Anyone actually rooting for Floyd to win on Saturday ?

First topic message reminder :

Interesting to know why if clicking yes, been watching clips of the build up and it reminded me of what an odious character he is.

Jimmy Savile was the king of charity!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

RanjitPatel wrote:Fair play to him for all he's done for charity. Still an extremeley selfish player on the pitch. Last seasons champions league final being an example. The way he celebrated after scoring a pen when they were already 3-1 up was all self.

I imagine Bernie Madoff gave to charity..

When your sponsored up to a 100 million a year and getting 300,000 a week on top................Not too hard is it..

Yep good luck to him............But it's good PR too !!

It was more to lead up to the penalty in the final. Way over the top celebratation seeing as Bale scored the winner and his was quite muted in comparison.

Happy to tie this vote up.

Dont want to see the greatest boxer of our generation lose his 0 in the biggest fight of his life, want to see him prove his greatness once again with a 12-0 shut out like the Marquez performance.

Alsie wrote:Happy to tie this vote up.

Dont want to see the greatest boxer of our generation lose his 0 in the biggest fight of his life, want to see him prove his greatness once again with a 12-0 shut out like the Marquez performance.

I didn't realize Mayweather was making Manny jump up two weights without sticking to the agreed weight stipulation himself.

DAVE667 wrote:

Alsie wrote:Happy to tie this vote up.

Dont want to see the greatest boxer of our generation lose his 0 in the biggest fight of his life, want to see him prove his greatness once again with a 12-0 shut out like the Marquez performance.

I didn't realize Mayweather was making Manny jump up two weights without sticking to the agreed weight stipulation himself.

wonder if Roger will jump the rope and smack Manny form behind. This fight needs a bit of drama. I'm worried it is going to be pure dull.

DAVE667 wrote:

Alsie wrote:Happy to tie this vote up.

Dont want to see the greatest boxer of our generation lose his 0 in the biggest fight of his life, want to see him prove his greatness once again with a 12-0 shut out like the Marquez performance.

I didn't realize Mayweather was making Manny jump up two weights without sticking to the agreed weight stipulation himself.

JMM seems to have a high opinion of Floyd...........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Alsie wrote:Happy to tie this vote up.

Dont want to see the greatest boxer of our generation lose his 0 in the biggest fight of his life, want to see him prove his greatness once again with a 12-0 shut out like the Marquez performance.

I didn't realize Mayweather was making Manny jump up two weights without sticking to the agreed weight stipulation himself.

JMM seems to have a high opinion of Floyd...........

His alternative was to have a high opinion of Manny and, given their history, that seems unlikely

I have done 3 stakes there at the bookies.

£5.00 on Floyd rounds 7-9 18/1
£5.00 on Floyd rounds 10-12 22/1
5.00 on Floyd stoppage anytime 11/2

Probably will go to points but I predicted a stoppage so hopefully get a few quid.

^^ you may get this with any luck.

Cheers, Rodders

Tears of joy, maybe?

Rodney wrote:

^^ you may get this with any luck.

Cheers, Rodders

That must be a very old pic from before he made it as these days he uses $1000 bills to wipe away his tears.

88Chris05 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A combination of the Duran and Hearns fights left Leonard with a sense of vulnerability and he then proceeded to dodge a fight with Hagler that is unavoidable fact, he dodged that fight through fear of losing.

Again, if you want to say that Leonard dodged Hagler, be my guest. I've already admitted that the charge of approaching the Hagler with cynicism and care can be levelled at Leonard. But you've said in the past that Mayweather hasn't been dodging Pacquiao, that you don't believe he's ever been wary of the threat he posed etc. Arguing that Leonard was so clearly fearful of losing but then suggesting that Mayweather wasn't / isn't makes no sense.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I could not give a flying toss if Mayweather and Pacquiao have been in the same divison longer, it serves only as an excuse to excuse Leonard.

