# With Floyd Now at 50 - 0



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

It looks better than 49-0, but is it better than the old record? We know other fighters went LONGER unbeaten as well, but vs lesser competition so let's not nitpick over that. AND We know Mac was a novice and we know now that Floyd is definitely retired. So where does he stand, undefeated, world champion over the span of 20 years in competitive boxing? Factoring in his skills and abilities?

*Elite Wins* - Corrales, Castillo, Delahoya, Mosley, Pacquiao

*Notables *- Canelo, Judah, Hatton, Baldomir, Marquez, Hernandez, Chavez, Manfredy, Cotto

Unfortunately some fights didn't happen like Tszyu, Casamayor or a Prime Pacquiao for a host of different reasons but what's done is done.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I don´t care too much anymore for resume and all that debate about who beat who anymore.... I firmly believe that Floyd is a H2H monster though and I place him among the top 15 best ever, The only result I would be confident against him would be him facing Hearns, Hearns would fuck him up.. all the rest is a hard to call IMO.
So, I place him inside my top 20 somewhere.


----------



## Reppin501 (May 16, 2013)

I agree with Vic, we can debate resume and all that sh!t but the bottom line is beat the best of his era from 130-147, and head to head he would be problem for almost anybody. He's an all time great fighter, simple as that.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Well this fight didnt enhance his legacy at all. Looking poor against a debutant. 

Hes around the 20-30 mark as he was a week ago.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

I officially can't recognise trolling anymore.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

What's actually funny is this past fight enhanced his legacy among casuals. Skip Bayless said it was his best performance :lol:


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

this fight does nothing to change my view of him. He's a great fighter. He's the greatest fighter to not have a signature win. Some of that is on him, some isn't.

He's the 3rd best fighter of my lifetime behind SRL and Hagler. I think he's a more complete fighter than Hearns, however, I'd favor Hearns H2H.

Overall any ranking around 15-20 seems about right to me and I wouldn't argue somebody for having him closer to 10.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> What's actually funny is this past fight enhanced his legacy among casuals. Skip Bayless said it was his best performance :lol:


Most casuals missed his early career when he stood in front of guys and knocked them out. He did that this fight.


----------



## sugarshane_24 (Apr 20, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> Most casuals missed his early career when he stood in front of guys and knocked them out. He did that this fight.


I have a feeling that he would still be like that had he not busted his hands.


----------



## church11 (Jun 6, 2013)

I feel like you can't ignore the fact that other than the Judah touchdown, he's never been on the canvas in his entire career. Despite all the world champions he's faced.


----------



## DB Cooper (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> It looks better than 49-0, but is it better than the old record?


What old record?

Marciano's 49-0 was achieved at heavyweight. 49-0 is the heavyweight record.

Mayweather isn't the first fighter to ever achieve 50-0. It just hasn't been done at heavyweight before.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

DB Cooper said:


> What old record?
> 
> Marciano's 49-0 was achieved at heavyweight. 49-0 is the heavyweight record.
> 
> Mayweather isn't the first fighter to ever achieve 50-0. It just hasn't been done at heavyweight before.


Read the opening post. And vote!


----------



## errsta (May 16, 2013)

Top 10. This fight didn't enhance his in ring legacy at all, but it did cement his legacy outside of it. Just a glorified victory lap.

He was clearly the best of his era - head and shoulders above his nearest rival. That's all that is in his power. His wasn't the best era and that's what doesn't put him in the top 4-5 for me. That being said, he is the most professional fighter ever in my book. For all of his "Money" persona BS (which was brilliant marketing/self-promotion) the guy always trained like he was a contender, never ballooned in between fights, didn't become a cokehead/party animal, etc. He took immense pride in his craft and almost always dictated the way fights went. 

Glad I got to see him fight several times.


----------



## DB Cooper (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Read the opening post. And vote!


Apologies.

The misconception that Mayweather, by reaching 50-0, had broken some kind of longstanding record is so widespread it is like a virus.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

So some of you are actually legitimizing his 50th win over the 0-0 McFishoutofwater. I though only casuals would fall for that. smh


----------



## ThatBoxingGuy2022 (Aug 28, 2014)

ElKiller said:


> So some of you are actually legitimizing his 50th win over the 0-0 McFishoutofwater. I though only casuals would fall for that. smh


Did you even read the posts lol


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

Top 25.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Really he is still 49-0. That was an exhibition against a guy making his boxing debut. He's top 50, I have Pac in front of him due to opposition and when he fought them. Floyd has never looked anywhere near unbeatable. Augustus slapped that bitch around. Lomachenko would win every round against Floyd at any weight.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> It looks better than 49-0, but is it better than the old record? We know other fighters went LONGER unbeaten as well, but vs lesser competition so let's not nitpick over that. AND We know Mac was a novice and we know now that Floyd is definitely retired. So where does he stand, undefeated, world champion over the span of 20 years in competitive boxing? Factoring in his skills and abilities?
> 
> *Elite Wins* - Corrales, Castillo, Delahoya, Mosley, Pacquiao
> 
> ...


Canelo is easily his best win. Castillo and DLH have a strong case for saying they beat him, Mosley and Pac were well past their best and still had strong moments against Floyd, and Corrales has never been quite elite despite his reputation at the time. Floyd really had a nothing career and was lucky not to have a handful of losses on his record. I take it back, I don't think I can have him top 50.


----------



## Uncle Rico (May 24, 2013)

The McGregor win and making it 50 doesn't have any influence, negative or positive, on his all time standing.

I had him around top 40-30, years ago. The only wins in recent years that helped him move up a few spaces from that, are Canelo and Pac. At best. The rest -- Maidana, Guerrero, Berto and McGregor -- didn't do much. Those wins are useful to make a current day P4P claims, but for all-time greats over the entire history of the sport, you need a little more than that and a fancy number.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

ElKiller said:


> So some of you are actually legitimizing his 50th win over the 0-0 McFishoutofwater. I though only casuals would fall for that. smh


you'd laugh if you saw some of the guys Julio Cesar Chavez Sr fought






Chavez 70-0 vs Mosley 4-3-1


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

All things considered I'm not sure I can recognise this as fight 50.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Saturday to me doesn't prove anything, it was a glorified exhibition against a novice.

That said I think he is a H2H beast at 130, and has proven himself to be one of the best Welters of all time.
I am 100%sure that Hearn stops him at 147lbs ( as he does most so no shame there), and i'm also convinced Duran beast him between 130-147 as well.

Top 30 for me, prob around 25


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> All things considered I'm not sure I can recognise this as fight 50.


Do you recognize this fight?

http://boxrec.com/en/event/9148/13968


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Do you recognize this fight?
> 
> http://boxrec.com/en/event/9148/13968


The guy had fought before, it was a 10 rounder and I'm assuming no long-standing safety rules were broken in the making of the fight. Looks like a horrendous mismatch to me but one I can accept as being more legitimate than Mayweather vs McGregor. Let me know if there's more context to this fight though.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> The guy had fought before, it was a 10 rounder and I'm assuming no long-standing safety rules were broken in the making of the fight. Looks like a horrendous mismatch to me but one I can accept as being more legitimate than Mayweather vs McGregor. Let me know if there's more context to this fight though.


I bet McGregor is better than him and has dedicated more time to boxing than him


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I bet McGregor is better than him and has dedicated more time to boxing than him


Irrelevant to my point.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Irrelevant to my point.


Your point isn't very good then. Floyd didn't have a title on the line. Conor had a boxing license. It was sanctioned and both got paid. If he lost, he'd be 49-1


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Canelo is easily his best win. Castillo and DLH have a strong case for saying they beat him, Mosley and Pac were well past their best and still had strong moments against Floyd, and Corrales has never been quite elite despite his reputation at the time. Floyd really had a nothing career and was lucky not to have a handful of losses on his record. I take it back, I don't think I can have him top 50.


Fucks sake.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Your point isn't very good then. Floyd didn't have a title on the line. Conor had a boxing license. It was sanctioned and both got paid. If he lost, he'd be 49-1


Conor had never boxed professionally before and as far as I know had next to no amateur experience. A fight between someone like that against the best fight in the world for 12 rounds with unprecedentedly small gloves that were requested by the actual boxer should be unsanctionable. If Conor had (or has) sustained any serious damage NSAC should be looking at criminal charges.

This fight was proof that any fight can be sanctioned and any rule can be broken as long as there's enough money in it. On paper it's recognisable sure. On paper Bradley beat Pacquaio, on paper Canelo vs Mayweather was a draw for one judge, on paper RJJ is an Olympic silver medalist. Just because it's official it doesn't mean I have to recognise it.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

I can think of 30 fighters with a better resume. People ranking H2H are just using their imagination to guess what his abilities would be in another era.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

sugarshane_24 said:


> I have a feeling that he would still be like that had he not busted his hands.


I don't know. He was fighting some naturally larger guys and gave up quite a bit of weight in the ring on some occasions. Guys like Oscar and Cotto threw straight, powerful punches.

I'm sure he would have stayed in the pocket more against guys like Guerrero though.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I can think of 30 fighters with a better resume. People ranking H2H are just using their imagination to guess what his abilities would be in another era.


See I'm absolutely fine with people rating on Head to head. People are free to rank fighters as they please. It's the inconsistency that drives me mad. For why it's worth I rank on:
1) Resume
2) Prime Losses
3) overall achievements (i.e. How many title fights, weight jumps, etc)
4) Head to Head ability

With number 1 being what I put the most weight on, and running down the list. He scores pretty highly based on my rankings and I'm not a great fan.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Vano-irons said:


> See I'm absolutely fine with that. People are free to rank fighters as they please. It's the inconsistency that drives me mate. For why it's worth I rank on:
> 1) Resume
> 2) Prime Losses
> 3) overall achievements (i.e. How many title fights, weight jumps, etc)
> ...


Yeah there's no rulebook on how to rank, I just personally don't prefer it because it's less about what the fighter has done and more about what you think he could do. I also think punishing losses instead of treating them like failed attempts to add to the resume punishes risk-takers a bit.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Vano-irons said:


> Saturday to me doesn't prove anything, it was a glorified exhibition against a novice.
> 
> That said I think he is a H2H beast at 130, and has proven himself to be one of the best Welters of all time.
> I am 100%sure that Hearn stops him at 147lbs ( as he does most so no shame there), and i'm also convinced Duran beast him between 130-147 as well.
> ...


It's crazy that most Floyd fan's would get salty by posts like yours. Top 25/30 of all time is a phenominal achievement considering how historical the sport is. It also tells how great Floyd is H2H when fans have to bring out the H2H monsters when picking fighters they'd be confident in beating the shit out of him. And to top it off he's cemented in amongst the top 5 best defensive boxers of all time.


----------



## Reppin501 (May 16, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I can think of 30 fighters with a better resume. People ranking H2H are just using their imagination to guess what his abilities would be in another era.


Hmmm...you're my boy but I can't call that. You say it like you are about to just spit out 30 guys off the top of your head, I just don't buy it. I'm not saying there aren't 30 guys with better resumes, I'm saying to act like his resume is so "meh" that you can just spit out 30 guys off the top of your head...not sure on that.


----------



## Reppin501 (May 16, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Yeah there's no rulebook on how to rank, I just personally don't prefer it because it's less about what the fighter has done and more about what you think he could do. I also think punishing losses instead of treating them like failed attempts to add to the resume punishes risk-takers a bit.


I understand what you mean in terms of risk taking, but if winning and losing doesn't matter...then what does? I get your point, and I respect it, but I have to again disagree as it does matter if you win/lose, IMHO.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> This. It's crazy that some Floyd fan's get salty by posts like yours. Top 25/30 of all time seems about right and a phenominal achievement considering how historical the sport is. It also tells how great Floyd is H2H when fans have to bring out the H2H monsters when picking fighters they'd be confident in beating the shit out of him. And to top it off he's cemented in amongst the top 5 best defensive boxers of all time.


Do people really get salty about a post like that?

I don't think anyone favours Floyd over Hearns.

And everyone who knows feints knows Duran beats Floyd.

Having him at top 25 means near Whitaker and Roy.
Plenty high.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Canelo is easily his best win. Castillo and DLH have a strong case for saying they beat him, Mosley and Pac were well past their best and still had strong moments against Floyd, and Corrales has never been quite elite despite his reputation at the time. Floyd really had a nothing career and was lucky not to have a handful of losses on his record. I take it back, I don't think I can have him top 50.


What is the point in you ?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Reppin501 said:


> I understand what you mean in terms of risk taking, but if winning and losing doesn't matter...then what does? I get your point, and I respect it, but I have to again disagree as it does matter if you win/lose, IMHO.


Losing for me is a failure to add weight onto the greatness scale. If you lose a gold medal race one year, it never subtracts when you win it the year following or had won it the year before. Greatness is measured in success. Not "lack of failure".



Reppin501 said:


> Hmmm...you're my boy but I can't call that. You say it like you are about to just spit out 30 guys off the top of your head, I just don't buy it. I'm not saying there aren't 30 guys with better resumes, I'm saying to act like his resume is so "meh" that you can just spit out 30 guys off the top of your head...not sure on that.


15-20 I could spit, the last 10-15 would take some thinking. But I think they're there.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Resume is basically level of opposition, right..... who had the best opposition, but, of course, level of opposition has to do with the overall ability of the boxers. 
If I feel that Oscar De La Hoya had less ability as a boxer than, let´s say, I don´t know.... Carlos Zarate.. why should I rate Mosley above Wilfredo Gomez ? 
You know what I mean ?


----------



## ChampionsForever (Jun 5, 2013)

Who in the last 30 years beats him? Hearns and Leonard, maybe JCC? He's an all time great and a top 30 in my book. He is however the greatest businessman boxing has ever seen, he's pretty much a billionaire off of a dull style and avoiding dangerous fights. Genius.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

dyna said:


> Do people really get salty about a post like that?
> 
> I don't think anyone favours Floyd over Hearns.
> 
> ...


I thought it was obvious I was talking more about the die hard Floyd fans. Floyd fans get real salty when their boy ain't at least top ten all time and n1 defensive boxer ever.

A lot of Floyd fans do seem to accept Hearns beats Floyd so you have a point there. I'm sure most of them are strongly against Duran beating Floyd though. They hate Duran because he has a tendency to talk shit about Floyd when his names brought up in his presence.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

McGrain's list is a decent reference point.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-top-100-pound-for-pound-all-time-greats.459918/


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> McGrain's list is a decent reference point.
> 
> https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-top-100-pound-for-pound-all-time-greats.459918/


Boxing is literally the only sport where a fighter who was never The #1 in any division he fought at could be ranked as the #1 ATG.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Losing for me is a failure to add weight onto the greatness scale. If you lose a gold medal race one year, it never subtracts when you win it the year following or had won it the year before. Greatness is measured in success. Not "lack of failure".
> 
> 15-20 I could spit, the last 10-15 would take some thinking. But I think they're there.


When you're getting into the best of the absolute best, winning and losing matters. Imagine if Roy lost to Toney or Hopkins in the 90s.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> When you're getting into the best of the absolute best, winning and losing matters. Imagine if Roy lost to Toney or Hopkins in the 90s.


Then he wouldn't have them on their resume. He'd be less great, but not because he lost, but because.he didn't win.

Obviously winning matters, I weigh resume above all else.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Then he wouldn't have them on their resume. He'd be less great, but not because he lost, but because.he didn't win.
> 
> Obviously winning matters, I weigh resume above all else.


If he had lost, while destroying the Glen Frazier's of the world handily, the perception would be that he looks great against C level competition and his overall ATG stock would drop tremendously


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> If he had lost, while destroying the Glen Frazier's of the world handily, the perception would be that he looks great against C level competition and his overall ATG stock would drop tremendously


Well of course if you erase a win from a fighter's win column, it will decrease their greatness. I'm talking about holding losses against a fighter when they have fantastic wins.

For example, when I evaluate Barrera, I add up his best wins and performances. I don't go after the fact and say "well he lost to Junior Jones though so let's dock some points." Because in that case, the alternate version of Barrera that never even fought Jones is held in higher esteem. Which means the most risk-averse fighters get rewarded.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Well of course if you erase a win from a fighter's win column, it will decrease their greatness. I'm talking about holding losses against a fighter when they have fantastic wins.
> 
> For example, when I evaluate Barrera, I add up his best wins and performances. I don't go after the fact and say "well he lost to Junior Jones though so let's dock some points." Because in that case, the alternate version of Barrera that never even fought Jones is held in higher esteem. Which means the most risk-averse fighters get rewarded.


Yeah I'm not positive many people dock Barrera on ATG lists because of the losses to Jones though. Dude gets rated pretty fairly and quite highly. In terms of rating ATGness there aren't "risk averse" fighters involved.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

bballchump11 said:


> you'd laugh if you saw some of the guys Julio Cesar Chavez Sr fought
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WTF does Chavez have to do with this?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

ElKiller said:


> WTF does Chavez have to do with this?


That while Chavez' unbeaten streak was highly praised, he still beat some cans in the process. Chavez' record looks really REALLY great to casuals.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

ElKiller said:


> WTF does Chavez have to do with this?


This 
|
|
V



turbotime said:


> That while Chavez' unbeaten streak was highly praised, he still beat some cans in the process. Chavez' record looks really REALLY great to casuals.


