How good was Floyd?

[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.

Normally respect your views but Roy Jones should be higher than Floyd.

I can see the case for Roy being ranked higher, and at times I’ve had him higher than Floyd and can likely be swayed to do so again. Similar to your argument against Floyd, I penalize him for quality of opposition and missed fights that should have been made. The other factor that really hurts Roy with me is the knockout losses so close to his prime. He had a great career and was the most talented fighter in history. If you rate the win over Ruiz extremely high and give him full credit for his extended time at the top of most p4p lists I can see why you rank him higher.

After Ruiz the drop/decline was all there to see in dramatic fashion but what he did during his time at the top beating great boxers like B Hop and Toney tops everything for that particular generation.

I wonder about the dramatic decline after Ruiz. Roy always had trouble with long southpaws and I think Tarver was always a bad match up. That being said, he seemed just as fast and athletic throughout both fights until he got caught in the second round of the rematch. Ali, Holmes, Evander, Pernell, BHOP…etc., all had gradual declines and never suffered blowouts so close to their primes. I’m not saying I’m right, just saying, that is how I weight that aspect.

We agree on the Toney win- that was superb and he dominated a great, prime fighter who was undefeated and ranked #2 p4p at the time of the fight. I respectfully disagree on the BHOP fight- Bernard was still green at that point and nowhere near the fighter he became in the late 90s and early 2000s. I don’t give full credit to Roy for his win over BHOP early just like I don’t give BHOP credit for his win over a past his prime Roy later. Roy’s best wins to me were Toney, Tarver, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, and John Ruiz. Those were good wins but I’m not sure they are better than Floyd’s best (Toney being the best of either but Floyd fighting more and better overall challengers). Again, I’m not saying I’m right or trying to convince you, I’m mainly explaining how I came to my rankings. I can see your case for Roy and respect your opinion on it.

I think the dramatic decline was due to going up to heavyweight and rushing back to face Tarver. Not good for his body and he was never the same again.

I think we gave disagreed on this before as I do not think B Hop was green when he faced Roy Jones Jnr. The best version of B Hop, which was when he beat Tito, would not beaten Jones. Roy was just too good.

just asking i might have missed it, do you rate roy jones jr ahead of bernard all time?

Roy Jones would be higher than B Hop in the ATG list.

see i'd probably have bernard ahead of both roy & floyd all time

[mikeeod]

I rank them Floyd, Hop, and then Roy. Hop beat the best competition of the three and has some very impressive legacy accomplishments like most middleweight defenses, oldest champ, oldest to unify…etc. For me Floyd edges him due to consistency, undefeated status, and number of weight classes he won titles in.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

Hop and Roy ~tarnished~ their legacies.

Floyd so far has not.

[TIC]

I rank them Floyd, Hop, and then Roy. Hop beat the best competition of the three and has some very impressive legacy accomplishments like most middleweight defenses, oldest champ, oldest to unify…etc. For me Floyd edges him due to consistency, undefeated status, and number of weight classes he won titles in.

bernard, floyd, roy for me

[Master]

I rank them Floyd, Hop, and then Roy. Hop beat the best competition of the three and has some very impressive legacy accomplishments like most middleweight defenses, oldest champ, oldest to unify…etc. For me Floyd edges him due to consistency, undefeated status, and number of weight classes he won titles in.

bernard, floyd, roy for me

Even though Roy beat Hopkins in/nearer their primes?

[mikeeod]

Hop and Roy ~tarnished~ their legacies.

Floyd so far has not.

Ah, I would say that is debatable and subjective. Hop losing to Kovalev by decision when he was in his 50s isn’t a bad look. Maybe the Smith fight at the end looked bad, but again, he was in his 50s. I would argue that Hop gained significant ground because he held on so long and accomplished so much at an advanced age. I feel that Ali, BHOP, Foreman, Holmes…etc., suffered very little to their legacies from the losses later in their career.

To a degree I feel that Floyd’s late career hurts his legacy a little. He never lost, but fighting Connor McGregor, Andre Berto, Victor Ortiz…etc., didn’t do him any favors. It’s usually the quality of competition of his later years that his detractors point to when criticizing him.

Roy held on too long for sure and I think he was hurt the worst by his post prime career. He suffered some of the ugliest knockouts and you could see the huge decline as time went on. It is interesting to think about where Roy would be ranked historically had he retired after the first Tarver fight.

[TIC]

I rank them Floyd, Hop, and then Roy. Hop beat the best competition of the three and has some very impressive legacy accomplishments like most middleweight defenses, oldest champ, oldest to unify…etc. For me Floyd edges him due to consistency, undefeated status, and number of weight classes he won titles in.

bernard, floyd, roy for me

Even though Roy beat Hopkins in/nearer their primes?

on an all time list, yes. head to head at both their bests like a mythical match up no

[TIC]

Hop and Roy ~tarnished~ their legacies.

