayweather-Pacquiao and all of its circumstances was the norm, and other cases from years gone by were given a pass for it, then I'd see your point more. But sadly, all of those other fighters met their ultimate career rivals in question at least once. Mayweather's the only one who hasn't. On that basis, you simply can't ignore it, for me.

There is no consistency to the Mayweather arguments Chris........

1. No other fighter in history has his legacy diminished by fights that didn't happen!! Dempsey the prime example..

2. Louis is measured on longevity alone and is number 1 in many eyes regardless of competition...

3. Hagler said after Mugabi " Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch" forgetting he'd just banged out the numbr 1 WBC/WBA contender inShuler and there first fight was fight of the decade!! He gets a free pass.

4. Mayweather has never been in any wars!!

Just want consistency..............

As for Top 30 well I won't dignify that with a response.

Not really central to the debate but should be mentioend Dempsey signed to fight Wills as in put his signature on a contract on at least one occasion.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There is no consistency to the Mayweather arguments Chris........

1. No other fighter in history has his legacy diminished by fights that didn't happen!! Dempsey the prime example..

2. Louis is measured on longevity alone and is number 1 in many eyes regardless of competition...

3. Hagler said after Mugabi " Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch" forgetting he'd just banged out the numbr 1 WBC/WBA contender inShuler and there first fight was fight of the decade!! He gets a free pass.

4. Mayweather has never been in any wars!!

Just want consistency..............

As for Top 30 well I won't dignify that with a response.

1) No other elite pound for pound operator (which Dempsey isn't) has that kind of cloud hanging over them, as I said before. Hence, Mayweather has to take some stick for it.

2) Louis, like Dempsey, is seldom cited as a top pound for pound fighter in these here parts, and likewise there is no opponent from his era who was in demand, at a similar level and made superb financial sense which he failed to take on.

3) Hagler had already beaten Hearns, at least. You can't really draw comparisons to someone who beats a prime version of a massive rival and doesn't rematch them to someone who simply never faced that rival in any capacity in the first place?

4) I'm not sure what this has got to do with anything!

Duran could have fought Hearns again?????? but didn't...

Dear oh dear..

Truss, I really don't understand what you're talking about here anymore. Duran to Hearns most definitely isn't what Pacquiao is to Floyd, or vice versa. They didn't peak at the same time and didn't coincide as pound for pound number one and two in the same weight class - Mayweather and Pacquiao did.

And again, Hearns and Duran fought, for whatever it was worth (and it wasn't worth as much as Floyd-Manny would have been). The fact that Floyd and Manny didn't fight seems lost on you.

I'm literally embarrassed at seeing anyone argue that Mayweather's record doesn't get blotched by never fighting Pacquiao.

I'm saying Duran never wanted a Hearns rematch..........Though he pursued Hagler and Leonard.............Hence he avoided Hearns...............

Now Manny priced himself out of a Floyd fight..............Floyd never avoided Manny..he just wanted his fair share...

50/50 isn't a fair share............Fighting a faceless foreigner............

Once again, Truss. There's one big difference. Hearns and Duran fought. Mayweather and Pacquiao haven't. Pretty black and white, really.

It's also black and white that the fight they shared wasn't of the same magnitude that Mayweather-Pacquiao would have been in 2010 in any case. However, I'm sure you'll point blank refuse to acknowledge this again.

A "faceless foreigner?" I despair. That faceless foreigner has been, along with Mayweather, the biggest global star in the sport in the past few years. He's attracted crowds of 50,000 to watch him fight, and done this in the good ol' US of A, no less. He's visited the White House and dined with President Obama. And you call him a faceless foreigner?

Would Floyd, by taking 'only' fifty percent of the purse, still have made more for fighting Pacquiao than he would from any other fight of his career to date, even the ones in which he's taken three quarters of it? Yes, of course he would.

And who exactly did more to make the prospect of a fight between the pair so attractive? If you'd have mentioned the idea of them fighting before December 2008, most would have laughed. With Pacquiao blitzing Oscar, Hatton and Cotto in succession, each performance better than the last, it was him who was adding to the expectation every time he boxed. He did plenty to contribute to the fight being so (potentially) huge.

I fail to see how Manny priced himself out. It was Floyd who made financial demands, Floyd who said that he'd only be interested in making the fight happen if Pacquiao ditched Arum, Floyd who suddenly became hell-bent on 'cleaning up the sport' when he'd never shown any inclination to do so before such a huge challenge presented itself.

Give me one other fighter that is rated on who he didn't fight??????????

Dempsey gets a pass.....................

Hagler avoided Hearns..................no one is interested....

Fact is you don't like to rate modern fighters highly end of.

ESPN pound for pound alltime list..........

Dempsey is number 9...........Doesn't affect him.

You don't think some people count Wills against Dempsey, this thread would suggest otherwise

https://www.606v2.com/t11575-1963-article-by-jack-dempsey

You've broken my will, Truss. Congratulations. If I was rating Mayweather purely "on who he didn't fight" then how would I have him as high as I do in the all-time stakes? You're starting to get a little D4esque in your protection of Floyd and your overreaction whenever anyone says anything less than glowing about him, chap.

That last post of yours is basically just a mash up of points which aren't valid in direct comparison to Floyd and Manny (and I've already explained why more than once, no sense in banging my head against the v2 brick wall any further), and that last statement you've made about who I rate and why is a miserable one with basically nothing to back it up.

You win, well played.

It doesn't affect him in the lists............and with the historians that matter...Bert Sugar, Fleischer and Arcel........

