Thread: Floyd's resume.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by La Cucaracha

All the money in the world won't change the fact that he will never be TBE

A lot of people say that, but they never give any good reasons as to why that is.

Given Floyd's skill set, ring intelligence and resume, I've never read a good reason as to why he's not at least in the discussion.

People talk about this fight and that fight that could have happened, but the reality is there's no champ in history who fought every tough fight he could have. Ray Robinson never fought Murder's Row and the many tough black fighters that had no connections and couldn't get past the smokers.

No matter what reason you are given, it will never be good enough. Those that rank him out of the top 5 or so do that because of quality of opposition and historical significance. Floyd hasn't beaten the prime HOFers that Ray Robinson did. He never had fights as significant to the WORLD as Ali did, and Ali put on GREAT performances/fights vs Frazier (x2) and Foreman. Floyd is extremely skilled and an ATG, no doubt. But his record doesn't translate to TBE or GOAT.

Originally Posted by mikeeod

No matter what reason you are given, it will never be good enough. Those that rank him out of the top 5 or so do that because of quality of opposition and historical significance. Floyd hasn't beaten the prime HOFers that Ray Robinson did. He never had fights as significant to the WORLD as Ali did, and Ali put on GREAT performances/fights vs Frazier (x2) and Foreman. Floyd is extremely skilled and an ATG, no doubt. But his record doesn't translate to TBE or GOAT.

People give me reasons, but they are always pretty weak.

First of all, the Ali example is pretty silly. Floyd has had some of the biggest fights in the history of boxing. The fights against Frazier and Foreman were so good because Ali took ferocious punishment (and paid the price for it after he retired). So being in close fights and taking a lot of damage makes you a great fighter? Someone needs to explain that to me. Would Floyd be a greater fighter if he laid on the ropes vs Hatton, took a ferocious pounding to the head and body, and came back to win? Or is he a better fighter because he took very little damage and finished with a great KO?

People are shitting on Floyd for choosing to fight Berto, but to be real, the majority of SRR's opponents couldn't hold Berto's jockstrap. And of course I'm not talking about guys like Lamotta, Armstrong, Zivic, ect. But if you look at the fights between the quality opponents, there is a TON of filler: guys that had no business being in the ring with one of the greatest fighters to ever live. And of course people will try to stick up for the competition and say things like "oh it was a different time, records weren't important, great fighters had bad records, ect". BULLSHIT. A 46-23 fighter coming off of 4 straight losses had no more business being in the ring with a champ than he would today.

And we talk about Floyd fighting guys past their primes, but we give credit to SRR for beating a guy like Henry Armstrong, who was in his mid 30s and 2 or 3 years removed from being a champion or even a contender. Or Frankie Zivic, who was also past his championship days and had been beaten by 26 other guys when he fought SRR.

But no, Pacquiao was old and stunk (even though he was top #3 p4p at the time), Mosley was old and stunk (even though he was top #3 p4p at the time), Hatton was garbage, Corrales was mediocre... those guys could never compare to a Frankie Zivic. How dare I even suggest that? After all, Zivic is in the Hall of Fame!

What a fuckin joke!

Robinson fought is a different era where they fought often in order to get paid. Today's fighters do not fight as often and with TV every fight will be watched.

I guess it was in the top 15 best wins being Hatton, Jlc, Chico and Oscar i think kinda lacks. Hatton will most likly be forgotten and resume is pretty easy to shred. Jlc damn near most people say he won the first fight Mayweater won the a close rematch then comes Oscar who was at the end of his career. I ll say top 15 because it can be torn apart the same way as most guys i would put in top 10. I mean if you look at a Leonard he has Duran,Hearns,Benitaz and Hagler the only one that did not do anything after is Hagler but till the fight was on biggest roll he has been on. Ali, Evander, Lennox, and Leonard i felt beat better guys the Mayweather put his resume with Jones few great wins and a lot of solid wins but not really many atg fighters after that were in there prime really.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by mikeeod

No matter what reason you are given, it will never be good enough. Those that rank him out of the top 5 or so do that because of quality of opposition and historical significance. Floyd hasn't beaten the prime HOFers that Ray Robinson did. He never had fights as significant to the WORLD as Ali did, and Ali put on GREAT performances/fights vs Frazier (x2) and Foreman. Floyd is extremely skilled and an ATG, no doubt. But his record doesn't translate to TBE or GOAT.