And if we're going to count some of Chavez's wins in his unbeaten streak, then why wouldn't we count Floyd's last fight?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Stone Rose said:


> What is the point in you ?


Truth and honesty, make sure you appreciate it for your own good.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Yeah I'm not positive many people dock Barrera on ATG lists because of the losses to Jones though. Dude gets rated pretty fairly and quite highly. In terms of rating ATGness there aren't "risk averse" fighters involved.


Lets look at Mosley. Mosley could have been perfectly fine not going up to challenge Forrest and Winky not once but twice. I don't hold the losses against him, they just can't be added to his win column. Some people routinely go "remember though fighter x lost to y and z, counts against them."


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Lets look at Mosley. Mosley could have been perfectly fine not going up to challenge Forrest and Winky not once but twice. I don't hold the losses against him, they just can't be added to his win column. Some people routinely go "remember though fighter x lost to y and z, counts against them."


Well, he didn't exactly move up to chase Forrest. The Forrest fight actually had a good storyline to it, and Forrest was the #3 welterweight at the time so he kind of had to (for him as they were amateur rivals) and as far as contenders went.

But yeah, the Wright fights don't hold a lot in dragging Shane down. It would have helped him to have won obviously.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Well, he didn't exactly move up to chase Forrest. The Forrest fight actually had a good storyline to it, and Forrest was the #3 welterweight at the time so he kind of had to (for him as they were amateur rivals) and as far as contenders went.
> 
> But yeah, the Wright fights don't hold a lot in dragging Shane down. It would have helped him to have won obviously.





turbotime said:


> Well, he didn't exactly move up to chase Forrest. The Forrest fight actually had a good storyline to it, and Forrest was the #3 welterweight at the time so he kind of had to (for him as they were amateur rivals) and as far as contenders went.
> 
> But yeah, the Wright fights don't hold a lot in dragging Shane down. It would have helped him to have won obviously.


Do you think Floyd has surpassed Oskie?

For a long time I thought Oscar clearly had the better wins and won in more weight classes.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

bballchump11 said:


> This
> |
> |
> V
> ...


Oh so you brought Chavez up in anticipation of what Turbo was going to say? LOL

You're a pathetic Floyd nutswinger.!


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Do you think Floyd has surpassed Oskie?
> 
> For a long time I thought Oscar clearly had the better wins and won in more weight classes.


Resume wise it's damned close but Floyd's consistency for me gives him the edge combined with being a superior H2H fighter. Resume wise, Oscar had a lot of high profile close fights (in fairness, a lot would pick him to lose up until the Mosley fight until people actually believed in his abilities even though the Trinidad loss wasn't competitive)

Does he beat Floyd H2H? We have no idea but he obviously could. However I feel Floyd matches up H2H better with the ATGs than Delahoya does because of Floyd's more vast arsenal.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

ElKiller said:


> Oh so you brought Chavez up in anticipation of what Turbo was going to say? LOL
> 
> You're a pathetic Floyd nutswinger.!


do you want an actual debate or do you want to cry like a bitch?


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

bballchump11 said:


> do you want an actual debate or do you want to cry like a bitch?


Oh now she's mad.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Resume wise it's damned close but Floyd's consistency for me gives him the edge combined with being a superior H2H fighter. Resume wise, Oscar had a lot of high profile close fights (in fairness, a lot would pick him to lose up until the Mosley fight until people actually believed in his abilities even though the Trinidad loss wasn't competitive)
> 
> Does he beat Floyd H2H? We have no idea but he obviously could. However I feel Floyd matches up H2H better with the ATGs than Delahoya does because of Floyd's more vast arsenal.


Floyd is definitely more versatile which would help him in other eras but I'm not sure if he's better H2H prime for prime. I think it is close all round.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

ElKiller said:


> Oh now she's mad.


Still crying I see. Don't be mad that Chavez padded his recorded. He's still one of my faves


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

Once again, how did Chavez enter this conversation? LOL

Perhaps a bit butthurt that Floyd's "50-0" is being ridiculed?


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

I'm not going to engage in an argument over nothing. I have too much other stuff to worry about.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

bballchump11 said:


> I'm not going to engage in an argument over nothing. I have too much other stuff to worry about.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> What's actually funny is this past fight enhanced his legacy among casuals. Skip Bayless said it was his best performance :lol:


That's the funniest thing about it.

An undertrained shadow of his former self beats an arm-waving clown in the crappiest performance of his career in a circus event universally condemned by the boxing world.

Aftermath: ATG legacy improved.


----------



## Drunkenboat (Jul 29, 2012)




----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Vic said:


> Resume is basically level of opposition, right..... who had the best opposition, but, of course, level of opposition has to do with the overall ability of the boxers.
> If I feel that Oscar De La Hoya had less ability as a boxer than, let´s say, I don´t know.... Carlos Zarate.. why should I rate Mosley above Wilfredo Gomez ?
> You know what I mean ?


No one rates Mosley above Gomez


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

turbotime said:


> No one rates Mosley above Gomez


Okay, I guess few would yeah, but my point is not that... I find that Gene Fullmer beat better opponents than Julio Cesar Chavez, should I rate Fullmer above Chavez ? No, not at all, because I look at one and look at the other I think it´s easy to see who was the best between these two.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

He's top 30-35. But not because of that McNugget exhibition. He's probably greater than Bernard Hopkins at this point. _Clearly _a greater fighter than De La Hoya, Pacquiao. I've never been a big fan of Floyd but at some point you have to give credit where credit is due and this is one of finest boxers that any of us will ever watch. I admit he's grown on me. His technical skill, his jab, the right lead, his defensive awareness, the way he parries and can adapt to any given situation.. all of it is admirable stuff. I just wish the kids that try to mimic Floyd's style wouldn't get so lazy with it. I want more Philly shells and less Broner/Imam egg shells. This happened when Ali retired, and Tyson too. There were like a million Ali clones and few could pull it off.

Really the main knock on Floyd's legacy for me is the fact that his opponents were sometimes old or not at their best weight class. And he didn't like fighting athletic, slick, prime black fighters. He IMO made a conscious effort late in his career to duck several of them. He could have fought Lara, Thurman, Winky Wright, Bradley, and Paul Williams. It's not to say that those guys would beat him - depending on when he would fight those guys, I tend to think he would prevail. It's also easy to imagine Floyd getting outworked & muscled around by Williams, Wright, Bradley. It's easy see how Lara and Thurman's attributes would maybe trouble Floyd. But, hypotheticals rightfully don't matter. They only matter to boxing nerds like me :lol:

The depth and longevity of Floyd's career for me puts Floyd in the ATG discussion.. Not necessarily his individual victories. I sometimes put too much emphasis on the "marquee wins" and it's arguable that Floyd doesn't really need that because of his pure dominance. but my point here is that had he beat prime Pacquiao, Prime mosley, naseem hamed, tszyu, casamayor and others (not saying he ducked them) he would have those marquee wins.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

I have him in the 31-40 bracket and am quite happy with him there.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> He's top 30-35. But not because of that McNugget exhibition. He's probably greater than Bernard Hopkins at this point. _Clearly _a greater fighter than De La Hoya, Pacquiao. I've never been a big fan of Floyd but at some point you have to give credit where credit is due and this is one of finest boxers that any of us will ever watch. I admit he's grown on me. His technical skill, his jab, the right lead, his defensive awareness, the way he parries and can adapt to any given situation.. all of it is admirable stuff. I just wish the kids that try to mimic Floyd's style wouldn't get so lazy with it. I want more Philly shells and less Broner/Imam egg shells. This happened when Ali retired, and Tyson too. There were like a million Ali clones and few could pull it off.
> 
> Really the main knock on Floyd's legacy for me is the fact that his opponents were sometimes old or not at their best weight class. And he didn't like fighting athletic, slick, prime black fighters. He IMO made a conscious effort late in his career to duck several of them. He could have fought Lara, Thurman, Winky Wright, Bradley, and Paul Williams. It's not to say that those guys would beat him - depending on when he would fight those guys, I tend to think he would prevail. It's also easy to imagine Floyd getting outworked & muscled around by Williams, Wright, Bradley. It's easy see how Lara and Thurman's attributes would maybe trouble Floyd. But, hypotheticals rightfully don't matter. They only matter to boxing nerds like me :lol:
> 
> The depth and longevity of Floyd's career for me puts Floyd in the ATG discussion.. Not necessarily his individual victories. I sometimes put too much emphasis on the "marquee wins" and it's arguable that Floyd doesn't really need that because of his pure dominance. but my point here is that had he beat prime Pacquiao, Prime mosley, naseem hamed, tszyu, casamayor and others (not saying he ducked them) he would have those marquee wins.


Great post.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

tommygun711 said:


> He's top 30-35. But not because of that McNugget exhibition. He's probably greater than Bernard Hopkins at this point. _Clearly _a greater fighter than De La Hoya, Pacquiao. I've never been a big fan of Floyd but at some point you have to give credit where credit is due and this is one of finest boxers that any of us will ever watch. I admit he's grown on me. His technical skill, his jab, the right lead, his defensive awareness, the way he parries and can adapt to any given situation.. all of it is admirable stuff. I just wish the kids that try to mimic Floyd's style wouldn't get so lazy with it. I want more Philly shells and less Broner/Imam egg shells. This happened when Ali retired, and Tyson too. There were like a million Ali clones and few could pull it off.
> 
> Really the main knock on Floyd's legacy for me is the fact that his opponents were sometimes old or not at their best weight class. And he didn't like fighting athletic, slick, prime black fighters. He IMO made a conscious effort late in his career to duck several of them. He could have fought Lara, Thurman, Winky Wright, Bradley, and Paul Williams. It's not to say that those guys would beat him - depending on when he would fight those guys, I tend to think he would prevail. It's also easy to imagine Floyd getting outworked & muscled around by Williams, Wright, Bradley. It's easy see how Lara and Thurman's attributes would maybe trouble Floyd. But, hypotheticals rightfully don't matter. They only matter to boxing nerds like me :lol:
> 
> The depth and longevity of Floyd's career for me puts Floyd in the ATG discussion.. Not necessarily his individual victories. I sometimes put too much emphasis on the "marquee wins" and it's arguable that Floyd doesn't really need that because of his pure dominance. but my point here is that had he beat prime Pacquiao, Prime mosley, naseem hamed, tszyu, casamayor and others (not saying he ducked them) he would have those marquee wins.


_Arguably_.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Rewatching mayweather v hatton at 3am for the 1000th and it's almost an underrated performance by floyd now. Beat an undefeated, heavy handed brawler at his own game whilst displaying pin point accuracy and a pretty much flawless performance.
I was firmly on Hattons side being from down the road but knew he'd get beat and was in awe of how floyd dealt with him. 
One of his best wins and performances.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> He's top 30-35. But not because of that McNugget exhibition. He's probably greater than Bernard Hopkins at this point. _Clearly _a greater fighter than De La Hoya, Pacquiao. I've never been a big fan of Floyd but at some point you have to give credit where credit is due and this is one of finest boxers that any of us will ever watch. I admit he's grown on me. His technical skill, his jab, the right lead, his defensive awareness, the way he parries and can adapt to any given situation.. all of it is admirable stuff. I just wish the kids that try to mimic Floyd's style wouldn't get so lazy with it. I want more Philly shells and less Broner/Imam egg shells. This happened when Ali retired, and Tyson too. There were like a million Ali clones and few could pull it off.
> 
> Really the main knock on Floyd's legacy for me is the fact that his opponents were sometimes old or not at their best weight class. And he didn't like fighting athletic, slick, prime black fighters. He IMO made a conscious effort late in his career to duck several of them. He could have fought Lara, Thurman, Winky Wright, Bradley, and Paul Williams. It's not to say that those guys would beat him -  depending on when he would fight those guys, I tend to think he would prevail. It's also easy to imagine Floyd getting outworked & muscled around by Williams, Wright, Bradley. It's easy see how Lara and Thurman's attributes would maybe trouble Floyd. But, hypotheticals rightfully don't matter. They only matter to boxing nerds like me :lol:
> 
> The depth and longevity of Floyd's career for me puts Floyd in the ATG discussion.. Not necessarily his individual victories. I sometimes put too much emphasis on the "marquee wins" and it's arguable that Floyd doesn't really need that because of his pure dominance. but my point here is that had he beat prime Pacquiao, Prime mosley, naseem hamed, tszyu, casamayor and others (not saying he ducked them) he would have those marquee wins.


He's clearly better than Hopkins, by a hundred miles . And I'm a huge fan of Hopkins.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

ElKiller said:


> _Arguably_.


Fair enough if you rate DLH higher. Not a lot in it. His resume is crazy stacked.



Stone Rose said:


> He's clearly better than Hopkins, by a hundred miles . And I'm a huge fan of Hopkins.


Can you expound on that a bit? What separates him so clearly from Bhop?


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

I think people sometimes have to admit that despite their knowledge on boxing history and consequent aversion to rating modern boxers too highly , along with mayweather's ability to rub a lot of people up the wrong way , the guy is one of the best to lace them up and any place below 20-30 is just daft.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Fair enough if you rate DLH higher. Not a lot in it. His resume is crazy stacked.
> 
> Can you expound on that a bit? What separates him so clearly from Bhop?


Going through multiple divisions, superior opponents, not losing , ever ? Do you want more ?


----------



## Brauer (Jun 24, 2013)

I think that rhe nature of boxing causes far too many people to overrate older boxers. In almost every sport modern athletes end up outperforming their elders due to evolution of technique, training and athleticism.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

Stone Rose said:


> Going through multiple divisions, superior opponents, not losing , ever ? Do you want more ?


I'm curious to see who in floyd's resume you feel is superior to BHop's best opponents?


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Some self proclaimed boxing experts are some of the strangest people I've ever encountered, online or otherwise.
It's like admitting that the best boxer of their time is one of the best of all time undermines the fact they are a bedroom expert on henry armstrong. 
Floyd Mayweather is one of the best ever and when you're all older you'll be grateful you were alive to see it .


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

ElKiller said:


> I'm curious to see who in floyd's resume you feel is superior to BHop's best opponents?


Including losses?


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

Stone Rose said:


> Including losses?


Yeah, if you want to go that way.


----------



## DB Cooper (May 17, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Greatness is measured in success. Not "lack of failure".


Nicely put and I agree totally.

But sadly current day boxing seems to be measured by lack of failure.

Never before has retaining your zero mattered more than it seems to now.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

DB Cooper said:


> Nicely put and I agree totally.
> 
> But sadly current day boxing seems to be measured by lack of failure.
> 
> Never before has retaining your zero mattered more than it seems to now.


Idk about that. Some losses are too harsh to not impact your legacy. If Lennox Lewis didn't lose to Rahman and McCall, people would be calling him the GOAT.


----------



## DB Cooper (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Idk about that. Some losses are too harsh to not impact your legacy. If Lennox Lewis didn't lose to Rahman and McCall, people would be calling him the GOAT.


Equally some losses _aren't _too harsh to impact your legacy, but seem to anyway.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

DB Cooper said:


> Equally some losses _aren't _too harsh to impact your legacy, but seem to anyway.


True. I don't fault Marquez for losing to Mayweather or Pacquiao too much, but his loss to Chris John would


----------



## DB Cooper (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> True. I don't fault Marquez for losing to Mayweather or Pacquiao too much, but his loss to Chris John would


But Chris John was the WBA's fighter of the decade mate.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Stone Rose said:


> I think people sometimes have to admit that despite their knowledge on boxing history and consequent aversion to rating modern boxers too highly , along with mayweather's ability to rub a lot of people up the wrong way , the guy is one of the best to lace them up and any place below 20-30 is just daft.


Here's the thing: you're not qualified to say someone else's list/ranking/opinion is wrong. Just as I always say it's fine if someone ranks Floyd as the best they've ever seen, it's also absolutely fine for someone to find him out of the top 20-30 based on what they've seen/researched/their own criteria etc etc

It's not daft is someone really finds Terry McGovern's exploits, or Packey McFarland's long unbeaten run, or McLarnin's incredible scalps from flyweight to bantamweight more impressive than what Floyd has done.

For me, Floyd was THE champ at four weights, no.1 or no.2 greatest super featherweight of all time. All very, very impressive and puts him in the 31-40 bracket:

That is what he does for me. That's not underrating him, deducting him kudos or anything, that is very, VERY high considering how many brilliant fighters there have been over the past hundred-odd years of gloved boxing.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Don't care about these ridiculous mythical rankings now that I'm 28 years old, but I'm confident in saying Floyd gives any fighter in history in or around his weight a tough night's work. A truly unbelievable fighter and we won't see someone as great as him for a long time.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> And everyone who knows feints knows Duran beats Floyd.


Dooran beats Floyd cus 'feints'. :lol:









'What's a feint'


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

The 0 don´t matter all that much but it´s impressive that Floyd never had a off night in so many years, fought injured more than once and even then was able to win, those things count a lot.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

DB Cooper said:


> But Chris John was the WBA's fighter of the decade mate.


:yep he's not better than Juan


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> :yep he's not better than Juan


And he got a gift :bart


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Don't care about these ridiculous mythical rankings now that I'm 28 years old, but I'm confident in saying Floyd gives any fighter in history in or around his weight a tough night's work. A truly unbelievable fighter and we won't see someone as great as him for a long time.


Mythical rankings are good for one thing only: starting a dialogue.