Not suggesting it shouldn't... just that consistency would be nice..

Breaking wills...........

That's how we won the war of independence...........

How can you say it doesn't affect him Truss, may well be the case they would have him at 7 rather than 9 had he fought Wills.

Looking at his record and the guys behind him.....Kind of suggests he is unforgivably high...........and not being judged too harshly for not fighting him...

You can agree with that summation surely..

All I'm suggesting is consistency in regards to rating fighters...

I do think 9 is way too high for Dempsey but most lists rank heavies too high for my liking, however I struggle to follow the logic because Dempsey is rated too high I should rank other fighters higher than I believe they deserve.

Not suggesting you do.............Suggesting you apply the principle it's who you beat that counts and your longevity....as in Dempsey's case..

Here's Dan Rafael's take on it:

FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR.
Junior middleweight and welterweight titlist
Record: 43-0, 26 KOs
Age: 35


Hits: Mayweather, a five-division champion and surefire Hall of Famer, fought only once in 2012, his decision victory against Miguel Cotto to claim a 154-pound world title in May in an excellent fight. But Mayweather plans to fight twice in 2013, which is good for the boxing business. Through adviser Leonard Ellerbe, Mayweather announced he plans to fight on May 4 and Sept. 14 (opponents TBA). Here's hoping that he follows through on the plan because he has not fought as many as two times in one year since 2007.

Misses: The hunger for the fight that the boxing world wanted to see for so long -- Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao -- bit the dust when Juan Manuel Marquez knocked out Pacquiao with one shot in the sixth round on Dec. 8. No matter what happens in the future, even if they do eventually fight, it will never be a fight of the magnitude it would have been if they had met at some point in the past two or three years. And much of the blame for that falls on Mayweather, because of the untenable financial limits he placed on Pacquiao. Mayweather will go down as an all-time great, but he will always get points off for not facing Pacquiao when they were both at their best.

Or we could just make up our own minds.

How many horses has Mayweather knocked out?

End of discussion.

Rowley wrote:Not really central to the debate but should be mentioend Dempsey signed to fight Wills as in put his signature on a contract on at least one occasion.

Wasn't there also the issue of no promotor wanting to be involved in an inter racial fight following the disaster and rioting that followed the Jeffries vs Johnson bout. The government had no desire to see that kind of trouble again.

After Dempsey did sign the Wills fight he never received his signing on fee so that was that.

Strongback wrote:

Rowley wrote:Not really central to the debate but should be mentioend Dempsey signed to fight Wills as in put his signature on a contract on at least one occasion.

Wasn't there also the issue of no promotor wanting to be involved in an inter racial fight following the disaster and rioting that followed the Jeffries vs Johnson bout. The government had no desire to see that kind of trouble again.

After Dempsey did sign the Wills fight he never received his signing on fee so that was that.

Not central to the debate but Mayweather was in negotiations to fight Pacman...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Rowley wrote:Not really central to the debate but should be mentioend Dempsey signed to fight Wills as in put his signature on a contract on at least one occasion.

Wasn't there also the issue of no promotor wanting to be involved in an inter racial fight following the disaster and rioting that followed the Jeffries vs Johnson bout. The government had no desire to see that kind of trouble again.

After Dempsey did sign the Wills fight he never received his signing on fee so that was that.

Not central to the debate but Mayweather was in negotiations to fight Pacman...

Floyd did get close to agreeing a contract. Dempsey signed one.

$100,000,000 each up in smoke.

Not interested in your opinion....You've been outed as a Boxing deadbeat.

dead·beat 1  (ddbt) Slang
n.
1. One who does not pay one's debts.
2. A lazy person; a loafer.
adj.
Not fulfilling one's obligations or paying one's debts: a deadbeat dad.


Not sure about the appropriate use of the American word deadbeat. Maybe they use it differently in Manchester.


Read back through the thread I was in at the start saying Mayweather is a cherry picker.


Joe Louis is a Top 10 great in every recognised published Top 10 ATG list out there. Have a look for yourself.

Joe Louis is top 10 which is my point.....He never fought anybody and had less longevity..

Could we please debate this sensibly without the personal jibes, we've all had a decent argument by and large about this on something we are very unlikely to agree on.

Louis being in the top ten is why I tend to ignore published p4p lists they favour heavyweights too strongly, the IBRO are very good with their divisional rankings but their p4p list is all over the place as is the ring magazines.

Louis fought everybody and was a great innovator. The greatest puncher/ combo puncher of all time. He had great skill, fought regularly until the war. he couldn't have done more.

Mayweather could have been up there with all the great slicksters like the Ray's, Ali etc but he won't be whether we like it or not.

Shut up....You don't know what you're talking about

Great innovator.. Innovated well against Schmelling and conn and lost to the best fighters he fought..


Who did Louis beat as good as Marquez and Oscar????????

Strongback wrote:Louis fought everybody and was a great innovator. The greatest puncher/ combo puncher of all time. He had great skill, fought regularly until the war. he couldn't have done more.

Mayweather could have been up there with all the great slicksters like the Ray's, Ali etc but he won't be whether we like it or not.

What did he innovate?

Two Trussman retractions when he is losing a debate:

1 You don't know what you're talking about.

2. You bore me.


He can't get away with those with mods though.

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Louis fought everybody and was a great innovator. The greatest puncher/ combo puncher of all time. He had great skill, fought regularly until the war. he couldn't have done more.

Mayweather could have been up there with all the great slicksters like the Ray's, Ali etc but he won't be whether we like it or not.

What did he innovate?

Bum of the Month ??