Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy

I've been giving it a lot of thought and I can't decide who will be ranked highest historically. All four guys have had great careers and all have positives and negatives that cause me to constantly change my mind based on how I weigh my criteria. To be clear, I'm talking about which guy has the most impressive legacy and will go down as the most "historical" fighter. Here is how I currently break them down:

Floyd: Undefeated, multi-weight champion who has reigned as P4P #1 for years. He has defeated solid competition in guys like Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, Canelo Alvarez, Miguel Cotto, Oscar, and Ricky Hatton. His signature win, in my opinion, was his domination of #3 P4P (at the time of the fight) Chico Corrales. Floyd used angles, beautiful combinations and a debilitating jab to the body to completely outclass a dominant fighter who had been blowing out top competition for years. The knock against Floyd is that at times his style is less than exciting, many of the biggest names he fought were past their best (Oscar, Shane, Cotto...etc.) and that he missed some of his biggest/best opportunities (Kostya, prime Shane, Frietas, Casamayor...etc.), most notably the superfight with Manny.

Manny: 8 division titlist and multi-weight champ who energized the sport with his all offense style and has beaten arguably the toughest competition of the four mentioned. While Manny has suffered a few draws and losses, many argue that is due to his always seeking out the toughest challengers available. Hard to argue with a guy who started at flyweight and took on the toughest available competition up to jr. middleweight. Some of the names on Manny's outstanding resume are: Barrera, Marquez, Morales, Bradley, Hatton, Cotto, Ledwaba, Mosely, and Oscar, many of were much larger and stopped in fantastic fashion. Manny's signature win would have to be his first win against Barrera, who was coming off the Hamed win, revitalized and ranked #3 P4P at the time. Manny completely savaged him and stopped him in impressive fashion. The knock against Manny is that some of the names on his resume (Oscar, Shane, Margarito...etc.) were past their best, he lost and drew during his prime (JMM and Morales) and never was able to face his greatest rival Floyd Mayweather.

Hop: Fastest title defense/knockout at middleweight, Record for successful middleweight defenses (20), won lineal light heavy title multiple times, first to unify all four major titles at same weight, oldest fighter to win titles, oldest to defend and oldest to unify. Fought solid competition, second only to maybe Manny, fighting names such as Calzaghe (#2 P4P at time of fight), Taylor, Pavilik (#3 P4P), Tarver (#6 P4P), Roy Jones, Winky Wright (#3 P4P), Glen Johnson, Tito Trinidad (#2 P4P), Oscar, Cloud, Joe Lipsey, Dawson and Pasqual to name a few. Wins over Tarver, Pavilik, Wright, Oscar were impressive, losses to Joe C. and Taylor were disputed. Signature win was over Tito in a fight that Tito was heavily favored to win. Hop turned in the most complete performance against an ATG of anyone on this list, literally dominating every aspect of the fight (jabbing, defense, combinations, body work, mental game, dictating pace and distance, center of ring, off ropes...etc.). The factors against Hop are that his style is frustratingly boring against the wrong opponent, he lost to Jones and Dawson convincingly, Taylor and Joe C. disputably, and a couple of his big wins were against guys coming up (Tito and Oscar).

Roy: Unified light heavyweight, physical phenom, won title at 160 and heavyweight, 4 weight titlist and P4P #1 for numerous years prior to suffering first legitimate loss. Roy beat the weakest competition of those listed, beating guys like Montell Griffin, John Ruiz, BHop (who was green at the time), Virgil Hill, and James Toney (#2 P4P at the time). Roy's signature win is easily his domination of Toney in a fight Toney was favored to win when James was undefeated and identified by some as the next Marvin Hagler. Roy used his considerable advantages in speed and athleticism to completely dominate and outclass one of the most feared fighters at the time. The knock against Roy was that after the Toney win he never pushed himself again until facing Ruiz, who still was the weakest of the titlists available and not the true champ at Heavy. Roy missed more big fights/challengers than all three other fighters combined. Also, Roy was not able to bounce back from losses like Manny and Hop were, and suffered some horrific stoppages while still in or near his prime.

At this point I rank them Hop, Manny, Floyd and then Roy in that order. Roy frustrates me because I feel that he was potentially the best fighter of the group, not in terms of learned skills but just in his freakish ability. I place Hop and Manny over Floyd based of level of competition, and I place Hop over Manny due to the fact that his historical accomplishments will last for decades and Manny's, in my opinion, are not as impressive. Interested for alternate points of view though.

It's disappointing that so many people are hell bent on flat out rewriting boxing history when it comes to Floyd.

Floyd Mayweather was calling both Oscar and Shane out for YEARS before he got the fight. He was calling Oscar out back when Oscar was at 154 and Floyd was at 130. You can Google that, it's documented history (complete with his own father going on record saying he was insane to challenge DLH). Same thing with Shane - he had been calling Shane out since 1999, it was Shane who decided not to over the span of 10 years. Shane was the one turning down the fight and making excuses. Cotto also turned down a Floyd fight earlier in his career because he felt he wasn't ready. Kostya, Freitas, Casamayor... there's video of Floyd calling all these guys out.