As for the whole, 'this guy would do well against anyone from any era', just as mythical and worthless.

But it's fun though, ain't it? It's good that we can have fun with what is essentially nonsense.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Mythical rankings are good for one thing only: starting a dialogue.
> 
> As for the whole, 'this guy would do well against anyone from any era', just as mythical and worthless.
> 
> But it's fun though, ain't it? It's good that we can have fun with what is essentially nonsense.


Saying 'I'm confident Floyd would give any fighter in or around his weight class a tough night's work' is not comparable to spending hours on end ranking fighters with posters who don't have any knowledge of the eras they are attempting to rank. I can sense a bit of passive aggressiveness in your retort Flea which is understandable because I know you love these ranking debates, but you are one of the few who could have such a discussion without it being arbitrary. As I say, the vast majority of posters here simply don't have the knowledge to be trying to distinguish between fighters from the 40s and 50s. It ends up being a pretty nonsensical and pointless 'dialogue' as a result. And this is obviously something you yourself acknowledge because on countless occasions I have seen you completely dismiss and shoot down posters based on rankings that you strongly disagree with. So is it really good for starting a dialogue or is it just an opportunity for you to pose?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Saying 'I'm confident Floyd would give any fighter in or around his weight class a tough night's work' is not comparable to spending hours on end ranking fighters with posters who don't have any knowledge of the eras they are attempting to rank. I can sense a bit of passive aggressiveness in your retort Flea which is understandable because I know you love these ranking debates, but you are one of the few who could have such a discussion without it being arbitrary. As I say, the vast majority of posters here simply don't have the knowledge to be trying to distinguish between fighters from the 40s and 50s. It ends up being a pretty nonsensical and pointless 'dialogue' as a result. And this is obviously something you yourself acknowledge because on countless occasions I have seen you completely dismiss and shoot down posters based on rankings that you strongly disagree with. So is it really good for starting a dialogue or is it just an opportunity for you to pose?


It's great for starting a dialogue.

For those that are not that well versed in fighters--like you succinctly put--but are open to new ideas it's great to teach them or point them in the direction of fighters they may not be aware of.

For those very knowledgable it's great to see things from a different perspective, maybe look at a fighter/fight/era in a way I haven't before.

For those that are blinkered/unknowledgable/biased I agree it's a complete waste of time. EDIT: And yes I do like mocking these kinda' posters.

A quick example is when you and I discussed Yuh/Carbajal/Chiquita. I actually changed my rankings after that chat.

I think what list making for me personally is a chance to give a fighter their due. But I wouldn't know half as much had I not been steered towards certain aspects of the game by having these kinda' hypothetical chats.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> It's great for starting a dialogue.
> 
> For those that are not that well versed in fighters--like you succinctly put--but are open to new ideas it's great to teach them or point them in the direction of fighters they may not be aware of.
> 
> ...


I agree mate, but all too often these discussions seem to involve less knowledgeable posters who only have their preconceived notions and biases to call upon. You're obviously not that guy. I mean maybe 5 years ago I might have voted on this poll but now I'm honest enough to admit that I simply do not have the knowledge to be placing Floyd all-time. He's operated at such a level though that I think it's fair to suggest he would at least be competitive with most if not all of the fighters in or around his weight class. I don't think I need to have intimate knowledge of Jose Napoles to say Floyd would pose him problems. Napoles was always one of the fighters I neglected...even during my super passionate days. But I've seen footage and I have a rudimentary understanding of his achievements.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

I might have to get this hat


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I agree mate, but all too often these discussions seem to involve less knowledgeable posters who only have their preconceived notions and biases to call upon.


They don't deserve the time of day. I think everyone has biases when it comes to this stuff. Including, dare I say, _you








_


Pedderrs said:


> I
> I mean maybe 5 years ago I might have voted on this poll but now I'm honest enough to admit that I simply do not have the knowledge to be placing Floyd all-time. I don't think I need to have intimate knowledge of Jose Napoles to say Floyd would pose him problems. Napoles was always one of the fighters I neglected...even during my super passionate days. But I've seen footage and I have a rudimentary understanding of his achievements.


Napoles would similarly give Floyd "problems." That wouldn't be a cake walk for Floyd. he would be dealing with someone just as adept as counter punching as he is. This ain't no Marquez. I'm sure you have the knowledge to place Floyd all time. You have posted on these forums for like at least 8 years, mate, thousands of posts in the classic forums too.There's no way you haven't soaked up a rediculous amount of knowledge to determine where Floyd should be ranked. You can estimate it.

There are a lot of welterweights and relatively underrated guys that would give Floyd hell, if not beat him. Emile Griffith being a prime example of that. I'm not seeing many mentions of Emile Griffith but he has a combination of achievements and H2H prowess that is seldom seen. Mike McCallum and Terry Norris would rape Floyd at 154. Donald Curry would absolutely give Floyd a run for his money.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Tommy, you're autistic. You literally miss the point every time. You're a lovely lad though.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Tommy, you're autistic. You literally miss the point every time. You're a lovely lad though.


Didn't you just say you don't have enough knowledge to adequately rate Floyd Mayweather? bollocks


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Didn't you just say you don't have enough knowledge to adequately rate Floyd Mayweather? bollocks


Not in terms of an all time ranking. I could rank him relative to his own era but anything else would be completely arbitrary and open to scrutiny.

And you would have to go back many years to find me saying anything outlandish in regards to MAB. My all time favourite fighter and always will be but he lost to JMM and the first Morales fight could have gone either way. Now don't explain why you disagree, it's besides the point, I'm simply demonstrating that I am not biased when it comes to judging even my favourite fighters.

As for Floyd struggling with Napoles. Yeah, I suspect he would. But do I think Floyd would be competitive and hard for him to beat? Yes .


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

It's not important to me that MAB should be be the best. He wasn't the best. But I loved his style. That's all that matters to me.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I agree mate, but all too often these discussions seem to involve less knowledgeable posters who only have their preconceived notions and biases to call upon. You're obviously not that guy. I mean maybe 5 years ago I might have voted on this poll but now I'm honest enough to admit that I simply do not have the knowledge to be placing Floyd all-time. He's operated at such a level though that I think it's fair to suggest he would at least be competitive with most if not all of the fighters in or around his weight class. I don't think I need to have intimate knowledge of Jose Napoles to say Floyd would pose him problems. Napoles was always one of the fighters I neglected...even during my super passionate days. But I've seen footage and I have a rudimentary understanding of his achievements.


As I am trying to say mate--and your post is completely fair--any list that any of us could make would only be a 'top ten or 20 fighters I actually know about'

Only recently I came to the conclusion that Mike O'Dowd should probably be seen as a top ten middleweight of all time. You'd think that I would've made my mind up about one of boxing matinee divisions a long time ago, right?

Always learning mate.

The umbrage I have is with posts like the one Stone Rose put on here, claiming bias for anyone that doesn't have Floyd in their top 30. I believe that falls into the camp that you're talking about? Yeah, that shit gets my goat a bit.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

In reality, yeah, it is real tough to rank and know for real about the guys pre 40s... if they are not heavyweights....

I know Harry Greb´s reputation but if I´m honest I do not have the knowledge to say how good he really was, and because I (like everybody else) have never seen the guy fighting it gets way worse, and I would feel strange raking him without seeing him anyway.

Floyd is the best of my time as a Boxing fan (16 years or so).


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Idk about that. Some losses are too harsh to not impact your legacy. If Lennox Lewis didn't lose to Rahman and McCall, people would be calling him the GOAT.


I can't speak for everyone but the fact he avenged them basically evens it out for me. It shows his vulnerabilities head to head but that's a different argument.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Stone Rose said:


> He's clearly better than Hopkins, by a hundred miles . And I'm a huge fan of Hopkins.


wtf no


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Not in terms of an all time ranking. I could rank him relative to his own era but anything else would be completely arbitrary and open to scrutiny.
> 
> And you would have to go back many years to find me saying anything outlandish in regards to MAB. My all time favourite fighter and always will be but he lost to JMM and the first Morales fight could have gone either way. Now don't explain why you disagree, it's besides the point, I'm simply demonstrating that I am not biased when it comes to judging even my favourite fighters.
> 
> As for Floyd struggling with Napoles. Yeah, I suspect he would. But do I think Floyd would be competitive and hard for him to beat? Yes .


I'm sure you could manage to rank Floyd. I find him easy to rank, actually. You could rank him compared to the early 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, so on. http://boxrec.com/ Here is McGrain's list, which I find very very good as a starting point for these kind of discussions:

*
01 - Sam Langford
02 - Harry Greb
03 - Sugar Ray Robinson
04 - Henry Armstrong
05 - Ezzard Charles
06 - Bob Fitzsimmons
07 - Muhammad Ali
08 - Joe Gans
09 - Joe Louis
10 - Roberto Duran.
11 - Benny Leonard
12 - Mickey Walker
13 - Willie Pep
14 - Barney Ross
15 - Archie Moore
16 - Ray Leonard
17 - George Dixon
18 - Terry McGovern
19 - Packey McFarland
20 - Pernell Whitaker
21 - Tony Canzoneri
22 - Jimmy McLarnin
23 - Sandy Saddler
24 - Stanley Ketchel
25 - Charley Burley
26 - Holman Williams
27 - Billy Conn
28 - Gene Tunney
29 - Roy Jones
30 - Joe Walcott
31 - Carlos Monzon
32 - Jimmy Wilde
33 - Eder Jofre
34 - Marvin Hagler
35 - Julio Cesar Chavez
36 - Tommy Gibbons
37 - Kid Gavilan
38 - Jack Britton
39 - Emile Griffith
40 - Jose Napoles
41 - Alexis Arguello
42 - Michael Spinks
43 - Tommy Loughran
44 - Thomas Hearns
45 - Jimmy Bivins
46 - Ike Williams
47 - Floyd Mayweather*

MAB was just a dig at your silly comments about Junior Jones and being better than Morales. We all know hes not. and of course I felt barrera won the marquez fight.

I remember there was a good "most knowledgeable posters thread" and the discussion was about which fighter you would pick to beat prime Floyd Mayweather and someone picked Napoles. Can't remember who participated. It was a great read, I'm gonna try to dig it up. It would be a fantastic fight, technically speaking.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> wtf no


Yeah, I just don't really see that. They seem close to me in terms of resume. Trinidad might be better than most of Floyd's wins.I use to say Bhop was greater but I don't feel that way anymore


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Yeah, I just don't really see that. They seem close to me in terms of resume. Trinidad might be better than most of Floyd's wins.I use to say Bhop was greater but I don't feel that way anymore


It's close, I used to give B-Hop the edge, post-Pac I have to reevaluate but you're right that Trinidad is still likely the best win between the two.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I don´t see much difference between Floyd and Roy Jones...... it´s easy to forget how amazing Roy was, and the Toney fight, Toney was in his prime !


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I can't speak for everyone but the fact he avenged them basically evens it out for me. It shows his vulnerabilities head to head but that's a different argument.


I don't think it does. He fought harder punchers and better fighters and prevailed.

The only knock you can give Lennox is for his dedication as he turned up to Rahman unfocused.

At least against McCall he finished on his feet. But McCall wasn't even the biggest puncher, and he floored Lennox.

It doesn't mean for a second that you would think Lennox was vulnerable to bangers or fighters of a certain style, as he beat so many devastating punchers. Same as you wouldn't pick punchers to beat Ali just because Henry Cooper floored him, as he survived Liston, Foreman, Frazier etc etc

Floyd Patterson on the other hand....


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> I'm sure you could manage to rank Floyd. I find him easy to rank, actually. You could rank him compared to the early 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, so on. http://boxrec.com/ Here is McGrain's list, which I find very very good as a starting point for these kind of discussions:
> 
> *
> 01 - Sam Langford
> ...


Of course, this list was written pre-Pacquiao fight.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> I'm sure you could manage to rank Floyd. I find him easy to rank, actually. You could rank him compared to the early 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, so on. http://boxrec.com/ Here is McGrain's list, which I find very very good as a starting point for these kind of discussions:
> 
> *
> 01 - Sam Langford
> ...


I'd rather just enjoy each fighter for their own skill sets instead of giving myself headaches attempting to distinguish who was greater than who. Too many variables, too many fighters to consider.

JMM beat MAB. It's not really debatable. You're just wrong. One day you'll revisit the fight and realise you were wrong, and hopefully you'll give me the satisfaction of saying 'hey ped, you were right. JMM was the better man that night'.

I don't even recall the comments you're talking about, kid.


----------



## Trash Bags (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Really he is still 49-0. That was an exhibition against a guy making his boxing debut. He's top 50, I have Pac in front of him due to opposition and when he fought them. Floyd has never looked anywhere near unbeatable. Augustus slapped that bitch around. Lomachenko would win every round against Floyd at any weight.


He's never looked unbeatable yet he's never been beaten?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Trash Bags said:


> He's never looked unbeatable yet he's never been beaten?


Castillo, DLH, Maidana etc. have a claim for saying they beat him. Countless others (Judah, Cotto, Augustus etc.) have made him look foolish at times.
He's never looked like a prime Roy Jones or Mike Tyson. 
He is lucky to have his zero and he's carefully selected his opponents. Sometimes I wonder if people actually watch fights and have a brain of their own.


----------



## Deckard (Jul 25, 2012)

*Giant post incoming*

I have him top 15 all time in terms of achievements and accomplishments. H2H I may have him top 10 (or if I'm being generous top 5). Although I tend to be highly sceptical and suspicious of "old school" fighters, who although I admire and appreciate that boxing was tougher, more brutal and boxers fought like 100-300 fights in their careers, there has been an accumulation of knowledge, technique, training methods, nutrition and yes, peds, and I think because of this modern fighters are simply better. Boxing is the only sport in the world where experts think their athletes from the 30s-50s would beat more modern competetitors.

Defensively he's the greatest boxer of all time. There has never been a boxer more well rounded defensively. Pernell may have been more entertaining with his herky-jerky clowning style running all over the ring, but no fighter has been hit less than Floyd, Floyd could do just what Whitaker did by moving all around the ring, but he also had incredible inside fighting and being defensive in the pocket. He freakin stood toe-to-toe in the pocket with that monster Canelo, Floyd did no running in that fight.
Most impressively was his ability to fight off the ropes, opponents such as Cotto, De La Hoya, hatton and Maidana had him against the ropes and could barely even hit him. The rounds they "won" off Floyd were mainly due to activity throwing combos pressing him against the ropes, yet he rolled with all of the punches, was barely hit and countered with sharp potshots. Theres one moment in the Cotto fight were Cotto throws like a 5-6 combo against Floyd against the ropes, they all miss and he takes a step back and shakes his head in frustration. I've never seen a fighter so comfortable fighting of the ropes like that.

Offensively he is also a great fighter which sounds odd because he is comparatively featherfisted, but in terms of his technique, shot selection for the appropriate moment, variety of punches, ability to never become repetitive with his punching technique, and his precise potshot style was a nightmare to deal with for all fighters he faced.
I don't think it's appreciated enough how unbelievably demoralising it must be to hit your opponents with hundreds of punches and never even wobble them a little bit and on top of that have brittle hands that almost break or do break every fight. To me that actually elevates Floyd in terms of his accomplishments (although diminishes him H2H).

Floyd has ATG/GOAT attention, awareness, ring IQ, ability to adapt, stamina and ring generalship, he knew at all times where his opponent was and what his opponent was about to throw deep into the 11th and 12 round, he almost never made mistakes in fights, and he always adapted very quickly to any odd thing his opponent was trying or doing, he never stupidly got set into a bad rhythm or gameplan that didn't suit the occasion, if he did he very quickly adapted and changed on the fly. Floyd would have never gotten himself into a situation like Ray Leonard did against Duran in their first fight were Leonard was drawn into a brawl, it took Ray a defeat and a rematch to realise what he did wrong and to make amends, Mayweather would have figured out what was going on in the 3rd or 4th round and went back to boxing.

I have Mayweather has the GOAT at 130lb, H2H best at 135, yes I think he beats Duran, too much precision, speed, technical boxing, he would never get drawn into a brawl like Leonard did, he's also too good defensively which would confuse the fuck out of Duran. Not sure about 140, he's not even really a true welterweight he has a natural 135lber skeletal frame that blew up to larger weights by adding muscle. I honestly don't think have anyone shorter, smaller with less reach beats Floyd, he's just too good, you have to have physical attributes to beat him; height, length, speed, power. I think he beats JCC more decisively than Whitaker did and he beats Whitaker too, he's like a better version of Whitaker.

H2H Leonard's combos and punching power, height and speed would be very difficult for Floyd, Hearn's insane height, reach and power would be impossible for Mayweather to beat and nobody _ever_ outboxed Hearns, they had to outfight and brawl him, Mayweather simply doesn't have the power, combinations or aggressiveness to beat Hearns. But I don't believe they KO him, his attention, awareness, defensive skills and apprehensiveness spares him. Floyd could fight till 50 at 140-154 and never get knocked out. Some people are talking about Lomachenko beating Floyd, I don't know about that I'm still formulating my thoughts on Loma, although skill wise he's clearly very very good, he's never fought anyone with the savy and ring IQ of Mayweather or that very negative potshot style, plus his small reach and height would work against him. I actually think prime Oscar would beat Mayweather, his size speed, jab and punching power would be very difficult. I can't accept ODLH beat Mayweather in their fight in 2007, I thought Oscar was pathetic, the rounds he "won" were due to flurries he threw on the ropes that barely hit Mayweather. It was the pro-Oscar crowd that won those rounds for Oscar.

