How good was Floyd?

[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.

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.

Man... I did a cursory look on the Internet of different sites ranking the all-time best boxers in history... and it's all over the place.

In four different sites, Floyd was listed as: #1, #6, #17, and #29.

I didn't realize just how all over the place the rankings would be.

Obviously, 29 is downright ridiculous. But there again... I would still have him just outside my Top Ten.

Yes, Floyd never got beat. And it can't be said he didn't face some elite level, dangerous opposition.

But again, you gotta rate each individual on the best part of their career. Floyd got out before he went downhill and got beat by some Joe Blow. Others on the list didn't get out in time.

[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.

Man... I did a cursory look on the Internet of different sites ranking the all-time best boxers in history... and it's all over the place.

In four different sites, Floyd was listed as: #1, #6, #17, and #29.

I didn't realize just how all over the place the rankings would be.

Obviously, 29 is downright ridiculous. But there again... I would still have him just outside my Top Ten.

Yes, Floyd never got beat. And it can't be said he didn't face some elite level, dangerous opposition.

But again, you gotta rate each individual on the best part of their career. Floyd got out before he went downhill and got beat by some Joe Blow. Others on the list didn't get out in time.

Haha. I just did the same. Sugar Ray Leonard wasn’t even the greatest guy with the surname “Leonard” ! Apparently Benny Leonard was better.

[Master]

I would have Thomas Hitman Hearns on a p4p ATG list and he lost to great fighters in Leonard and Hagler. He was fearless and went up the weights destroying most along the way. Just because he lost does not mean he was lower than Floyd.

[TIC]

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.

roy did defeat bernard in a world title fight in their twenties. bernard did beat roy when they were in their forties. roy was basically undefeated for the first fifteen years of his career. roy was beat before he was thirty five. personally if a fighter is challenging themselves in their late thirties or forties then i do give a shit. it is about their proper career that counts & it depends on what you rate, i rate challenges & quality of opposition very highly. i have never said because bernard did better on the seniors tour that puts him above roy on my all time great list. that is an argument you are creating to attack

[TIC]

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)

you do understand these lists are subjective & based on what categories a person thinks are important when considering a ranking?

[TIC]

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.

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.

floyd was never technically beaten, he did look to me like he got beat. being undefeated does not get extra kudos for me, i rate quality of opposition & challenges over an unbeaten record

[TIC]

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.

Man... I did a cursory look on the Internet of different sites ranking the all-time best boxers in history... and it's all over the place.

In four different sites, Floyd was listed as: #1, #6, #17, and #29.

I didn't realize just how all over the place the rankings would be.

Obviously, 29 is downright ridiculous. But there again... I would still have him just outside my Top Ten.

Yes, Floyd never got beat. And it can't be said he didn't face some elite level, dangerous opposition.

But again, you gotta rate each individual on the best part of their career. Floyd got out before he went downhill and got beat by some Joe Blow. Others on the list didn't get out in time.

Haha. I just did the same. Sugar Ray Leonard wasn’t even the greatest guy with the surname “Leonard” ! Apparently Benny Leonard was better.

i rate benny leonard as an all time great

[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.

Man... I did a cursory look on the Internet of different sites ranking the all-time best boxers in history... and it's all over the place.

In four different sites, Floyd was listed as: #1, #6, #17, and #29.

I didn't realize just how all over the place the rankings would be.

Obviously, 29 is downright ridiculous. But there again... I would still have him just outside my Top Ten.

Yes, Floyd never got beat. And it can't be said he didn't face some elite level, dangerous opposition.

But again, you gotta rate each individual on the best part of their career. Floyd got out before he went downhill and got beat by some Joe Blow. Others on the list didn't get out in time.

Haha. I just did the same. Sugar Ray Leonard wasn’t even the greatest guy with the surname “Leonard” ! Apparently Benny Leonard was better.

i rate benny leonard as an all time great

1. Better than Sugar Ray Leonard from what you have seen?
2. Have you SEEN Benny Leonard fight?

[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.

