Quote Originally Posted by El Gamo
Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo
I think Floyd is higher up than some of you guys give him credit for. He surely has to be knocking on the top 20 now when you consider that such distinguished panels as Ring Magaizne have Roberto Duran and Pernell Whittaker in their top 10 all times.

Floyd really isn't that far behind those guys imo, I mean let's be serious for a minute he's a world champ in 5 weight divisions and has never lost a fight. Ok so he hasn't got the legendary names on his record but give him time he's still barely 30 years old and future wins over Mosely and Cotto would put him into the top 10 imo.

I find it ironic that almost everyone rates Sweet Pea so highly, like top 5 of all time to some people yet his record really isn't really any better than Floyds. Fair enough his first defeat in his first title shot was probably a robbery but even accounting for that he didn't do anything that Floyd hasn't done.

He was a world champ in 4 weight classes and got decision wins over Azumah Nelson, Buddy McGirt and should have beat Chavez.

Thats a great record but Floyd is already world champ in 5 weight classes and has wins over Corrales, Castillo twice and De La Hoya, and all three of these fighters could be Hall of Famers in the future also.

If he were to go on and maybe beat Oscar a second time and beat Mosely then you would have to argue that his record, with remaining undefeated would be every bit as impressive as Pernell's.

Only hating can convince otherwise.
Way way off. Firstly,you have huge Mayweather fans like Sweetpea saying he's not as high,are they hating? Secondly, aren't you such a strong advocate of the RING magazine titles? Floyd hasnt held 5 of those,hell who even bothered paying attention to the paper titles he beat Oscar for?


And to compare Castillo Corrales etc is ridiculous when you yourself admit he should got the W over Chavez. A Chavez who was what 88-0? One of the greatest of all time. That "win" alone is better than anything on Floyds record then there are the other highly rated fighters around at the time. Guys like Mcgrit,Haugen,Ramirez,Azumah Nelson,Vazquez,pINEDA ETC ETC a whole host of fighters who were young hungry,undefeated. He stood in front of De La Hoya,was coming towards the end of his career and still won in my and most others opinions. His only 2 legit losses were at the tail end of his career.
Wins over Corrales,Castillo,and De La Hoya,DO NOT make you a top 10 ATG fighter!!!
Gamo already correctly answered most of this, but just to chip in myself....

I'm a huge Floyd fan, as big of a Floyd fan as you'll find here, but he is still nowhere near the career accomplishments of Pernell Whitaker's. Do they have similarities in talent and style? Ya sure. But Floyd has not proven yet that he should be mentioned in the same sentence as Pernell.

By the age of 30, Pernell had been the Undisputed Lightweight Champ (which only a handful of fighters has ever done) and he had won titles at 140, 147, and was just about to win a belt at 154.
He had beaten Jose Luis Ramirez, Azumah Nelson, Rafael Pineda, Buddy McGirt (twice), Julio Cesar Chavez, etc. Nelson was better than anyone Floyd beat at 135, Pineda was better than anyone Floyd beat at 140, McGirt and Chavez were both better than anyone Floyd beat at 147... you get the picture...

Also, it's very hard to evaluate how good a fighter really is until he starts to lose his skills. At 33, Pernell had lost a ton of speed and movement, and yet he still was able to fight well enough against a physically prime Oscar that many people think Whitaker won that fight.
We won't know how good Floyd really is until he starts to lose his great physical skills.