It's incredible that I read people ranking Pacqiauo above Floyd historically and knowing it's not a joke or a troll job. It's unbelievable. I constantly have to stand up for a guy I don't like.

Floyd's 1st then hop, roy and manny. That manny fight is going to happen no doubt about it and then all you floyd haters are going to be sick when he beats manny.

It's Hopkins for me. If Floyd's still doing what he's doing for another 15 years then it will be close

Prime for prime though Roy Jones at his peak was the best

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

It's disappointing that so many people are hell bent on flat out rewriting boxing history when it comes to Floyd.

Floyd Mayweather was calling both Oscar and Shane out for YEARS before he got the fight. He was calling Oscar out back when Oscar was at 154 and Floyd was at 130. You can Google that, it's documented history (complete with his own father going on record saying he was insane to challenge DLH). Same thing with Shane - he had been calling Shane out since 1999, it was Shane who decided not to over the span of 10 years. Shane was the one turning down the fight and making excuses. Cotto also turned down a Floyd fight earlier in his career because he felt he wasn't ready. Kostya, Freitas, Casamayor... there's video of Floyd calling all these guys out.


It's incredible that I read people ranking Pacqiauo above Floyd historically and knowing it's not a joke or a troll job. It's unbelievable. I constantly have to stand up for a guy I don't like.

---

I see I wasn't clear enough when I wrote the post and caused confusion. I wasn't saying Floyd ducked those guys and didn't try to make those fights (Oscar, Shane...etc.), just saying that for whatever reason some of the big ones got away and that hurts his standing in my rankings. I feel Roy, after Toney, was content to feed on subpar competition where Floyd just had circumstances against him. You are correct that Floyd pursued those big fights for years though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Floyd: Undefeated, multi-weight champion who has reigned as P4P #1 for years. He has defeated solid competition in guys like Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, Canelo Alvarez, Miguel Cotto, Oscar, and Ricky Hatton. His signature win, in my opinion, was his domination of #3 P4P (at the time of the fight) Chico Corrales. Floyd used angles, beautiful combinations and a debilitating jab to the body to completely outclass a dominant fighter who had been blowing out top competition for years. The knock against Floyd is that at times his style is less than exciting, many of the biggest names he fought were past their best (Oscar, Shane, Cotto...etc.) and that he missed some of his biggest/best opportunities (Kostya, prime Shane, Frietas, Casamayor...etc.), most notably the superfight with Manny.

---

You say Floyd never fought Kostya, prime Shane, Frietas or Casamayor.

But he fought Shane AFTER Shane was coming off arguably his biggest win were he destroyed Antonio Margarito.

Remember AT THAT TIME Margarito was seen as a monster because he previously beaten the previously unbeaten Cotto.

Mayweather fought and beat the BEST Mosely

Yes. Mayweather never fought Kostya Tszyu but Mayweather beat the guy that punched Tszyu into retirement (Ricky Hattion) who AT THE TIME when Hatton fought Mayweather, Hatton was undefeated and at the VERY TOP of his game.

Yes. Mayweather never fought Joel Casamayor but he has beaten the guys that have beaten Casamayor (Robert Guerrero, J.M.Marquez and Luis Castillo)

Yes. Mayweather never fought Acelino Freitas but Mayweather beat Diego Corrales and Corrales went on to beat Acelino Freitas.

How can you say Miguel Cotto was "past his prime" when he fought Mayweather in 2012 ? When a few months back Cotto destroyed the fighter who was renowed as the best middleweight in the world - Sergio Martinez ?

How can you say Oscar was past his "past his prime" when he was only 34 at the time and in my opinion had only lost once to Hopkins (I believe like many that he beat Trinidad and won both fights against Mosley)

Dude. All roads lead to Maywether. He is the greatest fighter in our era.

There are only two fighters in the world today who I think would stand a chance of beating Mayweather.

Guillermo Rigondeaux and Andre Ward.

And I don't think they would win, but they would have a chance.

Every other fighter would have two chances, slim and none........and slim left town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Manny: 8 division titlist and multi-weight champ who energized the sport with his all offense style and has beaten arguably the toughest competition of the four mentioned. While Manny has suffered a few draws and losses, many argue that is due to his always seeking out the toughest challengers available. Hard to argue with a guy who started at flyweight and took on the toughest available competition up to jr. middleweight. Some of the names on Manny's outstanding resume are: Barrera, Marquez, Morales, Bradley, Hatton, Cotto, Ledwaba, Mosely, and Oscar, many of were much larger and stopped in fantastic fashion. Manny's signature win would have to be his first win against Barrera, who was coming off the Hamed win, revitalized and ranked #3 P4P at the time. Manny completely savaged him and stopped him in impressive fashion. The knock against Manny is that some of the names on his resume (Oscar, Shane, Margarito...etc.) were past their best, he lost and drew during his prime (JMM and Morales) and never was able to face his greatest rival Floyd Mayweather.

---

Manny beat Hatton AFTER Mayweather had beaten Hatton.
Manny beat Oscar AFTER Mayweather had beaten Oscar.
Manny got knocked out by Marquez AFTER Mayweather had beaten Marquez.

