29
Printable View
29
OK makes sense. I think Pernell did what Floyd has done earlier and better.Quote:
Originally Posted by birch
I will bow to your greater knowledge. Mainly lurk on here without posting, but I found some comments in this thread a bit much.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterOK makes sense. I think Pernell did what Floyd has done earlier and better.Quote:
Originally Posted by birch
There are a handful of fighters in the history of boxing that have achieved what mayweather has, yet he's derided by certain people, mainly due to his personality.
Although his attitude may not be palatable to everyone, his resume, skills and longevity are unmatched in the last 25 years.
1. Gavilán/Corrales: Chico was a big puncher and solid fighter, but showed his limitations vs Castillo and Casameyor, neither of whom were great fighters. Kid Gavilán was the recognized top Welter and is an ATG/HOF (there are specific criteria for the HOF, do it is a good measuring stick for how good a boxer was/is). Gavilán was a master boxer who won multiple big fights and Chico wasn't as versatile in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerI'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeod
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.
2. Basilio/Castillo: Basilio was one of the roughest, toughest fighters in history, just watch some of his footage and check his record out. Castillo turned into a solid lightweight champ, but didn't have the names on his resume that Basilio did. Basilio was a two division champ (when there was only one champ per weight and only 8 weight classes) and Castillo wasn't.
3. Hatton/Fullmer: once again, Fullmer was the larger man vs a past his prime Ray, Floyd was the larger man vs a Hatton who never performed well at 147. Other than Kostya, which was a rough/foul fest, Ricky never really beat a prime fighter of note. Once again, go look at Fullmers record and see the names he fought and beat.
Those are a few points, I could go on but I don't think you really are open to another point of view.
One more point I think is often ignored or downplayed by Floyd fans: pushing the limits for greatness. How many times has Floyd entered the ring with questions on his safety/ability to win (serious questions)? How many times wasn't Floyd the favorite to win?
Robinson vs Maxim
Armstrong vs Garcia
Ali vs Foreman, Liston
Holy vs Tyson
Hop vs Tito, Tarver, Pavilik...etc.
Pea vs JCC
Pac vs Oscar, Cotto, MAB, Morales
Shane vs Oscar
Oscar vs Tito, Hop
Leonard vs Hearns, Duran, Hagler
Floyd never pushed the limits when a guy was viewed as prime and at his best. Winks Wright. GGG. Margarito. Cotto. Mosely. Pac Man. Paul Williams. Now, not all of those fights were Floyd's fault, but the fact is he never fought those guys at their zenith/best. I think he beats most of them, and I don't necessarily blame him for not fighting the much larger Wright/GGG, but it illustrates a gap in his resume. Pea took on the much larger Julio Ceasar Vasquez at 154 because he craved a challenge. Robinson dared to be great, was winning vs Maxim but became exhausted. Even if Hagler had slipped, people were worried for Leonards life going into that fight. Foreman was a killer and Ali was past his best and a certain early K.O. Victim. You get the idea....
Quote:
Originally Posted by birchI will bow to your greater knowledge. Mainly lurk on here without posting, but I found some comments in this thread a bit much.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterOK makes sense. I think Pernell did what Floyd has done earlier and better.Quote:
Originally Posted by birch
There are a handful of fighters in the history of boxing that have achieved what mayweather has, yet he's derided by certain people, mainly due to his personality.
Although his attitude may not be palatable to everyone, his resume, skills and longevity are unmatched in the last 25 years.
Much of that is very true but its also true that Floyd never had a Leonard to fight or a Hearns or Benitez and Duran. The closest man he fought to that kind of talent he did so about 5 years past the use before date. He simply does not have the opponents. He does not get points because he made more money than anyone else.
Now he cant be blamed for the line up anymore then Hopkins can be for his middleweight run or Wlad for his present one. Hopkins still makes top 5 all time at middleweight by most historians.
I hope these historians that judge him on the record actually watch his fights and see the ease in which he defeated his opponents and apply that fact in their summations. I personally dont think he becomes who he is today had he fought in the eighties nor a few other eras but that does not mean he's not an Atg had he fought in any of them either.