People give me reasons, but they are always pretty weak.

First of all, the Ali example is pretty silly. Floyd has had some of the biggest fights in the history of boxing. The fights against Frazier and Foreman were so good because Ali took ferocious punishment (and paid the price for it after he retired). So being in close fights and taking a lot of damage makes you a great fighter? Someone needs to explain that to me. Would Floyd be a greater fighter if he laid on the ropes vs Hatton, took a ferocious pounding to the head and body, and came back to win? Or is he a better fighter because he took very little damage and finished with a great KO?

People are shitting on Floyd for choosing to fight Berto, but to be real, the majority of SRR's opponents couldn't hold Berto's jockstrap. And of course I'm not talking about guys like Lamotta, Armstrong, Zivic, ect. But if you look at the fights between the quality opponents, there is a TON of filler: guys that had no business being in the ring with one of the greatest fighters to ever live. And of course people will try to stick up for the competition and say things like "oh it was a different time, records weren't important, great fighters had bad records, ect". BULLSHIT. A 46-23 fighter coming off of 4 straight losses had no more business being in the ring with a champ than he would today.

And we talk about Floyd fighting guys past their primes, but we give credit to SRR for beating a guy like Henry Armstrong, who was in his mid 30s and 2 or 3 years removed from being a champion or even a contender. Or Frankie Zivic, who was also past his championship days and had been beaten by 26 other guys when he fought SRR.

But no, Pacquiao was old and stunk (even though he was top #3 p4p at the time), Mosley was old and stunk (even though he was top #3 p4p at the time), Hatton was garbage, Corrales was mediocre... those guys could never compare to a Frankie Zivic. How dare I even suggest that? After all, Zivic is in the Hall of Fame!

What a fuckin joke!

If you can't look at Robinsons record and pick out the number of PRIME HOFers he beat, you don't want to see it. If you are going to sit there and pretend that Floyd vs Oscar and Manny, his two biggest events, were even close to the excitement or historical relevance of Ali vs Frazier (1&3) and Foreman, there is no point discussing the subject with you. Ali made boxing a global sport, and win or lose, people came away from those fights LOVING the sport of boxing and life long fans. You can't say the same for Floyd as both the Oscar and Manny fights turned people off. Not what ATGs do.

Let's take Ray Leonard now. He beat a prime Hearns, Duran, Benitez, and the monster that was Hagler (I thought Marvin won but Ray got the decision n that was a bold move to even fight the guy). Name Floyd's equivalents to those fights/accomplishments.

You are correct when you say that not all of the missed fights falling through were Floyd's fault. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't beat that level of competition. I personally think Ricardo Lopez would've been top 10 ATG if he had the requisite comp at his weight class. He didn't, so he isn't.

I would argue that Manny fought tougher competition in his career, although not by that much. Oscar definitely fought better and tougher comp, but lost numerous times. Floyd is a top 15 or lower ATG fighter, which is phenomenal. I have home top ten, personally. But to say that he has a claim for GOAT, I just don't see a realistic case at all.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by La Cucaracha

All the money in the world won't change the fact that he will never be TBE

A lot of people say that, but they never give any good reasons as to why that is.

Given Floyd's skill set, ring intelligence and resume, I've never read a good reason as to why he's not at least in the discussion.

People talk about this fight and that fight that could have happened, but the reality is there's no champ in history who fought every tough fight he could have. Ray Robinson never fought Murder's Row and the many tough black fighters that had no connections and couldn't get past the smokers.