Manny was beaten by Bradley in the first fight (Yes, yes I thought that was a bad decision) but he hardly ran Bradley out of the ring second time around.

Manny has fought JMM 4 times. Ist time a draw, second time an SD for Manny, third time a very dodgy decision for Manny and in the fourth fight, Manny nearly got his head decapitated by JMM

Yet JMM barely wins a round aganist Mayweather.

He has a lost against Morales and two KO losses early in his career.

Look - I’m not saying Pac-Man is not a great fighter.

He is.

But you can’t sit there with a straight face and put Manny above Mayweather, that is insane and it will be shown how insane it is, should they face up next year when Floyd will not even lose a round to Manny

But I'm sure you will trot out the usual "Manny was past his prime" line.

To be honest until Floyd fights and beats Wladimir Klitschko with one arm tied behind his back will people give him credit.

My list is :

1) Floyd
2) Hop
3) Roy
4) Manny

I just have no idea how anyone could justify not having Floyd #1. Floyd worked his way to becoming the highest grossing star boxing has ever seen, he's been fighting for 18 years undefeated (16 of those years as a champion and at a championship level) and at an age where historically most guys are retired or washed up, he's fighting and winning on the highest level.

At some point, and this point may be years or even decades down the road, boxing fans are going to have to acknowledge Floyd as one of the very top greatest fighters of all time, maybe even the #1.

There's only so much verbal gymnastics people can do to whitewash his accomplishments, sooner or later you have to give the devil his due. He's an asshole, a thug, and will never go down as the most exciting/action packed fighter in history, but his talent and genius in the ring eclipses pretty much every boxer who ever lived.

You just can't compare him to a guy who we've seen KTFO a several stages of his career, a guy we've seen outboxed and cleanly beaten. Pac is an ATG warrior, great action fighter, but legacy-wise he falls short of Mayweather in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I just have no idea how anyone could justify not having Floyd #1. Floyd worked his way to becoming the highest grossing star boxing has ever seen, he's been fighting for 18 years undefeated (16 of those years as a champion and at a championship level) and at an age where historically most guys are retired or washed up, he's fighting and winning on the highest level.

At some point, and this point may be years or even decades down the road, boxing fans are going to have to acknowledge Floyd as one of the very top greatest fighters of all time, maybe even the #1.

There's only so much verbal gymnastics people can do to whitewash his accomplishments, sooner or later you have to give the devil his due. He's an asshole, a thug, and will never go down as the most exciting/action packed fighter in history, but his talent and genius in the ring eclipses pretty much every boxer who ever lived.

You just can't compare him to a guy who we've seen KTFO a several stages of his career, a guy we've seen outboxed and cleanly beaten. Pac is an ATG warrior, great action fighter, but legacy-wise he falls short of Mayweather in the end.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denilson200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Floyd: Undefeated, multi-weight champion who has reigned as P4P #1 for years. He has defeated solid competition in guys like Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, Canelo Alvarez, Miguel Cotto, Oscar, and Ricky Hatton. His signature win, in my opinion, was his domination of #3 P4P (at the time of the fight) Chico Corrales. Floyd used angles, beautiful combinations and a debilitating jab to the body to completely outclass a dominant fighter who had been blowing out top competition for years. The knock against Floyd is that at times his style is less than exciting, many of the biggest names he fought were past their best (Oscar, Shane, Cotto...etc.) and that he missed some of his biggest/best opportunities (Kostya, prime Shane, Frietas, Casamayor...etc.), most notably the superfight with Manny.

---

You say Floyd never fought Kostya, prime Shane, Frietas or Casamayor.

But he fought Shane AFTER Shane was coming off arguably his biggest win were he destroyed Antonio Margarito. Shane's win over Oscar was a much bigger win, it isn't even close or debatable. Margarito had been beaten by Paul Williams a few fights before his big win over Cotto, so it wasn't like the guy was unbeatable.

Remember AT THAT TIME Margarito was seen as a monster because he previously beaten the previously unbeaten Cotto.

Mayweather fought and beat the BEST Mosely No way. That just isn't a true statement at all. Mosely had been outclassed by Forrest and Winky FOUR TIMES and beaten by Cotto when he fought Floyd. In no way was he prime or the best version of his career. You are kidding yourself.

Yes. Mayweather never fought Kostya Tszyu but Mayweather beat the guy that punched Tszyu into retirement (Ricky Hattion) who AT THE TIME when Hatton fought Mayweather, Hatton was undefeated and at the VERY TOP of his game. I gave Floyd credit for the Hatton win, as I feel this was an impressive performance. That being said, I never give someone credit for beating a guy who beat another guy. Look at Ali, Norton, Foreman and you will see that styles make fights. I think Floyd would've won vs. Kostya, he loses credit in my ranking system though for not fighting him.

Yes. Mayweather never fought Joel Casamayor but he has beaten the guys that have beaten Casamayor (Robert Guerrero, J.M.Marquez and Luis Castillo) Joel was shot by the time he fought those fighters, and I feel that great fighters seek out and beat top competition, not let other guys beat them for him.

Yes. Mayweather never fought Acelino Freitas but Mayweather beat Diego Corrales and Corrales went on to beat Acelino Freitas.