Something we all need to consider also is that all these others that came before him never had to operate in this cesspool of total connectivity. We often question how he'd deal with their times but how would they deal with his? Would they be the same fighters?
Although I don't feel that Floyd is the best ever, I believe that he is at least top 15 ever if not 10. And let me tell you, I didn't think I would ever rate him that high.
I agree with bean that the problem is that since mayweather is so hated that he is generally rated more harshly than others. Sure, Floyd could fight ggg and take that risk but I don't blame him for it. If he won the fight, his stock would go way up but without it, he is still great. I've always said that most fighters that people said Floyd ducked weren't really anything big anyways.
For example, lets say he fought Margarito. He most likely would have easily won and now it wouldn't even be considered much of a win. Same with Paul Williams. Most of his could have matches would have been another name that people would have called a decent win but not a great one.
I agree with your last point, to a degree. I often feel that it has to do with how well the other guy fights and pushes Floyd. A Hearns type performance by Willians or Margarito would've gone a long way for me, but I can see the haters still downplaying. Hell, maybe Floyd just makes anyone he fights look easy/worse than they are. I can see that point of view, although I don't agree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
What fight would say he was at risk of losing after the Castillo fights :confused: Hatton? Maybe but we already saw what limitations he had against Collazo :p DLH or Mosley? Sure if you pay no attention to a past by date :lickish: Cotto? Sure just disregard the KO loses to Margarito and Pac :) Alvarez? If you like. Trout already showed the blue print. Pac? You already know this was too late to matter ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerSee how can I take someone seriously who says something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by La Cucaracha
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.
So what about Martinez who was 160 champ? Ward who was 168 champ or now GGG? All 3 said they would drop in weight for the opportunity :-\ Even Pacquiao in 2010 would have been closer to 50/50.
The thing is Floyd may have won all those fights but he never dared to take the challenge :-X
Personally I think if Floyd fought GGG now instead of Berto he may be the underdog, against Martinez without a catch weight I think it might have been closer odds than the Ortiz or Gueerero fights, lets not even mention Ward; when those opportunities present themselves the greats step up :)
How can a guy be faulted for being better than the other guys he can realistically fight? Nobody near his size has had any chance of being the favorite over him in so long, and that's his problem? I love seeing a good upset/comeback story as much as anyone, but usually when someone is truly expected to lose or even get destroyed, it's because they have shown form to suggest that's likely. I suppose if Floyd had gotten the shit beaten out of him and then retired for a couple of years before coming back to beat some of the guys he has it would have made his record better?
Wonder what these same people have to say about Ricardo Lopez? He must have really had no desire huh. Why didn't he just do some push ups and fight Erik Morales when he had the chance, that pussy.
Another weird thing is that I consider the de LA hoya win his best win. Although he was past his best, he wasn't at all done and Floyd moved up in weight. I thought that de la hoya was going to win for sure. Maybe people did think that mayweather would win at the time but I don't remember it being so widly accepted that he would win as it is now. I'm thinking that maybe we are looking at it from the future rather than what we really thought at the time. I could be wrong though
Floyd beating Oscar was a good victory and the fight was close. We found out that was Oscar past his best and if it was the version that fought Vargas, Oscar would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Odd that he stopped using his jab midway. I've watched the fight several times and cant really see Floyd taking it away. Its like he just stopped using it when he was controlling much of the fight with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterFloyd beating Oscar was a good victory and the fight was close. We found out that was Oscar past his best and if it was the version that fought Vargas, Oscar would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
I'm pretty sure Oscar had a rematch clause but Floyd retired and then when the clause ran out after 1 year he unretired. People can make up their own minds but thats an asterisk in/on the record. All the greats have them though.
I think Oscar simply tired and faded but the Vargas version would have carried on.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitOdd that he stopped using his jab midway. I've watched the fight several times and cant really see Floyd taking it away. Its like he just stopped using it when he was controlling much of the fight with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterFloyd beating Oscar was a good victory and the fight was close. We found out that was Oscar past his best and if it was the version that fought Vargas, Oscar would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
I'm pretty sure Oscar had a rematch clause but Floyd retired and then when the clause ran out after 1 year he unretired. People can make up their own minds but thats an asterisk in/on the record. All the greats have them though.