-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Side note: Floyd beat Hatton at welterweight. This was a weight that Ricky was not world class and struggled at, his best weight was light welterweight and Manny smashed him.
I've seen this many times and I've asked everyone who mentioned it the same thing - I've probably asked you this numerous times before.
Can you explain to me how allowing Ricky to weight in at 147 had any impact at all on his actual performance, keeping in mind a) Ricky was the bigger man, b) Ricky was the guy cutting the most weight (I don't think Floyd even cuts weight), c) Ricky was notorious for blowing up between fights and killing himself to get down to 140.
It's been nearly 7 years and I can't figure it out. When you take everything into consideration, it seems like the only one who could possibly benefit from having to weigh in at 147 as opposed to 140 was Ricky Hatton.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
This is where the argument goes south. I give Floyd credit as a great fighter, even ATG. I acknowledge that he didn't duck anyone and that he faced good opposition, superior to someone like Roy Jones jr. I can even see where individuals would disagree with me and value Floyd's dominance over what I feel is clearly better quality of opposition for Hop and Manny. Where it gets ridiculous is when people try to act like it is such an unheard of or unrealistic debate. Where it gets ludicrous is when people go the ultimate of hysteria and fantasy land and say Floyd is greater and has accomplished more than guys like Robinson, Ali, Armstrong...etc. It just isn't worth debating with someone who is so biased and emotionally involved with a fighter that they can't keep the conversation semi-rational. No way will any knowledgeable, unbiased fan/historian EVER rank Floyd higher than those guys mentioned above. They beat numerous prime HOFers and have more knockouts than Floyd has fights.
I'm not saying it's an unrealistic debate between Floyd, Roy and Hopkins, but I don't see Manny on par with those guys. Floyd and Roy were absolutely untouchable in their primes, Hopkins was untouchable for most of his prime and even now at nearly 50, Pac has been KTFO in all stages of his career and outboxed by several guys - including a guy that Floyd Mayweather fought and outclassed so badly it was embarrassing.
I don't see how it's fair to penalize a guy for not fighting certain people when he made a legit effort to make the fight happen. People get on their soap box and talk about the old timers like Robinson, Armstrong, ect. You think they fought everyone they could have? You don't think they avoided people? Most people just don't know their history.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Why is everyone so binary on here? If someone says that they think person x is the best fighter, or leaves the best 'legacy', that doesn't mean everyone else is shit! People can only argue their own polarised view, without nuance or any semblance of open mindedness. Jesus!
All this stuff about 'legacy' is also quite simpleminded, isn't it? What does a 'legacy' look like? What does it really mean .... And how can one be better than another?
When someone's father dies, he may leave a 'legacy'. When someone else's father dies, will the two people argue over who left the best 'legacy'? It's ridiculous, guys.
The four fighters named above are definitely amongst the best of their generations. If somebody says they think one of them was the best, they are not automatically criticising the rest of them.
Good balanced opening post on this thread, by the way.
I have no idea who was the greatest fighter of the four, but:
Hopkins is an ageless phenomenon, right up there with Jersey Joe and the Old Mongoose. Prison made him, he survived through iron discipline and that us what made him a great fighter. His records are exemplary, he fights like an old school fighter and he would probably see the distance against just about anyone who ever lived. He is a legend, and will always be one.
Roy Jones was a freak of nature. He was the closest thing I've seen to bring a natural. Amazing coordination and unreal reflexes. He didn't even have to try to hard or train too much, he was just born to be in the ring. He toyed with an entire generation of middleweight and super middles until he got bored and cruised through the light heavies. His tragedy was that he never found anyone who excited him enough, or scared him enough, that he felt seriously challenged. As soon as all those natural reflexes began to desert him, he never had the technique to fall back on that someone like Hopkins did.
Who is the greater .... Is it better to burn brightly as the most incandescent star in the sky and burn out gloriously, or to defy time like the moon? I don't fucking know, but I will enjoy them both.
Floyd Mayweather was born and bred to be a boxer. His ring intelligence and strategic brain in the ring exemplifies true 'grace under pressure'. Beautiful, pure technique. Evey punch in the book and he just always seems to have more time than the other guy. He has fought (nearly ;)) everybody and come out on top. Usually massive lopsided points decisions against world class, proven boxers. It's pretty hard to argue with 47 and 0, and he's not even a real welterweight for chrissakes. He is one of the only fighters I think who could have engaged in a technical boxing match with Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benitez or even Willie Pep.
Manny Pacquiaio changed boxing. He is a Filipino. He is the first Asian fighter who has transcended the sport in that hemisphere and opened the sport up to billions of new fans. His rise from true abject poverty is inspiring, and his rampage through the lower weight classes has never been equalled. It's astonishing that this guy began his career as a half starved flyweight and he has overpowered, out punched, out speeded and plain outfought people who are naturally a couple of stone heavier. I remember gasping at his speed, combination punching and sheer balls at staying in that pocket and blasting people out. And he did it with grace, humility, a smile and a love of warfare that shines through every second he's in the ring.
Who wins between the irresistible force and the immovable object?
What's the point in over analysing something as simplistic as a 'legacy'
I hope you just enjoyed them while you could, admired them for what they were, doing what they did best ..... Without over analysing the immeasurable and going down blind alleys that disrespect every journeyman, opponent, tomato can and plodder who have contributed to this great sport that not too many on this forum really appreciate.
Rant over, Badum-tish
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Side note: Floyd beat Hatton at welterweight. This was a weight that Ricky was not world class and struggled at, his best weight was light welterweight and Manny smashed him.
I've seen this many times and I've asked everyone who mentioned it the same thing - I've probably asked you this numerous times before.
Can you explain to me how allowing Ricky to weight in at 147 had any impact at all on his actual performance, keeping in mind a) Ricky was the bigger man, b) Ricky was the guy cutting the most weight (I don't think Floyd even cuts weight), c) Ricky was notorious for blowing up between fights and killing himself to get down to 140.
It's been nearly 7 years and I can't figure it out. When you take everything into consideration, it seems like the only one who could possibly benefit from having to weigh in at 147 as opposed to 140 was Ricky Hatton.
I'll try to explain. Allowing Ricky to weigh in at 147 didn't necessarily hurt Ricky's performance, as you mentioned he didn't have to struggle as much to make weight. However, Ricky's style depended in part on his ability to out-muscle his competition. He couldn't do that as effectively at 147, as he could at 140. He was only 5'6.
Before his fight against Floyd, he fought Collazo at 147, who I thought he struggled a lot with. In fact, Collazo hurt him in the last few rounds and Ricky was forced to hold as a result. If we're honest, what Did Ricky Hatton really do at 147? What was his best win at that weight class? Collazo? Maybe it's just me, which is fine, but Hatton looked like a tough Staffordshire Terrier at 140, but at 147, he looked of average, if not small size.
For example, I think Sergio Martinez's win over Kelly Pavlik at 160 is better than Hopkins' win over him at 170 because Pavlik just wasn't as effective above 160.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
I think a major consideration should be how many "greats" they faced, were they in their "prime," and how many they defeated.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
I'll try to explain. Allowing Ricky to weigh in at 147 didn't necessarily hurt Ricky's performance, as you mentioned he didn't have to struggle as much to make weight. However, Ricky's style depended in part on his ability to out-muscle his competition. He couldn't do that as effectively at 147, as he could at 140. He was only 5'6.
Before his fight against Floyd, he fought Collazo at 147, who I thought he struggled a lot with. In fact, Collazo hurt him in the last few rounds and Ricky was forced to hold as a result. If we're honest, what Did Ricky Hatton really do at 147? What was his best win at that weight class? Collazo? Maybe it's just me, which is fine, but Hatton looked like a tough Staffordshire Terrier at 140, but at 147, he looked of average, if not small size.
For example, I think Sergio Martinez's win over Kelly Pavlik at 160 is better than Hopkins' win over him at 170 because Pavlik just wasn't as effective above 160.
Right, and I totally understand how Ricky was more effective fighting 140lbers than 147lbers. That's boxing, some guys move up in weight and can no longer do what made them great at a lower weight. I get that, fair enough.
What I don't get is how it effects his performance specifically against Floyd Mayweather. You're telling me that it's not the weight itself that effects the performance, it's the actual fighting of guys a weight class higher that is the problem. Ok, but what's that got to do with Floyd, who was never a true WW even to this day?
Floyd weighs in at 147, on fight day he weights in 147-150. He doesn't cut weight. If they fought at 140, what happens? Floyd sweats out 7lbs, puts it back on and comes into the ring at 147-150 (which incidentally would be much lower than what Ricky comes into the ring at.) Either way, Ricky fights at 147-150lb Floyd Mayweather.
