Floyd's resume.

[mikeeod]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a fuckin joke!

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

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

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

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