With the exception of Hearns nobody beats Mayweather comfortably between 130-147, it will always be a competitive fight.

He (and his dad) reintroduced many old school moves back into boxing like the philly shell and shoulder roll (yes James Toney was a brief precursor) but Mayweather made them popular and now we have many -poor- Mayweather clones, just like we had Ali clones after his reign. But we should be thankful for that, because along with Lomachenko with the exception of his straight lead right hand he was a textbook fighter, he possessed the skills we should teach all young boxers to try and emulate, know how to fight defensively, how to fight off the ropes how to pace yourself learn to adapt always pay attention. Mayweather was always learning, always getting better each fight and adding new things to his repertoire well into his mid 30s.

Although he was a bit of a scumbag in other areas, his approach to boxing was beyond reproach, he was always fighting fit, always prepared never became obese like Hatton never became a coke fiend, he was an exemplary professional when it came to boxing, he made a lot of people very rich.

He brought in unparralled money and attention to boxing in his era, he's the biggest PPV draw of all time, which is an achievement in itself given his defensive featherfisted potshotting style he really had no right to become as famous and as rich as he did fighting that way. He (and Pacquiao) kept boxing on that map for casuals, without him there were almost no stars, and boxing would have been greatly diminished without him. I'm sure many young fighters fighting today particularly black americans got involved because of him.

The guys a total legend, GOAT defensive skills, ATG skills in general, GOAT PPV businessman, ATG resume, ATG H2H. If don't accept that you're just a hater. Give it time and within a few years people will love him just like Naseem Hamed or Roy Jones, people disliked RJJ and thought he was overrated and it took a few years for people to recognise his greatness (RJJ is number 1 H2H greatest of all time btw)


----------



## Deckard (Jul 25, 2012)




----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Yup, he was a genius in the ring.

A past prime version totally outclassed Canelo, who is now being favoured by many people to beat Golovkin.


----------



## Deckard (Jul 25, 2012)

Also ATG composure and calmness in the ring, maybe only Toney was calmer and more chilled fighting. Also no one trained like him with such intensity, never took an opponent for granted.

Given that he was sorta forced into boxing from like the age of five it's amazing he never had a rebellious phase or blew off boxing and became disinterested in it. A lot of kids who get pressured into things at a young age by their parents often become busts and lose interest. There was a famous example of that in the NFL were a dad trained his kid to become the ultimate quarterback, he was a star at college but fell apart when he came into the NFL and became a heroin addict, marvinovich or something. Its amazing Mayweather didn't do something similar as he surrounded himself with seeming negative influences like rappers, opening strip clubs etc, but he seemed very good at compartmentalising his life and focusing on the boxing.

Doing dancing with the stars on going on wrestlemania was also very clever from a business perspective so to appeal to casuals and raise his name to non-boxing fans.


----------



## Slimtrae (Aug 10, 2015)

Great resume doesn't always equate to a great fighter.

I also add in that he was dropped I think just once? A glove scraping the canvas produced a standing 8.

Outstanding over 20 years and since the advent of punch stats he is probably the least hit fighter.

Technically sound boxer. Too composed in hot spots.
I'd say top 20 for sure.


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> wtf no


Hopkins was a fucking master and a genius but explain to me how he can be considered a better fighter than mayweather ? He falls short in every departmemt.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Stone Rose said:


> Hopkins was a fucking master and a genius but explain to me how he can be considered a better fighter than mayweather ? He falls short in every departmemt.


His resume shits all over Floyd's. His beatdowns of Trinidad, Pavlik and Tarver are greater than anything in Floyd's career. His defense is better, his inside combinations in his prime are better, his outside potshot after setting traps game is better, his longevity and desire to fight the best shits all over Floyd. And he did it while being a less athletic fighter than Floyd. Floyd can be considered on par with Toney, Hopkins is ahead of him.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm starting to think Dealt With is actually retarded.


----------



## Hoshi (Aug 21, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> His resume shits all over Floyd's. His beatdowns of Trinidad, Pavlik and Tarver are greater than anything in Floyd's career. His defense is better, his inside combinations in his prime are better, his outside potshot after setting traps game is better, his longevity and desire to fight the best shits all over Floyd. And he did it while being a less athletic fighter than Floyd. Floyd can be considered on par with Toney, Hopkins is ahead of him.


Can't have Hopkins over Mayweather. Hopkins' best wins are over smaller men. I'd say Tarver is his greatest win.

Mayweathers best wins are over Castillo and Corrales.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

@Deckard That post was something else, bravo my friend!


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Hoshi said:


> Can't have Hopkins over Mayweather. Hopkins' best wins are over smaller men. I'd say Tarver is his greatest win.
> 
> Mayweathers best wins are over Castillo and Corrales.


Tarver was nothing more than average champion at the right place at the right time.

Corrales and Castillo were good fighters but I think Floyd overcame greater challenges.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

_Mayweather looks so polished on film, and basically every minute of him is available as a pro fighter. Here are guys, H2H around him that could IMO rank/achieve higher than him across their best divisions_

Roy
Hearns
Robinson
Leonard

MAYBE Whitaker. These guys are universally recognized as top 50 guys without hesitation. Then we have guys like Duran, Spinks McCallum, Tyson, Delahoya, Benitez, Charles, Toney, Chavez, etc. who are tough guys to beat for anyone on their best nights and proved so across divisions.

_Now, resumes that are greater but probably aren't head to head as hard an opponent as Mayweather given Mayweather's consistency seen in available footage and successes._

Robinson, Pep, Greb, Langford, Gans, Leonard, Charles, Moore, Ali, Duran, Leonard, Whitaker, Ross, Walker, Canzoneri, Armstrong, Burley, Williams, Louis, Tunney.

_Some fighters should lose points due to lack of footage as well because some best wins, resume wise aren't even available to watch, or aren't impressive to see. NOW if we factor in head to head ability AND resumes, Mayweather definitely deserves to be up there. a ranking any higher than 40 would need heavy explaining and analysis._


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Slimtrae said:


> *Great resume doesn't always equate to a great fighter.*
> 
> I also add in that he was dropped I think just once? A glove scraping the canvas produced a standing 8.
> 
> ...


Fernando Vargas is a great example of that


----------



## DynamicMoves (Apr 13, 2014)

Slimtrae said:


> Great resume doesn't always equate to a great fighter.
> 
> I also add in that he was dropped I think just once? A glove scraping the canvas produced a standing 8.
> 
> ...


There is the Zab Judah "slip"


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Yup, he was a genius in the ring.
> 
> A past prime version totally outclassed Canelo, who is now being favoured by many people to beat Golovkin.


Canelo was of course dragged down to a catchweight and nowhere near as experienced as he is now.

Floyd was technically flawless though. An ATG fighter and peerless in his own time. That counts for a lot.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Hoshi said:


> Can't have Hopkins over Mayweather. Hopkins' best wins are over smaller men. I'd say Tarver is his greatest win.
> 
> Mayweathers best wins are over Castillo and Corrales.


If Corrales is your best win you're fucked.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Canelo was of course dragged down to a catchweight and nowhere near as experienced as he is now.
> 
> Floyd was technically flawless though. An ATG fighter and peerless in his own time. That counts for a lot.


Perhaps, but Floyd was long past his best and 154lbs was hardly his best weight either.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> If Corrales is your best win you're fucked.


I don't think people expected Floyd to accomplish as much as he did. Pundits were saying he was SLIPPING prior to the Corrales fight!! That's fucking madness when you think about it.

Old Delahoya and Old Pacquiao is better than young Corrales and Canelo IMO His top 5 wins are

Pacquiao
Delahoya
Castillo
Corrales
Canelo


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Perhaps, but Floyd was long past his best and 154lbs was hardly his best weight either.


Beating the Angulo's and the Khan's of the world isn't going to help him prep for Mayweather.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Beating the Angulo's and the Khan's of the world isn't going to help him prep for Mayweather.


Canelo fought those dudes after Floyd.

I'm not saying it's the same as beating a 2017 Canelo, because it isn't, but I still think it's a tremendous win. The performance should be taken into account also. I'd rank it over Corrales.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> *Canelo fought those dudes after Floyd.*
> 
> I'm not saying it's the same as beating a 2017 Canelo, because it isn't, but I still think it's a tremendous win. The performance should be taken into account also. I'd rank it over Corrales.


Exactly. That's why I'm saying I'm not sure beating up subpar competition would have gotten him any more prepared.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> I don't think people expected Floyd to accomplish as much as he did. Pundits were saying he was SLIPPING prior to the Corrales fight!! That's fucking madness when you think about it.
> 
> Old Delahoya and Old Pacquiao is better than young Corrales and Canelo IMO His top 5 wins are
> 
> ...


I'd probably have Castillo above De La Hoya...just. More impressive performance against a fighter closer to his prime.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Canelo fought those dudes after Floyd.
> 
> I'm not saying it's the same as beating a 2017 Canelo, because it isn't, but I still think it's a tremendous win. The performance should be taken into account also. I'd rank it over Corrales.


I'd have Corrales>Canelo 100%. Corrales fought well at 130 and 135 after Floyd spanked him, which makes up for the issues he had going into that fight for me (and the fact Canelo is clearly a more talented fighter than Corrales)


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Canelo fought those dudes after Floyd.
> 
> I'm not saying it's the same as beating a 2017 Canelo, because it isn't, but I still think it's a tremendous win. The performance should be taken into account also. I'd rank it over Corrales.


Why should a win over green, 152 pound weight drained Canelo be ranked over prime Diego Corrales who was actually favored to defeat Floyd at the bookies. Chico already knocked out Gainer, Garcia, Juuko and manfredy. The only world class guy Canelo fought prior to floyd was austin trout who arguably beat him.

It's a tremendous win but it's not better than Floyd's wins over Corrales or Castillo when you take a look at the context of those victories. Maybe Canelo will have a better career (probably he already does) than Corrales when its all set and done but that version of Canelo wasn't the fighter that Corrales was. Also the manner in which Floyd fucked up Corrales has to be considered


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I'd have Corrales>Canelo 100%. Corrales fought well at 130 and 135 after Floyd spanked him, which makes up for the issues he had going into that fight for me (and the fact Canelo is clearly a more talented fighter than Corrales)


This is pretty confusing, Flea.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Why should a win over green, 152 pound weight drained Canelo be ranked over prime Diego Corrales who was actually favored to defeat Floyd at the bookies. Chico already knocked out Gainer, Garcia, Juuko and manfredy. The only world class guy Canelo fought prior to floyd was austin trout who arguably beat him.
> 
> It's a tremendous win but it's not better than Floyd's wins over Corrales or Castillo when you take a look at the context of those victories. Maybe Canelo will have a better career tprobably he already does) than Corrales when its all set and done but that version of Canelo wasn't the fighter that Corrales was. Also the manner in which Floyd up Corrales has to be considered


I actually think it is. You haven't factored in the respective versions of Floyd at all. Floyd was at his peak when he beat Corrales whereas he was way past his best when he beat a more talented fighter -- and a much bigger fighter -- in Canelo. For those reasons I think it's a greater achievement. There's no doubt in my mind that a 154lbs Canelo is a more difficult fighter to beat than 130lbs Corrales...if you are Floyd Mayweather.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> This is pretty confusing, Flea.


Wasn't supposed to be.

I think Canelo is generally a better fighter than Corrales.

I think the Corrales win ranks higher on Floyd's ledger for me than the Canelo fight.

This is why; although Corrales is generally seen to be distracted outside the ring and apparently struggled to make the weight, h made the weight after--splitting fights with Casamayor--and went on to success at 135 stopping Castillo.

Similar to how Canelo was green and dragged down to 150 but went on to beat the best at 154 and won the lineal middleweight title. But I rank the Corrales win higher because at that time Corrales was better/more highly regarded than Canelo was when Floyd beat him.

Hopefully this clears up why I think the Corrales win>the Canelo win


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I actually think it is. You haven't factored in the respective versions of Floyd at all. Floyd was at his peak when he beat Corrales whereas he was way past his best when he beat a more talented fighter -- and a much bigger fighter -- in Canelo. For those reasons I think it's a greater achievement. There's no doubt in my mind that a 154lbs Canelo is a more difficult fighter to beat than 130lbs Corrales...if you are Floyd Mayweather.


I've just seen this: I see your point but we fundamentally disagree. That's fine. I think the outcome is the same, our placements are just different.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I actually think it is. You haven't factored in the respective versions of Floyd at all. Floyd was at his peak when he beat Corrales whereas he was way past his best when he beat a more talented fighter -- and a much bigger fighter -- in Canelo. For those reasons I think it's a greater achievement. There's no doubt in my mind that a 154lbs Canelo is a more difficult fighter to beat than 130lbs Corrales...if you are Floyd Mayweather.


The age is a good point and it definitely adds some sauce to that Canelo schooling, for sure. But the aggression and the way he fucked up Corrales also makes that victory unique IMO. Would you rate Canelo as Floyd's best win then? top 3?

Regarding your second point about 152 pound (not 154) Canelo being tougher to beat than 130 pound Corrales - i mean, I actually think Corrales was a tougher fight than Canelo was. Corrales was a bigger p4p puncher than Canelo (making it a more dangerous proposition than Canelo) and he actually came forward, looking for a knockout. he was never cowering on the ropes taking flush right hands like this:


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I do miss having these discussions.

Good points @Flea Man and @tommygun711.

I'll probably be on after work to discuss this some more.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> The age is a good point and it definitely adds some sauce to that Canelo schooling, for sure. But the aggression and the way he fucked up Corrales also makes that victory unique IMO. Would you rate Canelo as Floyd's best win then? top 3?
> 
> Regarding your second point about 152 pound (not 154) Canelo being tougher to beat than 130 pound Corrales - i mean, I actually think Corrales was a tougher fight than Canelo was. Corrales was a bigger p4p puncher than Canelo (making it a more dangerous proposition than Canelo) and he actually came forward, looking for a knockout. he was never cowering on the ropes taking flush right hands like this:


How much heavier in the ring was Corrales? I imagine he still had ten lbs or so on Floyd but I can't remember...pretty sure HBO showed weights though


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

To say Corrales was a bigger puncher p4p is a bit disingenuous in the context of this conversation though. Who hit harder with a single punch - a 130lbs Corrales or a 152lbs Canelo? Canelo obviously.


----------



## Hoshi (Aug 21, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> If Corrales is your best win you're fucked.


The thing with Floyd is his bigger wins such as Pacman and Mosley took place as they were definitely on the slide.

Thats why I chose Corrales and Castillo as they were very good at the time.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> To say Corrales was a bigger puncher p4p is a bit disingenuous in the context of this conversation though. Who hit harder with a single punch - a 130lbs Corrales or a 152lbs Canelo? Canelo obviously.


Of course, but let's not act like Floyd isn't a perfectly proportioned 147-149lb fighter just because he started out at the lower weights.

The difference in reality of each fighters power is apparent, Canelo is a bigger guy knocking out bigger guys (although he's only knocked out glass chinned fighters) but the difference in danger to the respective versions of Floyd splitting hairs. At least for me, although I see your point.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Hoshi said:


> The thing with Floyd is his bigger wins such as Pacman and Mosley they were definitely on the slide. Thats why I chose Corrales and Castillo as they were very good at the time.


Perhaps if your best wins are ATG's on the slide you're fucked as well.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> How much heavier in the ring was Corrales? I imagine he still had ten lbs or so on Floyd but I can't remember...pretty sure HBO showed weights though


Corrales put on 15 lbs I believe.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Corrales put on 15 lbs I believe.


And Floyd? Around 135 I guess?
Just checked: Floyd 136 1/2, Chico 146 1/2


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Why should a win over green, 152 pound weight drained Canelo be ranked over prime Diego Corrales who was actually favored to defeat Floyd at the bookies. Chico already knocked out Gainer, Garcia, Juuko and manfredy. The only world class guy Canelo fought prior to floyd was austin trout who arguably beat him.
> 
> It's a tremendous win but it's not better than Floyd's wins over Corrales or Castillo when you take a look at the context of those victories. Maybe Canelo will have a better career (probably he already does) than Corrales when its all set and done but that version of Canelo wasn't the fighter that Corrales was. Also the manner in which Floyd fucked up Corrales has to be considered


You think the 2 lbs really affected Canelo that much? He was super young and it's a lot easier cutting weight in your early twenties than it is years later.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> You think the 2 lbs really affected Canelo that much? He was super young and it's a lot easier cutting weight in your early twenties than it is years later.


He was super young and also not really that amazing or proven at that stage.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> To say Corrales was a bigger puncher p4p is a bit disingenuous in the context of this conversation though. Who hit harder with a single punch - a 130lbs Corrales or a 152lbs Canelo? Canelo obviously.


Yes but that is like saying Paul Williams is a harder hitter than Wilfredo Gomez. Of course he was.

One guy was outworking guys and smothering them with pure output, the other was sparking great fighters.