To this day, it's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard in any fight sport.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
Why is everyone so binary on here? If someone says that they think person x is the best fighter, or leaves the best 'legacy', that doesn't mean everyone else is shit! People can only argue their own polarised view, without nuance or any semblance of open mindedness. Jesus!
All this stuff about 'legacy' is also quite simpleminded, isn't it? What does a 'legacy' look like? What does it really mean .... And how can one be better than another?
When someone's father dies, he may leave a 'legacy'. When someone else's father dies, will the two people argue over who left the best 'legacy'? It's ridiculous, guys.
The four fighters named above are definitely amongst the best of their generations. If somebody says they think one of them was the best, they are not automatically criticising the rest of them.
Good balanced opening post on this thread, by the way.
I have no idea who was the greatest fighter of the four, but:
Hopkins is an ageless phenomenon, right up there with Jersey Joe and the Old Mongoose. Prison made him, he survived through iron discipline and that us what made him a great fighter. His records are exemplary, he fights like an old school fighter and he would probably see the distance against just about anyone who ever lived. He is a legend, and will always be one.
Roy Jones was a freak of nature. He was the closest thing I've seen to bring a natural. Amazing coordination and unreal reflexes. He didn't even have to try to hard or train too much, he was just born to be in the ring. He toyed with an entire generation of middleweight and super middles until he got bored and cruised through the light heavies. His tragedy was that he never found anyone who excited him enough, or scared him enough, that he felt seriously challenged. As soon as all those natural reflexes began to desert him, he never had the technique to fall back on that someone like Hopkins did.
Who is the greater .... Is it better to burn brightly as the most incandescent star in the sky and burn out gloriously, or to defy time like the moon? I don't fucking know, but I will enjoy them both.
Floyd Mayweather was born and bred to be a boxer. His ring intelligence and strategic brain in the ring exemplifies true 'grace under pressure'. Beautiful, pure technique. Evey punch in the book and he just always seems to have more time than the other guy. He has fought (nearly ;)) everybody and come out on top. Usually massive lopsided points decisions against world class, proven boxers. It's pretty hard to argue with 47 and 0, and he's not even a real welterweight for chrissakes. He is one of the only fighters I think who could have engaged in a technical boxing match with Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benitez or even Willie Pep.
Manny Pacquiaio changed boxing. He is a Filipino. He is the first Asian fighter who has transcended the sport in that hemisphere and opened the sport up to billions of new fans. His rise from true abject poverty is inspiring, and his rampage through the lower weight classes has never been equalled. It's astonishing that this guy began his career as a half starved flyweight and he has overpowered, out punched, out speeded and plain outfought people who are naturally a couple of stone heavier. I remember gasping at his speed, combination punching and sheer balls at staying in that pocket and blasting people out. And he did it with grace, humility, a smile and a love of warfare that shines through every second he's in the ring.
Who wins between the irresistible force and the immovable object?
What's the point in over analysing something as simplistic as a 'legacy'
I hope you just enjoyed them while you could, admired them for what they were, doing what they did best ..... Without over analysing the immeasurable and going down blind alleys that disrespect every journeyman, opponent, tomato can and plodder who have contributed to this great sport that not too many on this forum really appreciate.
Rant over, Badum-tish
I love this post except,,,,Manny speaks in a humble way but he is not remotely humble. You had to have seen him and his posse chilling watching one of his terrible shows while he plays one of his terrible songs. That isn 't humble in the least. And humble men don't cheat on the mother of their children. That is selfish and far from humble. I could go on with many many other examples but it's really just picking one problem out of a great post so I'll STHU.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
Why is everyone so binary on here? If someone says that they think person x is the best fighter, or leaves the best 'legacy', that doesn't mean everyone else is shit! People can only argue their own polarised view, without nuance or any semblance of open mindedness. Jesus!
All this stuff about 'legacy' is also quite simpleminded, isn't it? What does a 'legacy' look like? What does it really mean .... And how can one be better than another?
When someone's father dies, he may leave a 'legacy'. When someone else's father dies, will the two people argue over who left the best 'legacy'? It's ridiculous, guys.
The four fighters named above are definitely amongst the best of their generations. If somebody says they think one of them was the best, they are not automatically criticising the rest of them.
Good balanced opening post on this thread, by the way.
