Floyd's competition vs Manny's competition

[Fenster]

Floyd had a big career before Manny but not as big. Manny was part of a thrilling rivalry with future hall of famers - Barrera, Morales and Marquez whilst Floyd, after struggling with Castillo, went off the radar a bit. It wasn't until he got his breakout fight with Gatti that his stardom started to snowball.

They are both great fighters to me, both have great records.

I think history will look more favourably on Pac though.

[Beanflicker]

I think history will look more favourably on Pac though.

I'm not sure what would make anyone think that.

I don't see any real difference in level of opposition, and nobody has really explained to me why Pac's opposition was any better.

Floyd has surpassed Pac in every category you could think of, besides likeability.

If both retired tomorrow, we've seen Pac beaten and/or knocked out in every stage of his career, whereas Floyd has never lost. Floyd was the bigger star, the bigger draw, made a lot more money and has never had a true equal in the ring.

Pac beat up a prime Barrera and beat (and lost to) a Morales that was close to the end of his rope. That puts him head and shoulders above Floyd? I just can't see it.

[mikeeod]

I think history will look more favourably on Pac though.

I'm not sure what would make anyone think that.

I don't see any real difference in level of opposition, and nobody has really explained to me why Pac's opposition was any better.

Floyd has surpassed Pac in every category you could think of, besides likeability.

If both retired tomorrow, we've seen Pac beaten and/or knocked out in every stage of his career, whereas Floyd has never lost. Floyd was the bigger star, the bigger draw, made a lot more money and has never had a true equal in the ring.

Pac beat up a prime Barrera and beat (and lost to) a Morales that was close to the end of his rope. That puts him head and shoulders above Floyd? I just can't see it.

I already went down the list buddy. Floyd's top wins r Chico, Hatton and Castillo. All three were prime, Chico n Hatton P4P, Castillo wasn't ranked P4P when they fought and he should have won the first fight vs Floyd. So, Manny has taken on better competition at every stage of his career, and when u do that u end up with losses. I'm writing this on my phone so when I get home tonight I will gladly write a more inclusive and detailed break down. Bottom Line: Floyd fought two guys ranked P4P at the time he fought them. Manny fought multiple guys who I listed ranked when he fought them. He also fought much bigger men who were favorites to beat him at the time of the fight. If u can't see it, nothing is going to change ur mind. U just want to feel Floyd fought better guys.

[Beanflicker]

I'm writing this on my phone so when I get home tonight I will gladly write a more inclusive and detailed break down. Bottom Line: Floyd fought two guys ranked P4P at the time he fought them. Manny fought multiple guys who I listed ranked when he fought them. He also fought much bigger men who were favorites to beat him at the time of the fight.

Well I look forward to your breakdown.

I think you're wrong that Floyd only fought two guys ranked p4p at the time he fought them. I think you might be surprised.

People dog Floyd for fighting Mosley, but did you know that he was the #2 ranked WW at the time and the #3 ranked p4p of the time by Ring magazine (behind only Pac and Floyd)?

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2009 - BoxRec

[mikeeod]

I'm writing this on my phone so when I get home tonight I will gladly write a more inclusive and detailed break down. Bottom Line: Floyd fought two guys ranked P4P at the time he fought them. Manny fought multiple guys who I listed ranked when he fought them. He also fought much bigger men who were favorites to beat him at the time of the fight.

Well I look forward to your breakdown.

I think you're wrong that Floyd only fought two guys ranked p4p at the time he fought them. I think you might be surprised.

People dog Floyd for fighting Mosley, but did you know that he was the #2 ranked WW at the time and the #3 ranked p4p of the time by Ring magazine (behind only Pac and Floyd)?

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2009 - BoxRec

Did not remember that Shane was ranked P4P #3 at that time, good catch! Still, Even including Shane who is a HOFer, Manny beat and fought more top ranked guys during their prime. I will break it down later. Good catch, I tip my hat to u.

[Beanz]

I think in the OP you are being totally unfair to Manny. You have to really stretch to so dismiss his opposition so readily and then minimise his achievements. Your are weighting your response to compensate for what you think is a slight against Floyd.