Floyd so far has not.

Ah, I would say that is debatable and subjective. Hop losing to Kovalev by decision when he was in his 50s isn’t a bad look. Maybe the Smith fight at the end looked bad, but again, he was in his 50s. I would argue that Hop gained significant ground because he held on so long and accomplished so much at an advanced age. I feel that Ali, BHOP, Foreman, Holmes…etc., suffered very little to their legacies from the losses later in their career.

To a degree I feel that Floyd’s late career hurts his legacy a little. He never lost, but fighting Connor McGregor, Andre Berto, Victor Ortiz…etc., didn’t do him any favors. It’s usually the quality of competition of his later years that his detractors point to when criticizing him.

Roy held on too long for sure and I think he was hurt the worst by his post prime career. He suffered some of the ugliest knockouts and you could see the huge decline as time went on. It is interesting to think about where Roy would be ranked historically had he retired after the first Tarver fight.

if roy retires after the john ruiz fight he would be looked at much differently

[Primo Carnera]

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.

Normally respect your views but Roy Jones should be higher than Floyd.

I can see the case for Roy being ranked higher, and at times I’ve had him higher than Floyd and can likely be swayed to do so again. Similar to your argument against Floyd, I penalize him for quality of opposition and missed fights that should have been made. The other factor that really hurts Roy with me is the knockout losses so close to his prime. He had a great career and was the most talented fighter in history. If you rate the win over Ruiz extremely high and give him full credit for his extended time at the top of most p4p lists I can see why you rank him higher.

After Ruiz the drop/decline was all there to see in dramatic fashion but what he did during his time at the top beating great boxers like B Hop and Toney tops everything for that particular generation.

I wonder about the dramatic decline after Ruiz. Roy always had trouble with long southpaws and I think Tarver was always a bad match up. That being said, he seemed just as fast and athletic throughout both fights until he got caught in the second round of the rematch. Ali, Holmes, Evander, Pernell, BHOP…etc., all had gradual declines and never suffered blowouts so close to their primes. I’m not saying I’m right, just saying, that is how I weight that aspect.

We agree on the Toney win- that was superb and he dominated a great, prime fighter who was undefeated and ranked #2 p4p at the time of the fight. I respectfully disagree on the BHOP fight- Bernard was still green at that point and nowhere near the fighter he became in the late 90s and early 2000s. I don’t give full credit to Roy for his win over BHOP early just like I don’t give BHOP credit for his win over a past his prime Roy later. Roy’s best wins to me were Toney, Tarver, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, and John Ruiz. Those were good wins but I’m not sure they are better than Floyd’s best (Toney being the best of either but Floyd fighting more and better overall challengers). Again, I’m not saying I’m right or trying to convince you, I’m mainly explaining how I came to my rankings. I can see your case for Roy and respect your opinion on it.

I think the dramatic decline was due to going up to heavyweight and rushing back to face Tarver. Not good for his body and he was never the same again.

I think we gave disagreed on this before as I do not think B Hop was green when he faced Roy Jones Jnr. The best version of B Hop, which was when he beat Tito, would not beaten Jones. Roy was just too good.

just asking i might have missed it, do you rate roy jones jr ahead of bernard all time?

Roy Jones would be higher than B Hop in the ATG list.

see i'd probably have bernard ahead of both roy & floyd all time

No chance.

[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.

Normally respect your views but Roy Jones should be higher than Floyd.

I can see the case for Roy being ranked higher, and at times I’ve had him higher than Floyd and can likely be swayed to do so again. Similar to your argument against Floyd, I penalize him for quality of opposition and missed fights that should have been made. The other factor that really hurts Roy with me is the knockout losses so close to his prime. He had a great career and was the most talented fighter in history. If you rate the win over Ruiz extremely high and give him full credit for his extended time at the top of most p4p lists I can see why you rank him higher.

After Ruiz the drop/decline was all there to see in dramatic fashion but what he did during his time at the top beating great boxers like B Hop and Toney tops everything for that particular generation.

I wonder about the dramatic decline after Ruiz. Roy always had trouble with long southpaws and I think Tarver was always a bad match up. That being said, he seemed just as fast and athletic throughout both fights until he got caught in the second round of the rematch. Ali, Holmes, Evander, Pernell, BHOP…etc., all had gradual declines and never suffered blowouts so close to their primes. I’m not saying I’m right, just saying, that is how I weight that aspect.

We agree on the Toney win- that was superb and he dominated a great, prime fighter who was undefeated and ranked #2 p4p at the time of the fight. I respectfully disagree on the BHOP fight- Bernard was still green at that point and nowhere near the fighter he became in the late 90s and early 2000s. I don’t give full credit to Roy for his win over BHOP early just like I don’t give BHOP credit for his win over a past his prime Roy later. Roy’s best wins to me were Toney, Tarver, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, and John Ruiz. Those were good wins but I’m not sure they are better than Floyd’s best (Toney being the best of either but Floyd fighting more and better overall challengers). Again, I’m not saying I’m right or trying to convince you, I’m mainly explaining how I came to my rankings. I can see your case for Roy and respect your opinion on it.

