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

Murray Sutherland and Luigi Minchillo both went the distance in the two fights before Duran....

They seemed to cope better..........

Az, here's a simple answer for you, and not one that I personally hold, but JCC and Duran both had around twice the number of fights that Floyd has had, and fought everyone that anyone ever wanted to seee them fight. They both dominated divisions in a way that serial weight jumper Floyd hasn't, and they both had a much more pleasing style, and vast armies of Hispanic fans that love their fighter to be just that, not safety first purists.
as I said these aren't views that I hold personally, but it's easy to see why people rate them higher. I can't understand why everyone gets so heated about who rates who higher,and who's overrated. Personally I couldn't give a toss either way.

What is wrong with being a weight jumper...........You telling me Floyd doesn't dominate any division he wants to...

He looked for challenges.....

So you'd rather Hagler dominated 160 against Roldan and Hamsho than fight SPINKS would you..

Leave it out..

Floyd hasn't dominated welterweight since he arrived there.

The Spinks match was never seriously mooted. It was a lot harder to pesh about with weight in Hagler's day. Potions and powders weren't the norm like in 2013. Same day weigh ins made it harder for fighters to campaign at unnatural weights. Super middleweight was in its infancy and not taken very seriously next to 160 lbs.

I'd much rather there were 8 divisions and fighters stuck to one. You'd have far more competitive fights, far more clarity and far less smoke and mirrors.

It wasn't mooted because Hagler wasn't interested.....

Didn't know you two were pals?

Robinson, Walker, Greb, Tiger and Fitzsimmons of the top of my head were all middleweight champions who tried their hand at higher weights, you seem to be suggesting weight hopping was harder back then but Hagler was surrounded by weight hoppers. He made his name against weight hoppers.

Haz likes Hagler...Ghosty!!

So that's different...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What is wrong with being a weight jumper...........You telling me Floyd doesn't dominate any division he wants to...

He looked for challenges.....

So you'd rather Hagler dominated 160 against Roldan and Hamsho than fight SPINKS would you..

Leave it out..

As I said in my answer Truss, I don't. Try reading before commenting.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haz likes Hagler...Ghosty!!

So that's different...

He like Monzon had a great light heavyweight to move up to face so I don't hold it against either but it means they don't get as much credit as others who tried even if they failed.

You're damned If you do and damned If you don't...............weight jump.

Spinks didn't rate Hagler.........After the McDonald fight "Where have all the great fighters gone!!...Guess I'm the last of the great fighters!!"

Have to hear all the crud that Oscar never dominated a division...

Oscar fought everybody and still gets little respect.......Mayweather beat everybody and gets little...

I think you imagine things Truss, De La Hoya and Mayweather get a lot of credit it just happens you rate them higher than most so end up thinking anyone who disagrees doesn't rate them at all.

horizontalhero wrote:Az, here's a simple answer for you, and not one that I personally hold, but JCC and Duran both had around twice the number of fights that Floyd has had, and fought everyone that anyone ever wanted to seee them fight. They both dominated divisions in a way that serial weight jumper Floyd hasn't, and they both had a much more pleasing style, and vast armies of Hispanic fans that love their fighter to be just that, not safety first purists.
as I said these aren't views that I hold personally, but it's easy to see why people rate them higher. I can't understand why everyone gets so heated about who rates who higher,and who's overrated. Personally I couldn't give a toss either way.

Peter Buckley must be the best British fighter ever given the number of fights he's had. He;s also fought everyone.

So you're now basing it on the number of fights those guys had. Well how many did Louis have compared to Duran and JCC? Therefore they must be higher up the rankings. They fought better fighters and could throw combinations.

What irks me is that supposed boxing fans mark down one of the best ever because they don't like his personality. I can't stand SRL but can see quality when I see it without stupid nit picking.

hazharrison wrote:Here's 25 -- courtesy of Bert Sugar:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson
11. Mickey Walker
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Gene Tunney
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Joe Gans
16. Sam Langford
17. Julio Cesar Chavez
18. Jimmy Wilde
19. Stanley Ketchel
20 Barney Ross
21, Jimmy McLarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Marcel Cerdan
24. Ezzard Charles
25. Sugar Ray Leonard

How can you take a guy seriously who can't even light a cigar? Leonard at 25? It's Colombia's finest he's been smoking.

