How good was 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

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

i'm just pointing out that i never said that or implied that so i'm not sure why you would think i felt that way. to answer your question no i don't think that champ

[mikeeod]

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 .

Tommy was a beast- I feel like he won the Leonard rematch pretty handily but they scored it a draw. No shame in the first loss at all, that was a great match up between two legit ATGs in their primes. No shame in the Hagler loss either- he moved up to take on one of the best ATG middles ever and lost the most exciting fight in the history of the sport. The losses to Barkley hurt Tommy’s ranking more than anything else- Barkley had his number but outside of that he shouldn’t have been anywhere near Tommy’s level.

Head to head Tommy and Ray destroy Floyd at 147. As Master said, however, 147 wasn’t Floyd’s best weight and the other two were HUGE and maybe in the top 3 best ever at the weight. Historically ranking them I put Ray above Floyd (by a few spots) and Tommy behind 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 .

Tommy was a beast- I feel like he won the Leonard rematch pretty handily but they scored it a draw. No shame in the first loss at all, that was a great match up between two legit ATGs in their primes. No shame in the Hagler loss either- he moved up to take on one of the best ATG middles ever and lost the most exciting fight in the history of the sport. The losses to Barkley hurt Tommy’s ranking more than anything else- Barkley had his number but outside of that he shouldn’t have been anywhere near Tommy’s level.

Head to head Tommy and Ray destroy Floyd at 147. As Master said, however, 147 wasn’t Floyd’s best weight and the other two were HUGE and maybe in the top 3 best ever at the weight. Historically ranking them I put Ray above Floyd (by a few spots) and Tommy behind him.

Barkley was very lucky in the first fight, he was being ripped apart and absolutely destroyed with the ref about to stop it.

Tommy was vicious, so precise with his punches and dominated that contest until that punch! That was a near complete performance as you could get, top quality from Hearns.

[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!

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

No , you can say what you want. And we’ll agree to disagree.

[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.

i'm just pointing out that i never said that or implied that so i'm not sure why you would think i felt that way. to answer your question no i don't think that champ

I just asked a question. I don’t know why you had to putyour last sentence is about “argument creating to attack” relax.

[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]

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.

i'm just pointing out that i never said that or implied that so i'm not sure why you would think i felt that way. to answer your question no i don't think that champ

I just asked a question. I don’t know why you had to putyour last sentence is about “argument creating to attack” relax.

you asked a question that had no relevance to what i have said or implied, itwould be like me asking you because roy had a more accomplished amateur career puts him above bernard on the all time greatest list? the question has no relevance to what you have said or implied. i'd just be creating an argument you didn't make. i'm always relaxed

[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.

[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.

[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.