Not really. That line has nothing to do with excusing Leonard, it's about showing that the two cases aren't identical and that if Leonard deserves criticism over Hagler, Floyd deserves an absolute kicking over Manny. If someone said Froch was ducking Kovalev you'd be the first one pointing out that it can't be so as Froch has never gone above 168 and makes it comfortably whereas Kovalev is a career 175 pounder. Likewise, why does Mayweather (quite rightly) have less pressure placed on him by the fans and media about facing a Golovkin than he does a Pacquiao?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The situations are identical in the fact both the most sought after fights of the time, this is where weight becomes an irrelevance and if it is we may as well dismiss Leonards win over Hagler altogether. Both are examples of the moneymake making cynical decisions to maximise their risk/reward, facing an opponent when he was seemingly at his weakest.

They're only identical if you take the rigid 'there's either blame or there's not' stance. Other posters have tried to point out how the situations differ but you just keep replying that we just want to excuse Leonard. Nobody's doing that, but we're saying that in this case he's more excusable than Mayweather. Nobody disputes that Leonard faced Hagler at a time when Leonard thought Marvin was just slipping, but who was more disadvantaged out of the pair going in to the fight? Leonard was clearly a fading force as well, possibly further removed from his prime than Marvin, and would actually have been less of an underdog had he fought Hagler five years before, oddly enough.

Mayweather on the other hand is at the opposite end of the spectrum. I know some of Floyd's bigger fans are trying to convince people that the odds would have been just as favourable to him had this fight happened five years back, but the less said about that idea the better. The risk was diminished on both sides - just more so on Mayweather's, that's what I'm getting at.

Anyway, I've given my reasons why the Hagler and Pacquiao situations aren't carbon copies of each other for Leonard and Mayweather respectively, but aside from that, as an overall career surely you'd concede that Leonard holds a clear advantage over Mayweather when it comes to fighting his
greatest rivals at the best and most important times?

A few points to make;

1. Froch is not and never has been the top man at 168lbs as such the clamour for him to move up isn't there, he is what he is a very good super middleweight however when you're in Ward's situation you should be expected to face GGG, Kovalev or Stevenson. It's all about levels and you cannot compare an all time great in Leonard to a good fighter like Froch, the expectations are different.

2. Hagler/Leonard didn't happen because of Leonard, Mayweather/Pacquiao didn't happen because they both too busy comparing d1ck sizes trying to gain the upper hand on the other.

3. Your final point is a bit of misnomer, Leonard's greatest rivals were greater than Mayweather so of course it looks better. Only a fool would try to compare Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler to Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Pacquiao and Alvarez, there's a slight gulf in ability so in effect your giving Leonard the benefit of the doubt for having better contemporaries. No doubt Mosley and Cotto will be brought up but that would be akin to Pryor and McCallum, very much a hindsight view of things, ultimately Mosley and Pryor were to blame anyway.

My general point was that fighters of the past get greater benefit of the doubt and i'm not sure how you can dispute that, if anyone mentions that Robinson was selective in his match making then all hell breaks loose. For instance he could have made fights with any of Burley, Cocoa Kid, Williams or he could have fought Wade earlier considering he fought LaMotta no less than six times, this didn't happen but it doesn't impact on his standing for me, what he actually achieved means more. The same is true of Leonard and Mayweather, you can pick their records apart if you wish but I prefer to concentrate on what they did achieve, it's a modern phenomena because of social media, every little thing is in the public eye now.

DuransHorse wrote:

Rodney wrote:

^^ you may get this with any luck.

Cheers, Rodders

That must be a very old pic from before he made it as these days he uses $1000 bills to wipe away his tears.

That's true, he also wipes his arse on the feelings of others

Fair enough points, Hammersmith. To clarify, I do agree that fighters from past eras, while not necessarily getting a free pass, do get cut more slack than today's fighters with regards to selective matchmaking, weighing up the risk/reward ratio etc - have always maintained that. And for what it's worth, Mayweather isn't by any means the worst of any great fighter in this respect. I just feel he's worse than Leonard if you compare them side by side. Not a question of pitting one era against another for me, just fighter against fighter.

I also agree that we shouldn't get too hung up on the discrepancies on a fighter's record, hence Mayweather being without doubt one of the greatest of all time in my eyes. I'm happy to celebrate and draw reference to the all the good stuff on his record and I'd like to think I don't come across as one of the bigger Mayweather detractors on here. But there's no harm in pointing out holes in even great records from time to time, and it can't always be unreserved praise.