Rocky at 14? Is that fool suggesting that pound for pound Rocky was a better fighter than SRL? Or even achieved more? I'm going to the pub, then to the mosque after visiting the synagogue to open my bible and pray for his salvation. By the belly of Buddha this guy was nuts.

Why pick on Rocky when Chavez is 8 places above Leonard and 7 above Charles!..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why pick on Rocky when Chavez is 8 places above Leonard and 7 above Charles!..

I totally missed Chavez. It seems Sugar loved his fighters to block punches with their faces.

Az you can say you don't like Leonard all you want, it's not going to make anyone believe you.

Volume of fights isn't the be all and end all but if you fight more then there's a higher probability you're going to lose more, general wear and tear, off nights, less preparation at which point a bit more leeway is given for a defeat. I also don't think Mayweathers personality has anything to do with people marking him down, I rate him higher than almost anyone on here but most of the criticism directed towards him is valid.

Were he to have faced and beaten Tzuyu, Pacquiao, younger Cotto and Mosley as well as going on to beat Guerrero and Alvarez/Trout then he becomes a serious candidate for being the best ever, the fact he wins most of them at a canter isn't the same as actually doing it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Robinson, Walker, Greb, Tiger and Fitzsimmons of the top of my head were all middleweight champions who tried their hand at higher weights, you seem to be suggesting weight hopping was harder back then but Hagler was surrounded by weight hoppers. He made his name against weight hoppers.

So he should have been one too? Some fighters are better suited to one division. Doesn't make them lesser fighters (especially back when the next bonafide weight was 15 lbs away).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I think you imagine things Truss, De La Hoya and Mayweather get a lot of credit it just happens you rate them higher than most so end up thinking anyone who disagrees doesn't rate them at all.

Bingo.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Az you can say you don't like Leonard all you want, it's not going to make anyone believe you.

Volume of fights isn't the be all and end all but if you fight more then there's a higher probability you're going to lose more, general wear and tear, off nights, less preparation at which point a bit more leeway is given for a defeat. I also don't think Mayweathers personality has anything to do with people marking him down, I rate him higher than almost anyone on here but most of the criticism directed towards him is valid.

Were he to have faced and beaten Tzuyu, Pacquiao, younger Cotto and Mosley as well as going on to beat Guerrero and Alvarez/Trout then he becomes a serious candidate for being the best ever, the fact he wins most of them at a canter isn't the same as actually doing it.

I don't give a hoot who believes me or not. I don't allow personal likes or dislikes to cloud my judgement. Ali is my favourite fighter even followed by Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Dempsey. SRL ranked so low it doesn't bare mentioning. I wanted LaLonde to slaughter him.

No matter how hard you prep and train, everyone can have an off night. But if a modern boxer has an off night and loses he gets slaughtered. If a favoured fighter like Duran has an off night he gets a pass. There is no excuse for losing to Laing. None. Apply everything across the board.

hazharrison wrote:Here's 25 -- courtesy of Bert Sugar:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson
11. Mickey Walker
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Gene Tunney
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Joe Gans
16. Sam Langford
17. Julio Cesar Chavez
18. Jimmy Wilde
19. Stanley Ketchel
20 Barney Ross
21, Jimmy McLarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Marcel Cerdan
24. Ezzard Charles
25. Sugar Ray Leonard

Those highlighted are in the completely wrong placing not to say the rest is particularly accurate either, Ross at 20 below Chavez is plainly wrong but they are at least only 3/4 positions out.

Surprised the most gifted boxer in history is not there. No RJJ. Crazy list.

azania wrote:Surprised the most gifted boxer in history is not there. No RJJ. Crazy list.

It isn't a list based on "most gifted".

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Az you can say you don't like Leonard all you want, it's not going to make anyone believe you.