How can you say Miguel Cotto was "past his prime" when he fought Mayweather in 2012 ? When a few months back Cotto destroyed the fighter who was renowed as the best middleweight in the world - Sergio Martinez ? I'm sorry, you seem like a good guy and seem passionate for the sport, but this is an assinine statement. Cotto looked good against a guy with no mobility who is done as a fighter. The first world class, durable guy Miguel fights will beat him. He was a shell of his prime self when he fought Floyd and everyone who is unbiased knows/admits this.

How can you say Oscar was past his "past his prime" when he was only 34 at the time and in my opinion had only lost once to Hopkins (I believe like many that he beat Trinidad and won both fights against Mosley) Hahahahah. Another comment that you have to admit is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows Oscar was done by the Floyd fight and NOWHERE near his prime. I don't give Floyd or Manny much credit for beating those versions of Oscar. There is no way you can say with a straight face that Oscar was near his prime for that fight.

Dude. All roads lead to Maywether. He is the greatest fighter in our era. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. I laid out my reasons for ranking guys where I do. Try to keep it in perspective though, I'm not saying Floyd is a bum or coward...etc. I admit he is an ATG, I just feel that due to accomplishments Hop and Manny should be ranked higher. I can see how people would disagree though.

There are only two fighters in the world today who I think would stand a chance of beating Mayweather.

Guillermo Rigondeaux and Andre Ward.

And I don't think they would win, but they would have a chance.

Every other fighter would have two chances, slim and none........and slim left town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Manny: 8 division titlist and multi-weight champ who energized the sport with his all offense style and has beaten arguably the toughest competition of the four mentioned. While Manny has suffered a few draws and losses, many argue that is due to his always seeking out the toughest challengers available. Hard to argue with a guy who started at flyweight and took on the toughest available competition up to jr. middleweight. Some of the names on Manny's outstanding resume are: Barrera, Marquez, Morales, Bradley, Hatton, Cotto, Ledwaba, Mosely, and Oscar, many of were much larger and stopped in fantastic fashion. Manny's signature win would have to be his first win against Barrera, who was coming off the Hamed win, revitalized and ranked #3 P4P at the time. Manny completely savaged him and stopped him in impressive fashion. The knock against Manny is that some of the names on his resume (Oscar, Shane, Margarito...etc.) were past their best, he lost and drew during his prime (JMM and Morales) and never was able to face his greatest rival Floyd Mayweather.

---

Manny beat Hatton AFTER Mayweather had beaten Hatton. Great knockout, and due to how it went down I'm confident Manny does that to Hatton any time they fought. Bad style clash for Ricky.
Manny beat Oscar AFTER Mayweather had beaten Oscar. Don't put much stock in this win.
Manny got knocked out by Marquez AFTER Mayweather had beaten Marquez. Styles make fights, JMM grew into the weightclass by the time of that 4th fight, and Manny was extremely aggressive and on the verge of a stoppage himself when he got caught. When you fight tough comp that happens to everyone. The only way to guarantee you remain undefeated is by fighting guys you know you can beat.

Manny was beaten by Bradley in the first fight (Yes, yes I thought that was a bad decision) but he hardly ran Bradley out of the ring second time around. He dominated both fights against a top ranked P4P #3 undefeated champion. Tough to fault a guy for that or because the judges sucked in the first fight.

Manny has fought JMM 4 times. Ist time a draw, second time an SD for Manny, third time a very dodgy decision for Manny and in the fourth fight, Manny nearly got his head decapitated by JMM Bad style match up. Also, Manny and JMM are smaller than Floyd, so I don't put as much stock as most in Floyd beating JMM. To me Floyd is too big for both/either of those guys.

Yet JMM barely wins a round aganist Mayweather.

He has a lost against Morales and two KO losses early in his career. Morales was a BEAST and is a HOFer. Easy. You fight enough tough guys you will lose a close decision here or there.

Look - I’m not saying Pac-Man is not a great fighter.

He is.

But you can’t sit there with a straight face and put Manny above Mayweather, that is insane and it will be shown how insane it is, should they face up next year when Floyd will not even lose a round to Manny

But I'm sure you will trot out the usual "Manny was past his prime" line. I will trot that line out now. Manny is past his prime. Do you disagree with that?????? Manny is no where near the fighter he was in the past and he is well above his best weight. I think that due to the style match up Floyd would have always beat Manny, but also feel that they would have had great fights and Floyd woud've struggled. That being said, just because a fighter loses to another guy doesn't mean that he has to be ranked below that guy. Ray Robinson lost to the larger Joey Maxim and I don't place Joey above Ray. Joe C. Beat Roy Jones and I don't place Joe above Roy.

To be honest until Floyd fights and beats Wladimir Klitschko with one arm tied behind his back will people give him credit.

My list is :

1) Floyd
2) Hop
3) Roy
4) Manny

---

It's all subjective, so it is a respectable list. That being said, some insight into why you rank them like that would be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAME

It's Hopkins for me. If Floyd's still doing what he's doing for another 15 years then it will be close

Prime for prime though Roy Jones at his peak was the best

---

Agree completely about Roy.

No one comes close.