With regards to your paragraph numbered '3', I think a more apt case of giving someone the benefit of the doubt would be assuming that Mayweather would have fought those greater contemporaries if they'd been his rivals instead of Leonard's. Maybe Floyd would have fought them all at the same time Leonard did, who knows. But based on the evidence of Mayweather's career, I'd just argue that it's unlikely, that's all. I don't think that's really a controversial or unsustainable view given his retirement when the fight against an unbeaten Cotto was there in 2008 or how long it's taken for the Pacquiao fight to materialise.

Anyway, like we've both pretty much agreed on there's room for debate on this but there aren't really many more aspects of it to go over!

Think you're being to kind Chris, looks like Hammer is moving the goalposts when he was saying earlier that Leonard/Mayweather situation was identical until you put him diplomatically in his place.

Cheers, Rodders

You can flip it on it's head and ask if Leonard would have faced them were he in Mayweather's shoes, earning big big money irrespective of who he faced. $7mil for the Duran rematch but then only $750k for the Larry Bonds fight, not suggesting that Leonard would have dodged them but he needed them in order to make big money.

The romanticists will always tell us they did it for the glory but we all know all boxers do it for the money.

I see a lot of similarities between the pair, taking on the biggest challenges when they had to and then dropping it down a level when they started getting big money no matter who they faced. It's a no brainer really isn't it, Leonard after Lalonde and his $7mil purse probably thought the same thing Mayweather did after Baldomir; 'Why bother taking a risk if they'll pay me that much for fighting him'.

Rodney wrote:Think you're being to kind Chris, looks like Hammer is moving the goalposts when he was saying earlier that Leonard/Mayweather situation was identical until you put him diplomatically in his place.

Cheers, Rodders

Sorry Mr I hate modern boxers, the past is so much better in each and every way, so much so I haven't got anything to add a debate because I cannot fail to hide my bias.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rodney wrote:Think you're being to kind Chris, looks like Hammer is moving the goalposts when he was saying earlier that Leonard/Mayweather situation was identical until you put him diplomatically in his place.

Cheers, Rodders

Sorry Mr I hate modern boxers, the past is so much better in each and every way, so much so I haven't got anything to add a debate because I cannot fail to hide my bias.

I added to the debate when I said you were talking out of your arse comparing the Leonard/Hagler to Mayweather/Pacquaio situation. Your argument was a non-starter.

Cheers, Rodders

You added your usual old is good, new is bad, that's about it, you don't like any argument that goes against that.

Cheers, Hammer

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You added your usual old is good, new is bad, that's about it, you don't like any argument that goes against that.

Cheers, Hammer

Not so much new is bad more that you were talking cods-wallop claiming Leonard took soft touches after tasting defeat against Duran. Where did you find that little pearl in your TMT magazine ?

Cheers, Rodders

That's a good response that is, oh no doesn't somebody not hate Mayweather Rodney and thus must be a fanboy, almost as good as you craddling Joe Louis' balls at any given opportunity. God forbid somebody rating a modern boxer highly, how preposterous is that.

Cheers, Hammer

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's a good response that is, oh no doesn't somebody not hate Mayweather Rodney and thus must be a fanboy, almost as good as you craddling Joe Louis' balls at any given opportunity. God forbid somebody rating a modern boxer highly, how preposterous is that.

Cheers, Hammer

Never used that phrase or hater in my life, thats usually for the b3ll3nds. You were wrong in your assessment of the situation, you've softened your Mr smart arse approach since you put in your place.

Cheers, Rodders

Put in my place because no offence Chris writes 2000 words more than he needs to and ends up coming to a conclusion that I myself disagree with, however the might Rodney agrees so must therefore be correct. My assessment of the situation was not and is not wrong, Leonard fought Hagler because it was high reward lower risk just like Pacquiao is now, being in the 80's though that's acceptable.

Cheers, Hammer

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Put in my place because no offence Chris writes 2000 words more than he needs to

Clear all your PMs out of your inbox so I can personally tell you in installments why I disagree with that, Hammersmith.

The IBRO top twenty is a perfect example of the old vs new divide;

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

Not a single one of them were at their peak in the past 30 years, Jones the highest placed boxer during that time comes in at 29; that means neither Chavez or Whitaker are in the top 30 that is simply wrong.

