Floyd, Manny, Hop, Roy legacy

[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...

[Beanflicker]

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.

[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.

I think this is an issue with debating with people emotionally invested in a fighter. I never said Roy or Floyd stink or would be murdered by guys from the past. I said the opposite, that they are great fighters who I feel are capable of beating anyone who ever fought. All I said was that I rank them lower historically based on weaker quality of opposition, and I went on to explain why I felt that way. It seems like if people disagree and don't rank Floyd n Roy as high as you, you become offended and personally insulted.