How good was Floyd?

[mikeeod]

A boxer in their 30’s in 1970’s was older in “boxing terms” than those in Floyd's era. Ali had much more fights and the competition greater.

Not true. Yes , Ali had more fights. No, the competition wasn’t necessarily greater. And Spinks was in his 8th pro fight! I suppose that “in the 70’s” that meant he was a seasoned pro nowadays? Keep spinning how you like.
I never said Floyd was above Ali. But I did say Floyd has earned the right to say he was and to say he’s up there.
Why do you need to constantly, irrationally disrespect Floyd’s record?

i'm just commenting on the floyd has earned the right to say he was and to say he’s up there part. anyone can say & think what they want, however that doesn't automatically make it true. i have said in this thread that floyd probably beats anyone around his weights on his night. i don't rate fighters on probably so i can only rate him on what he actually did in the ring. for me i don't think he had a true fifty fifty challenge or a fight where he was the underdog after the jose luis castillo rematch. floyd can say he's up there & i'd agree that he is an all time great, although i'd struggle to put him among my top twenty all time greats, he might squeeze into my top thirty

Not arguing or poking holes in your statement, genuinely interested to hear who the 20-29 fighters you would rank ahead of Floyd, and what weighted criteria you use to come up with your rankings. I have a difficult time justifying Keeping Floyd out of my top 15, and I can see a solid case for top 10. In my opinion, Ali, Robinson, Leonard, Duran…etc., best better competition so they are ranked higher on my ATG list. I see rankings with Salvadore Sanchez, Roy Jones jr., Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler…etc., ranked higher, but I feel like Floyd either beat better competition or dominated more weight classes so I can’t rank them higher. Joe Louis and Ali had the greater historical impact, so I tend to rank them higher. For me ATG is based on historical impact, quality of competition, won/loss, intangibles, weight classes dominated, length of time at the top, and blowout losses during prime (Lennox Lewis is hurt on my list due to this criteria). Interested in what you weight and how you weight the categories.

these type of lists are subjective so there is no need to argue. weight classes dominated can depend on the era, i don't fault someone like marvin hagler for remaining at one sixty. i like quality of opposition, longevity, how they won or lost, historical impact can also be incorporated with my own preferences & favourites. here's a list of twenty guys in no real order that i'd put before floyd. ray robinson, henry Armstrong, muhammad ali, joe louis, willie pep, harry greb, ezzard charles, benny leonard, roberto duran, ray leonard, pernell whitaker, sam Langford, joe gans, jimmy wild, rocky marciano, archie moore, mickey walker, stanley Ketchel, carlos monzon, julio cesar chavez. i could list more, guys like ike williams, emile griffith, carlos ortiz, sandy saddler, i'm probably forgetting a few. i think i'd even have evander holyfield & bernard hopkins ahead of floyd

This interesting and I completely agree that these lists are subjective so no need to argue them- very respectable list and we have many of the same names ahEad of Floyd. Just curious, what are some of your reasons for ranking Rocky Marciano higher than Floyd? I’m also interested in your thoughts on Ketchel, Mickey Walker, and Harry Greb- they were all tough fighters but the quality of the sport and opposition was much lower then.

[TIC]

A boxer in their 30’s in 1970’s was older in “boxing terms” than those in Floyd's era. Ali had much more fights and the competition greater.

Not true. Yes , Ali had more fights. No, the competition wasn’t necessarily greater. And Spinks was in his 8th pro fight! I suppose that “in the 70’s” that meant he was a seasoned pro nowadays? Keep spinning how you like.
I never said Floyd was above Ali. But I did say Floyd has earned the right to say he was and to say he’s up there.
Why do you need to constantly, irrationally disrespect Floyd’s record?

i'm just commenting on the floyd has earned the right to say he was and to say he’s up there part. anyone can say & think what they want, however that doesn't automatically make it true. i have said in this thread that floyd probably beats anyone around his weights on his night. i don't rate fighters on probably so i can only rate him on what he actually did in the ring. for me i don't think he had a true fifty fifty challenge or a fight where he was the underdog after the jose luis castillo rematch. floyd can say he's up there & i'd agree that he is an all time great, although i'd struggle to put him among my top twenty all time greats, he might squeeze into my top thirty

Not arguing or poking holes in your statement, genuinely interested to hear who the 20-29 fighters you would rank ahead of Floyd, and what weighted criteria you use to come up with your rankings. I have a difficult time justifying Keeping Floyd out of my top 15, and I can see a solid case for top 10. In my opinion, Ali, Robinson, Leonard, Duran…etc., best better competition so they are ranked higher on my ATG list. I see rankings with Salvadore Sanchez, Roy Jones jr., Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler…etc., ranked higher, but I feel like Floyd either beat better competition or dominated more weight classes so I can’t rank them higher. Joe Louis and Ali had the greater historical impact, so I tend to rank them higher. For me ATG is based on historical impact, quality of competition, won/loss, intangibles, weight classes dominated, length of time at the top, and blowout losses during prime (Lennox Lewis is hurt on my list due to this criteria). Interested in what you weight and how you weight the categories.

these type of lists are subjective so there is no need to argue. weight classes dominated can depend on the era, i don't fault someone like marvin hagler for remaining at one sixty. i like quality of opposition, longevity, how they won or lost, historical impact can also be incorporated with my own preferences & favourites. here's a list of twenty guys in no real order that i'd put before floyd. ray robinson, henry Armstrong, muhammad ali, joe louis, willie pep, harry greb, ezzard charles, benny leonard, roberto duran, ray leonard, pernell whitaker, sam Langford, joe gans, jimmy wild, rocky marciano, archie moore, mickey walker, stanley Ketchel, carlos monzon, julio cesar chavez. i could list more, guys like ike williams, emile griffith, carlos ortiz, sandy saddler, i'm probably forgetting a few. i think i'd even have evander holyfield & bernard hopkins ahead of floyd

This interesting and I completely agree that these lists are subjective so no need to argue them- very respectable list and we have many of the same names ahEad of Floyd. Just curious, what are some of your reasons for ranking Rocky Marciano higher than Floyd? I’m also interested in your thoughts on Ketchel, Mickey Walker, and Harry Greb- they were all tough fighters but the quality of the sport and opposition was much lower then.

all these guys are all time greats & it can be unfair to rank them against each other due to era's. as i said this list isn't in order just names that came to mind. rocky could be a guy i could push further back towards thirty but floyd's whole thing about the tbe ever is based on his beating rocky's record. the record for me is only relevant because rocky is the only heavyweight champion to retire undefeated. other fighters have been passed that record but lost further down the track. as for stanley, mickey & harry i think you are being a bit unfair in saying the quality was much lower. there were many tough good fighters around & those guys pretty much fought them all. i believe mickey started around lightweight & went on to face heavies, massively outweighed at times. in that era there was allegedly mob involvement in bouts, i think there was talk of jack sharkey carrying mickey & almost losing the decision. from what i have read mickey sounds like a functioning alcoholic & to me that is impressive to be performing at the level he did. stanley looks raw from what i have seen but based on what historians say & his record he is another guy that fought almost everyone & carried big time power. he was also fighting some twenty & thirty odd rounds. harry's body of work alone is amazing & other all time greats gave high high accolades. different times though, these guys had to fight constantly to make a living, they didn't have the luxury of jack dempsey type purses