The fact Peter Jackson isn't in there tells you all you need to know about bullsh!t lists like that!

HARRUUUMMMPPPHH!!!!!!!!

Gans above Charles?

The Ibro list has not been updated since 2006

Leonard dodged Michael Nunn...........That's for sure...

Rowley wrote:The Ibro list has not been updated since 2006

Hence Chavez and Whitaker being my examples, it's scandalous that they aren't at least included in missing the cut, if nine years later they're included then it only further reinforces the new vs old debate.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rowley wrote:The Ibro list has not been updated since 2006

Hence Chavez and Whitaker being my examples, it's scandalous that they aren't at least included in missing the cut, if nine years later they're included then it only further reinforces the new vs old debate.

In fairness most lists are crap............

Bernstein had Hagler and Johnson in his top 7.............Where Haz got his Johnson at 7 from..

How many do you see have Dempsey in them....

Not worth getting upset...........

Still haven't seen any apart from one that doesn't have Manny/May in a Top 50..............It's the one which has Mcguigan at 8, Collins at 9 Frampton at 10 and Gerry Adams at 11...

The strange thing about Charles is that he's curiously underrated a lot of the time by the appointed writers, historians and experts of the sport. The fans and ten-a-penny forum posters such as ourselves seem to be a lot more in the know about and appreciate of him than they are. It's supposed to be the other way around.

That list is from 2006, so maybe you could taper it with the fact that Jones' spectacular decline was still quite fresh in the memory and that the likes of Chavez and Whitaker hadn't been gone long enough yet for people to really start missing them and taking another / a closer look at them, but yep, still pretty badly tilted towards the older eras. Makes a bit of a mockery of the 'all-time' theory when a whole two decades, have been totally neglected.

I can understand the argument that boxing hasn't been the sport that it used to be in the past twenty-odd years or whatever, and that it took more to become truly 'great' back then than it does now, but not to the point where absolutely no fighters from the last twenty years can be included in a list of that nature.

That is not a phenomena exclusive to boxing, in most things greatness tends not to be truly appreciated until a certain amount of time has passed. The same is true of music, films and other sport, hence the expression stands the test of time. We see countless boxers appreciated far more now than when they were fighting, Holmes and Lewis being two obvious examples and I'd wager a reasonable amount Wlad can expect the same.

Not sure this bespeaks a bias in boxing. Personally I think it is prudent to give oneself a bit of space and time before a proper assessment is made of something. Happens in most every field.

Agree with a lot of what you've said there about it existing in plenty of other sports and walks of life, Rowls, and also agree that it's probably sensible to play it that way. But while it does exist in those fields, I kind of feel that it exists even more so in boxing.

Maybe it's because there's this idea (which isn't without foundation, to be fair) that boxing is a broken sport which is or at least has been declining in recent times what with the influx of PPV, the phenomena of fighters and fans suddenly all trying to be financial experts, so many additional weight classes and titles blurring the picture etc. All sports have got their problems and things that the fans would love to change but I don't think dissatisfacion or disillusion amongst the fans runs as high in them as it does in boxing.

I think an argument can be made that the shortcomings of the clowns who are meant to be running the sport in recent times are sometimes unfairly reflected on to the fighters. It's not a universally popular view, but at least if a football fans suggests that Messi or Ronaldo are or could be greater / better than Maradona or Pele they won't get totally laughed out of town. Likewise, nobody would bat an eyelid if a tennis fan proclaimed that Federer or Nadal are greater than Laver or Tilden.

But in boxing I kind of feel it's almost been decided off the record that Robinson can never be usurped or surpassed, for instance, and I don't think it's particularly positive that arguing the case for someone else to be ahead of him - particularly if they boxed within the last thirty or forty years - is almost treated as a sign of not knowing anything about the sport in some quarters (not on our forum though, to be fair). Likewise, while a lot of the criticism of more recent stars is valid (because you can find fault to whatever degree with any fighter who has ever lived), I do feel that sometimes they get downgraded for things which are beyond their control to a degree, such as not fighting as regularly as greats from past eras and the like.