My point with the "p4p bigger puncher comment" is that Corrales was the one knocking guys clean out and Canelo was the one doing it with accumulation.. or vs guys with glass chins (kirkland khan) I think Corrales had the capability to put Floyd to sleep with a single shot at any given point of the fight. of course he never got that shot. Canelo never presented that sort of danger, IMO, which is why you saw Floyd uncharacteristically apply some pressure on Ginger. I know Floyd talks up Canelo a lot and mentions how hard of a hitter he was. I think to a certain extent he's doing that to pat himself on the back because Canelo never hurt Floyd with a "left hook "or anything of the sort.



turbotime said:


> You think the 2 lbs really affected Canelo that much? He was super young and it's a lot easier cutting weight in your early twenties than it is years later.


I dont know turbo. Canelo looked awful to me at the weigh in. I think it affected his stamina. It takes something off the win for me. And Canelo clearly improved after that schooling.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> He was super young and also not really that amazing or proven at that stage.


Well what happens when Golovkin knocks him out? Does it mean he wasn't really amazing to begin with? Does a win only age if the losing fighter goes on to do amazing things? Fighting and decisively beating Cotto doesn't do a ton for me as he is a completely different style fighter. Canelo would ALWAYS be troubled by a fighter with Mayweather's style (luckily for him there aren't a lot bar Lara but then again Lara stunk it up pretty badly)

@tommygun711 feel free to comment


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Well what happens when Golovkin knocks him out? Does it mean he wasn't really amazing to begin with? Does a win only age if the losing fighter goes on to do amazing things? Fighting and decisively beating Cotto doesn't do a ton for me as he is a completely different style fighter. Canelo would ALWAYS be troubled by a fighter with Mayweather's style (luckily for him there aren't a lot bar Lara but then again Lara stunk it up pretty badly)
> 
> @tommygun711 feel free to comment


He's gonna' beat Golovkin.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Well what happens when Golovkin knocks him out? Does it mean he wasn't really amazing to begin with? Does a win only age if the losing fighter goes on to do amazing things? Fighting and decisively beating Cotto doesn't do a ton for me as he is a completely different style fighter. Canelo would ALWAYS be troubled by a fighter with Mayweather's style (luckily for him there aren't a lot bar Lara but then again Lara stunk it up pretty badly)
> 
> @tommygun711 feel free to comment


Well, I have changed my mind a bit on the golovkin fight. 18 months ago I favored GGG to stop him in brutal fashion. Now that GGG looks old and has turned in 2 shoddy performances I have no idea how that fight goes.

I'm not sure how much Canelo losing/winning vs GGG affects Floyd's victory over him, if at all. I do think the canelo that will be fighting GGG is going to be a much superior fighter to the one floyd beat.

How would you guys rank floyds top 5 victories @Flea Man @Pedderrs @Bogotazo @bballchump11


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Yes but that is like saying Paul Williams is a harder hitter than Wilfredo Gomez. Of course he was.
> 
> One guy was outworking guys and smothering them with pure output, the other was sparking great fighters.
> 
> ...


Given the punches Floyd has taken since then, it's fair to say that Corrales was never going to knock Floyd out with a single shot. Floyd's chin is too good and I buy into Mercant's quote that 'having a chin is a function of your ambition. Your refusal to yield.' At least in part.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Well, I have changed my mind a bit on the golovkin fight. 18 months ago I favored GGG to stop him in brutal fashion. Now that GGG looks old and has turned in 2 shoddy performances I have no idea how that fight goes.
> 
> I'm not sure how much Canelo losing/winning vs GGG affects Floyd's victory over him, if at all. I do think the canelo that will be fighting GGG is going to be a much superior fighter to the one floyd beat.
> 
> How would you guys rank floyds top 5 victories @Flea Man @Pedderrs @Bogotazo @bballchump11


Well Golovkin was sick in the Brook fight. And Jacobs is just a much better fighter than I think we're not giving him credit for.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Given the punches Floyd has taken since then, it's fair to say that Corrales was never going to knock Floyd out with a single shot. Floyd's chin is too good and I buy into Mercant's quote that 'having a chin is a function of your ambition. Your refusal to yield.' At least in part.


That's why I use this Avatar. The Morales who fought Pac in the 3rd fight was ready to go down, the Erik who fought Maidana had the 'eye of the tiger'

If you'll excuse the Rockyism.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> He's gonna' beat Golovkin.


Bold. Outbox him to a decision?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

SJS20 said:


> That's why I use this Avatar. The Morales who fought Pac in the 3rd fight was ready to go down, the Erik who fought Maidana had the 'eye of the tiger'
> 
> If you'll excuse the Rockyism.


Merchant said it during MAB-Morales I incidentally.

It really doesn't matter what landed that night, it was going 12 rounds.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Well what happens when Golovkin knocks him out? Does it mean he wasn't really amazing to begin with? Does a win only age if the losing fighter goes on to do amazing things? Fighting and decisively beating Cotto doesn't do a ton for me as he is a completely different style fighter. Canelo would ALWAYS be troubled by a fighter with Mayweather's style (luckily for him there aren't a lot bar Lara but then again Lara stunk it up pretty badly)
> 
> @tommygun711 feel free to comment


Canelo was weight drained, green and inexperienced. I mean that sounds damning, but he was WBC and WBA champion when he fought Floyd. He was long established as one of the best talents in the sport. When people talk about Marco Antonio Barrera's losses to Junior Jones, do they talk about how inexperienced and green he was? He was 22 years old when he lost to Jones, Canelo was 22-23 at the time of the Floyd fight. This is not an attempt on my part to suggest MAB was green because he wasn't and I don't think we should be making those excuses for Canelo. A 23 year old man with 40 fights and multiple world title defenses isn't green. He's bigger and stronger now, a bit more experienced, but is that the difference between winning and losing when the opponent is so much better than you are? It seems in the case of Floyd we're reluctant to simply say 'well, fuck, he's just too good'. There always seems to be a technicality. Corrales was weight drained, Canelo was weight drained, De La Hoya was over the hill, Castillo was robbed, Pacquiao was past his prime etc. Alvarez was closer to his prime in 2013 than Floyd was to his, I know that much. 154lbs is closer to being his best weight than it is Floyd's too.

Honestly, a lot of the time it comes down to what you want to believe.

And in answer to your question, Canelo will have been an hype job if Golovkin beats him handily. At least that would be the perception.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Well, I have changed my mind a bit on the golovkin fight. 18 months ago I favored GGG to stop him in brutal fashion. Now that GGG looks old and has turned in 2 shoddy performances I have no idea how that fight goes.
> 
> I'm not sure how much Canelo losing/winning vs GGG affects Floyd's victory over him, if at all. I do think the canelo that will be fighting GGG is going to be a much superior fighter to the one floyd beat.
> 
> How would you guys rank floyds top 5 victories @Flea Man @Pedderrs @Bogotazo @bballchump11


That's very tough for me, and it'd probably change depending on when you asked me.

*Pacquiao* is the win that Floyd would put first and Pacquiao was p4p ranked when they fought and beat the best welterweight behind Floyd in the fight right after. So maybe he was past prime, but he was still elite.

*Castillo *is right behind. Floyd fought that fight with a bad rotator cuff and really had to adjust toward the end of that fight to eek out that win. He also went up in weight and fought the lineal champ in his prime for the first time (not counting Augustus).

*Corrales *was the last and maybe only guy to be favored of Floyd (idk the Genaro Hernandez odds). I think Oscar is a tougher opponent for Floyd than Corrales, but the dominance of this victory puts him over as well as him being in his prime.

*Oscar De La Hoya *despite being older and a part time promoter (which Floyd has been for 7 years), he still held many advantages in that fight. Floyd fought the first time at 154 when Floyd was just starting to fill into welterweight. He also fought with 10oz gloves for the first time and forced to wear Cleto Reyes. Plus Oscar was coming off of giving Mayorga the most one sided loss of his career. He was still plenty good and came in with a good strategy.

*Canelo* could end up higher on this list. I think the catchweight takes a little from the win, but not much. Canelo weighed 153 vs Trout, so that was 1 extra pound essentially. Canelo came into the fight with 2 belts and beat Lara within a year of that fight. To say Floyd didn't fight an elite version of Canelo is disingenuous. This win can grow even more in time, but I think the wins farther out from 2013 will start to less and less impact. Roy Jones gets plenty of credit for beating Bernard Hopkins despite not beating the Hopkins who beat Trinidad and Oscar De La Hoya.

I could easily switch these fights around depending on how I feel, but I think those are top 5.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

And Floyd doesn't have the top level wins that a Sugar Ray Leonard has, but his depth is great. I believe he has the record for the most current and former world champions beaten and tied for lineal titles in the most weight classes with Pacquiao. On top of that, he was lineal champ in 2 divisions at once and held 5 titles simultaneously from 147 to 154 in 2015. 

Those are accomplishments that are much easier to obtain with the current landscape of boxing and impossible to get before the 80's, but still impressive imo. Let's see how it takes for them to be beaten.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Canelo was weight drained, green and inexperienced. I mean that sounds damning, but he was WBC and WBA champion when he fought Floyd. He was long established as one of the best talents in the sport. When people talk about Marco Antonio Barrera's losses to Junior Jones, do they talk about how inexperienced and green he was? He was 22 years old when he lost to Jones, Canelo was 22-23 at the time of the Floyd fight. This is not an attempt on my part to suggest MAB was green because he wasn't and I don't think we should be making those excuses for Canelo. A 23 year old man with 40 fights and multiple world title defenses isn't green. He's bigger and stronger now, a bit more experienced, but is that the difference between winning and losing when the opponent is so much better than you are? It seems in the case of Floyd we're reluctant to simply say 'well, fuck, he's just too good'. There always seems to be a technicality. Corrales was weight drained, Canelo was weight drained, De La Hoya was over the hill, Castillo was robbed, Pacquiao was past his prime etc. Alvarez was closer to his prime in 2013 than Floyd was to his, I know that much. 154lbs is closer to being his best weight than it is Floyd's too.
> 
> Honestly, a lot of the time it comes down to what you want to believe.
> 
> And in answer to your question, Canelo will have been an hype job if Golovkin beats him handily. At least that would be the perception.


Great post man. If you only want to focus on the bad you can discredit anything. Canelo wasn't a massive underdog either. Again, it's tough for a lot of people to just admit Floyd is too good of a boxer no matter the circumstance.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Well, I have changed my mind a bit on the golovkin fight. 18 months ago I favored GGG to stop him in brutal fashion. Now that GGG looks old and has turned in 2 shoddy performances I have no idea how that fight goes.
> 
> I'm not sure how much Canelo losing/winning vs GGG affects Floyd's victory over him, if at all. I do think the canelo that will be fighting GGG is going to be a much superior fighter to the one floyd beat.
> 
> How would you guys rank floyds top 5 victories @Flea Man @Pedderrs @Bogotazo @bballchump11


Pacquiao
De La Hoya
Cotto
Canelo
Hatton

Canelo is a hard one to gauge. I usually give credit for when an opponent goes on to do well, but I skew much more heavily towards looking at a fighter shortly before/after and not years later, especially if they're young. The Canelo that beat Angulo wasn't too different from the one that fought Floyd. The one that fought Lara? Maybe a little better. The one that fought Cotto? Now it becomes harder to tell. And now against GGG? It's hard to believe you could equate them.



Stone Rose said:


> Hopkins was a fucking master and a genius but explain to me how he can be considered a better fighter than mayweather ? He falls short in every departmemt.


In terms of resume I think they're very close, and what added bonus Floyd gets for consistency and the 0 I feel Hopkins makes up for in his legendary longevity and big underdog wins. I wouldn't balk at having Floyd higher but I don't think there's such a gap between them.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Bold. Outbox him to a decision?


Not at all bold. Yeah, decision mate.


----------



## UK fight fan (Apr 22, 2016)

bballchump11 said:


> What's actually funny is this past fight enhanced his legacy among casuals. Skip Bayless said it was his best performance :lol:


Skip sure knows his boxing.


----------



## Slimtrae (Aug 10, 2015)

@Pedderrs 
@tommygun

GR8 arguments.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Pacquiao
> De La Hoya
> Cotto
> Canelo
> ...


Mayweather just has that H2H advantage on the eye test. IMO it's plain to see Mayweather is the better boxer.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Mayweather just has that H2H advantage on the eye test. IMO it's plain to see Mayweather is the better boxer.


Depends on how much you factor in the eye test though doesn't it? Completely subjective, even if you're telling Bogo that Floyd is clearly better he may not feel that way.

Roy Jones is better than Floyd it's plain to see, I rank Floyd higher than Roy as of today, even though Roy has some insane achievements of his own and the best single win between the two of them.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Depends on how much you factor in the eye test though doesn't it? Completely subjective, even if you're telling Bogo that Floyd is clearly better he may not feel that way.
> 
> Roy Jones is better than Floyd it's plain to see, I rank Floyd higher than Roy as of today, even though Roy has some insane achievements of his own and the best single win between the two of them.


Max Kellerman said that same thing a bit ago. He said in an interview with Roy when talking about Floyd that their primes actually overlapped and not once did anyone think Floyd P4P was better than Jones. Agreed wholeheartedly too. Kellerman is a massive Jones hugger though (so am I :yep)

Do you rate him higher than Whitaker?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Mayweather just has that H2H advantage on the eye test. IMO it's plain to see Mayweather is the better boxer.


I hate the eye test because it can be deceiving. "Better" and "greater" are two different questions.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I hate the eye test because it can be deceiving. "Better" and "greater" are two different questions.


Well, not really when the better fighter has the resume to back it up.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Well, not really when the better fighter has the resume to back it up.


Again, this is just your opinion. Fine for others to disagree. I have Floyd ahead by a hair, B-Hop probably falls into my 41-50 bracket whereas Floyd is in the 31-40 bracket


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Max Kellerman said that same thing a bit ago. He said in an interview with Roy when talking about Floyd that their primes actually overlapped and not once did anyone think Floyd P4P was better than Jones. Agreed wholeheartedly too. Kellerman is a massive Jones hugger though (so am I :yep)
> 
> Do you rate him higher than Whitaker?


I think people forget--and clearly you have here--that Roy is my hero. He's the fighter that got me into boxing when I was still in single digits. I love him, late career meltdown and blatant 'roid use an' all, I don't care, I absolutely love Roy Jones Jr.

Do I rate who higher than Whitaker? Sweet Pea is in my 21-30 bracket, Floyd is in my 31-40 bracket, Jones is in my 41-50 bracket. EDIT: Before you ask, I don't think I have De La Hoya, Mosley or Trinidad in my top 100.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Mosley not in my top 100.


Get Duran out of your LW top 5


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

dyna said:


> Get Duran out of your LW top 5


Mosley is in no way a top 25 LW, while we're at it.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

What do we know about Roy's roid use?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> What do we know about Roy's roid use?


He popped once at light heavyweight, his opponent also popped. He packed on serious muscle mass for the Ruiz fight too.

He fought primarily in an era where drug testing was incredibly slack.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I think people forget--and clearly you have here--that Roy is my hero. He's the fighter that got me into boxing when I was still in single digits. I love him, late career meltdown and blatant 'roid use an' all, I don't care, I absolutely love Roy Jones Jr.
> 
> Do I rate who higher than Whitaker? Sweet Pea is in my 21-30 bracket, Floyd is in my 31-40 bracket, Jones is in my 41-50 bracket. EDIT: Before you ask, I don't think I have De La Hoya, Mosley or Trinidad in my top 100.


*gasp* oskie!


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> He popped once at light heavyweight, his opponent also popped. He packed on serious muscle mass for the Ruiz fight too.
> 
> He fought primarily in an era where drug testing was incredibly slack.


Then fuck him. Deserves nothing but contempt.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Then fuck him. Deserves nothing but contempt.


Cool, but you have no issue with Floyd's clearly dodgy IV use? He's still a genius, yeah? And you have nothing but contempt for Morales either, right?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I think people forget--and clearly you have here--that Roy is my hero. He's the fighter that got me into boxing when I was still in single digits. I love him, late career meltdown and blatant 'roid use an' all, I don't care, I absolutely love Roy Jones Jr.
> 
> Do I rate who higher than Whitaker? Sweet Pea is in my 21-30 bracket, Floyd is in my 31-40 bracket, Jones is in my 41-50 bracket. EDIT: Before you a*sk, I don't think I have De La Hoya, Mosley or Trinidad in my top 100.*


I think we all established that at the old house :yep :nono

I just find it incredibly difficult to find 30 fighters who look _as_ good with better resumes than Mayweather. Just me, of course.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

turbotime said:


> I think we all established that at the old house :yep :nono
> 
> I just find it incredibly difficult to find 30 fighters who look _as_ good with better resumes than Mayweather. Just me, of course.


Indeed we did :yep

Again, this is a criteria thing. No issue with that, but please accept that others may have different criteria to you :good


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Given the punches Floyd has taken since then, it's fair to say that Corrales was never going to knock Floyd out with a single shot. Floyd's chin is too good and I buy into Mercant's quote that 'having a chin is a function of your ambition. Your refusal to yield.' At least in part.


Fair enough. A bit of hyperbole on my part. I do think if he was given the perfect shot, Corrales could knock out a fuck ton of guys at 130, though. Probably some great fighters as well. 


Flea Man said:


> Roy Jones is better than Floyd it's plain to see, I rank Floyd higher than Roy as of today, even though Roy has some insane achievements of his own and the best single win between the two of them.


