Thread: Deeper look at Manny and Floyd opponents

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

while i commend you for putting in the effort to do this, there are a few things i totally disagree with. but first off, i will say that head to head, pac probably had the tougher competition.

first, the de la hoya fight with floyd should 100% be on his top 5 list. that was a huge win. de la hoya was getting to the end up his career at the time but definitely wasnt done. it was a great win. to me, probably floyds best win. he even went up in weight to do it.

with pac, if you are saying that de la hoya was at the end of his career, then morales and barrera were both at the end of their careers too. i actually think that both of them were more on their way out than de la hoya was when he fought floyd. the morales that lost to pac was not at all a prime morales. barrera was still considered good but was getting at the end of his career.

also as you stated, pac had more dominant wins against hatton and de la hoya but by that time, both of those fighters were completely done. i think that the de la hoya fight was just a genius plan by roach. he knew that de la hoya would be completely weight drained at 147 and knew that pac would be a huge underdog and that that win would push him over the top. no way any version of pac beats the 154 pound version of de la hoya that fought floyd. pac may still beat a prime hatton but not that easily.

i think that pac has some better wins and probably better quality opposition slightly when it comes down to it but not really enough to be significant. floyd is a sure top 20 and probably top 15 of all time while pac is more of a top 30 maybe top 25 (although that is obviously my opinion).

Oscar: if u want to put him on Floyd's top 5 I can live with that. He was U ranked P4P at the time and hadn't had a meaningful/impressive win since Vargas YEARS before, but ok. I think that kind of drives home my point on quality of opposition.

Barrera: DEFINITELY NOT on the way out. He was at an all time high for their first fight, boxing better than ever and viewed by most as one of the top 3 fighters in the sport having just rattled off a series of impressive wins which included Hamed n Morales. Marcos went on to have a few more significant wins after the Manny beat down, so really I just think your statement is completely false.

Morales: First fight with Manny the guy had a disputed loss to Barrera on his record n that was it, n was recognized as a top fighter regardless of weight after beating IMPRESSIVE competition. Google his record n remind yourself of how great this guy was. He went up n lost to Raheem by decision prior to the rematch with Manny, but was still ranked P4P n not showing decline from his prime. After the two beatings Manny gave him, there was a definite deterioration, but a Manny broke him in the rematch n finished him in the rubber match. Remember, Erik was fighting well in the rematch n ahead on the cards before Manny broke through n stopped him.

Your final point on Pac not being capable beating 154 version of Oscar n having a harder time vs Hatton doesn't really fight in this discussion. You can only judge quality of opposition by who the guys fought n when. Oscar was done when he fought Manny n was pretty far gone vs Floyd. Hatton had one loss when Manny pancaked him and based on both guys styles I can't see how u can say that fight would've gone any different. Hatton was overwhelmed in the first round and the knockout shot obliterated him. It's not like Floyd beat him so bad that it took his punch resistance.

barrera had beaten hamed 2 1/2 years earlier. he had been fight for close to 15 years at the time of the pac fight. you can claim that pac really put him over the edge but barrera never really looked that good after that fight. i mean honestly, do you not remember a year later when he fought morales again? everybody knew that fight was 2 past their prime fighters fighting each other. so you could say barrera had some "quality wins" after his loss to pac but nothing really significant and he didnt look good doing it.

also morales had just come off of a loss to barrera when he fought pac and beat him. he had been through a ton of wars through his 12 or 13 year career at that point and was about done. he beat pac then got destroyed by raheem. then he tried to go back down in weight and looked super weight drained against pac. morales beat pac the first time they fought and just got beat the next 2 times because he was done. not because pac just got way better or something like that. i dont think you can make a case that morales was in his prime or anywhere near his best at that fight

Originally Posted by IamInuit

How so? They are both doctored and meaningless. Its like saying Justin Beiber is the best musician based on record sales or popularity. P4p meant something when a guys like Armstrong weighed 133 for a 147 title fight or Greb 160 fir a 175 fight in an eight division world. Today we have 17 and inventing another every time a famous Beiber wants a catch.When you take all things into context and take an objective look forgetting which side you are supposed to be on, these two represent equality.

Well it's kind of all doctored and subjective, isn't it? Even in regular rankings, we had the champ and then everyone else - what was the criteria to decide who was #4 on the list? Or #7? Ect.

P4P means a lot IMO because it's who the consensus top guys in the sport are. Of course the consensus can always be flawed, but so can any other form of ranking. At the very least it speaks highly to the impact you're having in your sport at any given time.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

And to say things like "Manny dared to be great" and "dared to take hard fights" like Floyd didn't is just foolish.

People choose to remember Floyd as he is today, but either don't know, forget, or choose not to remember that at one point Floyd was a boogeyman in the sport that none of the top guys would get in the ring with because he was so good but a virtual unknown (high risk, low reward). Floyd was calling out DLH back when Floyd was at 130 and DLH was 154.

On here I've seen guys (maybe you were one, can't remember) say that it is unfair to ask Floyd to fight GGG at 154 or 160...etc. Well, the same was said about Manny jumping up to face Oscar, but Manny DARED TO BE GREAT. Many will counter that it was great match making and Oscar wasn't himself because he was drained...etc., all of which are valid points to a degree. At the end of the day though, the ENTIRE boxing world thought that it was a horrible move by Manny and that there was no way he could overcome the size deficit.

I will put it like this, Floyd would have fought guys like Prime Shane, Kostya, Paul Williams, Margo, Manny...etc. I have no doubt, and I think he would have won most, if not all of those fights. That being said, he was TOO GOOD of a business man and pride (vs. Manny), not pushing hard enough (Shane) and circumstances (Kostya, Williams and Margo) all got in the way. He either wanted too much control (Manny), didn't create the interest necessary (Shane) or the guys got beat while he was letting public interest increase to a major PPV attraction (Kostya vs. Hatton, Margo vs. Williams and Williams vs. Quintana).

Guys like Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Hop, Oscar, Manny...etc., they made the fights happen for legacy more than what was smarter for business. So, while many of those missed opportunities wasn't Floyd being scared...etc., he still had a hand in them not happening. I credit the other guys for favoring superior competition, and while I don't rank them all (Oscar...etc.), I can see where it leaves the discussion open for debate. The problem with these discussions on here is that if someone disagrees that Floyd is the GOAT or that there is a question as to his historical standing vs. other greats it completely collapses into the "you're a hater, you say Floyd is a bum and never fought anyone...etc." discussions that lead no where.

Oscar hadn't been to that weight in 8 years and Manny was roided to the gills.

Hardly a fight to be proud of on Manny's part.

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

What about steroids?

What about them, If he didnt test positive then its not an issue. What about floyd only fighting in vegas and numbing his hands before fights?

Originally Posted by chris6878

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

What about steroids?

What about them, If he didnt test positive then its not an issue. What about floyd only fighting in vegas and numbing his hands before fights?

Where are steroids legal?

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

Originally Posted by chris6878

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

What about steroids?

What about them, If he didnt test positive then its not an issue. What about floyd only fighting in vegas and numbing his hands before fights?

Where are steroids legal?

When did manny test Positive and what did he test positive for?