[Beanflicker]

I think in the OP you are being totally unfair to Manny. You have to really stretch to so dismiss his opposition so readily and then minimise his achievements.

Fair enough, what in particular was unfair in what I said?

[Beanz]

I think in the OP you are being totally unfair to Manny. You have to really stretch to so dismiss his opposition so readily and then minimise his achievements.

Fair enough, what in particular was unfair in what I said?

The term "Floyd leftover" is highly pejorative. He did not finish them or make the job any easier for Manny. In many cases Manny did what Floyd could not.

[Beanflicker]

I think in the OP you are being totally unfair to Manny. You have to really stretch to so dismiss his opposition so readily and then minimise his achievements.

Fair enough, what in particular was unfair in what I said?

The term "Floyd leftover" is highly pejorative. He did not finish them or make the job any easier for Manny. In many cases Manny did what Floyd could not.

Well what I meant by "leftovers" is that Floyd beat them first. The significance of a win against a certain fighter varies on when the win happened in that fighter's career: a win over Ali in 1971 means more than Ali in 1979, ect.

So when I say that Hatton is a Floyd leftover, it's not to say that a win over Hatton is meaningless, but for FLoyd to beat a 43-0 Hatton at the pinnacle of his career means more than Pac's win over a Ricky Hatton who had been beaten and had been shuffling around with different trainers and at the end of his rope.

Great win, but Floyd was there first.

[Fenster]

I think history will look more favourably on Pac though.

Floyd was the bigger star, the bigger draw, made a lot more money and has never had a true equal in the ring.

You started the thread by discussing the quality of their opponents, at the time they faced them, but are now making the point that Floyd is superior because he made more money (lol).

Leonard was a bigger star, bigger draw and made more money than Duran but he's not rated higher than him on any serious historian/fan all-time great list.

[Beanflicker]

You started the thread by discussing the quality of their opponents, at the time they faced them, but are now making the point that Floyd is superior because he made more money (lol).

Leonard was a bigger star, bigger draw and made more money than Duran but he's not rated higher than him on any serious historian/fan all-time great list.

No, that was a separate discussion that we were having that diverted from the main topic. If you want to really talk about making irrelevant points, we could talk about how I started a thread about who faced a higher quality of opposition, to which you responded by talking about who did better against the common opponents they faced (lol).

Leonard for sure was a bigger fighter than Duran and deserved to be ranked higher.

[Fenster]

You started the thread by discussing the quality of their opponents, at the time they faced them, but are now making the point that Floyd is superior because he made more money (lol).

Leonard was a bigger star, bigger draw and made more money than Duran but he's not rated higher than him on any serious historian/fan all-time great list.

No, that was a separate discussion that we were having that diverted from the main topic. If you want to really talk about making irrelevant points, we could talk about how I started a thread about who faced a higher quality of opposition, to which you responded by talking about who did better against the common opponents they faced (lol).

Leonard for sure was a bigger fighter than Duran and deserved to be ranked higher.

Hold up. Why did you mention their common opponents if they were irrelevant? You asked a question. If it's important to highlight that Floyd beat superior versions of these men then it's understandable that Manny beating them in a far more devastating fashion could sway people to believe he's the better fighter, right?

I then pointed out that Pac was in all-time great memorable battles with Marquez, Barrera and Morales before he ever became a possible rival to Floyd. Therefore looking at Pac's opposition outside of the common opponents, there's an argument that he's faced stronger competition, regardless of the fact he's been whopped.

Show me where Leonard is ranked higher than Duran by any reputable boxing publication/historian?

[Beanflicker]

Hold up. Why did you mention their common opponents if they were irrelevant? You asked a question. If it's important to highlight that Floyd beat superior versions of these men then it's understandable that Manny beating them in a far more devastating fashion could sway people to believe he's the better fighter, right?

I then pointed out that Pac was in all-time great memorable battles with Marquez, Barrera and Morales before he ever became a possible rival to Floyd. Therefore looking at Pac's opposition outside of the common opponents, there's an argument that he's faced stronger competition, regardless of the fact he's been whopped.

Show me where Leonard is ranked higher than Duran by any reputable boxing publication/historian?