I thought I gave some good reasons

Sure Floyd is an excellent fighter but he never really took a risk after leaving lightweight Martinez was the middleweight champ and said he would drop in weight, GGG even recently said he'd go to 154 for Floyd, you could also add Ward to that list

Armstrong started at 126 and won the middleweight championship, Kid Gavilan, Jose Napoles and Duran started below feather and challenged themselves at 160 or higher Mayweather doesn't have to go to 160 but those fights I mentioned were possible and Floyd was the superstar he is, so anything he said would have got done if he wanted those fights you can bet your a$$ they would have got made

Originally Posted by La Cucaracha

Sure Floyd is an excellent fighter but he never really took a risk after leaving lightweight

See how can I take someone seriously who says something like that.

Never took a risk? :roll eyes:

It's incredible how jaded people become as fans when people can look at guys Floyd fought in the last 10 years and say there was no risk involved. My lord.

Worst thing Floyd ever did for hardcore/sensible fans is crown himself TBE. Ignoring the haters and flomos - all of a sudden a terrific record becomes a "yeah but" one.

When you consider things like Armstrong, Gavilan, Napoles and Duran started at a lighter weight than Floyd yet challenged for the middleweight title, then what's the big deal that Floyd won titles at several weights?

Originally Posted by mikeeod

If you can't look at Robinsons record and pick out the number of PRIME HOFers he beat, you don't want to see it. If you are going to sit there and pretend that Floyd vs Oscar and Manny, his two biggest events, were even close to the excitement or historical relevance of Ali vs Frazier (1&3) and Foreman, there is no point discussing the subject with you. Ali made boxing a global sport, and win or lose, people came away from those fights LOVING the sport of boxing and life long fans. You can't say the same for Floyd as both the Oscar and Manny fights turned people off. Not what ATGs do.

Let's take Ray Leonard now. He beat a prime Hearns, Duran, Benitez, and the monster that was Hagler (I thought Marvin won but Ray got the decision n that was a bold move to even fight the guy). Name Floyd's equivalents to those fights/accomplishments.

You are correct when you say that not all of the missed fights falling through were Floyd's fault. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't beat that level of competition. I personally think Ricardo Lopez would've been top 10 ATG if he had the requisite comp at his weight class. He didn't, so he isn't.

I would argue that Manny fought tougher competition in his career, although not by that much. Oscar definitely fought better and tougher comp, but lost numerous times. Floyd is a top 15 or lower ATG fighter, which is phenomenal. I have home top ten, personally. But to say that he has a claim for GOAT, I just don't see a realistic case at all.

Why don't you enlighten me then? Tell me SRR's best wins, and tell me exactly why those guys are so above and beyond Floyd's best wins.

I don't give a fuck about "excitement" and "historical significance". We're talking about a guy's worth in the ring. Were Floyd's fights as big as Ali's vs Frazier and Foreman? I have no idea, I wasn't alive back then and it was before the era of PPV. All I know is Mayweather/Pac sold 4.4 MILLION PPV's at $100 a piece, so it was a pretty big fight. Big as Ali's? Who knows, who gives a fuck. Why does it matter?

Ray Leonard had a great career, but when I bring up the NO MAS thing I was always told that Duran was passed his prime by then, as his prime was at LW.

You can take Hearns and say "prime Hearns", but you can also say "green Hearns", a 22 year old kid who didn't yet know how to pace himself and didn't know how to protect himself and survive when he was hurt.

Bringing up Hagler (which I still feel is one of the greatest victories in boxing history), Ray admitted himself that he decided to fight Hagler because, when having dinner with Hagler, Marvin (then mid 30s) confided in him that he was worn down and thinking about retiring. And of course, Ray demanded the special stipulation of 12 rounds instead of 15.

Now I consider all of those great wins, I'm just saying if you can poke holes in anything in you choose to scrutinize it that way. People choose to scrutinize Floyd's wins harshly, then give passes to whichever other greats he's compared to.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by mikeeod

If you can't look at Robinsons record and pick out the number of PRIME HOFers he beat, you don't want to see it. If you are going to sit there and pretend that Floyd vs Oscar and Manny, his two biggest events, were even close to the excitement or historical relevance of Ali vs Frazier (1&3) and Foreman, there is no point discussing the subject with you. Ali made boxing a global sport, and win or lose, people came away from those fights LOVING the sport of boxing and life long fans. You can't say the same for Floyd as both the Oscar and Manny fights turned people off. Not what ATGs do.