I don't know what this best of all time stuff really means, but they are all great fighters. There just seems to be something a little off with Mayweather and his ducking of Manny though. You cannot avoid the other best fighter around your weight class and expect it to look good. Hopkins and Roy have losses, but they took on the best no questions asked. Floyd still has that big question mark and the Manny who beat up Cotto to a pulp wasn't fought and instead actively avoided.

Not sure who I rate best overall. I'll try and break it down through a 10 question scientific points system.

1. Most exciting

1. Pac
2. Roy
3. Floyd
4. Hop

2. P4P best

1. Roy
2. Floyd
3. Pac
4. Hop

3. Mentally best

1. Hop
2. Floyd
3. Pac
4. Roy

4. Greastest ever virtuoso performance

1. Roy
2. Floyd
3. Pac
4. Hop

5. Best KO ever

1. Pac
2. Roy
3. Floyd
4. Hop

6. Best at getting knocked down/out

1. Roy
2. Pac
3. Hop
4. Floyd

7. Best ring enterance

1. Roy
2. Hop
3. Floyd
4. Pac

8. Best at interviews

1. Hop
2. Roy
3. Floyd
4. Pac

9. Best at taking a shot to the goolies

1. Floyd
2. Pac
3. Roy
4. Hop

10. Best chance of making it past 3 rounds against a prime Naz

1. lol
2. as if
3. don't be silly
4. now you're taking the piss

That leaves us with

1. Roy (5 and 1/2 PTS)
2. Hop (3 and 1/2 PTS)
3. Pac (3 PTS)
4. Floyd (2 and 1/2 PTS)

I wouldn't have particularly chosen this order but the numbers have spoken. Fact.

When you put it like that ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denilson200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Floyd: Undefeated, multi-weight champion who has reigned as P4P #1 for years. He has defeated solid competition in guys like Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, Canelo Alvarez, Miguel Cotto, Oscar, and Ricky Hatton. His signature win, in my opinion, was his domination of #3 P4P (at the time of the fight) Chico Corrales. Floyd used angles, beautiful combinations and a debilitating jab to the body to completely outclass a dominant fighter who had been blowing out top competition for years. The knock against Floyd is that at times his style is less than exciting, many of the biggest names he fought were past their best (Oscar, Shane, Cotto...etc.) and that he missed some of his biggest/best opportunities (Kostya, prime Shane, Frietas, Casamayor...etc.), most notably the superfight with Manny.

---

You say Floyd never fought Kostya, prime Shane, Frietas or Casamayor.

But he fought Shane AFTER Shane was coming off arguably his biggest win were he destroyed Antonio Margarito. Shane's win over Oscar was a much bigger win, it isn't even close or debatable. Margarito had been beaten by Paul Williams a few fights before his big win over Cotto, so it wasn't like the guy was unbeatable.

Remember AT THAT TIME Margarito was seen as a monster because he previously beaten the previously unbeaten Cotto.

Mayweather fought and beat the BEST Mosely No way. That just isn't a true statement at all. Mosely had been outclassed by Forrest and Winky FOUR TIMES and beaten by Cotto when he fought Floyd. In no way was he prime or the best version of his career. You are kidding yourself.

Yes. Mayweather never fought Kostya Tszyu but Mayweather beat the guy that punched Tszyu into retirement (Ricky Hattion) who AT THE TIME when Hatton fought Mayweather, Hatton was undefeated and at the VERY TOP of his game. I gave Floyd credit for the Hatton win, as I feel this was an impressive performance. That being said, I never give someone credit for beating a guy who beat another guy. Look at Ali, Norton, Foreman and you will see that styles make fights. I think Floyd would've won vs. Kostya, he loses credit in my ranking system though for not fighting him.

Yes. Mayweather never fought Joel Casamayor but he has beaten the guys that have beaten Casamayor (Robert Guerrero, J.M.Marquez and Luis Castillo) Joel was shot by the time he fought those fighters, and I feel that great fighters seek out and beat top competition, not let other guys beat them for him.

Yes. Mayweather never fought Acelino Freitas but Mayweather beat Diego Corrales and Corrales went on to beat Acelino Freitas.

How can you say Miguel Cotto was "past his prime" when he fought Mayweather in 2012 ? When a few months back Cotto destroyed the fighter who was renowed as the best middleweight in the world - Sergio Martinez ? I'm sorry, you seem like a good guy and seem passionate for the sport, but this is an assinine statement. Cotto looked good against a guy with no mobility who is done as a fighter. The first world class, durable guy Miguel fights will beat him. He was a shell of his prime self when he fought Floyd and everyone who is unbiased knows/admits this.

How can you say Oscar was past his "past his prime" when he was only 34 at the time and in my opinion had only lost once to Hopkins (I believe like many that he beat Trinidad and won both fights against Mosley) Hahahahah. Another comment that you have to admit is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows Oscar was done by the Floyd fight and NOWHERE near his prime. I don't give Floyd or Manny much credit for beating those versions of Oscar. There is no way you can say with a straight face that Oscar was near his prime for that fight.