I have no idea who was the greatest fighter of the four, but:
Hopkins is an ageless phenomenon, right up there with Jersey Joe and the Old Mongoose. Prison made him, he survived through iron discipline and that us what made him a great fighter. His records are exemplary, he fights like an old school fighter and he would probably see the distance against just about anyone who ever lived. He is a legend, and will always be one.
Roy Jones was a freak of nature. He was the closest thing I've seen to bring a natural. Amazing coordination and unreal reflexes. He didn't even have to try to hard or train too much, he was just born to be in the ring. He toyed with an entire generation of middleweight and super middles until he got bored and cruised through the light heavies. His tragedy was that he never found anyone who excited him enough, or scared him enough, that he felt seriously challenged. As soon as all those natural reflexes began to desert him, he never had the technique to fall back on that someone like Hopkins did.
Who is the greater .... Is it better to burn brightly as the most incandescent star in the sky and burn out gloriously, or to defy time like the moon? I don't fucking know, but I will enjoy them both.
Floyd Mayweather was born and bred to be a boxer. His ring intelligence and strategic brain in the ring exemplifies true 'grace under pressure'. Beautiful, pure technique. Evey punch in the book and he just always seems to have more time than the other guy. He has fought (nearly ;)) everybody and come out on top. Usually massive lopsided points decisions against world class, proven boxers. It's pretty hard to argue with 47 and 0, and he's not even a real welterweight for chrissakes. He is one of the only fighters I think who could have engaged in a technical boxing match with Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benitez or even Willie Pep.
Manny Pacquiaio changed boxing. He is a Filipino. He is the first Asian fighter who has transcended the sport in that hemisphere and opened the sport up to billions of new fans. His rise from true abject poverty is inspiring, and his rampage through the lower weight classes has never been equalled. It's astonishing that this guy began his career as a half starved flyweight and he has overpowered, out punched, out speeded and plain outfought people who are naturally a couple of stone heavier. I remember gasping at his speed, combination punching and sheer balls at staying in that pocket and blasting people out. And he did it with grace, humility, a smile and a love of warfare that shines through every second he's in the ring.
Who wins between the irresistible force and the immovable object?
What's the point in over analysing something as simplistic as a 'legacy'
I hope you just enjoyed them while you could, admired them for what they were, doing what they did best ..... Without over analysing the immeasurable and going down blind alleys that disrespect every journeyman, opponent, tomato can and plodder who have contributed to this great sport that not too many on this forum really appreciate.
Rant over, Badum-tish
Great post. I have enjoyed watching all of them, but I have also been frustrated by all at one time or another. Roy frustrated me the most because had he been less business savvy and more interested in his legacy, he would have fought Benn, Eubank, Collins, Darius, Byrd, Jirov, Evander...etc., and fulfilled his potential as the G.O.A.T. Hop frustrated me with his spoiling tactics vs Joe C. And Dawson, as well as his ridiculously slow/passive start vs Jermain Taylor. Floyd has frustrated me with his shitty attitude and issues making the Manny fight. Manny frustrated me by fighting Marquez four times. I was good at three. Overall though, all four are great fighters and will be missed once they are done (Roy is pretty much done now though...).
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
This is where the argument goes south. I give Floyd credit as a great fighter, even ATG. I acknowledge that he didn't duck anyone and that he faced good opposition, superior to someone like Roy Jones jr. I can even see where individuals would disagree with me and value Floyd's dominance over what I feel is clearly better quality of opposition for Hop and Manny. Where it gets ridiculous is when people try to act like it is such an unheard of or unrealistic debate. Where it gets ludicrous is when people go the ultimate of hysteria and fantasy land and say Floyd is greater and has accomplished more than guys like Robinson, Ali, Armstrong...etc. It just isn't worth debating with someone who is so biased and emotionally involved with a fighter that they can't keep the conversation semi-rational. No way will any knowledgeable, unbiased fan/historian EVER rank Floyd higher than those guys mentioned above. They beat numerous prime HOFers and have more knockouts than Floyd has fights.
I'm not saying it's an unrealistic debate between Floyd, Roy and Hopkins, but I don't see Manny on par with those guys. Floyd and Roy were absolutely untouchable in their primes, Hopkins was untouchable for most of his prime and even now at nearly 50, Pac has been KTFO in all stages of his career and outboxed by several guys - including a guy that Floyd Mayweather fought and outclassed so badly it was embarrassing.