Let's take Ray Leonard now. He beat a prime Hearns, Duran, Benitez, and the monster that was Hagler (I thought Marvin won but Ray got the decision n that was a bold move to even fight the guy). Name Floyd's equivalents to those fights/accomplishments.

You are correct when you say that not all of the missed fights falling through were Floyd's fault. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't beat that level of competition. I personally think Ricardo Lopez would've been top 10 ATG if he had the requisite comp at his weight class. He didn't, so he isn't.

I would argue that Manny fought tougher competition in his career, although not by that much. Oscar definitely fought better and tougher comp, but lost numerous times. Floyd is a top 15 or lower ATG fighter, which is phenomenal. I have home top ten, personally. But to say that he has a claim for GOAT, I just don't see a realistic case at all.

Why don't you enlighten me then? Tell me SRR's best wins, and tell me exactly why those guys are so above and beyond Floyd's best wins.

I don't give a fuck about "excitement" and "historical significance". We're talking about a guy's worth in the ring. Were Floyd's fights as big as Ali's vs Frazier and Foreman? I have no idea, I wasn't alive back then and it was before the era of PPV. All I know is Mayweather/Pac sold 4.4 MILLION PPV's at $100 a piece, so it was a pretty big fight. Big as Ali's? Who knows, who gives a fuck. Why does it matter?

Ray Leonard had a great career, but when I bring up the NO MAS thing I was always told that Duran was passed his prime by then, as his prime was at LW.

You can take Hearns and say "prime Hearns", but you can also say "green Hearns", a 22 year old kid who didn't yet know how to pace himself and didn't know how to protect himself and survive when he was hurt.

Bringing up Hagler (which I still feel is one of the greatest victories in boxing history), Ray admitted himself that he decided to fight Hagler because, when having dinner with Hagler, Marvin (then mid 30s) confided in him that he was worn down and thinking about retiring. And of course, Ray demanded the special stipulation of 12 rounds instead of 15.

Now I consider all of those great wins, I'm just saying if you can poke holes in anything in you choose to scrutinize it that way. People choose to scrutinize Floyd's wins harshly, then give passes to whichever other greats he's compared to.

When you claim to be the best ever then you have to stand to some scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Master

When you claim to be the best ever then you have to stand to some scrutiny.

Of course, everyone does.

But if you're trying to analyze it and you're judging one guy's career on a different criteria because of something he said outside the ring.

When Floyd says "I'm the best ever" and people get pissed and rack their brains to come up with reasons why he isn't and judging him more harshly than other fighters... that opinion has no real credibility.

If people can't stay objective about it, they should stay out of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by mikeeod

If you can't look at Robinsons record and pick out the number of PRIME HOFers he beat, you don't want to see it. If you are going to sit there and pretend that Floyd vs Oscar and Manny, his two biggest events, were even close to the excitement or historical relevance of Ali vs Frazier (1&3) and Foreman, there is no point discussing the subject with you. Ali made boxing a global sport, and win or lose, people came away from those fights LOVING the sport of boxing and life long fans. You can't say the same for Floyd as both the Oscar and Manny fights turned people off. Not what ATGs do.

Let's take Ray Leonard now. He beat a prime Hearns, Duran, Benitez, and the monster that was Hagler (I thought Marvin won but Ray got the decision n that was a bold move to even fight the guy). Name Floyd's equivalents to those fights/accomplishments.

You are correct when you say that not all of the missed fights falling through were Floyd's fault. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't beat that level of competition. I personally think Ricardo Lopez would've been top 10 ATG if he had the requisite comp at his weight class. He didn't, so he isn't.

I would argue that Manny fought tougher competition in his career, although not by that much. Oscar definitely fought better and tougher comp, but lost numerous times. Floyd is a top 15 or lower ATG fighter, which is phenomenal. I have home top ten, personally. But to say that he has a claim for GOAT, I just don't see a realistic case at all.

