Floyd's resume.

[mikeeod]

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.

Why don't you enlighten me then? Tell me SRR's best wins, and tell me exactly why those guys are so above and beyond Floyd's best wins.

I don't give a fuck about "excitement" and "historical significance". We're talking about a guy's worth in the ring. Were Floyd's fights as big as Ali's vs Frazier and Foreman? I have no idea, I wasn't alive back then and it was before the era of PPV. All I know is Mayweather/Pac sold 4.4 MILLION PPV's at $100 a piece, so it was a pretty big fight. Big as Ali's? Who knows, who gives a fuck. Why does it matter?

Ray Leonard had a great career, but when I bring up the NO MAS thing I was always told that Duran was passed his prime by then, as his prime was at LW.

You can take Hearns and say "prime Hearns", but you can also say "green Hearns", a 22 year old kid who didn't yet know how to pace himself and didn't know how to protect himself and survive when he was hurt.

Bringing up Hagler (which I still feel is one of the greatest victories in boxing history), Ray admitted himself that he decided to fight Hagler because, when having dinner with Hagler, Marvin (then mid 30s) confided in him that he was worn down and thinking about retiring. And of course, Ray demanded the special stipulation of 12 rounds instead of 15.

Now I consider all of those great wins, I'm just saying if you can poke holes in anything in you choose to scrutinize it that way. People choose to scrutinize Floyd's wins harshly, then give passes to whichever other greats he's compared to.

Ray Robinson: Beat in their prime Kid Gavilán (ATG/HOF), Lamotta (ATG/HOF), Basilio (ATG/HOF), Graziano, Fullmer (ATG/HOF), Fritzie Zivic, Paul Pender and a past his prime Henry Armstrong (ATG/HOF). Look at all of those PRIME ATG/HOFers on his resume.

Hearns: Get your point on age, but the guy had DESTROYED cuevas and every other fighter who got in the ring with him. Look at Tommy's performance in that fight and compare it to the non effort of Canelo in his vs Floyd. Tommy showed multi-dimensions and Canelo didn't show one. That is EXACTLY why I don't consider the Canelo fight a great win for Floyd.

[Beanflicker]

Ray Robinson: Beat in their prime Kid Gavilán (ATG/HOF), Lamotta (ATG/HOF), Basilio (ATG/HOF), Graziano, Fullmer (ATG/HOF), Fritzie Zivic, Paul Pender and a past his prime Henry Armstrong (ATG/HOF). Look at all of those PRIME ATG/HOFers on his resume.

Hearns: Get your point on age, but the guy had DESTROYED cuevas and every other fighter who got in the ring with him. Look at Tommy's performance in that fight and compare it to the non effort of Canelo in his vs Floyd. Tommy showed multi-dimensions and Canelo didn't show one. That is EXACTLY why I don't consider the Canelo fight a great win for Floyd.

I'd love for someone to explain to me how Graziano, Basilio, Fullmer, Pender, or even Lamotta were more skilled in the ring than guys like Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, De La Hoya, Mosley, ect. I want to hear specifically what they did in the ring that those guys couldn't.

Being in the HOF is a great honor, but it doesn't necessarily denote a specific high standard of skill. To insinuate that one fighter is a tougher opponent than another simply because he is in the HOF is a complete fallacy.

I want someone to explain to me how Gene Fullmer was a better fighter than Ricky Hatton.

I want someone to explain to me why a 34 year old Hank Armstrong is better than a 35 year old Manny Pacquiao.

When I bring this stuff up, everyone suddenly gets quiet. I'm not saying I'm this boxing genius who has all the right answers, but I've watched all these guys and formed my own opinions - right or wrong. If you want to just regurgitate the opinions of others or tell me stats of who is in the HOF, just save your time. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, let's go.

[mikeeod]

Ray Robinson: Beat in their prime Kid Gavilán (ATG/HOF), Lamotta (ATG/HOF), Basilio (ATG/HOF), Graziano, Fullmer (ATG/HOF), Fritzie Zivic, Paul Pender and a past his prime Henry Armstrong (ATG/HOF). Look at all of those PRIME ATG/HOFers on his resume.

Hearns: Get your point on age, but the guy had DESTROYED cuevas and every other fighter who got in the ring with him. Look at Tommy's performance in that fight and compare it to the non effort of Canelo in his vs Floyd. Tommy showed multi-dimensions and Canelo didn't show one. That is EXACTLY why I don't consider the Canelo fight a great win for Floyd.

I'd love for someone to explain to me how Graziano, Basilio, Fullmer, Pender, or even Lamotta were more skilled in the ring than guys like Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, De La Hoya, Mosley, ect. I want to hear specifically what they did in the ring that those guys couldn't.

Being in the HOF is a great honor, but it doesn't necessarily denote a specific high standard of skill. To insinuate that one fighter is a tougher opponent than another simply because he is in the HOF is a complete fallacy.

I want someone to explain to me how Gene Fullmer was a better fighter than Ricky Hatton.

I want someone to explain to me why a 34 year old Hank Armstrong is better than a 35 year old Manny Pacquiao.

When I bring this stuff up, everyone suddenly gets quiet. I'm not saying I'm this boxing genius who has all the right answers, but I've watched all these guys and formed my own opinions - right or wrong. If you want to just regurgitate the opinions of others or tell me stats of who is in the HOF, just save your time. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, let's go.

1. Gavilán/Corrales: Chico was a big puncher and solid fighter, but showed his limitations vs Castillo and Casameyor, neither of whom were great fighters. Kid Gavilán was the recognized top Welter and is an ATG/HOF (there are specific criteria for the HOF, do it is a good measuring stick for how good a boxer was/is). Gavilán was a master boxer who won multiple big fights and Chico wasn't as versatile in my opinion.

2. Basilio/Castillo: Basilio was one of the roughest, toughest fighters in history, just watch some of his footage and check his record out. Castillo turned into a solid lightweight champ, but didn't have the names on his resume that Basilio did. Basilio was a two division champ (when there was only one champ per weight and only 8 weight classes) and Castillo wasn't.

3. Hatton/Fullmer: once again, Fullmer was the larger man vs a past his prime Ray, Floyd was the larger man vs a Hatton who never performed well at 147. Other than Kostya, which was a rough/foul fest, Ricky never really beat a prime fighter of note. Once again, go look at Fullmers record and see the names he fought and beat.

Those are a few points, I could go on but I don't think you really are open to another point of view.

[mikeeod]

One more point I think is often ignored or downplayed by Floyd fans: pushing the limits for greatness. How many times has Floyd entered the ring with questions on his safety/ability to win (serious questions)? How many times wasn't Floyd the favorite to win?

Robinson vs Maxim
Armstrong vs Garcia
Ali vs Foreman, Liston
Holy vs Tyson
Hop vs Tito, Tarver, Pavilik...etc.
Pea vs JCC
Pac vs Oscar, Cotto, MAB, Morales
Shane vs Oscar
Oscar vs Tito, Hop
Leonard vs Hearns, Duran, Hagler

Floyd never pushed the limits when a guy was viewed as prime and at his best. Winks Wright. GGG. Margarito. Cotto. Mosely. Pac Man. Paul Williams. Now, not all of those fights were Floyd's fault, but the fact is he never fought those guys at their zenith/best. I think he beats most of them, and I don't necessarily blame him for not fighting the much larger Wright/GGG, but it illustrates a gap in his resume. Pea took on the much larger Julio Ceasar Vasquez at 154 because he craved a challenge. Robinson dared to be great, was winning vs Maxim but became exhausted. Even if Hagler had slipped, people were worried for Leonards life going into that fight. Foreman was a killer and Ali was past his best and a certain early K.O. Victim. You get the idea....