Volume of fights isn't the be all and end all but if you fight more then there's a higher probability you're going to lose more, general wear and tear, off nights, less preparation at which point a bit more leeway is given for a defeat. I also don't think Mayweathers personality has anything to do with people marking him down, I rate him higher than almost anyone on here but most of the criticism directed towards him is valid.

Were he to have faced and beaten Tzuyu, Pacquiao, younger Cotto and Mosley as well as going on to beat Guerrero and Alvarez/Trout then he becomes a serious candidate for being the best ever, the fact he wins most of them at a canter isn't the same as actually doing it.

I don't give a hoot who believes me or not. I don't allow personal likes or dislikes to cloud my judgement. Ali is my favourite fighter even followed by Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Dempsey. SRL ranked so low it doesn't bare mentioning. I wanted LaLonde to slaughter him.

No matter how hard you prep and train, everyone can have an off night. But if a modern boxer has an off night and loses he gets slaughtered. If a favoured fighter like Duran has an off night he gets a pass. There is no excuse for losing to Laing. None. Apply everything across the board.

It seems to me that Duran is judged on different criteria to everyone else, as if he should win every fight regardless of how many pounds above his natural weightclass he is. The thing is he wasn't even a natural lightweight, he stepped up to face Buchanan because the featherweights and Super featherweights didn't want to face him. You can say he shouldn't be losing to Laing but anything above welterweight and he was clearly just a short fat guy who could occasionally pull it out the bag.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Surprised the most gifted boxer in history is not there. No RJJ. Crazy list.

It isn't a list based on "most gifted".

10 years as the acknowledged No 1 P4P boxer on the planet. Who else has done that?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Az you can say you don't like Leonard all you want, it's not going to make anyone believe you.

Volume of fights isn't the be all and end all but if you fight more then there's a higher probability you're going to lose more, general wear and tear, off nights, less preparation at which point a bit more leeway is given for a defeat. I also don't think Mayweathers personality has anything to do with people marking him down, I rate him higher than almost anyone on here but most of the criticism directed towards him is valid.

Were he to have faced and beaten Tzuyu, Pacquiao, younger Cotto and Mosley as well as going on to beat Guerrero and Alvarez/Trout then he becomes a serious candidate for being the best ever, the fact he wins most of them at a canter isn't the same as actually doing it.

I don't give a hoot who believes me or not. I don't allow personal likes or dislikes to cloud my judgement. Ali is my favourite fighter even followed by Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Dempsey. SRL ranked so low it doesn't bare mentioning. I wanted LaLonde to slaughter him.

No matter how hard you prep and train, everyone can have an off night. But if a modern boxer has an off night and loses he gets slaughtered. If a favoured fighter like Duran has an off night he gets a pass. There is no excuse for losing to Laing. None. Apply everything across the board.

It seems to me that Duran is judged on different criteria to everyone else, as if he should win every fight regardless of how many pounds above his natural weightclass he is. The thing is he wasn't even a natural lightweight, he stepped up to face Buchanan because the featherweights and Super featherweights didn't want to face him. You can say he shouldn't be losing to Laing but anything above welterweight and he was clearly just a short fat guy who could occasionally pull it out the bag.

For crissakes. He was a fat guy at WW? Spare me the excuses. He was an animal. A fat guy doesn't beat up SRL. Beat up Palomino. He picked Laing because Laing was thought to have a simplar style to SRL. Now he is a short fat guy. Perhaps that's the excuse Floyd should give if he ever loses.

It was actually 3 years.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It was actually 3 years.

Was it? I doubt that. Who overtook him?

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Az you can say you don't like Leonard all you want, it's not going to make anyone believe you.

Volume of fights isn't the be all and end all but if you fight more then there's a higher probability you're going to lose more, general wear and tear, off nights, less preparation at which point a bit more leeway is given for a defeat. I also don't think Mayweathers personality has anything to do with people marking him down, I rate him higher than almost anyone on here but most of the criticism directed towards him is valid.

Were he to have faced and beaten Tzuyu, Pacquiao, younger Cotto and Mosley as well as going on to beat Guerrero and Alvarez/Trout then he becomes a serious candidate for being the best ever, the fact he wins most of them at a canter isn't the same as actually doing it.