Why don't you enlighten me then? Tell me SRR's best wins, and tell me exactly why those guys are so above and beyond Floyd's best wins.

I don't give a fuck about "excitement" and "historical significance". We're talking about a guy's worth in the ring. Were Floyd's fights as big as Ali's vs Frazier and Foreman? I have no idea, I wasn't alive back then and it was before the era of PPV. All I know is Mayweather/Pac sold 4.4 MILLION PPV's at $100 a piece, so it was a pretty big fight. Big as Ali's? Who knows, who gives a fuck. Why does it matter?

Ray Leonard had a great career, but when I bring up the NO MAS thing I was always told that Duran was passed his prime by then, as his prime was at LW.

You can take Hearns and say "prime Hearns", but you can also say "green Hearns", a 22 year old kid who didn't yet know how to pace himself and didn't know how to protect himself and survive when he was hurt.

Bringing up Hagler (which I still feel is one of the greatest victories in boxing history), Ray admitted himself that he decided to fight Hagler because, when having dinner with Hagler, Marvin (then mid 30s) confided in him that he was worn down and thinking about retiring. And of course, Ray demanded the special stipulation of 12 rounds instead of 15.

Now I consider all of those great wins, I'm just saying if you can poke holes in anything in you choose to scrutinize it that way. People choose to scrutinize Floyd's wins harshly, then give passes to whichever other greats he's compared to.

Ray Robinson: Beat in their prime Kid Gavilán (ATG/HOF), Lamotta (ATG/HOF), Basilio (ATG/HOF), Graziano, Fullmer (ATG/HOF), Fritzie Zivic, Paul Pender and a past his prime Henry Armstrong (ATG/HOF). Look at all of those PRIME ATG/HOFers on his resume.

Hearns: Get your point on age, but the guy had DESTROYED cuevas and every other fighter who got in the ring with him. Look at Tommy's performance in that fight and compare it to the non effort of Canelo in his vs Floyd. Tommy showed multi-dimensions and Canelo didn't show one. That is EXACTLY why I don't consider the Canelo fight a great win for Floyd.

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Ray Robinson: Beat in their prime Kid Gavilán (ATG/HOF), Lamotta (ATG/HOF), Basilio (ATG/HOF), Graziano, Fullmer (ATG/HOF), Fritzie Zivic, Paul Pender and a past his prime Henry Armstrong (ATG/HOF). Look at all of those PRIME ATG/HOFers on his resume.

Hearns: Get your point on age, but the guy had DESTROYED cuevas and every other fighter who got in the ring with him. Look at Tommy's performance in that fight and compare it to the non effort of Canelo in his vs Floyd. Tommy showed multi-dimensions and Canelo didn't show one. That is EXACTLY why I don't consider the Canelo fight a great win for Floyd.

I'd love for someone to explain to me how Graziano, Basilio, Fullmer, Pender, or even Lamotta were more skilled in the ring than guys like Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, De La Hoya, Mosley, ect. I want to hear specifically what they did in the ring that those guys couldn't.

Being in the HOF is a great honor, but it doesn't necessarily denote a specific high standard of skill. To insinuate that one fighter is a tougher opponent than another simply because he is in the HOF is a complete fallacy.

I want someone to explain to me how Gene Fullmer was a better fighter than Ricky Hatton.

I want someone to explain to me why a 34 year old Hank Armstrong is better than a 35 year old Manny Pacquiao.

When I bring this stuff up, everyone suddenly gets quiet. I'm not saying I'm this boxing genius who has all the right answers, but I've watched all these guys and formed my own opinions - right or wrong. If you want to just regurgitate the opinions of others or tell me stats of who is in the HOF, just save your time. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, let's go.

World champion for 18 years.
He has fought and beat 21 world champions.
Beat 3 undefeated champions at 3 different weights.

Can anyone up a resume that has the same number of top class opposition over such a long period. He is the best I have seen in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by birch

World champion for 18 years.
He has fought and beat 21 world champions.
Beat 3 undefeated champions at 3 different weights.

Can anyone up a resume that has the same number of top class opposition over such a long period. He is the best I have seen in my lifetime.

How old are you?