When determining the quality of opposition, it's important to look at the context. Larry Holmes beat the same guy in 1980 that Joe Frazier beat in 1971: they'd both answer to the name Muhammad Ali and a DNA test would conclude that they were the same person. But as boxing fans, we look at the context and understand that Frazier's win was of higher quality because Muhammad Ali was a better fighter in 1971 than he was in 1980. It's not just the name that counts.

So when I say something like "Manny fought Hatton after Floyd beat him", that's providing context to judge the quality of the wins. When Floyd beat Hatton, he was undefeated, ranked higher and held to a much higher esteem by boxing fans. When Pac beat him, he had been knocked out, had split with his long time trainer, and by all accounts his drug and alcohol addictions were getting worse. Still a fantastic win, but Mayweather's meant more. Mayweather took his 0. So in bringing that up, I was bringing up something relevant to determining the quality of opponent.

The question of who did better against a common opponent has no relevance to the quality of opposition faced. If Wlad fights Stiverne, David Haye and Andy Ruiz Jr next year and KO's them all, and I fight Stiverne, David Haye and Andy Ruiz Jr next year and get destroyed in 30 seconds by all of them, me and Wlad have fought the same quality level of opposition. I hope that clarifies.

And really I could give a fuck less how many people want to rate Duran - a guy who lost to all his best peers, got KTFO, quit because of a tummy ache, ect - over Leonard. People not knowing boxing isn't my problem.

[Beanflicker]

Manny has the best Cotto win, he absolutely destroyed Cotto.

I'm not even touching the Hatton best weight argument, it's just too ridiculous.

[Beanz]

Hold up. Why did you mention their common opponents if they were irrelevant? You asked a question. If it's important to highlight that Floyd beat superior versions of these men then it's understandable that Manny beating them in a far more devastating fashion could sway people to believe he's the better fighter, right?

I then pointed out that Pac was in all-time great memorable battles with Marquez, Barrera and Morales before he ever became a possible rival to Floyd. Therefore looking at Pac's opposition outside of the common opponents, there's an argument that he's faced stronger competition, regardless of the fact he's been whopped.

Show me where Leonard is ranked higher than Duran by any reputable boxing publication/historian?

When determining the quality of opposition, it's important to look at the context. Larry Holmes beat the same guy in 1980 that Joe Frazier beat in 1971: they'd both answer to the name Muhammad Ali and a DNA test would conclude that they were the same person. But as boxing fans, we look at the context and understand that Frazier's win was of higher quality because Muhammad Ali was a better fighter in 1971 than he was in 1980. It's not just the name that counts.

So when I say something like "Manny fought Hatton after Floyd beat him", that's providing context to judge the quality of the wins. When Floyd beat Hatton, he was undefeated, ranked higher and held to a much higher esteem by boxing fans. When Pac beat him, he had been knocked out, had split with his long time trainer, and by all accounts his drug and alcohol addictions were getting worse. Still a fantastic win, but Mayweather's meant more. Mayweather took his 0. So in bringing that up, I was bringing up something relevant to determining the quality of opponent.

The question of who did better against a common opponent has no relevance to the quality of opposition faced. If Wlad fights Stiverne, David Haye and Andy Ruiz Jr next year and KO's them all, and I fight Stiverne, David Haye and Andy Ruiz Jr next year and get destroyed in 30 seconds by all of them, me and Wlad have fought the same quality level of opposition. I hope that clarifies.

And really I could give a fuck less how many people want to rate Duran - a guy who lost to all his best peers, got KTFO, quit because of a tummy ache, ect - over Leonard. People not knowing boxing isn't my problem.

This along with your assertion that

"If both retired tomorrow, we've seen Pac beaten and/or knocked out in every stage of his career, whereas Floyd has never lost. Floyd was the bigger star, the bigger draw, made a lot more money and has never had a true equal in the ring."


throws doubt on your ability to remain objective when discussing Floyd. You obviously don't rate Duran despite overwhelming evidence that the guy was a true boxing phenomenon and have already made up your mind that Floyd is peerless, an opinion that no doubt would not even change were Manny, or somebody else, to get in the ring with him and knock him out. It seems you have made you mind up so why ask the question?