I don't give a hoot who believes me or not. I don't allow personal likes or dislikes to cloud my judgement. Ali is my favourite fighter even followed by Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Dempsey. SRL ranked so low it doesn't bare mentioning. I wanted LaLonde to slaughter him.

No matter how hard you prep and train, everyone can have an off night. But if a modern boxer has an off night and loses he gets slaughtered. If a favoured fighter like Duran has an off night he gets a pass. There is no excuse for losing to Laing. None. Apply everything across the board.

It seems to me that Duran is judged on different criteria to everyone else, as if he should win every fight regardless of how many pounds above his natural weightclass he is. The thing is he wasn't even a natural lightweight, he stepped up to face Buchanan because the featherweights and Super featherweights didn't want to face him. You can say he shouldn't be losing to Laing but anything above welterweight and he was clearly just a short fat guy who could occasionally pull it out the bag.

For crissakes. He was a fat guy at WW? Spare me the excuses. He was an animal. A fat guy doesn't beat up SRL. Beat up Palomino. He picked Laing because Laing was thought to have a simplar style to SRL. Now he is a short fat guy. Perhaps that's the excuse Floyd should give if he ever loses.

Well he was a short fat guy above Welterweight, all you have to do is look at him with your eyes to see that while we can quite clearly see that Mayweather isn't fat. Simple reasoning really. Starting at 126lbs he ended up at 154lbs by putting on 28lbs of muscle, yes because that happens all the time doesn't it.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It was actually 3 years.

Was it? I doubt that. Who overtook him?

De La Hoya, Mosley and Hopkins all for 2 years each.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It was actually 3 years.

Was it? I doubt that. Who overtook him?

Ha ha. He's right, 3 years. Same as Chavez.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Az you can say you don't like Leonard all you want, it's not going to make anyone believe you.

Volume of fights isn't the be all and end all but if you fight more then there's a higher probability you're going to lose more, general wear and tear, off nights, less preparation at which point a bit more leeway is given for a defeat. I also don't think Mayweathers personality has anything to do with people marking him down, I rate him higher than almost anyone on here but most of the criticism directed towards him is valid.

Were he to have faced and beaten Tzuyu, Pacquiao, younger Cotto and Mosley as well as going on to beat Guerrero and Alvarez/Trout then he becomes a serious candidate for being the best ever, the fact he wins most of them at a canter isn't the same as actually doing it.

I don't give a hoot who believes me or not. I don't allow personal likes or dislikes to cloud my judgement. Ali is my favourite fighter even followed by Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Dempsey. SRL ranked so low it doesn't bare mentioning. I wanted LaLonde to slaughter him.

No matter how hard you prep and train, everyone can have an off night. But if a modern boxer has an off night and loses he gets slaughtered. If a favoured fighter like Duran has an off night he gets a pass. There is no excuse for losing to Laing. None. Apply everything across the board.

It seems to me that Duran is judged on different criteria to everyone else, as if he should win every fight regardless of how many pounds above his natural weightclass he is. The thing is he wasn't even a natural lightweight, he stepped up to face Buchanan because the featherweights and Super featherweights didn't want to face him. You can say he shouldn't be losing to Laing but anything above welterweight and he was clearly just a short fat guy who could occasionally pull it out the bag.

For crissakes. He was a fat guy at WW? Spare me the excuses. He was an animal. A fat guy doesn't beat up SRL. Beat up Palomino. He picked Laing because Laing was thought to have a simplar style to SRL. Now he is a short fat guy. Perhaps that's the excuse Floyd should give if he ever loses.

Well he was a short fat guy above Welterweight, all you have to do is look at him with your eyes to see that while we can quite clearly see that Mayweather isn't fat. Simple reasoning really. Starting at 126lbs he ended up at 154lbs by putting on 28lbs of muscle, yes because that happens all the time doesn't it.

There were some dodgy rumours floating about on that very subject:

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/other-boxing-news/the-ped-mess-part-one

Haz, never mind ESPN or Boxing News or whatever, where do YOU rate FMJ?

Which 25 boxers do YOU rate above him?

Why do you rate him so low?

What fights had they been made may have made you reconsider your assessment?

...had he won those fight's where would you rate him?

Do you rate him low because he never fought them, or because you think he would have been beaten had he taken those fights?

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:Az, here's a simple answer for you, and not one that I personally hold, but JCC and Duran both had around twice the number of fights that Floyd has had, and fought everyone that anyone ever wanted to seee them fight. They both dominated divisions in a way that serial weight jumper Floyd hasn't, and they both had a much more pleasing style, and vast armies of Hispanic fans that love their fighter to be just that, not safety first purists.
as I said these aren't views that I hold personally, but it's easy to see why people rate them higher. I can't understand why everyone gets so heated about who rates who higher,and who's overrated. Personally I couldn't give a toss either way.

Peter Buckley must be the best British fighter ever given the number of fights he's had. He;s also fought everyone.

So you're now basing it on the number of fights those guys had. Well how many did Louis have compared to Duran and JCC? Therefore they must be higher up the rankings. They fought better fighters and could throw combinations.

What irks me is that supposed boxing fans mark down one of the best ever because they don't like his personality. I can't stand SRL but can see quality when I see it without stupid nit picking.

Read what wrote FFS. I gave you a reason why some people choose to rate JCC or Duran higher than Floyd. As I said they aren't views that I hold personally. Again I repeat , I couldn't care less who rates who higher, you rate Floyd higher? good for you, others rate JCC higher? Bully for them. I think they were all great boxers, and don't feel the need to put them in list. Do you or Truss actually read what other people write on here?

Id struggle to see an argument for the likes of Johnson, Dempsey, Ketchel, Marciano, Cerdan or Wilde rating above Mayweather, nevermind some of the other name on Sugars list. Too much emphasis is put on these kind of lists anyway.

The Ring list heavily favours modern fighters so will please some and disappoint the historians. The list is from 2002 and it can already be seen that a decade has changed the consensus on some fighters.


1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Archie Moore
15. Sandy Saddler
16. Jack Dempsey
17. Marvin Hagler
18. Julio Cesar Chavez
19. Eder Jofre
20. Alexis Arguello
21. Barney Ross
22. Evander Holyfield
23. Ike Williams
24. Salvador Sanchez
25. George Foreman
26. Kid Gavilian
27. Larry Holmes
28. Mickey Walker
29. Ruben Olivares
30. Gene Tunney
31. Dick Tiger
32. Fighting Harada
33. Emile Griffith
34. Tony Canzoneri
35. Aaron Pryor
36. Pascual Perez
37. Miguel Canto
38. Manuel Ortiz
39. Charley Burley
40. Carmen Basilio
41. Michael Spinks
42. Joe Frazier
43. Khaosai Galaxy
44. Roy Jones Jr.
45. Tiger Flowers
46. Panama Al Brown
47. Kid Chocolate
48. Joe Brown
49. Tommy Loughran
50. Bernard Hopkins
51. Felix Trinidad
52. Jake LaMotta
53. Lennox Lewis
54. Wilfredo Gomez
55. Bob Foster
56. Jose Napoles
57. Billy Conn
58. Jimmy McLarnin
59. Pancho Villa
60. Carlos Ortiz
61. Bob Montgomery
62. Freddie Miller
63. Benny Lynch
64. Beau Jack
65. Azumah Nelson
66. Eusebio Pedroza
67. Thomas Hearns
68. Wilfred Benitez
69. Antonio Cervantes
70. Ricardo Lopez
71. Sonny Liston
72. Mike Tyson
73. Vicente Saldivar
74. Gene Fullmer
75. Oscar De La Hoya
76. Carlos Zarate
77. Marcel Cerdan
78. Flash Elorde
79. Mike McCallum
80. Harold Johnson

What about Roy Jones Jr compared to Mayweather?

My take is they will be very close in the ATG rankings when the dust settles. RJJ's opposition not unlike Mayweather's could have been more testing.

In terms of natural talent how do they compare?

Holy above Holmes? Unbelievable.

Strongback wrote:What about Roy Jones Jr compared to Mayweather?

My take is they will be very close in the ATG rankings when the dust settles. RJJ's opposition not unlike Mayweather's could have been more testing.

In terms of natural talent how do they compare?

Maybe because RJJ made them look average. He was that good. Louis fought bums but you rate him at 4 because he could throw combinations when others threw whatever they could. RJJ could throw everything and made it look so easy. The only boxer in history who perfected the art of hit and not get hit that he went 3 minutes without a punch landing on him. Easily top 10 seeing as you rate Louis on talent more than who he fought.

How do you compare him to Mayweather is the question I put toward.



You think Louis only fought bums. Who did Larry Holmes fight? One of his best wins in Gerry Cooney. Joe Louis eats Cooney for breakfast.

Louis doesn't get beat by the first proper world level fighter he meets twice in a row, as in Spinks.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Haz, never mind ESPN or Boxing News or whatever, where do YOU rate FMJ?

Which 25 boxers do YOU rate above him?

Why do you rate him so low?

What fights had they been made may have made you reconsider your assessment?

...had he won those fight's where would you rate him?

Do you rate him low because he never fought them, or because you think he would have been beaten had he taken those fights?

It's tough because I have all the time in the world for Floyd from an aesthetic point of view. But I can't have him above men who took on their greatest rivals and actively sought out challenges. How can you rate Mayweather above modern greats such as Whitaker, Hagler and Hearns for example? I can't.

I go along with BN and McGrain and see him outside the top 30. He chose money over legacy (again, nothing wrong with that - most legends end up unable to remember what day it is - Floyd wanted to try another route).

Had he polished off Hatton and then looked to clean up welterweight, beating the unbeaten Cotto (look how well the faded Cotto did against him), a not yet clapped-out Mosley and one of Williams and Margarito then wow - that would have been something.

The real clincher, though, is Pacquiao. Had Floyd walloped him a few years ago when he was red hot, then he'd have cracked the top 20 for me (can't see him opposing Leonard unless he'd mopped up the aforementioned quartet). As I said previously, I firmly believe he could have won all of those but they'd have been bloody tough fights. Which is the point.

It's almost sacreligious to place Floyd above men who went through hell in order to become true champions. Since the Castillo scare, that hasn't been Mayweather's prerogative. And that's why he's marked down - nothing at all to do with his ability.

There is one last fight out there available to him that would enhance his historical ranking; Martinez at middleweight, however, as I argued with Truss, some fighters aren't suited to certain weights and so I'm cool with him staying at 147. There just aren't any legacy-enhancing fights for him there anymore. He's even talking about not bothering with Canelo (who's done next to nothing so far as a pro).

There was another thread talking about how tough it was for modern guys to crack ATG lists. It's possible but if the modern guy is going to fight less, then they need to be lucky enough to have tough competition available to them and they need to then face and beat said competition. Floyd had that available to him which is the great shame.

Strongback wrote:How do you compare him to Mayweather is the question I put toward.



You think Louis only fought bums. Who did Larry Holmes fight? One of his best wins in Gerry Cooney. Joe Louis eats Cooney for breakfast.

Louis doesn't get beat by the first proper world level fighter he meets twice in a row, as in Spinks.

Who did Louis fight that was nearly as good as Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney, Snipes? Two ton Galento? The best of Louis' opponents was on par with Evangelista.

It's almost sacreligious to place Floyd above men who went through hell in order to become true champions.

That's the thing. You want Floyd to score an exciting come from behind win in a wild shoot out before you rate him. He is cursed by his own talent for being too good.

azania wrote:It's almost sacreligious to place Floyd above men who went through hell in order to become true champions.

That's the thing. You want Floyd to score an exciting come from behind win in a wild shoot out before you rate him. He is cursed by his own talent for being too good.

That's not the case. If he'd proven his superiority over Pacquiao at a canter then that'd have been even more impressive. The point is he didn't want to prove he was the best at welterweight.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:It's almost sacreligious to place Floyd above men who went through hell in order to become true champions.