I think the dramatic decline was due to going up to heavyweight and rushing back to face Tarver. Not good for his body and he was never the same again.

I think we gave disagreed on this before as I do not think B Hop was green when he faced Roy Jones Jnr. The best version of B Hop, which was when he beat Tito, would not beaten Jones. Roy was just too good.

just asking i might have missed it, do you rate roy jones jr ahead of bernard all time?

Roy Jones would be higher than B Hop in the ATG list.

see i'd probably have bernard ahead of both roy & floyd all time

No chance.

bernard definitely ahead of roy all time, bernard, floyd is much harder for me to separate

[Primo Carnera]

Fuck me, Roy totally outboxed Bernard in a world title fight in their 20’s . Bernard beats Roy when they’re in their 40’s.
Apart from the Montell Griffin disqualification, Roy was undefeated in the first 15 YEARS OF HIS CAREER. DIDN’T GET BEAT TILL HE WAS 35.
Personally I don’t give a flying shit about what they do in their late 30’s and their 40’s . It’s about their “proper” career that counts.
Because Bernard did better “on the seniors tour” , that puts him above Roy on the ATG?? Absolutely no chance.
Everybody makes excuses for Ali in his 30’s , but that’s another story.

[TitoFan]

Lists of all-time greats in boxing are a dime a dozen. That being said, I rate Floyd as an ATG. However, I'd definitely rate (in no particular order) SRR, SRL, Ali, Duran, JCC, Gomez, and Hagler over him right off the top of my head. It's foreseeable he falls out of my Top Ten if I gave it enough thought. Just outside Top Ten is by definition still an ATG.

[Primo Carnera]

Duran lost 16 times in his career, does that count against him as an ATG?
IMO- Absolutely not.
There needs to be a bit of consistency with lists like this, and the only way you can be consistent is by rating each individual on the best part of their career.
Otherwise you will always find a way to downgrade people you don’t like.
Duran lost a few , but he had 2 ATG Careers !one as a LW and one as one of the 4 kings. (Or whatever you want to call them)

[TitoFan]

Duran lost 16 times in his career, does that count against him as an ATG?
IMO- Absolutely not.
There needs to be a bit of consistency with lists like this, and the only way you can be consistent is by rating each individual on the best part of their career.
Otherwise you will always find a way to downgrade people you don’t like.
Duran lost a few , but he had 2 ATG Careers !one as a LW and one as one of the 4 kings. (Or whatever you want to call them)

Agree 100%.

Of course the bulk of the 16 losses came when Duran was way too old and way over his glory days in the lightweight division.

He hung on way too long... fought as heavy as 176, ffs... and as a result tarnished his record a bit.

But as you said... he had an ATG career as a lightweight alone. He's considered as one of the Four Kings, although I'll always contend that Benitez is being slighted on that one.

He beat a prime SRL in arguably the fight of the century (behind maybe Ali-Frazier I).

He beat his share of future HOFers along the way... putting fear into the lightweight division.

You said so yourself... "the only way you can be consistent is by rating each individual on the best part of their career"

Which is precisely what I've done in ranking the ones I rated above Floyd in my own list.

[Primo Carnera]

Duran lost 16 times in his career, does that count against him as an ATG?
IMO- Absolutely not.
There needs to be a bit of consistency with lists like this, and the only way you can be consistent is by rating each individual on the best part of their career.
Otherwise you will always find a way to downgrade people you don’t like.
Duran lost a few , but he had 2 ATG Careers !one as a LW and one as one of the 4 kings. (Or whatever you want to call them)

Agree 100%.

Of course the bulk of the 16 losses came when Duran was way too old and way over his glory days in the lightweight division.

He hung on way too long... fought as heavy as 176, ffs... and as a result tarnished his record a bit.

But as you said... he had an ATG career as a lightweight alone. He's considered as one of the Four Kings, although I'll always contend that Benitez is being slighted on that one.

He beat a prime SRL in arguably the fight of the century (behind maybe Ali-Frazier I).

He beat his share of future HOFers along the way... putting fear into the lightweight division.

You said so yourself... "the only way you can be consistent is by rating each individual on the best part of their career"

Which is precisely what I've done in ranking the ones I rated above Floyd in my own list.

You make some very fair points and by and large I agree. There are a couple perhaps on your list I would put Floyd above , but there’s not a lot in it and it’s extremely debatable.
The thing that makes it difficult is because Floyd was never beat, never looked like getting beat. Does he get extra kudos for that or do we say the standard was lower? So we don’t really know how much more Floyd had.