I don't see how it's fair to penalize a guy for not fighting certain people when he made a legit effort to make the fight happen. People get on their soap box and talk about the old timers like Robinson, Armstrong, ect. You think they fought everyone they could have? You don't think they avoided people? Most people just don't know their history.
Castillo made Floyd seem pretty touchable :-X I remember Floyd retiring when Cotto and Margarito were ranked #1 and #2, leaving them to fight each other, I remember Floyd walking away from a Wright fight, I could go on but Floyd hasn't done what the greats have done. For example many great welterweights have tested themselves at middleweight or above, guys who started out lighter than Floyd :-X
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
I'll try to explain. Allowing Ricky to weigh in at 147 didn't necessarily hurt Ricky's performance, as you mentioned he didn't have to struggle as much to make weight. However, Ricky's style depended in part on his ability to out-muscle his competition. He couldn't do that as effectively at 147, as he could at 140. He was only 5'6.
Before his fight against Floyd, he fought Collazo at 147, who I thought he struggled a lot with. In fact, Collazo hurt him in the last few rounds and Ricky was forced to hold as a result. If we're honest, what Did Ricky Hatton really do at 147? What was his best win at that weight class? Collazo? Maybe it's just me, which is fine, but Hatton looked like a tough Staffordshire Terrier at 140, but at 147, he looked of average, if not small size.
For example, I think Sergio Martinez's win over Kelly Pavlik at 160 is better than Hopkins' win over him at 170 because Pavlik just wasn't as effective above 160.
Right, and I totally understand how Ricky was more effective fighting 140lbers than 147lbers. That's boxing, some guys move up in weight and can no longer do what made them great at a lower weight. I get that, fair enough.
What I don't get is how it effects his performance specifically against Floyd Mayweather. You're telling me that it's not the weight itself that effects the performance, it's the actual fighting of guys a weight class higher that is the problem. Ok, but what's that got to do with Floyd, who was never a true WW even to this day?
Floyd weighs in at 147, on fight day he weights in 147-150. He doesn't cut weight. If they fought at 140, what happens? Floyd sweats out 7lbs, puts it back on and comes into the ring at 147-150 (which incidentally would be much lower than what Ricky comes into the ring at.) Either way, Ricky fights at 147-150lb Floyd Mayweather.
To this day, it's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard in any fight sport.
I gotcha. You're saying a 140 version of Hatton wouldn't have beat Floyd. Fair enough. I tend to agree with you. In a p4p sense, weight being equal, I think he beats Hatton on most days. Frankly, scoreboard, he has a win over Hatton, even if it wasn't at Hatton's best weight.
On the other hand, in my opinion, Floyd's a natural welterweight. Sure, he fights at 150 on fight night, but that doesn't mean that losing 7 pounds wouldn't be difficult for him and might not zap some strength and performance out of him. Keep in mind too that Floyd agreed to a catch weight of 145 for Marquez and then came in at 147 even though it cost him money. I have to think that was because it was more comfortable to make 147 than it was 145. Clearly, it wasn't the honorable thing to do. If it was so easy to make weight, and Floyd isn't shy about using his A-side status to his advantage, why not force big strong welterweights to fight at 140 or below 147? He forced Canelo to fight at 152. In other words, if he wanted to fight at 140, he would fight at 140. He doesn't because he's a welterweight.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
I'll try to explain. Allowing Ricky to weigh in at 147 didn't necessarily hurt Ricky's performance, as you mentioned he didn't have to struggle as much to make weight. However, Ricky's style depended in part on his ability to out-muscle his competition. He couldn't do that as effectively at 147, as he could at 140. He was only 5'6.
Before his fight against Floyd, he fought Collazo at 147, who I thought he struggled a lot with. In fact, Collazo hurt him in the last few rounds and Ricky was forced to hold as a result. If we're honest, what Did Ricky Hatton really do at 147? What was his best win at that weight class? Collazo? Maybe it's just me, which is fine, but Hatton looked like a tough Staffordshire Terrier at 140, but at 147, he looked of average, if not small size.
For example, I think Sergio Martinez's win over Kelly Pavlik at 160 is better than Hopkins' win over him at 170 because Pavlik just wasn't as effective above 160.
Right, and I totally understand how Ricky was more effective fighting 140lbers than 147lbers. That's boxing, some guys move up in weight and can no longer do what made them great at a lower weight. I get that, fair enough.