That's the thing. You want Floyd to score an exciting come from behind win in a wild shoot out before you rate him. He is cursed by his own talent for being too good.

That's not the case. If he'd proven his superiority over Pacquiao at a canter then that'd have been even more impressive. The point is he didn't want to prove he was the best at welterweight.

Nonsense. If he had beaten Pac easily many would have said Pac was a blown up FW. Look at how people have described the Hatton win saying that Hatton was small at the weight, ignoring that Floyd is smaller than Hatton. Talented guys get marked down because they win easily. Look at the list. Generally filled with full of face first, fan friendly fighters. What is Dempsey doing on any of those lists? Please!

Hazharrison,

From what I can see the basis of your argument against Mayweather is that 1. He did not fight Pacquiao and 2. He did not test himself enough above at welterweight and above.

Personally I would accept these arguments if you wanted to state a case of him not being top ten. If you want to exclude him from the company of Robinson, Leonard, Greb, Armstrong, Ali etc then I wont particularly argue that point.

But you saying he isn’t an all time great or isn’t worth a top thirty spot. What is an all time great? A top thirty? A top forty? Is de la Hoya an all time great because he fought almost everyone across several divisions, notwithstanding his win/loss ratio against them?

Can you really say that Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson for arguments sake are all time greats that warrant placing above Mayweathers accomplishments?

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:It's almost sacreligious to place Floyd above men who went through hell in order to become true champions.

That's the thing. You want Floyd to score an exciting come from behind win in a wild shoot out before you rate him. He is cursed by his own talent for being too good.

That's not the case. If he'd proven his superiority over Pacquiao at a canter then that'd have been even more impressive. The point is he didn't want to prove he was the best at welterweight.

Nonsense. If he had beaten Pac easily many would have said Pac was a blown up FW. Look at how people have described the Hatton win saying that Hatton was small at the weight, ignoring that Floyd is smaller than Hatton. Talented guys get marked down because they win easily. Look at the list. Generally filled with full of face first, fan friendly fighters. What is Dempsey doing on any of those lists? Please!

Nonsense right back. Hatton was labelled a blown up light welterweight because he performed poorly north of 140 lbs. Pacquiao was beating up the likes of Clottey, Cotto and Margarito and so there's no question he was capable at the weight.

manos de piedra wrote:Hazharrison,

From what I can see the basis of your argument against Mayweather is that 1. He did not fight Pacquiao and 2. He did not test himself enough above at welterweight and above.

Personally I would accept these arguments if you wanted to state a case of him not being top ten. If you want to exclude him from the company of Robinson, Leonard, Greb, Armstrong, Ali etc then I wont particularly argue that point.

But you saying he isn’t an all time great or isn’t worth a top thirty spot. What is an all time great? A top thirty? A top forty? Is de la Hoya an all time great because he fought almost everyone across several divisions, notwithstanding his win/loss ratio against them?

Can you really say that Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson for arguments sake are all time greats that warrant placing above Mayweathers accomplishments?

It's not just my argument. It's the argument of most experts and historians (I'm yet to see one that rates Mayweather as an all-time great or a top ten rated guy). There's a reason for that.

De la Hoya is not an all-time great, no. He lost his biggest fights and didn't give enough of himself at crucial junctures.

Dempsey and Johnson were pioneers -- legendary fighters. They are routinely rated as all-time greats by far more qualified judges than you or I. In such cases it is wise to defer to better judgement. I think you overrate Mayweather's accomplishments. Do you feel he has accomplished more than, say, Pernell Whitaker, Thomas Hearns or Marvin Hagler?

I make up my own mind on these issues hazharrison. In many cases I don’t believe experts are necessarily more right than me in what amounts to extremely subjective and practically impossible to accurately compare subject material. Is your argument that Dempsey and Johnson deserve to rank higher because experts say so?

I think Mayweather beat better opposition and was a better fighter. Its that simple.

But Dempsey is a legend on the back of destroying an ancient semi retired oaf like Willard and a hopelessly outmatched Carpentier that lost most of biggest fights. So the experts must be right.