Dude. All roads lead to Maywether. He is the greatest fighter in our era. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. I laid out my reasons for ranking guys where I do. Try to keep it in perspective though, I'm not saying Floyd is a bum or coward...etc. I admit he is an ATG, I just feel that due to accomplishments Hop and Manny should be ranked higher. I can see how people would disagree though.

There are only two fighters in the world today who I think would stand a chance of beating Mayweather.

Guillermo Rigondeaux and Andre Ward.

And I don't think they would win, but they would have a chance.

Every other fighter would have two chances, slim and none........and slim left town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Manny: 8 division titlist and multi-weight champ who energized the sport with his all offense style and has beaten arguably the toughest competition of the four mentioned. While Manny has suffered a few draws and losses, many argue that is due to his always seeking out the toughest challengers available. Hard to argue with a guy who started at flyweight and took on the toughest available competition up to jr. middleweight. Some of the names on Manny's outstanding resume are: Barrera, Marquez, Morales, Bradley, Hatton, Cotto, Ledwaba, Mosely, and Oscar, many of were much larger and stopped in fantastic fashion. Manny's signature win would have to be his first win against Barrera, who was coming off the Hamed win, revitalized and ranked #3 P4P at the time. Manny completely savaged him and stopped him in impressive fashion. The knock against Manny is that some of the names on his resume (Oscar, Shane, Margarito...etc.) were past their best, he lost and drew during his prime (JMM and Morales) and never was able to face his greatest rival Floyd Mayweather.

---

Manny beat Hatton AFTER Mayweather had beaten Hatton. Great knockout, and due to how it went down I'm confident Manny does that to Hatton any time they fought. Bad style clash for Ricky.
Manny beat Oscar AFTER Mayweather had beaten Oscar. Don't put much stock in this win.
Manny got knocked out by Marquez AFTER Mayweather had beaten Marquez. Styles make fights, JMM grew into the weightclass by the time of that 4th fight, and Manny was extremely aggressive and on the verge of a stoppage himself when he got caught. When you fight tough comp that happens to everyone. The only way to guarantee you remain undefeated is by fighting guys you know you can beat.

Manny was beaten by Bradley in the first fight (Yes, yes I thought that was a bad decision) but he hardly ran Bradley out of the ring second time around. He dominated both fights against a top ranked P4P #3 undefeated champion. Tough to fault a guy for that or because the judges sucked in the first fight.

Manny has fought JMM 4 times. Ist time a draw, second time an SD for Manny, third time a very dodgy decision for Manny and in the fourth fight, Manny nearly got his head decapitated by JMM Bad style match up. Also, Manny and JMM are smaller than Floyd, so I don't put as much stock as most in Floyd beating JMM. To me Floyd is too big for both/either of those guys.

Yet JMM barely wins a round aganist Mayweather.

He has a lost against Morales and two KO losses early in his career. Morales was a BEAST and is a HOFer. Easy. You fight enough tough guys you will lose a close decision here or there.

Look - I’m not saying Pac-Man is not a great fighter.

He is.

But you can’t sit there with a straight face and put Manny above Mayweather, that is insane and it will be shown how insane it is, should they face up next year when Floyd will not even lose a round to Manny

But I'm sure you will trot out the usual "Manny was past his prime" line. I will trot that line out now. Manny is past his prime. Do you disagree with that?????? Manny is no where near the fighter he was in the past and he is well above his best weight. I think that due to the style match up Floyd would have always beat Manny, but also feel that they would have had great fights and Floyd woud've struggled. That being said, just because a fighter loses to another guy doesn't mean that he has to be ranked below that guy. Ray Robinson lost to the larger Joey Maxim and I don't place Joey above Ray. Joe C. Beat Roy Jones and I don't place Joe above Roy.

To be honest until Floyd fights and beats Wladimir Klitschko with one arm tied behind his back will people give him credit.

My list is :

1) Floyd
2) Hop
3) Roy
4) Manny

---

It's all subjective, so it is a respectable list. That being said, some insight into why you rank them like that would be interesting.

---

I will start with Roy. He has had too many terrible defeats that leave a serious stain on his career.

With Roy, people put too much weight on his highs and not enough his lows. So sure, for every great performance, like against Toney and Griffin 2, this there were poor defeats (At the back end of his career) to Danny Green (KO 1) and Lebedev (KO 10)

Not to mention his KO defeats to good fighters but hardly hall of famers like Glen Johnson and Tarver.

It’s not just how you start the race, it's how you finish it.

You may get a horse that shows tremendous early speed, but does have the stamina to see the race out and gets caught. When people judge Roy they focus too much on his early career, and the fact that when he was good, he was so far front of everyone, but like the horse, he has faded badly

Whereas Hopkins is the opposite, he did not have lightening early speed, but tremendous stamina, and using the Horse example again, he has caught Jones up and overtook him.

He beat Jones in a rematch and no-one has ever destroyed him and at the age 50 he's fighting another killing machine in Kovalev

I have already gave my verdict on Manny and Floyd above. Floyd ranks number and NO I'm not blinded by his unbeaten records. The simple fact he has been the dominant boxer ion the planet for past 10 years.

In terms of legacy this is hard but this is my order.