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.

floyd was never technically beaten, he did look to me like he got beat. being undefeated does not get extra kudos for me, i rate quality of opposition & challenges over an unbeaten record

“Never Technically beaten.” In other words but but but but but!

[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)

you do understand these lists are subjective & based on what categories a person thinks are important when considering a ranking?

Yes.

[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.

roy did defeat bernard in a world title fight in their twenties. bernard did beat roy when they were in their forties. roy was basically undefeated for the first fifteen years of his career. roy was beat before he was thirty five. personally if a fighter is challenging themselves in their late thirties or forties then i do give a shit. it is about their proper career that counts & it depends on what you rate, i rate challenges & quality of opposition very highly. i have never said because bernard did better on the seniors tour that puts him above roy on my all time great list. that is an argument you are creating to attack

I never said you did say that. I put a question mark in to ASK if that’s what you felt. Big difference chum.

[Primo Carnera]

I would have Thomas Hitman Hearns on a p4p ATG list and he lost to great fighters in Leonard and Hagler. He was fearless and went up the weights destroying most along the way. Just because he lost does not mean he was lower than Floyd.

Absolutely! I was only talking about this the other day. Unfortunately there are “ifs” that stop him being ranked maybe top 1 or 2.
1. If he had beaten SRL in one or both of their fights (not inconceivable)
2. If he hadn’t thrown his game plan out of the window against Hagler at the first bell because of something that riled him in the build up week.
And also , I’m more convinced about him than any other Boxer ,that if he fought Floyd in a mythical match up that he would beat him .

[Master]

I would have Thomas Hitman Hearns on a p4p ATG list and he lost to great fighters in Leonard and Hagler. He was fearless and went up the weights destroying most along the way. Just because he lost does not mean he was lower than Floyd.

Absolutely! I was only talking about this the other day. Unfortunately there are “ifs” that stop him being ranked maybe top 1 or 2.
1. If he had beaten SRL in one or both of their fights (not inconceivable)
2. If he hadn’t thrown his game plan out of the window against Hagler at the first bell because of something that riled him in the build up week.
And also , I’m more convinced about him than any other Boxer ,that if he fought Floyd in a mythical match up that he would beat him .

Floyd would get beat by Leonard and Hearns at welterweight. These were true greats at the weight and I could only see Sugar Ray Robinson be better.

It was not Floyd's best weight but I was impressed when he went up the gears and beat Shane flawlessly after being rocked twice by the right hand. It showed he fought within himself most of the time and could show his quality when it was required at that weight.

[TIC]

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.

Man... I did a cursory look on the Internet of different sites ranking the all-time best boxers in history... and it's all over the place.

In four different sites, Floyd was listed as: #1, #6, #17, and #29.

I didn't realize just how all over the place the rankings would be.

Obviously, 29 is downright ridiculous. But there again... I would still have him just outside my Top Ten.

Yes, Floyd never got beat. And it can't be said he didn't face some elite level, dangerous opposition.

But again, you gotta rate each individual on the best part of their career. Floyd got out before he went downhill and got beat by some Joe Blow. Others on the list didn't get out in time.

Haha. I just did the same. Sugar Ray Leonard wasn’t even the greatest guy with the surname “Leonard” ! Apparently Benny Leonard was better.

i rate benny leonard as an all time great

1. Better than Sugar Ray Leonard from what you have seen?
2. Have you SEEN Benny Leonard fight?

why would i have to base my rating only on what i have seen? yes i have seen benny fight

[TIC]

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.

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.

floyd was never technically beaten, he did look to me like he got beat. being undefeated does not get extra kudos for me, i rate quality of opposition & challenges over an unbeaten record

“Never Technically beaten.” In other words but but but but but!

am i wrong to say floyd was never technically beaten? in reply to your statement that floyd never looked like getting beat, i disagree i thought it looked like he got beat