How good was Floyd?

[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?

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

No disrespect, but I find this a really strange comment. Surely when you rate somebody , IT HAS TO BE based on what you’ve seen.
We can all take other people’s views and make them ours, but what would be the point. “He’s the best cos Joe Bloggs said so.”
This is why I try not to include people like Willie Pep or Ezzard Charles because I’ve hardly seen anything of them.

[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

No disrespect, but I find this a really strange comment. Surely when you rate somebody , IT HAS TO BE based on what you’ve seen.
We can all take other people’s views and make them ours, but what would be the point. “He’s the best cos Joe Bloggs said so.”
This is why I try not to include people like Willie Pep or Ezzard Charles because I’ve hardly seen anything of them.

i don't think the question is strange at all. i have never watched golf but i think if i put in the time & effort i could research & come up with a pretty solid list of the all time greatest golfers without watching a single stroke. why would you make someone else's views yours? the point is to form an opinion based on the information you have. i wouldn't be forming my opinion based on just what joe bloggs said. you are free to form your opinions anyway you like

[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?

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

No disrespect, but I find this a really strange comment. Surely when you rate somebody , IT HAS TO BE based on what you’ve seen.
We can all take other people’s views and make them ours, but what would be the point. “He’s the best cos Joe Bloggs said so.”
This is why I try not to include people like Willie Pep or Ezzard Charles because I’ve hardly seen anything of them.

i don't think the question is strange at all. i have never watched golf but i think if i put in the time & effort i could research & come up with a pretty solid list of the all time greatest golfers without watching a single stroke. why would you make someone else's views yours? the point is to form an opinion based on the information you have. i wouldn't be forming my opinion based on just what joe bloggs said. you are free to form your opinions anyway you like

Says it all really. Dear Me.

[Master]

You can base your opinions on fighters based on what you read about them, what they achieved and opinions from respected people about them. Nathaniel Fleischer, founder of Ring magazine, rated Jack Johnson and other old fighters highly and wrote articles illustrating how good they were.

[Primo Carnera]

You can base your opinions on fighters based on what you read about them, what they achieved and opinions from respected people about them. Nathaniel Fleischer, founder of Ring magazine, rated Jack Johnson and other old fighters highly and wrote articles illustrating how good they were.

So if Nathaniel Fleischer goes in balls deep about Jack Johnson, you would happily put him above Ali for example?
I thought the forum was for expressing OUR thoughts and opinions , not somebody else’s.
I’ll have to remember this when I’m “debating” with certain people , while they are just plain “mass debating” or something that sounds like that anyway. SMH.

[Master]

You can base your opinions on fighters based on what you read about them, what they achieved and opinions from respected people about them. Nathaniel Fleischer, founder of Ring magazine, rated Jack Johnson and other old fighters highly and wrote articles illustrating how good they were.

So if Nathaniel Fleischer goes in balls deep about Jack Johnson, you would happily put him above Ali for example?
I thought the forum was for expressing OUR thoughts and opinions , not somebody else’s.
I’ll have to remember this when I’m “debating” with certain people , while they are just plain “mass debating” or something that sounds like that anyway. SMH.

Nat never saw the truly great things that Ali achieved and rated Johnson above Louis.

My point was that well respected writers chronicled the great things that the old fighters did and you can take those views on when you consider the whole history of the division. Benny Leonard is one of the great lightweights read up on him.

[Primo Carnera]

I’m sure Benny Leonard was one of the great Lightweights, I’m not disputing that.
But how can someone say he is better than , for example, SRL or Duran if they have never seen him fight?
You can’t do it from reading up on them.

[TIC]

You can base your opinions on fighters based on what you read about them, what they achieved and opinions from respected people about them. Nathaniel Fleischer, founder of Ring magazine, rated Jack Johnson and other old fighters highly and wrote articles illustrating how good they were.

So if Nathaniel Fleischer goes in balls deep about Jack Johnson, you would happily put him above Ali for example?
I thought the forum was for expressing OUR thoughts and opinions , not somebody else’s.
I’ll have to remember this when I’m “debating” with certain people , while they are just plain “mass debating” or something that sounds like that anyway. SMH.

your questions are always slanted, i don't base my rankings only on what nathaniel fleischer said. the forum is for expressing our opinions, can opinions not align with those of others? remember when you're debating if the topic is subjective or objective

[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

No disrespect, but I find this a really strange comment. Surely when you rate somebody , IT HAS TO BE based on what you’ve seen.
We can all take other people’s views and make them ours, but what would be the point. “He’s the best cos Joe Bloggs said so.”
This is why I try not to include people like Willie Pep or Ezzard Charles because I’ve hardly seen anything of them.

i don't think the question is strange at all. i have never watched golf but i think if i put in the time & effort i could research & come up with a pretty solid list of the all time greatest golfers without watching a single stroke. why would you make someone else's views yours? the point is to form an opinion based on the information you have. i wouldn't be forming my opinion based on just what joe bloggs said. you are free to form your opinions anyway you like

Says it all really. Dear Me.

they're only subjective lists, no big deal

[palmerq]

What a funny role reversal:S...


Floyd was top class he wasn't a big guy at all but he was owning 154 lb guys even when he weighed in under the limit. I do think he was picking his opponents well by the end though so his 50-0 isn't quite as impressive as it should be...

It's between him and Roy for the best I've seen,(maybe usyk too :S), as for who ilwas better out of those two, who knows or cares.

[Master]

What a funny role reversal:S...


Floyd was top class he wasn't a big guy at all but he was owning 154 lb guys even when he weighed in under the limit. I do think he was picking his opponents well by the end though so his 50-0 isn't quite as impressive as it should be...

It's between him and Roy for the best I've seen,(maybe usyk too :S), as for who ilwas better out of those two, who knows or cares.

We care!

Pernell Whittaker was better than Floyd.

[TitoFan]

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

Not my argument, but.....

Am I the only one here that sees a huge sense of irony in this quote??

Anyway... carry on.

[TIC]

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

Not my argument, but.....

Am I the only one here that sees a huge sense of irony in this quote??

Anyway... carry on.

there is no irony, these lists are subjective, based on opinions. it's typical you don't understand the difference between opinions & knowing something to be true

[TitoFan]

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

Not my argument, but.....

Am I the only one here that sees a huge sense of irony in this quote??

Anyway... carry on.

there is no irony, these lists are subjective, based on opinions. it's typical you don't understand the difference between opinions & knowing something to be true

Oh, it is you who don't understand... my eternally-contradictory friend.

It appears the message went right over your head.

For everything else in life you live by a "must see to believe" credo. And yet for boxing rankings you question that very same principle.

No issues.

Just pointing out the ironic oddity of that statement.

[TIC]

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

Not my argument, but.....

Am I the only one here that sees a huge sense of irony in this quote??

Anyway... carry on.

there is no irony, these lists are subjective, based on opinions. it's typical you don't understand the difference between opinions & knowing something to be true

Oh, it is you who don't understand... my eternally-contradictory friend.

It appears the message went right over your head.

For everything else in life you live by a "must see to believe" credo. And yet for boxing rankings you question that very same principle.

No issues.

Just pointing out the ironic oddity of that statement.

where have i ever said must see to believe? in real life i say verify to be true. boxing rankings are subjective, just opinions & ideas. i'm not trying to claim they are factual. you still can't understand the difference between subjective & objective