Originally Posted by
mikeeod
That's two different discussions you are having. Accomplishments and historical standing is separate from head to head match ups and who people "think" was the better overall fighter. Those discussions of "who is better r completely subjective, and they rarely account for style match ups...etc. I will explain how I think those guys you named break out from Floyd in each way though.
1) Accomplishments: This is where it isn't even debatable for me. Floyd never ducked anyone, I know, bathe hasn't beaten the ATGs, HOFers...etc., that those top 5 did. Maybe Pep is debatable, but I don't have Willie in my top 5, I have Ali instead. Floyd has NEVER "slain the dragon". Think Duran jumping to WW n beating the prime Leonard. Think Leonard beating Duran, Hearns n then the complete monster in Hagler. Floyd never beat the sheer number of ATG/HOFers that SRR, and rarely in such spectacular fashion. As impressive as retiring undefeated is (Ricardo Lopez, Joe C n Marciano), Henry Armstrong simultaneously holding 3 of 8 (should've been 4 of 8 but he was robbed vs Garcia) world titles available, defending the WW title over 20 times in a year with most of those being stoppages and beating a good number of ATG/HOF fighters along the way is more impressive. While Floyd is popular and transcends boxing, he is nowhere near the icon Ali was and has NEVER produced historical fights or comebacks like Ali and Leonard did. So, for accomplishments and historical ranking, I can't see a valid case to even have Floyd in the conversation.
2) Overall abilities: Tough to beat Floyd but for me he never showed the ability to hammer out a tough, brutal fight. He's never had to, so he very well may be able to, but I've never seen him beat an elite fighter by gutting it out. Maidana and Castillo were solid, but not JCC, Duran, Armstrong...etc., elite and they gave him fits. Jesus Chavez roughed Floyd up as did Hatton. So, in summary: I feel those guys have power, toughness and killer instinct that Floyd does not. Those guys all closed the show against elite opposition.
I find it strange the criteria changes so often in front of my face, like I'm the mark in a three card monte game.
I'll say "well Floyd has gone 18 years undefeated", people will say "well he ducked this guy, fought this guy at a different weight, this guy was no good... to summarize, his opponents were shitty."
I'll ask, "well why was Hank Armstrong so much better than Floyd", people will say "oh well he beat 20 guys in a month." (or whatever the fuck he did).
I'll say "well, were his opponents any good? I thought it was quality, not quantity, that mattered", people say "yeah, they were good."
I'll say "well, a lot of them had losing records or were very inexperienced", people say "yeah but there's no way Floyd could beat 20 guys in a month."
I'll say this too: I like how, when speaking of these guys, we bring up all the positives they did, but nobody ever brings up the shortcomings.
Take Duran: I'm supposed to believe that Duran was the superior fighter to Floyd. Duran went from lightweight to super middleweight and won a bunch of titles. Cool. Good for him. He also quit in the middle of a world championship fight because he had a stomach cramp. He also dropped decisions to several unheralded fighters like Laing and Robbie Sims. He also, after beating SRL in the first fight, came up short against all his best peers. How come these blaring shortcomings aren't considered when evaluating him?
I've heard "well, Duran's run at lightweight makes him the greatest alone"... yet how many people could name a guy he beat at LW other than Dejesus and Buchanan?
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Floyd's competition vs Manny's competition
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks