Floyd claims that if it were not for the weight difference GGG would be "easy work"

[ruthless rocco]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

[Master]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

Floyd has never been able to do even that.

[ruthless rocco]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

Floyd has never been able to do even that.

You're obsessed with Mayweather.

I never compared the two fighters. Someone else brought Armstrong into the discussion and I just pointed out that he fought a bunch of shit fighters over his career and that people should consider that when they talk so highly of him.

[X]

Somebody said earlier that the jump from welter to middle seems to be larger than a corresponding leap between other divisions.

I hadn't thought about that, and I think it's a good point. Only the very best manage to hold welter and middle titles .... people like Emile Griffith, Carmen Basilio and Ray Robinson come to mind as possibly the only three who were the true undisputed world champions.

Even split title holders who have done this are an impressive bunch, Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Oscar de la Hoya, Felix Trinidad and Miguel Cotto. I had to look this up, so there may be more.

Perhaps, as it is in the 'middle' 😀 Of the divisions, it tends to be a bit of a crossroads. In the olden days of 8 weight divisions with a sizeable difference between them, it was much harder to become a multiple weight champion. In more modern times, nutrition has allowed people to move weights more effectively, and perhaps people start off lighter, such as Floyd and Manny, and then move up but are too physically small to get all the way up to middle from welter. Equally, people may start off at around middle and then fill out and move up from there, such as Roy Jones, James Toney etc.

Just comparing Floyd and Manny with Roy and James seems ridiculous doesn't it?

[g3org3]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

Floyd has never been able to do even that.

Lol master you go over the top with your hate for Floyd. Just face it he's the TBE

[Master]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

Floyd has never been able to do even that.

Lol master you go over the top with your hate for Floyd. Just face it he's the TBE

That is just it! Floyd is far from being TBE boxer.

[g3org3]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

Floyd has never been able to do even that.

Lol master you go over the top with your hate for Floyd. Just face it he's the TBE

That is just it! Floyd is far from being TBE boxer.

Your being a bit harsh master at the very least he's belongs in the conversation of who's the TBE.

[mikeeod]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

Floyd has never been able to do even that.

Lol master you go over the top with your hate for Floyd. Just face it he's the TBE

That is just it! Floyd is far from being TBE boxer.

Your being a bit harsh master at the very least he's belongs in the conversation of who's the TBE.

I don't see a logical, unbiased case for Floyd as TBE at this point in time. If Floyd came back and beat GGG, I would say he moves into the discussion. Right now Floyd is in the top 10-15, which is still pretty damn special.

[J_Undisputed]

Remove the bums and tomato cans and Armstrong really won 16 in a row by KO.

Floyd has never been able to do even that.

Lol master you go over the top with your hate for Floyd. Just face it he's the TBE

That is just it! Floyd is far from being TBE boxer.

Your being a bit harsh master at the very least he's belongs in the conversation of who's the TBE.

I don't see a logical, unbiased case for Floyd as TBE at this point in time. If Floyd came back and beat GGG, I would say he moves into the discussion. Right now Floyd is in the top 10-15, which is still pretty damn special.

I have to agree. There's no disputing his abilities and talents. At the same time, that title was self proclaimed. Its not like he was nominated by another fighter who's opinion carries any weight. The fact that he was a pretentious, self indulgent primadonna kind just makes its own counter argument to his claim. If we're inviting hypotheticals into the conversation consistently across the board, then it should be "He was the best ever as long as his opponents conceded to wearing the gloves he preferred, taking the drug tests he wanted, fought when he wanted to (day/ year) the location he wanted, for the money he wanted to give them, weighing what he wanted them to weigh, don't mind losing by sucker punch, don't retaliate (bite) when he tries to suffocate you in a clinch by putting his glove over your mouth and nose, don't mind getting hit by forearms, let him announce the fights, endure racist rants, don't mind him getting administered IV's to rehydrate, etc. etc.)