Roy was simply the best and beat Hopkins easily. What he is doing now does not harm his legacy everyone knows he is past his best.
Floyd for multiple weight champion
Hopkins for his longevity
Manny when he went through the divisions and smashed everyone – short sweet and spectacular.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I think a major consideration should be how many "greats" they faced, were they in their "prime," and how many they defeated.

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.

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...).

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

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.

---

How? Would sweating his ass off in a sauna and starving himself give him more endurance? Or are you saying that he didn't train himself hard enough because he didn't have to fight at 140?

If the latter, why is it Floyd's problem if Ricky never put the work in at the gym for the biggest fight of his life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

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.

---

I have to be honest, u just aren't making a rational argument, u r making an emotional one. U r saying that Floyd and Roy should be ranked higher because of how dominant they r and how great they looked. That is subjective, u r admitting that they fought inferior competition, but u r giving them credit since, in ur opinion, it wasn't their fault. What I'm saying is that while I agree with ur assessment of their abilities, I rank them lower based on the fact that they didn't make those fights and other guys did.

Ricardo Lopez, Rigo, Charley Burley, Sam Langford and many others were great fighters who, for circumstances out of their control, where not able to fight many top caliber opponents. As much asi admire their abilities and respect them, I can't rank them higher than Robinson, Armstrong, Ali...etc., because they didn't have the historical accomplishments. Floyd is great, an ATG. No doubt. This isn't a hate on Floyd session. Floyd will never be ranked higher than those guys because beating Chico and Hatton (his two biggest wins) does not compare with beating Hagler, Duran, Hearns and Benitez. It doesn't compare with beating Fullmer, Basilio, Lamotta...etc. I don't think we r ever goin to agree. U will always say Floyd is in the discussion based on ur "feeling" that way. I will say this also: it is easy to look great against not great competition. While Oscar and Tito had more losses than Floyd, they fought much tougher competition. I rank Floyd higher than both of those guys, but I so wonder what Floyd's record would be if he made the fights those guys did. As for missed fights not being his fault: 50 year old Hop is fighting an undefeated MONSTER who fights for rival HBO m promoter. Hop found a way to make the fight and will try and slay another dragon to add to his legacy. That is a great fighters mentality. Floyd fought Marcos Maidana twice and will most likely retire without fighting Manny. Despite his impressive skills and conditioning, at times I do question his mentality...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

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.

---

How? Would sweating his ass off in a sauna and starving himself give him more endurance? Or are you saying that he didn't train himself hard enough because he didn't have to fight at 140?

If the latter, why is it Floyd's problem if Ricky never put the work in at the gym for the biggest fight of his life?

---

What weight was Hatton champion at?
Why didn't Floyd fight him in '05 or '06 instead of Mitchell or Judah? Instead of in late '07 when Hatton's well noted weight gains between bouts had already deteriorated his resilience and had looked very ordinary against Collazo? :-\ I still think Floyd would have won (easy) but it would have been a more significant win ;)

Like Mikeeod said Floyd needed more fights where the result was not in doubt, when Floyd was not the overwhelming favourite :-\

Casamayor was calling out Floyd every chance he got from '09-'02, Dorin and Spadafora fought each other while Floyd fought none title holders Sosa and Ndou, Wright had agreed to all terms before Floyd went another direction, fighting Cotto or Margarito instead of retiring was a fight the fans were calling for :mad: when he returned Pacquiao was the right fight to make :mad: Martinez was doing everything possible to try and lure Floyd into the ring :mad: and now Golovkin looms as a very possible threat at middleweight :) Gavilin and Armstrong were featherweights and fought middleweights, but for some reason Floyd's fans feel it is unreasonable for him to venture that high, but if he wants to wear that TBE cap then he will be held to those standards :p

Leonard and Hearns got the fight done when they were considered the 2 best, Chavez and Whitaker did the same, if Floyd had of really wanted a certain fight I have no doubt it would have got done :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

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?

---

I think you might have missed my second post. I highlighted it above. Floyd would have beat Ricky Hatton anyway, 140 or not. I also think Ricky Hatton was better at 140. It might have been a more even fight because Floyd would have had to lose another 7 pounds, which might have been difficult for him. Floyd would have had to incorporate losing the 7 pounds into his training schedule and Hatton doing something he was was used to doing. So, we could have seen a closer match-up.

I still think Floyd is for sure a true welterweight. If Floyd wanted to fight at 140, he would fight at 140. He doesn't fight at 140 because he performs better at 147. 7 pounds is a ton of weight to lose in boxing. For a fighter who weighs 150 pounds losing ten pounds is losing 7% of your total body weight. When was the last time Floyd fought below 147? Why did Floyd not fight at 145 when he fought Marquez and was contracted to do so? You didn't answer it so I'll hazard a guess - because it was easier not to. If it was easier not to lose 2 pounds for Marquez, then it was much easier not to lose 7 to face Hatton at his prime weight.

In my opinion, this is a dumb argument because I think Floyd would still have won. He was a more well-rounded fighter.

Floyd may well have won at 140lb but it would have been much closer. Add to the fact that if it was under the conditions Kostya had to deal with in terms of the hostile conditions and Dave Paris then we may have got a Ricky victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

I have to be honest, u just aren't making a rational argument, u r making an emotional one. U r saying that Floyd and Roy should be ranked higher because of how dominant they r and how great they looked. That is subjective, u r admitting that they fought inferior competition, but u r giving them credit since, in ur opinion, it wasn't their fault. What I'm saying is that while I agree with ur assessment of their abilities, I rank them lower based on the fact that they didn't make those fights and other guys did.

---

I never admitted they fought inferior competition, I'm admitting there are guys that would have been interesting to see them in the ring with that they never fought.

I've gotten into the whole "inferior opposition" arguments on here regarding Floyd and Roy way too many times. People are going to believe what they want to believe. It makes no difference to me if people want to say Floyd and Roy stink and would get murdered by REAL fighters of the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by La Cucaracha

What weight was Hatton champion at?
Why didn't Floyd fight him in '05 or '06 instead of Mitchell or Judah? Instead of in late '07 when Hatton's well noted weight gains between bouts had already deteriorated his resilience and had looked very ordinary against Collazo? :-\ I still think Floyd would have won (easy) but it would have been a more significant win ;)

---

Floyd cherry picked a 2007 Hatton over a 2006 Hatton. LOL another great excuse to add to the mental scrap book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

I think you might have missed my second post. I highlighted it above. Floyd would have beat Ricky Hatton anyway, 140 or not. I also think Ricky Hatton was better at 140. It might have been a more even fight because Floyd would have had to lose another 7 pounds, which might have been difficult for him. Floyd would have had to incorporate losing the 7 pounds into his training schedule and Hatton doing something he was was used to doing. So, we could have seen a closer match-up.

I still think Floyd is for sure a true welterweight. If Floyd wanted to fight at 140, he would fight at 140. He doesn't fight at 140 because he performs better at 147. 7 pounds is a ton of weight to lose in boxing. For a fighter who weighs 150 pounds losing ten pounds is losing 7% of your total body weight. When was the last time Floyd fought below 147? Why did Floyd not fight at 145 when he fought Marquez and was contracted to do so? You didn't answer it so I'll hazard a guess - because it was easier not to. If it was easier not to lose 2 pounds for Marquez, then it was much easier not to lose 7 to face Hatton at his prime weight.

In my opinion, this is a dumb argument because I think Floyd would still have won. He was a more well-rounded fighter.

---

I'm pretty sure I answered the question: Floyd doesn't like cutting weight. It's not up to me, you or Floyd to decide what a natural WW is. Go and look at the data of what WW's weigh in on the day of the fight and you find me another WW who comes in under 150lb on fight day.

Pick any weight class you want, guys will generally come in 10, 15, even 20+ lbs what they weighed in at. Maidana weighed in at 147 the first PBF fight and came in at damn near 170. Weight cutting is a big part of fight sports. If Floyd was cutting weight like everyone else, he'd be fighting at 140. He doesn't cut weight so he fights at 147. If most other 147lbers didn't cut weight, they'd be fighting at 160 or 168. Floyd is a tiny, tiny WW compared to his peers. I'm not giving you my opinion, I"m just stating facts.

I don't mind people saying they think Ricky would have won 3 years earlier, or if they had a ref that let him do more clinch work, whatever. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I just wanted someone to give me a satisfactory answer as to why 147 was a significant advantage for Floyd or a significant disadvantage for Hatton. It's been 7 years and I still never got a good answer, just pseudo-science and weight class voodoo.

The only thing I was ever told that kinda made sense was that if the fight was at 147, Ricky knew he wouldn't have to bust his ass so hard to make the limit and wouldn't train as hard. If that's the case, like I said before, why is it Floyd's problem if Hatton couldn't be bothered to train hard for the biggest fight of his life?

Did Hatton or his camp even press for the fight to be at 140? I agree it would have been a better fight there, but only if it had happened a couple of years earlier. Hatton didn't look himself at all against Juan Lazcano going back down after the Floyd fight.. Could have been mostly shaking off the mental aspect of that loss, or a bad training camp as a result of that, or perhaps he actually had a lot of trouble making 140 himself at that point? We don't know, but the guy had been fighting at 140 I believe forever and didn't exactly take it easy on himself out of the ring, there's no reason to think he was that much more effective there over the last few years of his career. I think he was just generally a bit shopworn by then at either weight. He was awesome against guys like Vince Phillips and Ben Tackie, even in the Tszyu fight he wasn't as good as that imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Did Hatton or his camp even press for the fight to be at 140? I agree it would have been a better fight there, but only if it had happened a couple of years earlier. Hatton didn't look himself at all against Juan Lazcano going back down after the Floyd fight.. Could have been mostly shaking off the mental aspect of that loss, or a bad training camp as a result of that, or perhaps he actually had a lot of trouble making 140 himself at that point? We don't know, but the guy had been fighting at 140 I believe forever and didn't exactly take it easy on himself out of the ring, there's no reason to think he was that much more effective there over the last few years of his career. I think he was just generally a bit shopworn by then at either weight. He was awesome against guys like Vince Phillips and Ben Tackie, even in the Tszyu fight he wasn't as good as that imo.

---

No the Kostya fight was his pinacle performance.