Hey, if you ask me to name the four greatest boxers in history I'll say Robinson, Armstrong, Greb and then probably Charles and I imagine if I cobbled together my all-time top twenty or whatever, there'd be slightly more pre-War fighters in there than post-War, so I'm not taking the Az stance by any means. Just feel that while it's natural to err towards the past a little more than the present in a lot of cases, it maybe gets slightly overplayed in boxing.

I always feels there's a very pro American bias in there as well, there's a twenty year period between Robinsons original retirement and Leonard hitting his peak where the overseas guys are an after thought. Napoles, Griffiths, Gavilan, Arguello, Monzon, Ortiz, Locche and a host of other great boxers are forgotten to a degree, all regarded as but not as great as their American counterparts.

I see no reason why Arguello finds himself so far behind Canzoneri in these lists or why Napoles and Griffiths aren't compared to Armstrong or Leonard at Welterweight. You'll have the odd anomaly like Eder Jofre but on the whole there's usually a very American tinge to things. I doubt Duran would be regarded in the top ten if he'd beaten Napoles instead of Leonard for instance and lets be honest there's not much in it between them at Welterweight.

I always think that it's become sadly popular to stick Ali further down lists as well.........

The guy had to beat so called invincible monsters...........Liston and Foreman.........Men that made guys like Patterson and norton crap themselves.........

Ali triumphed over his rivals and a huge intimidation factor..

His ledger is like a quality heavies who's who....

None of the other top ten had to overcome reputations like Foreman and Liston..

One of the reasons he'll always be my number 1........

Beating Tyson and also chucking in Mccall and unbeaten williams..........Is a reason I have Buster top 25...

Still each to their own..

Charles is not championed by a lot of the older historians because he was seen as a boring heavyweight particularly in comparison to the explosive Louis who came before him.

Those same Historians must be forgetting what a masterful light heavyweight he was then, Holmes, Lewis and Holyfield are all highly regarded and they came after Ali and Tyson.

The Mayweather/Leonard comparisons are always good for a delusional laugh

Any of your one line negative comments are a good laugh, keep them coming.

Oh I will.

Funny how butthurt the Flomos get on their hero's behalf. Maybe its just a little pre-fight tension.

Mayweather and Pacquiao identical to Leonard and Hagler - Il have to remember that one though. Great stuff.

Good insightful contribution as ever, congratulations.

Is there really any need lads? it' been a good back and forth discussion with everyone giving a contribution and making decent points on there behalf. Whether you agree with it or not it makes for good reading (and helps educate some that aren't 'up' on some of the politics involved)

Yep I missed the boxing mensa classroom conducted by arch bore professor boxrec trying to explain the identical case of Mayweather and Pacquaio to Hagler and Leonard. Seems like I wound up in the comedy club!

Do carry on Catchweight, as per usual you've added nothing to the debate aside from the predictable hit and run comments, it's easy to dismiss opinions constantly when you never have an original thought of your own.

Yes the Renaissanace Boxing man and his "original" thoughts lifted from hours wasted on boxrec! No thanks!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I always think that it's become sadly popular to stick Ali further down lists as well.........

The guy had to beat so called invincible monsters...........Liston and Foreman.........Men that made guys like Patterson and norton crap themselves.........

Ali triumphed over his rivals and a huge intimidation factor..

His ledger is like a quality heavies who's who....

None of the other top ten had to overcome reputations like Foreman and Liston..

One of the reasons he'll always be my number 1........

Beating Tyson and also chucking in Mccall and unbeaten williams..........Is a reason I have Buster top 25...

Still each to their own..

Reputation being the key word here though Truss, the Liston that Ali beat was not the man whose previous performances lead to that reputation in the first place. And, and I accept that this won't be a popular opinion, Foreman was simply not as good as his reputation, his destruction of Frazier and Norton blinding people to the short comings so artfully exposed by Ali. Don't get me wrong , I love Ali- my soft spot for the more graceful boxers is well known, but their is a persuasive argument for him not claiming the top spot.

So you don't have anything to add to the debate aside from the usual childish insults then, you must have mentioned Boxrec in 2989 of your comments.

Wrong again!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So you don't have anything to add to the debate aside from the usual childish insults then, you must have mentioned Boxrec in your 2989 of your comments.

You know he hasn't got anything to offer.............

Just move on..