What I don't get is how it effects his performance specifically against Floyd Mayweather. You're telling me that it's not the weight itself that effects the performance, it's the actual fighting of guys a weight class higher that is the problem. Ok, but what's that got to do with Floyd, who was never a true WW even to this day?
Floyd weighs in at 147, on fight day he weights in 147-150. He doesn't cut weight. If they fought at 140, what happens? Floyd sweats out 7lbs, puts it back on and comes into the ring at 147-150 (which incidentally would be much lower than what Ricky comes into the ring at.) Either way, Ricky fights at 147-150lb Floyd Mayweather.
To this day, it's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard in any fight sport.
Rantcatrat has explained it better than I could. If Ricky had fought Floyd at 140lb it would have been to his advantage and he did give Floyd a hard time for 6 rounds but he would have been able to sustain that for 12. Do not buy into Floyd fighting at his walking weight he only shows you what he wants to show you. He could not make the weight required when he fought JMM. If Floyd had an advantage coming down 140lb he would take it, the reality is he weights light middle/middleweight limit and comes down to welterweight.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
This is where the argument goes south. I give Floyd credit as a great fighter, even ATG. I acknowledge that he didn't duck anyone and that he faced good opposition, superior to someone like Roy Jones jr. I can even see where individuals would disagree with me and value Floyd's dominance over what I feel is clearly better quality of opposition for Hop and Manny. Where it gets ridiculous is when people try to act like it is such an unheard of or unrealistic debate. Where it gets ludicrous is when people go the ultimate of hysteria and fantasy land and say Floyd is greater and has accomplished more than guys like Robinson, Ali, Armstrong...etc. It just isn't worth debating with someone who is so biased and emotionally involved with a fighter that they can't keep the conversation semi-rational. No way will any knowledgeable, unbiased fan/historian EVER rank Floyd higher than those guys mentioned above. They beat numerous prime HOFers and have more knockouts than Floyd has fights.
I'm not saying it's an unrealistic debate between Floyd, Roy and Hopkins, but I don't see Manny on par with those guys. Floyd and Roy were absolutely untouchable in their primes, Hopkins was untouchable for most of his prime and even now at nearly 50, Pac has been KTFO in all stages of his career and outboxed by several guys - including a guy that Floyd Mayweather fought and outclassed so badly it was embarrassing.
I don't see how it's fair to penalize a guy for not fighting certain people when he made a legit effort to make the fight happen. People get on their soap box and talk about the old timers like Robinson, Armstrong, ect. You think they fought everyone they could have? You don't think they avoided people? Most people just don't know their history.
Had to address this response regarding old timers avoiding people. Those individuals you mentioned, I'm sure, missed one or two guys (maybe). Let's take an unbiased look at who Ray, Henry and Floyd fought and what stage of their careers the opponents were.
SRR: Prime Kid Gavilan (HOF), Prime Gene Fullmer (HOF), Prime Lamotta (HOF and up at Lamottas weight), Prime Carmen Basilio (HOF), Fritzie Zivic, Prime Marty Servo, past his prime Armstrong, Prime Sammy Angott, Prime Bobo Olson, Rocky Graziano, Charlie Fusari and Prime Joey Maxim (HOF) at Joey's weightclass.
Henry Armstrong: Prime Beau Jack (HOF), Prime SRR (HOF/GOAT), Sammy Angott, Tippy Larkin, Lew Jenkins (HOF), Fritzie Zivic, Prime Cerefino Garcia, Prime Lou Ambers and Prime Barney Ross (HOF, ATG).
Floyd: Prime Chico (undefeated, #3 P4P, HOF?), Prime Ricky Hatton (undefeated #6 P4P), Canelo Alvarez (undefeated), slightly past prime Judah, past prime Oscar (HOF), 2nd prime Gatti (HOF?), past prime JMM (P4P #4), Prime Castillo, past prime Cotto, past prime Shane (HOF) and past prime Genaro Hernandez.
I just don't see any comparison with quality of opposition. Even Ray Leonard, who had many less fights than Manny: Hagler (ATG/HOF), Hearns (undefeated HOF/ATG), Duran (ATG/HOF), Benitez (HOF/ATG). All of those guys, except (maybe) Hagler where in their primes. No comparison. Floyd is great and not every missed fight was Floyd's, but I can't give him credit for should have beens over guys who did. Sorry.