The best ever... at gaining an advantage, or leveraging a check against an opponent, self promoting--i'll agree with. If he didn't have the skills to win without all that, we wouldn't even be having these discussions. People would write him off as a haye/stevenson type who's body cant keep up with the checks his mouth keeps writing. But everyone knows he has/had an amazing skillset and ring IQ. So all the nickel and dime-ing just makes it seem like he's a spoiled brat who was running scared and doing anything he could to protect his zero. Everyone wants to see a guy like that tested. Not see him go through with a fight he orchestrates from start to finish and then fall down on his knees and start crying like a little girl afterwards to convince those watching, that they witnessed an incredible feat.

I was a fan of his when he was beating people without the BS and looked like he was dominating and not just trying to survive. I can't remember the last pure statement the guy made in the ring with no stips, against a good fighter in their prime, using his full arsenal (slipping, moving, punching with bad intentions, putting fast accurate combinations together) with no controversy after. Once boxing became "a business" to him, he lost his heart and spent more time trying to cripple his opponents pref-fight and worrying about what he was going to wear and what he was going to eat, than he did actually fighting.

[ruthless rocco]

I'm pretty sure the stats show that Floyd is TBE.

[erics44]

floyds just a nob

if he weren't a boxer even the people who like him now would think he is just an annoying little nob

[ruthless rocco]

I'm pretty sure the stats show that Floyd is TBE.

Right and the economy is just dandy too. I am sure my stats would look great if I was shadow boxing a tree.

As a former winner (and soon to be 2 time champion) of the prediction contest -- I'd bet on the tree to whip your ass Miles.

[ruthless rocco]

Sadly, you are a donkey.

[IamInuit]

This really isn’t about whether Floyd is the best ever or not. This is about him beeking off on the sidelines about how easy it would be to beat Golovkin if not for the weight when he's already fought a guy who was just as heavy. Why does this guy need to spout? He just retired undefeated after 18 years in the sport. He had a blemish/tough time with Castillo and struggled with Maidana. So what? Lamotta beat Robinson when Ray was 25 and Tiger Jones beat him when he was 35. Even if you hate the guy with a passion you can’t unsee what we've witnessed in the ring for the last almost 2 decades.
Sure questions will dog the guy and there have been some sneaky ways during his tenor but if this was really an inquiry of the facts then you have to include Floyd in the conversation concerning the best ever. Trouble is, the man actually underachieved under scrutiny at several junctures in his career. I believe had Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Benitez been around over his time that he would not have fought them. Floyd was a much better opportunist than all of them. It was never about legacy for him. It was all about legacy for them. That’s the difference. Floyd separated himself from the pack but not like he could have or should have. Funny thing is, he could have surpassed all the others in a best ever competition but chose instead to value the prize(cash) and window dressing and the most convenient way to get there with the least risk.

The problem for me in this specific case is why did he not fight Golovkin when he offered to move down? Most likely it was for the same reasons Robinson never fought Burley and Leonard watched Hagler erode for 3 years before fighting him. Trouble is Floyd aired out a career for 18 years instead of completing the same accomplishment in 10 because he took about 5 years off while active. Now he's close to 40 and by the sounds of things is having an early onslaught of mid-life crisis because of the limelight.

Ps-I will gladly submit a write-up with a comparison of those held to be the best ever including Floyd and send it to the editors of this forum as an Op-ed for the front page and show in detail why Floyd does not make the grade if someone else wants to take the opposite side. I personally believe it’s a tossup between Harry Greb and Sam Langford but I’ll even leave the early 20thcentury out of it and proceed as if boxing started after WW2. I'm not singling out the ruthlessone here. Anyone who feels Floyd is the best ever is welcome be them in this thread, never posted before, work for the Ring, a passerby, from another site, a boxnation employee, fat dan, whomever.

[Master]

Floyd opponents could easily claim that if it were not for the negative tactics and running then they would have had made "easy work” of pretty boy.

Saying he could make one phone call and stop the Canelo v Khan fights shows that he is missing the limelight and his ego is hurt that boxing has moved on without him.