Personally I would give Roy a pretty big edge over Floyd, he's one of the only modern fighters nowadays that is objectively greater than Floyd. Especially when you take a look at Roy's resume - it blows Floyd's out of the water. Like, not even close, imo. Sure Floyd was undefeated and doesnt' have those terrible knockout losses that Roy has. But Roy could have retired after Ruiz or Tarver 1 and he would pretty much be undefeated (not counting Montell Griffin faking it) I think H2H he has to rate higher too.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Fair enough. A bit of hyperbole on my part. I do think if he was given the perfect shot, Corrales could knock out a fuck ton of guys at 130, though. Probably some great fighters as well.
> 
> Personally I would give Roy a pretty big edge over Floyd, he's one of the only modern fighters nowadays that is objectively greater than Floyd. Especially when you take a look at Roy's resume - it blows Floyd's out of the water. Like, not even close, imo. Sure Floyd was undefeated and doesnt' have those terrible knockout losses that Roy has. But Roy could have retired after Ruiz or Tarver 1 and he would pretty much be undefeated (not counting Montell Griffin faking it) I think H2H he has to rate higher too.


Is his resume that much better than Floyd's? As I've already said, he has the best single win out of both of them, but you could pick holes in Roy's resume just like people do with Floyd's I think.

And for me, his LHW 'reign' was pretty damn shit in terms of opposition. Had he smoked Dariuz I might be singing a different tune but as I say, you can pick holes in Roys wins just the same way (Toney weight drained, B-Hop pre-prime, Hill past prime etc etc)


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Is his resume that much better than Floyd's? As I've already said, he has the best single win out of both of them, but you could pick holes in Roy's resume just like people do with Floyd's I think.
> 
> And for me, his LHW 'reign' was pretty damn shit in terms of opposition. Had he smoked Dariuz I might be singing a different tune but as I say, you can pick holes in Roys wins just the same way (Toney weight drained, B-Hop pre-prime, Hill past prime etc etc)


I think you could nitpick most resumes like that. Sure. I know I've done the same thing to Roy's resume.

I'm just more impressed with the caliber of fighters that Roy was destroying and the manner in which he did it. His wins over Bhop and Toney outshine anything Floyd did. And then there are the slightly lesser wins vs Montell Griffin,Ruiz, Reggie Johnson, the underrated Maligna, and so on.

I've got no quarrel with rating Floyd ahead of Roy based off of the careers. But this brings up another question; how much credit should Floyd get for going undefeated? Does an undefeated record outweigh the sort of names that Roy was dominating? Would Floyd have been undefeated if he had fought the prime black fighters that i mentioned a few pages ago?

Just some things to consider.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> I think you could nitpick most resumes like that. Sure. I know I've done the same thing to Roy's resume.
> 
> I'm just more impressed with the caliber of fighters that Roy was destroying and the manner in which he did it. His wins over Bhop and Toney outshine anything Floyd did. And then there are the slightly lesser wins vs Montell Griffin,Ruiz, Reggie Johnson, the underrated Maligna, and so on.
> 
> ...


I take all those things into consideration but not 'how would he do in another era'.

I do, but in a roundabout way. I look at it like, 'who did he beat, when did he beat them, how strong was the era'?

For me, Floyd was impeccable, but I don't think it was the very strongest of eras. The same can be said for Roy for some of the divisions he fought in. He did enough to be the no.1 SMW of all time, but he could've done more. MW was in a transitional period, and LHW was generally dog shit all the time he was there.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Indeed we did :yep
> 
> Again, this is a criteria thing. No issue with that, but please accept that others may have different criteria to you :good


One day!


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Then fuck him. Deserves nothing but contempt.


They all use it, brah.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I take all those things into consideration but not 'how would he do in another era'.
> 
> I do, but in a roundabout way. I look at it like, 'who did he beat, when did he beat them, how strong was the era'?
> 
> For me, Floyd was impeccable, but I don't think it was the very strongest of eras. The same can be said for Roy for some of the divisions he fought in. He did enough to be the no.1 SMW of all time, but he could've done more. MW was in a transitional period, and LHW was generally dog shit all the time he was there.


You ever compile a functional top 100 McGrain style Flea?


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I mean, they all used it... even old timers btw, peds go as back as the WWII and shit.
Not that I find it right, but..... it happens in this level too much.


----------



## KO-KING (Nov 9, 2014)

Without looking at the results, I predict 20-30 will be most popular with people putting him around 30

But I reckon he's top 20 and as time goes on he'll creep up the rankings, people always and I mean always overrate older fighters

For example Ali was ranked something like 7th of all time HW in 1975 or something, when even at that point he was the GOAT heavyweight


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Cool, but you have no issue with Floyd's clearly dodgy IV use? He's still a genius, yeah? And you have nothing but contempt for Morales either, right?


I mean we can play a game of whataboutery if you like but you're the one who brought Roy Jones Jr's drug use into the conversation. Personally if Marco Antonio Barrera was busted for steroid use smack bang in his prime then I very much doubt I would carry the attitude of 'well, I don't care because I like him'. Your hero fucked up and did a contemptible thing. It's not rational for a supposed passionate supporter of the sport, someone who presumably cares about the integrity of Boxing, to react so blase to something like that. Not in my opinion.

And I condemn any fighter that is *proven to have taken illegal substances*. It's honestly really not something I spend too much time reading about or thinking about, failed drug tests, but if you're telling me that Roy Jones Jr was busted for steroid use during his active days, then yeah, fuck him. It's contemptible. Is that not a rational reaction in your mind, Flea? Or we do we have to clear Floyd Mayweather of his suspicious IV use first?

Show me some factual evidence that proves Floyd has taken illegal substances into the ring with him and I will condemn him for it also. I haven't talked about rendering fighters careers and achievements completely invalidate as a result, I'm merely saying that drug use in the sport of Boxing can not be condoned or tolerated. It was your admission that you don't care that surprised me. You should care.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> You ever compile a functional top 100 McGrain style Flea?


Nah mate. Although I do have divisional top tens.

For P4P I have brackets, some sorted, some just lumped together based on my general feeling. In fact there is a new episode of The Fistorical Perspective--now under the Heavy Hands banner--coming to iTunes this Thursday where I talk broadly about my criteria and do a run down of my top ten P4P. It's just for fun, nothin' too serious :good


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I mean we can play a game of whataboutery if you like but you're the one who brought Roy Jones Jr's drug use into the conversation. Personally if Marco Antonio Barrera was busted for steroid use smack bang in his prime then I very much doubt I would carry the attitude of 'well, I don't care because I like him'. Your hero fucked up and did a contemptible thing. It's not rational for a supposed passionate supporter of the sport, someone who presumably cares about the integrity of Boxing, to react so blase to something like that. Not in my opinion.
> 
> And I condemn any fighter that is *proven to have taken illegal substances*. It's honestly really not something I spend too much time reading about or thinking about, failed drug tests, but if you're telling me that Roy Jones Jr was busted for steroid use during his active days, then yeah, fuck him. It's contemptible. Is that not a rational reaction in your mind, Flea? Or we do we have to clear Floyd Mayweather of his suspicious IV use first?
> 
> Show me some factual evidence that proves Floyd has taken illegal substances into the ring with him and I will condemn him for it also. I haven't talked about rendering fighters careers and achievements completely invalidate as a result, I'm merely saying that drug use in the sport of Boxing can not be condoned or tolerated. It was your admission that you don't care that surprised me. You should care.


Okay, so you hate Morales then?

Also, I DO care when it comes to weighing up the merits of a fighter. But please take into account that I loved Roy Jones as a little lad. I didn't know any of this then. Do I care that he cheated when others were cheating (and in fact his opponent was significantly more juiced up than him for what it's worth) yes of course I do, it changes things.

Do I completely dismiss the fact that I love watching him fight, and that it still gives me that feeling today? No, of course not.

This is boxing. The whole sport is sickeningly dirty and has been since day dot. Feeling morally superior about it is a complete waste of time, you're a fan of the wrong sport if it matters that much to you. I see your point ENTIRELY, I also don't care that you're putting me on a pedestal and assassinating me. I completely understand why you would do that, but I shrug my shoulders because I'm at peace with it quite frankly. Boxing is boxing, it's rotten as Hell and as much as I don't like it, I love the sport warts an' all. Part and parcel of being a fan unfortunately.

Hoping for change, and that the sport can clean itself up? Well, of course that is something I care immensely about.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Okay, so you hate Morales then?
> 
> Also, I DO care when it comes to weighing up the merits of a fighter. But please take into account that I loved Roy Jones as a little lad. I didn't know any of this then. Do I care that he cheated when others were cheating (and in fact his opponent was significantly more juiced up than him for what it's worth) yes of course I do, it changes things.
> 
> ...


How have I assassinated you? I asked for clarification on the Jones Jr drug situation, you confirmed that he did indeed take steroids during his prime years, and I say to that 'fuck him then, that's contemptible'. That would have been the end of the entire discussion had you not then played whataboutery in attempt to expose some kind of double standard or hypocrisy on my part. On the contrary, it was you who was attempting to assassinate me. You came after me. You and Vic can choose to believe that the sport is rife with drug's cheats. Let's just stop testing the athletes altogether. What's the point? There's no repercussions, not from the commission and not from the fans. Everyone can take steroids and we can all watch jacked up trained professional fighters try to kill each other. Or, we can believe in innocent till proven guilty, enforce the rules and hold fighters accountable if they break those rules. I know which side I'll be on.

And I don't hate Roy Jones Jr or Erik Morales, but the fact that both have been busted for steroid use is severely disappointing and taints things. The act itself deserves nothing but contempt. All I did was state that that is my position on it and then you come after me, basically asking me to denounce every single fighter ever that has been busted for steroids, like I would even know. I'm not going to google search every single fighter that has ever failed a drug's test, but let me just make it clear for you, I condemn any professional fighter that has been proven to have taken illegal substances into the ring with them. I feel like I'm being controversial in saying that.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> How have I assassinated you? I asked for clarification on the Jones Jr drug situation, you confirmed that he did indeed take steroids during his prime years, and I say to that 'fuck him then, that's contemptible'. That would have been the end of the entire discussion had you not then played whataboutery in attempt to expose some kind of double standard or hypocrisy on my part. On the contrary, it was you who was attempting to assassinate me. You came after me. You and Vic can choose to believe that the sport is rife with drug's cheats. Let's just stop testing the athletes altogether. What's the point? There's no repercussions, not from the commission and not from the fans. Everyone can take steroids and we can all watch jacked up trained professional fighters try to kill each other. Or, we can believe in innocent till proven guilty, enforce the rules and hold fighters accountable if they break those rules. I know which side I'll be on.
> 
> And I don't hate Roy Jones Jr or Erik Morales, but the fact that both have been busted for steroid use is severely disappointing and taints things. The act itself deserves nothing but contempt. All I did was state that that is my position on it and then you come after me, basically asking me to denounce every single fighter ever that has been busted for steroids, like I would even know. I'm not going to google search every single fighter that has ever failed a drug's test, but let me just make it clear for you, I condemn any professional fighter that has been proven to have taken illegal substances into the ring with them. I feel like I'm being controversial in saying that.


This is all fair. I wasn't trying to assassinate you or anything like it, just trying to see if you held all fighters to the same standards, as I know you're a big fan of the Barrera-Morales-Marquez era (so to speak) and those guys. Clearly you do, so fair enough.

I would also expect for you to be aware of Morales failing, I have no desire for you to memorise every fighter that has ever failed a test, that would be ludicrous.

I personally felt you were calling my character into question, or rather my 'integrity' as a boxing fan. Hence my 'assassination' comment. I was merely trying to see--or jog your memory I guess--whether or not you were bashing Jones and Jones alone as a drug cheat scumbag or whether you would also hold fighters you rate to that standard.

I believe what Floyd did--getting a post-fight exemption--is dirty, and should be seen as controversial and possibly damning. It's the implications of taking an IV--when he doesn't cut weight--that should have alarm bells ringing for you. It's not a case of 'show me when he's tested positive', it's a case of knowing what that means and how it should be seen as shoddy behaviour.

The same as testing positive for anabolics? No, but a cheating of the system that by your criteria should see you be a bit harder on him IMO.

As for me being a fan of Jones, I'm not going to defend it, I've explained my stance. He also took part in dog fighting and had a real passion for cock fighting. It's bullshit behaviour, but still, I'm a massive fan of his fighting. I'll leave it at that, if you have a problem with it I completely understand. I'm willing to defend my stance on many things, but this? It is what it is, call it nostalgia, call it whatever you like but Roy Jones Jr will always be one of my favourite fighters unless he's outed as Savile-esque nonce quite frankly.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> This is all fair. I wasn't trying to assassinate you or anything like it, just trying to see if you held all fighters to the same standards, as I know you're a big fan of the Barrera-Morales-Marquez era (so to speak) and those guys. Clearly you do, so fair enough.
> 
> I would also expect for you to be aware of Morales failing, I have no desire for you to memorise every fighter that has ever failed a test, that would be ludicrous.
> 
> ...


I wasn't even aware you were such a huge Jones fan. I thought you only watched fighters weighing 9 stone or less. :lol:

I don't want to come across as self-righteous. Would I stop supporting MAB if he was ever outed as a drug's cheat? Probably not. Do I think you should stop watching Roy Jones Jr fights and stop admiring his talent? Of course not! But nor do I think 'I don't care' is an acceptable stance. Don't you think that sets a dangerous precedent? And to be honest I had absolutely no intention of even mentioning that but you put me on the defensive when you asked me to condemn Morales and Floyd, inferring that I was a hypocrite. I'm worse than a hypocrite mate, I'm ignorant. I don't know who is passing drug tests and who isn't. I'm a very naive man. I thought a failed test would surely result in a lengthy ban from the sport and tons of negative publicity.

As for the Floyd situation, there's no easy way to address it. I understand why it's suspect and should be questioned, but I don't think it's comparable to Jones admitting taking steroids during his peak years.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I wasn't even aware you were such a huge Jones fan. I thought you only watched fighters weighing 9 stone or less. :lol:
> 
> I don't want to come across as self-righteous. Would I stop supporting MAB if he was ever outed as a drug's cheat? Probably not. Do I think you should stop watching Roy Jones Jr fights and stop admiring his talent? Of course not! But nor do I think 'I don't care' is an acceptable stance. Don't you think that sets a dangerous precedent? And to be honest I had absolutely no intention of even mentioning that but you put me on the defensive when you asked me to condemn Morales and Floyd, inferring that I was a hypocrite. I'm worse than a hypocrite mate, I'm ignorant. I don't know who is passing drug tests and who isn't. I'm a very naive man. I thought a failed test would surely result in a lengthy ban from the sport and tons of negative publicity.
> 
> As for the Floyd situation, there's no easy way to address it. I understand why it's suspect and should be questioned, but I don't think it's comparable to Jones admitting taking steroids during his peak years.


Jones was caught red handed, but the athletic commission that caught him had no jurisdiction to do so and thus he was merely informed he failed and not banned.

Very honest post mate (as always) but hopefully I have also clarified my 'I don't care' post and contextualised it somewhat.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Jones was caught red handed, but the athletic commission that caught him had no jurisdiction to do so and thus he was merely informed he failed and not banned.
> 
> Very honest post mate (as always) but hopefully I have also clarified my 'I don't care' post and contextualised it somewhat.


It was a silly thing to argue over and I would have reacted the same way you did if the roles were reversed I think.

So apologies.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> It was a silly thing to argue over and I would have reacted the same way you did if the roles were reversed I think.
> 
> So apologies.


Nah, no apology needed mate, it ended up being a decent discussion I think with important points being raised.

I think my flippant and hyperbolic original post--mainly used for a bit of comedic effect and to drive the point home--caused a bit of confusion on your part, so it's all a mountain out of a molehill really.

But as I always say, if it starts an interesting dialogue it's all good :good


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> That's very tough for me, and it'd probably change depending on when you asked me.
> 
> *Pacquiao* is the win that Floyd would put first and Pacquiao was p4p ranked when they fought and beat the best welterweight behind Floyd in the fight right after. So maybe he was past prime, but he was still elite.
> 
> ...


That's pretty damn good. For some reason I dont' rate the pacquiao win as highly as some of his others. That win could have been special in 2009-2011. Now it's an afterthought at best



Bogotazo said:


> Pacquiao
> De La Hoya
> Cotto
> Canelo
> ...


Those are pretty good lists.I think I underrate Canelo and Pacquiao compared to Floyd's other opponents.No Marquez, or Corrales feels weird although I see the case for it.

Also have to say Hatton looks out of place considering the other names you could have picked.

I think mine would go:

1. Corrales
2. Castillo
3. De La Hoya
4. Cotto
5. Canelo/Pacquiao

Corrales and Castillo are hands down his best victories just because of how they were both at their best.

Might throw in mosley or marquez depending on the day.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> That's pretty damn good. For some reason I dont' rate the pacquiao win as highly as some of his others. That win could have been special in 2009-2011. Now it's an afterthought at best
> 
> Those are pretty good lists.I think I underrate Canelo and Pacquiao compared to Floyd's other opponents.No Marquez, or Corrales feels weird although I see the case for it.
> 
> ...


I actually totally forgot about Castillo and Corrales, they're the pair I usually stick right in the middle. So I guess it would go:

Pacquiao
Castillo
Cotto
De La Hoya
Corrales

Pacquiao isn't that "special" win that it would have been, so it just becomes a very good one. Every ATG on Floyd's list was noticeably declined, Pacquiao is the highest ranked on that list though. I think the Pacquiao that fought Floyd and beat up Bradley for a 3rd time right after is still a better fighter than Corrales and Oscar were on the night. Same with Cotto and prime Castillo.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

The Canelo that Floyd beat knocks Pacquiao out.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> The Canelo that Floyd beat knocks Pacquiao out.


Which Pacquiao? The Pacquiao that Floyd beat?

I say nah. I think even at that point Pacquiao should beat him on points. Canelo will have no answer at all for Pacquiao's in and out movement, combos, hand speed and ring IQ. Bad style match up for Canelo.



Bogotazo said:


> I actually totally forgot about Castillo and Corrales, they're the pair I usually stick right in the middle. So I guess it would go:
> 
> Pacquiao
> Castillo
> ...


Yep, can't argue with that really. I just think Prime Corrales was better than past prime Pacquiao.

Do you think Mosley and Marquez could be in his top 5 wins. I think they might just get in there


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Which Pacquiao? The Pacquiao that Floyd beat?
> 
> I say nah. I think even at that point Pacquiao should beat him on points. Canelo will have no answer at all for Pacquiao's in and out movement, combos, hand speed and ring IQ. Bad style match up for Canelo.
> 
> ...


Tommy, you're just a pretty face. Nothing more.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Tommy, you're just a pretty face. Nothing more.


Addie, my boyish looks are neither here nor there. Meaning, that ain't an argument!

Why does green 152 pound Canelo knockout Manny Pacquiao? I see nothing at all to suggest that. Canelo could maybe win the fight given how Pacquiao was small at 154, however I think pacs experience and attributes should get the job done.

You can take it a step further and take the prime-ish version of Pacquiao that lit up Margarito.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Addie, my boyish looks are neither here nor there. Meaning, that ain't an argument!
> 
> Why does green 152 pound Canelo knockout Manny Pacquiao? I see nothing at all to suggest that. Canelo could maybe win the fight given how Pacquiao was small at 154, however I think pacs experience and attributes should get the job done.
> 
> You can take it a step further and take the prime-ish version of Pacquiao that lit up Margarito.


Because a 42-0 world champion with 7 title fights and two belts isn't green. People need to stop with that nonsense.

And 152 pounds is 2 pounds less than the 154lbs limit that he would then go on to make a couple of more times before eventually moving up, when he was then being accused of not being a genuine middleweight. If you want to believe 2 pounds is the difference between winning and losing then that's your problem. Just a bunch of nonsense to discredit a great win.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Because a 42-0 world champion with 7 title fights and two belts isn't green. People need to stop with that nonsense.
> 
> And 152 pounds is 2 pounds less than the 154lbs limit that he would then go on to make a couple of more times before eventually moving up, when he was then being accused of not being a genuine middleweight. If you want to believe 2 pounds is the difference between winning and losing then that's your problem. Just a bunch of nonsense to discredit a great win.


lol "42-0 world champion with 7 title fights" is a nice phrase to make Canelo look better, that's more of an indictment of how title belts are handed out like candy these days. again the only world class operator that he fought prior to Floyd was austin trout. Sorry but I'm not impressed with Canelo knocking out Baldomir and Cintron. His competition dramatically improved after the Floyd fight, as did his skills, countering and defensive prowess.

2 pounds makes the world of difference if you are talking about a guy that is naturally much bigger than the 154 limit anyway. You can't tell me that the weight cut didn't hurt canelo and his stamina. It obviously did, and that's why Floyd insisted on the catchweight. Canelo would have lost at 154 anyhow.

It is a great win. So what. That's got nothing to do with Canelo hypothetically knocking manny pacquiao. The only guys Canelo can knockout are guys like Kirkland or Khan or fucking Baldomir. Not once did Canelo knock out, or even beat someone the caliber of Manny Pacquiao.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> lol "42-0 world champion with 7 title fights" is a nice phrase to make Canelo look better, that's more of an indictment of how title belts are handed out like candy these days. again the only world class operator that he fought prior to Floyd was austin trout. Sorry but I'm not impressed with Canelo knocking out Baldomir and Cintron. His competition dramatically improved after the Floyd fight, as did his skills, countering and defensive prowess.


Let's discuss all of the green fighters throughout recent history with 42 fights, two belts and 6 title defences. You start.

And Canelo was being outboxed by Khan for 6 rounds a year ago. He looked dreadful against Lara after the Floyd fight and merely average against Cotto. So when did Canelo turn super saiyan exactly -- against the walking punching bags Kirkland and Angulo?



> 2 pounds makes the world of difference if you are talking about a guy that is naturally much bigger than the 154 limit anyway. You can't tell me that the weight cut didn't hurt canelo and his stamina. It obviously did, and that's why Floyd insisted on the catchweight. Canelo would have lost at 154 anyhow.


It made no difference at all.



> It is a great win. So what. That's got nothing to do with Canelo hypothetically knocking manny pacquiao. The only guys Canelo can knockout are guys like Kirkland or Khan or fucking Baldomir. Not once did Canelo knock out, or even beat someone the caliber of Manny Pacquiao.


Pacquiao is a little man who was knocked out cold by another little man, JMM. Canelo hits significantly harder and has a comparable level of offensive skills to JMM. Canelo struggles with boxers, he doesn't struggle with aggressive Welterweights.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> And Canelo was being outboxed by Khan for 6 rounds a year ago. He looked dreadful against Lara after the Floyd fight and merely average against Cotto. So when did Canelo turn super saiyan exactly -- against the walking punching bags Kirkland and Angulo?
> 
> It made no difference at all..


Didn't say he turned super saiyan. I said he dramatically improved his skills (such as pull countering, head movement) and clearly learned from the education that Floyd delivered. Which is what happens when you start fighting world class competition consistently, as he did after the Floyd fight. I find it hard to believe that you are really naive enough to think green 152 pound weight drained inexperienced Canelo did not improve after the Floyd fight. I mean, really? The canelo that fought Floyd loses to Lara and Cotto.

You can think it made no difference. But, if it made no difference, then Floyd would have just opted to fight at 154 like he did against De La Hoya, Cotto and McNugget. Look at how skinny and drained he looks at the weigh in.
















Compared to his most recent fight vs Chavez at 164:










Yeah, _yuuuge _difference. Caneo has filled out and matured.


Pedderrs said:


> Pacquiao is a little man who was knocked out cold by another little man, JMM. Canelo hits significantly harder and has a comparable level of offensive skills to JMM. Canelo struggles with boxers, he doesn't struggle with aggressive Welterweights.


To put it bluntly

JMM>Canelo

Pacquiao> Canelo

Canelo to me is nowhere near the level of counter punching or combination punching of JMM. and he never knocked out someone like Pacquiao. Marquez accomplished that KO with perfect timing and accuracy. Canelo doesn't have that. I'm serious where are you getting this idea that Canelo is some kind of huge KO artist? Because of Kirkland and Khan? Canelo struggles with talented fighters, period. He looks bad against guys that are good at combination punching, guys with speed, fast feet. Pacquiao would be moving in and out and bamboozling Canelo with 8 punch combos. I see Pacquiao fucking him up, honestly. Particuarly the vicious Manny Pacquiao that destroyed Margarito.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

This is boring Tommy.

42-0 Canelo was green and then miraculously improved his skills to squeak past Lara and get outboxed by Khan over 6. Okie dokie.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> This is boring Tommy.
> 
> 42-0 Canelo was green and then miraculously improved his skills to squeak past Lara and get outboxed by Khan over 6. Okie dokie.


Khan, Cotto and Lara are horrible style match ups for Canelo. If you can't see a difference between Canelo's approach vs Lara compared to how he fought Floyd then I don't know what to say. His ring generalship and ability to cut off the ring improved vs Lara.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Khan, Cotto and Lara are horrible style match ups for Canelo. If you can't see a difference between Canelo's approach vs Lara compared to how he fought Floyd then I don't know what to say. His ring generalship and ability to cut off the ring approved vs Lara.


Yeah okay mate. 42-0 Canelo with 6 title defenses was green.

I assume you think MAB was green in 1996 too?


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Yeah okay mate. 42-0 Canelo with 6 title defenses was green.
> 
> I assume you think MAB was green in 1996 too?


Why don't you quit repeating that useless stat and take a look at the kind of names Canelo was actually fighting prior to Austin trout? Matthew Hatton, Cintron, Jose Miguel Cotto, Rhodes, Ndou, Baldomir, Lopez, shot Shane Mosley. Not exactly the murderers row, is it


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Why don't you quit repeating that useless stat and take a look at the kind of names Canelo was actually fighting prior to Austin trout? Matthew Hatton, Cintron, Jose Miguel Cotto, Rhodes, Ndou, Baldomir, Lopez, shot Shane Mosley. Not exactly the murderers row, is it


Answer the question.

Was MAB green in 1996?


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Answer the question.
> 
> Was MAB green in 1996?


I'm not really familiar with barrera's career. you will have to educate me. If that is around the McKinney fight, then he was close to his athletic prime.

For what its worth I always thought barrera peaked against Salud.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

@Pedrin1787 back me up here.. I know you share my sentiment about green 152-pound weight drained Canelo.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 8, 2013)

.................


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> This is boring Tommy.
> 
> 42-0 Canelo was green and then miraculously improved his skills to squeak past Lara and get outboxed by Khan over 6. Okie dokie.


Interesting take on all of this P. You can go down the line and look at guys who were unbeaten at 35-0, 40-0, we're talking about ATGs here and when they finally lose you don't see many historians calling them green.

I get what you're saying. I guess Morales was green when he fought Barrera for the first time in 2000....


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Yeah okay mate. 42-0 Canelo with 6 title defenses was green.
> 
> I assume you think MAB was green in 1996 too?


Hell yeah he was green and drained.

Who were those 42 he beat? They were there to make up for his lack of an amateur career.

All the Canelo haters were right back then, he did not deserve to face Floyd Mayweather. He had done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

Floyd is smart though and made it happen at the best possible time. The Canelo Floyd beat gets hurt against both Lara and Cotto.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Khan, Cotto and Lara are horrible style match ups for Canelo. If you can't see a difference between Canelo's approach vs Lara compared to how he fought Floyd then I don't know what to say. His ring generalship and ability to cut off the ring improved vs Lara.





Pedrin1787 said:


> Hell yeah he was green and drained.
> 
> Who were those 42 he beat? They were there to make up for his lack of an amateur career.
> 
> ...


So Angulo and Floyd got him ready to JUST beat Lara? Maybe Floyd would have always given him fits because he is just flat out a better ring general than either of those guys?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Interesting take on all of this P. You can go down the line and look at guys who were unbeaten at 35-0, 40-0, we're talking about ATGs here and when they finally lose you don't see many historians calling them green.
> 
> I get what you're saying. I guess Morales was green when he fought Barrera for the first time in 2000....


Indeed. He was outclassed by the best pure boxer of the last 30 years, who had looked very ordinary against Miguel Cotto and Robert Guerrero in the two fights before that. Why did he look ordinary? Because what some of us simply will not mention is that Floyd was long past his best and at this point was being touched quite regularly by ordinary fighters. Mayweather looked dreadful in his next fight against Marcos Maidana.

Canelo was outboxed through 6 rounds against a blown up, glass chinned Amir Khan a year ago. Are we saying the Canelo that fought Floyd loses? :lol:


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

turbotime said:


> So Angulo and Floyd got him ready to JUST beat Lara? Maybe Floyd would have always given him fits because he is just flat out a better ring general than either of those guys?


I'd still favor 2012 Floyd over today's Canelo at 152.

My point isn't that Canelo could've won, I'm simply pointing out that the Canelo Floyd beat had very little top level experience and would lose to Lara and Cotto.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Feast your eyes on all of the improvements. It's like a brand new fighter.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Feast your eyes on all of the improvements. It's like a brand new fighter.


Lol no one is saying he's a completely different fighter Peds, but let's be honest, absolutely no one would be picking the Canelo Floyd fought over GGG.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Lol no one is saying he's a completely different fighter Peds, but let's be honest, absolutely no one would be picking the Canelo Floyd fought over GGG.


That has a lot more to do with Golovkin arguably losing to Jacobs and losing rounds to Kell Brook than any noticeable improvements in Canelo's game.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> That has a lot more to do with Golovkin arguably losing to Jacobs and losing rounds to Kell Brook than any noticeable improvements in Canelo's game.


That's certainly a factor, but are you seriously telling me that you'd still pick 2012 Canelo to beat today's Golovkin?


----------



## ChampionsForever (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Indeed. He was outclassed by the best pure boxer of the last 30 years, who had looked very ordinary against Miguel Cotto and Robert Guerrero in the two fights before that. Why did he look ordinary? Because what some of us simply will not mention is that Floyd was long past his best and at this point was being touched quite regularly by ordinary fighters. Mayweather looked dreadful in his next fight against Marcos Maidana.
> 
> Canelo was outboxed through 6 rounds against a blown up, glass chinned Amir Khan a year ago. Are we saying the Canelo that fought Floyd loses? :lol:


 Looked ordinary against Cotto? What? And Khan won 3 rounds of the 5 completed rounds, Canelo was never out of control.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> That's certainly a factor, but are you seriously telling me that you'd still pick 2012 Canelo to beat today's Golovkin?


I'm not picking this Canelo to beat Golovkin.

Canelo is a marginally improved specimen since his loss to Floyd. That coupled with Floyd being faded results in a terrific victory. A great win. That's all I'm saying. Talking points like Canelo supposedly being drained and green is just hyperbole designed to discredit the victory.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm not picking this Canelo to beat Golovkin.
> 
> Canelo is a marginally improved specimen since his loss to Floyd. That coupled with Floyd being faded results in a terrific victory. A great win. That's all I'm saying. Talking points like Canelo supposedly being drained and green is just hyperbole designed to discredit the victory.


Floyd was smaller, old, and pitched a shut out, it was a great win no doubt. Still it is what it is, it's not unfair to point out Canelo's inexperience and less than ideal weight.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Floyd was smaller, old, and pitched a shut out, it was a great win no doubt. Still it is what it is, it's not unfair to point out Canelo's inexperience and less than ideal weight.


No, it's not unfair, but it's unfair to make reference to those things without also acknowledging that Mayweather was past his prime and also fighting above his ideal weight.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> No, it's not unfair, but it's unfair to make reference to those things without also acknowledging that Mayweather was past his prime and also fighting above his ideal weight.


That's fair but that doesn't change the fact that Canelo had no business getting in the ring with Floyd at the time.


----------



## ElKiller (Jun 14, 2014)

Pedderrs said:


> No, it's not unfair, but it's unfair to make reference to those things without also acknowledging that Mayweather was past his prime and also fighting above his ideal weight.


If we're going to knit-pick.

A guy who has not even reached his prime vs guy who is slowly coming out his prime. Advantage the latter.

It was Floyd who picked that specific weight to deliberately drain Canelo.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

:lol: Anyway guys, I checked back at some of the prediction threads and I found this absolute classic.



Dealt_with said:


> I've already put my money on Canelo. When the fight was announced I was 50/50 but I'm really leaning more towards Canelo as the fight gets closer. This isn't little Marquez, old DLH, Ortiz or Guerrero he's stepping in with. Canelo might just be the best/trickiest opponent he's ever fought taking the size advantage into account. If Floyd can beat Canelo he's without a doubt the best.


@Dealt_with


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Mayweather wins a decision, maybe the most competetive fight Mayweather has had in years. he has to stick and move like he did to Guerrero and Baldomir. If he goes to war like he did with Cotto, then Canelo has a chance to KO Mayweather. Like I said, Canelo's stamina and workrate are whats going to murder him in this fight. He can't pull a JCC and pressure Mayweather for 12 rounds.


@tommygun711


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

KERRIGAN said:


> I give full credit to Floyd for fighting Canelo.
> 
> This was one fight I never thought he would take.
> 
> I am expecting Canelo to mow down Floyd and KO him, but if I am wrong and Floyd wins, is Floyd's next big money fight likely to be Martinez at 154?


@KERRIGAN


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)




----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


>


Maloney looking good


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> @tommygun711


Good prediction imo. I remember thinking Canelo would be a harder puncher than he actually was. Floyd used a lot of movement and fought Canelo differently than Cotto. So, my prediction was spot on, only I was wrong about it being competitive because I expected Canelo to actually throw some punches.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Good prediction imo. I remember thinking Canelo would be a harder puncher than he actually was. Floyd used a lot of movement and fought Canelo differently than Cotto. So, my prediction was spot on, only I was wrong about it being competitive because I expected Canelo to actually throw some punches.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


>












You're being quite anal here. Almost everything I said in that post was accurate.

I said that Floyd wins, that he won't fight Canelo like he did Cotto, that Canelo would likely suffer stamina issues, and that Floyd would outbox him to a decision ala Guerrero and baldomir. Giving Canelo the benefit of the doubt of _maybe being competitive whilist losing _is a weird thing to try to pick out of what was an otherwise accurate prediction.


tommygun711 said:


> Mayweather wins a decision, he has to stick and move like he did to Guerrero and Baldomir.. Like I said, Canelo's stamina and workrate are whats going to murder him in this fight. He can't pull a JCC and pressure Mayweather for 12 rounds.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dude, are you being serious?