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
La Cucaracha
Castillo made Floyd seem pretty touchable :-X I remember Floyd retiring when Cotto and Margarito were ranked #1 and #2, leaving them to fight each other, I remember Floyd walking away from a Wright fight, I could go on but Floyd hasn't done what the greats have done. For example many great welterweights have tested themselves at middleweight or above, guys who started out lighter than Floyd :-X
Well tell me another great who didn't have a close fight or get beat. Even the other undefeated guy, Marciano, had some close calls.
How many great WW's who started off at 130lbs and went up and won titles at 160? You tell me, I don't know.
Floyd fights at 147, on fight day he weighs 147-150lbs. The guys he fights (Canelo, Maidana) come into the ring pushing 170. If he fought at MW, he'd be fighting guys who come into the ring at possibly 180 or above. Why should a 150lb guy have to fight a 180lb guy?
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
I gotcha. You're saying a 140 version of Hatton wouldn't have beat Floyd. Fair enough. I tend to agree with you. In a p4p sense, weight being equal, I think he beats Hatton on most days. Frankly, scoreboard, he has a win over Hatton, even if it wasn't at Hatton's best weight.
On the other hand, in my opinion, Floyd's a natural welterweight. Sure, he fights at 150 on fight night, but that doesn't mean that losing 7 pounds wouldn't be difficult for him and might not zap some strength and performance out of him. Keep in mind too that Floyd agreed to a catch weight of 145 for Marquez and then came in at 147 even though it cost him money. I have to think that was because it was more comfortable to make 147 than it was 145. Clearly, it wasn't the honorable thing to do. If it was so easy to make weight, and Floyd isn't shy about using his A-side status to his advantage, why not force big strong welterweights to fight at 140 or below 147? He forced Canelo to fight at 152. In other words, if he wanted to fight at 140, he would fight at 140. He doesn't because he's a welterweight.
He doesn't because he doesn't cut weight. It doesn't mean he's a natural WW in the modern sense. I guarantee you just about everybody Ricky Hatton fought at 140 came into the ring heavier than Floyd did for their fight at WW.
You guys keep skirting the question and going back to "well Ricky's best weight was 140". For you and Master to have the opinion you guys do you have to either think that A) Ricky would have performed better if forced to cut down to 140lbs (which I think is ridiculous: having to drain yourself sitting in a sauna and starving yourself before the weigh ins has never improved anybody's performance in the history of sports) or b) that Mayweather would have been drained or somehow diminished by having to cut down to 140 (which I doubt because 10lbs is a relatively small amount to have to cut, but if Floyd isn't used to cutting maybe it would have hurt him, it's a possibility, who knows).
If your position is A, you need to update your knowledge of weight cutting, maybe even try sweating out 15-20lbs yourself. If your position is B, why would you want Floyd to be diminished? Isn't the point of the undefeated clash to have both guys at their best? All weighing in at 147 did was cause Floyd not to have to cut weight and Ricky to have to cut less than usual.
It's funny that people make such a big deal about Ricky at WW, too. He had one WW fight before Floyd, against the notoriously crafty and awkward Collazo. Isn't it more likely that Ricky's trouble at WW came because he was fighting a very awkward and tricky fighter, moreso than actually physically weighing in at 147?
-
Re: Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
I just don't see any comparison with quality of opposition. Even Ray Leonard, who had many less fights than Manny: Hagler (ATG/HOF), Hearns (undefeated HOF/ATG), Duran (ATG/HOF), Benitez (HOF/ATG). All of those guys, except (maybe) Hagler where in their primes. No comparison. Floyd is great and not every missed fight was Floyd's, but I can't give him credit for should have beens over guys who did. Sorry.
I'm not talking about giving him credit, I'm telling you not to dock him for them. Boxing is a lot more complicated than it was back in the good old days with rival promotional companies, networks, a million sanctioning bodies, ect.
Floyd wasn't always Money Mayweather. Something that people forget is that Floyd himself was one of the most avoided guys in the sport for a period because he was a virtuoso talent with no name value and presented one of the worst risk/reward ratios in boxing. People were not knocking down doors to fight Floyd like they have been for the last few years.
People dock Roy for a bunch of guys he never fought too, when in reality there is history and circumstance behind a lot of those missed fights, but people seem to like to just assume and say "ohh he ducked so and so because they never fought". Most of the time, it's more complicated.