You said it would be Floyd's most competitive fight in years.

It was a shutout.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Dude, are you being serious?
> 
> You said it would be Floyd's most competitive fight in years.
> 
> It was a shutout.


No, I said MAYBE It would be competitive. reread the post again more carefully this time.



tommygun711 said:


> , *maybe* the most competetive fight Mayweather has had in years.


Here is also what I said about the fight. Seems pretty measured stuff to me..



tommygun711 said:


> One thing I'm worried about is if Floyd gets caught with one of the right hands that Canelo landed on Trout. It is certainly possible, as washed up Mosley proved





tommygun711 said:


> That's true. Canelo won't land combinations on Floyd. He has to settle for the 1 two or the single shots.
> 
> I dunno, I do think Trout is a tough guy. At the very least he's a bigger guy than Floyd so you have to figure he could take Canelo's shots better than Floyd. At the very least, Canelo has a punchers chance. His ring IQ is underrated and his punching sharpness/accuracy are important factors in this fight.


So yes I was worried about Canelo's (overrated) power and size and youth, and thought he may be competitive in defeat, he wasn't


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Indeed, you were wrong. It's fine. We're all wrong.

Just fucking own it and be wrong gracefully for once.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Indeed, you were wrong. It's fine. We're all wrong.
> 
> Just fucking own it and be wrong gracefully for once.





tommygun711 said:


> , *maybe* the most competetive fight Mayweather has had in years. het


You're weird, man.

I said Canelo would *maybe* be competitive while losing by points.

MAYBE is not DEFINITELY.

Thanks :good


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Right, so just throw the word maybe in front of every prediction and all bases are covered. 

Tommy going full Haggis here.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Right, so just throw the word maybe in front of every prediction and all bases are covered.
> 
> Tommy going full Haggis here.


You're a weird, weird guy. Definitely some cuck-like tendencies. I correctly picked Floyd to win on points. That's not good enough. I said Canelo would have stamina issues. Not good enough.

I hedged my pro Floyd prediction with the caveat that Canelo could MAYBE be competitive with a punchers chance - and you go ballistic :rofl :lol:


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> You're a weird, weird guy. Definitely some cuck-like tendencies. I correctly picked Floyd to win on points. That's not good enough. I said Canelo would have stamina issues. Not good enough.
> 
> I hedged my pro Floyd prediction with the caveat that Canelo could MAYBE be competitive with a punchers chance - and you go ballistic :rofl :lol:


No.

You said it would maybe be Floyd's most competitive fight in years.

It was a shutout.

You were...WRONG.

It's not a big deal Tommy, but you were wrong. It's cool. We're all wrong.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

And Canelo arguably won round 12. There were no stamina issues...the issue was that he couldn't land punches.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> No.
> 
> You said it would maybe be Floyd's most competitive fight in years.
> 
> ...


You apparently don't understand the meaning of certain words. I said maybe. Which is not a definite thing.

Again, maybe does not mean definitely. it means its a possibility that Canelo could be competitive.

It's not like I predicted Canelo to win. That would have been wrong. I predicted Floyd to win on points with the possibility of Canelo having a punchers chance.

That's about it, really.

and Canelo only won round 12 because Floyd had already won by that point of the bout.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> You apparently don't understand the meaning of certain words. I said maybe. Which is not a definite thing.
> 
> Again, maybe does not mean definitely. it means its a possibility that Canelo could be competitive.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

'My prediction was spot on, only I was wrong about it being competitive'. - TommyHaggis


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> That's fair but that doesn't change the fact that Canelo had no business getting in the ring with Floyd at the time.


Yet Golovkin did due to his wins over ??


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Indeed. He was outclassed by the best pure boxer of the last 30 years, who had looked very ordinary against Miguel Cotto and Robert Guerrero in the two fights before that. Why did he look ordinary? Because what some of us simply will not mention is that Floyd was long past his best and at this point was being touched quite regularly by ordinary fighters. Mayweather looked dreadful in his next fight against Marcos Maidana.
> 
> Canelo was outboxed through 6 rounds against a blown up, glass chinned Amir Khan a year ago. Are we saying the Canelo that fought Floyd loses? :lol:


I noticed this but never felt the need to bring it up in ATG discussion because people don't like discrediting old timers. Hearns was green against Leonard, Burley was green vs Leto too but it's just that it's more fashionable to discredit Floyd


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> All the Canelo haters were right back then, he did not deserve to face Floyd Mayweather. He had done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
> 
> Floyd is smart though and made it happen at the best possible time. The Canelo Floyd beat gets hurt against both Lara and Cotto.


That's bullshit. Canelo was the number 1 ranked light middleweight behind Floyd and had to belts at 154.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Yet Golovkin did due to his wins over ??


Que?


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> That's bullshit. Canelo was the number 1 ranked light middleweight behind Floyd and had to belts at 154.


Come on bball, Kevin Horn has a belt, you can't think of anyone else at the time who was more deserving of the Floyd shot? Money and marketability aside.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Come on bball, Kevin Horn has a belt, you can't think of anyone else at the time who was more deserving of the Floyd shot? Money and marketability aside.


No I literally can't think of anybody except for Erislandy Lara who was coming off a shitty performance vs Angulo 2 months beforehand


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> No I literally can't think of anybody except for Erislandy Lara who was coming off a shitty performance vs Angulo 2 months beforehand


The one where he stopped Angulo?

Opposed to the "gift" Canelo got against Austin?

Still, I'm not trying to say it was a cherry pick, I made my point plenty of times.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> The one where he stopped Angulo?
> 
> Opposed to the "gift" Canelo got against Austin?
> 
> Still, I'm not trying to say it was a cherry pick, I made my point plenty of times.


You made a pretty strong claim saying that he did nothing to deserve the fight. Floyd might as well not fought then according to you.

And Canelo's win over Trout was better than Lara's win over Angulo.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Come on bball, Kevin Horn has a belt, you can't think of anyone else at the time who was more deserving of the Floyd shot? Money and marketability aside.


Who then?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Let's name all of the fighters between 147 and 154 who would have beaten Canelo in 2013.

Go.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

hindsight is a bitch http://checkhookboxing.com/index.php?threads/who-is-the-biggest-threat-to-floyd-mayweather.5913/


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Yeah but they didn't know he would have to weigh in at 152 as opposed to 154. Those 2 lbs ensured Canelo would not function as a professional boxer.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> hindsight is a bitch http://checkhookboxing.com/index.php?threads/who-is-the-biggest-threat-to-floyd-mayweather.5913/


Yeah I agree


tommygun711 said:


> Realistically, the most dangerous opponent for Floyd at this point HAS to be Keith Thurman. Once he gets a little more experience, he will do things offensively to Floyd that none of his recent opponents have been able to do.
> 
> He's got the power to knock floyd out, and the accuracy. He's the only one I could see beating Floyd in the near future.





Pedderrs said:


> Let's name all of the fighters between 147 and 160 who would have beaten Canelo in 2013.
> 
> Go.
















Lara
Andrade
J Rock Williams
Pacquiao
Cotto
Golovkin
Charlo Bros
Danny jacobs
Keith Thurman

and many more.



tommygun711 said:


> I'm not really familiar with barrera's career. you will have to educate me. If that is around the McKinney fight, then he was close to his athletic prime.
> 
> For what its worth I always thought barrera peaked against Salud.


btw, when would you consider barrera's prime?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Editing my posts to argue points I haven't made. Jesus Tommy.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Editing my posts to argue points I haven't made. Jesus Tommy.


Canelo is a big boy. A real middleweight.

so when was barrera's prime?


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> You made a pretty strong claim saying that he did nothing to deserve the fight. Floyd might as well not fought then according to you.
> 
> And Canelo's win over Trout was better than Lara's win over Angulo.


Yes I know the circumstances that lead to the fight and I'm not saying it was a cherry pick.

I'll admit he "deserved" the shot on paper for sure, but that doesn't change the huge gap in level between the two at the time. In my opinion there guys out there that had done more than Canelo at that time.

Lara, Bradley, Khan (he was robbed against Peterson imo), Pacquiao would all be more formidable opponents than that Canelo Floyd fought in my opinion.

I can't really call it a cherry pick because the circumstances set up the fight with Canelo perfectly, it was the right time for both guys to take the fight and I really think both gained something from it. Floyd mostly money, and Canelo invaluable experience.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Personally I'd say this was Barrera's prime.

or Salud @Zopilote


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Who then?


From my reply to Bball:

"Lara, Bradley, Khan (he was robbed against Peterson imo), Pacquiao"

I understand scheduling, promoters, marketability, etc.all got in the way, as I said many times, I'm not calling it a cherry pick.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Canelo is a big boy. A real middleweight.
> 
> so when was barrera's prime?


Pretty easy to deduce MAB's prime. Watch some film.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Pretty easier to deduce MAB's prime. Watch some film.


:lol: Ok dickhead. Don't answer the question that you initially presented :handofbogo

Buh bye cuckold


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Let's name all of the fighters between 147 and 154 who would have beaten Canelo in 2013.
> 
> Go.


Triangle theories don't work in boxing Peds, you know that.

"Lara, Bradley, Khan (he was robbed against Peterson imo), Pacquiao"

These guys where in a better point in there careers than Canelo was in 2012 imo. I'll say it again, no Floyd didn't cherry pick, certain circumstances setup the Canelo fight perfectly.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> :lol: Ok dickhead. Don't answer the question that you initially presented :handofbogo
> 
> Buh bye cuckold


I asked in hope you would expose a double standard. Turns out you just don't know a lot.

And don't be like that T. We go way back.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Triangle theories don't work in boxing Peds, you know that.
> 
> "Lara, Bradley, Khan (he was robbed against Peterson imo), Pacquiao"
> 
> These guys where in a better point in there careers than Canelo was in 2012 imo. I'll say it again, no Floyd didn't cherry pick, certain circumstances setup the Canelo fight perfectly.


I was just illustrating the point that Canelo was good enough in 2013 to be favoured over most 147 and 154 pounders.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Triangle theories don't work in boxing Peds, you know that.
> 
> "Lara, Bradley, Khan (he was robbed against Peterson imo), Pacquiao"
> 
> These guys where in a better point in there careers than Canelo was in 2012 imo. I'll say it again, no Floyd didn't cherry pick, certain circumstances setup the Canelo fight perfectly.


Floyd/Canelo happened late 2013. Imagine if Floyd signed to fight Bradley after he almost died in the Provodnikov bout. Everyone would be bitching and crying.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> From my reply to Bball:
> 
> "Lara, Bradley, Khan (he was robbed against Peterson imo), Pacquiao"
> 
> I understand scheduling, promoters, marketability, etc.all got in the way, as I said many times, I'm not calling it a cherry pick.


Khan is an absolute no when he was coming off being knocked down and looking trash vs Julio Diaz, beating Molina and getting KTFO by Danny.

Pacquiao still was recovering from being knocked out the fight just before.

Bradley's fight before that was vs Provodnikov and Lara fought Angulo that June. Both fights would have been tough sales and frankly the only fight there that is actually tougher than Canelo is Lara.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Floyd/Canelo happened late 2013. Imagine if Floyd signed to fight Bradley after he almost died in the Provodnikov bout. Everyone would be bitching and crying.


Lol thats true not sure where I got 2012 from.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Khan is an absolute no when he was coming off being knocked down and looking trash vs Julio Diaz, beating Molina and getting KTFO by Danny.
> 
> Pacquiao still was recovering from being knocked out the fight just before.
> 
> Bradley's fight before that was vs Provodnikov and Lara fought Angulo that June. Both fights would have been tough sales and frankly the only fight there that is actually tougher than Canelo is Lara.


You skipped the "I understand why the Canelo fight happened and not any of these others" part of my last three posts.

Khan is pretty iffy for sure, I still think his experience and strengths put him in a better spot at that point in time.

All the others, easily better.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Khan? Amir Khan?


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Khan? Amir Khan?












Haters make Amir famous.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Pedrin1787 said:


> Haters make Amir famous.


Guy has made a career out of getting sparked or nearly stopped. He's a bit flashy though so we forgive him.

2013 Canelo flattens him.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Guy has made a career out of getting sparked or nearly stopped. He's a bit flashy though so we forgive him.
> 
> 2013 Canelo flattens him.












:nono


----------



## Sexy Sergio ( L E O N ) (May 19, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Khan is an absolute no when he was coming off being knocked down and looking trash vs Julio Diaz, beating Molina and getting KTFO by Danny.
> 
> Pacquiao still was recovering from being knocked out the fight just before.
> 
> Bradley's fight before that was vs Provodnikov and Lara fought Angulo that June. Both fights would have been tough sales and frankly the only fight there that is actually tougher than Canelo is Lara.


Your post proves that Floyd's consistency is a huge accomplishment.

All these other fighters have booms and busts.

Wall St fella told me putting his money on Floyd was a greater and safer investment than government bonds.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Personally I'd say this was Barrera's prime.
> 
> or Salud @Zopilote


Around that time sounds right. Hamed, Salud, and Sanchez are his three best performances IMO.


----------



## Reppin501 (May 16, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> They don't deserve the time of day. I think everyone has biases when it comes to this stuff. Including, dare I say, _you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here we go with this Donald Curry sh!t again...

I kid, I think the last Curry/Floyd thread went 12-15 pages


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> Around that time sounds right. Hamed, Salud, and Sanchez are his three best performances IMO.


1999-2002.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)




----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I've really warmed to Floyd over the last 4-5 years. I really appreciate what he's achieved. Special.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I was just illustrating the point that Canelo was good enough in 2013 to be favoured over most 147 and 154 pounders.


It's weird, as I was unconvinced enough with him to think Ryan Rhodes might beat him with veteran savvy.

The even weirder thing is that I still wasn't really impressed after that.

First time he impressed me was against Lara as it was so stylistically bad for him.

I became believer after the Cotto fight


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Wow, you picked Rhodes? That's almost as bad as me picking Trinidad over Jones.

My analysis was pretty great though. Trinidad has power in his left hand, Jones is carrying glass. 

= Trinidad KO every time.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Wow, you picked Rhodes? That's almost as bad as me picking Trinidad over Jones.
> 
> My analysis was pretty great though. Trinidad has power in his left hand, Jones is carrying glass.
> 
> = Trinidad KO every time.


My analysis was a little more in depth than that haha but mainly I just felt Canelo had too many deficiencies and was too young whereas Rhode was experienced at world level (a bit) awkward and on a great run.

At least I didn't think Matt Hatton would beat him :lol: :good


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> My analysis was a little more in depth than that haha but mainly I just felt Canelo had too many deficiencies and was too young whereas Rhode was experienced at world level (a bit) awkward and on a great run.
> 
> At least I didn't think Matt Hatton would beat him :lol: :good


I would say your weirdest moment was when you were telling me Donaire would lose to Darchinyan in a rematch. This was years before it came off though so I'm sure by the time it was signed you had very much changed your mind.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I would say your weirdest moment was when you were telling me Donaire would lose to Darchinyan in a rematch. This was years before it came off though so I'm sure by the time it was signed you had very much changed your mind.


Exactly that mate. Vic did alright in the rematch though didn't he? IIRC


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Exactly that mate. Vic did alright in the rematch though didn't he? IIRC


I'm not accepting that as vindication Flea. :lol: By this time Rigo had taken his soul.

You were predicting this when Donaire was steamrolling dudes at Bantam.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm not accepting that as vindication Flea. :lol: By this time Rigo had taken his soul.
> 
> You were predicting this when Donaire was steamrolling dudes at Bantam.


Don't want vindication, just a question.

Think my prediction was more during Vic's super flyweight run.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Don't want vindication, just a question.
> 
> Think my prediction was more during Vic's super flyweight run.


Yeah, Donaire looked horrible to be honest.

Your most outrageous picks, winners and losers?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Yeah, Donaire looked horrible to be honest.
> 
> Your most outrageous picks, winners and losers?


Froch to stop Dirrell early

Sam Peter to beat Vitali

Cotto to beat Pacquiao

Williams to beat Martinez in rematch

Can't think of too many more to be honest. These are the ones that strike me as being completely off and showing no foresight/maybe over analysing things?

Yours?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Froch to stop Dirrell early
> 
> Sam Peter to beat Vitali
> 
> ...


Nothing wrong with those two. Nobody could have seen the Martinez one punch KO coming. It's the most devastating and chilling shot I've ever seen land live. I couldn't believe it.

I would say Trinidad vs Jones was pretty poor. MAB vs Khan...but I think that was a case of my heart ruling my head.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Nothing wrong with those two. Nobody could have seen the Martinez one punch KO coming. It's the most devastating and chilling shot I've ever seen land live. I couldn't believe it.
> 
> I would say Trinidad vs Jones was pretty poor. MAB vs Khan...but I think that was a case of my heart ruling my head.


Oh, I thought Judah would beat Khan


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Oh, I thought Judah would beat Khan


Same here.

I expected Zab to land something big early.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Oh, I thought Judah would beat Khan


Khan is just on a different level every time he faces a southpaw.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

dyna said:


> Khan is just on a different level every time he faces a southpaw.


That;s why I so secretly wanted the Pacquiao fight badly.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Come on, Pacquiao would have bodied Khan. Wise up fellas.


----------

