Bernard is historically greater than Manny or Floyd

[marbleheadmaui]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

[CFH]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

Yeah, mystery is probably the wrong word. An enigma perhaps? I just honestly think that he has the skills to literally be remembered as the best fighter ever (or at least be in the discussion), but while his early resume is quite strong he has absolutely pissed away his legacy in the past half-decade. Skill-wise, he's miles ahead of Hopkins, but he doesn't have the same desire that the old man does and I'd have him well behind at this point.

I still don't think Hopkins comes anywhere close to Pacquiao though.

[marbleheadmaui]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

Yeah, mystery is probably the wrong word. An enigma perhaps? I just honestly think that he has the skills to literally be remembered as the best fighter ever (or at least be in the discussion), but while his early resume is quite strong he has absolutely pissed away his legacy in the past half-decade. Skill-wise, he's miles ahead of Hopkins, but he doesn't have the same desire that the old man does and I'd have him well behind at this point.

I still don't think Hopkins comes anywhere close to Pacquiao though.

The bold is why Floyd infuriates me. See I suspect his looniest, least rational fans are probably correct that he could have fought guys like Johnston and Spadafora and Casamyor and Kosta and HaTTON (AT 140) and Cotto and Margarito and Popo and Shane (when it mattered) and Manny and have beaten them all. I want to see greatness fully tested. But it isn't what Floyd wants and it is his life.

People's imaginations mean nothing. What happens, or doesn't, in the ring is everything.

[CFH]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

Yeah, mystery is probably the wrong word. An enigma perhaps? I just honestly think that he has the skills to literally be remembered as the best fighter ever (or at least be in the discussion), but while his early resume is quite strong he has absolutely pissed away his legacy in the past half-decade. Skill-wise, he's miles ahead of Hopkins, but he doesn't have the same desire that the old man does and I'd have him well behind at this point.

I still don't think Hopkins comes anywhere close to Pacquiao though.

The bold is why Floyd infuriates me. See I suspect his looniest, least rational fans are probably correct that he could have fought guys like Johnston and Spadafora and Casamyor and Kosta and HaTTON (AT 140) and Cotto and Margarito and Popo and Shane (when it mattered) and Manny and have beaten them all. I want to see greatness fully tested. But it isn't what Floyd wants and it is his life.

People's imaginations mean nothing. What happens, or doesn't, in the ring is everything.

The sad thing is that I think he would have beaten every fighter you listed. But, like Floyd has said for years, he fights for money, not glory. With that mind-set he'll always be taking the easiest route because his name alone will make him millions and he's able to keep fighting guys who are no real threat to his future earning power.

[marbleheadmaui]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

Yeah, mystery is probably the wrong word. An enigma perhaps? I just honestly think that he has the skills to literally be remembered as the best fighter ever (or at least be in the discussion), but while his early resume is quite strong he has absolutely pissed away his legacy in the past half-decade. Skill-wise, he's miles ahead of Hopkins, but he doesn't have the same desire that the old man does and I'd have him well behind at this point.

I still don't think Hopkins comes anywhere close to Pacquiao though.

The bold is why Floyd infuriates me. See I suspect his looniest, least rational fans are probably correct that he could have fought guys like Johnston and Spadafora and Casamyor and Kosta and HaTTON (AT 140) and Cotto and Margarito and Popo and Shane (when it mattered) and Manny and have beaten them all. I want to see greatness fully tested. But it isn't what Floyd wants and it is his life.

People's imaginations mean nothing. What happens, or doesn't, in the ring is everything.

The sad thing is that I think he would have beaten every fighter you listed. But, like Floyd has said for years, he fights for money, not glory. With that mind-set he'll always be taking the easiest route because his name alone will make him millions and he's able to keep fighting guys who are no real threat to his future earning power.

It's his life and if he can end up rich, healthy and personally satisfied? More power to him. I just wish real glory matterred to him a bit more.

[CFH]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

Yeah, mystery is probably the wrong word. An enigma perhaps? I just honestly think that he has the skills to literally be remembered as the best fighter ever (or at least be in the discussion), but while his early resume is quite strong he has absolutely pissed away his legacy in the past half-decade. Skill-wise, he's miles ahead of Hopkins, but he doesn't have the same desire that the old man does and I'd have him well behind at this point.

I still don't think Hopkins comes anywhere close to Pacquiao though.

The bold is why Floyd infuriates me. See I suspect his looniest, least rational fans are probably correct that he could have fought guys like Johnston and Spadafora and Casamyor and Kosta and HaTTON (AT 140) and Cotto and Margarito and Popo and Shane (when it mattered) and Manny and have beaten them all. I want to see greatness fully tested. But it isn't what Floyd wants and it is his life.

People's imaginations mean nothing. What happens, or doesn't, in the ring is everything.

The sad thing is that I think he would have beaten every fighter you listed. But, like Floyd has said for years, he fights for money, not glory. With that mind-set he'll always be taking the easiest route because his name alone will make him millions and he's able to keep fighting guys who are no real threat to his future earning power.

It's his life and if he can end up rich, healthy and personally satisfied? More power to him. I just wish real glory matterred to him a bit more.

I do too. Like I said, I think his skill-set is amazing. However, speaking objectively I think he's clearly made the more intelligent decision. I'd much rather end up a millionaire with my mind intact and have people question my legacy than be Evander Holyfield.

[generalbulldog]

Speaking of legacy and money, I think guys like Foreman, Hagler, Leonard has it all. Success inside and outside of the ring with rock solid credentials that can't be denied. Not to mentioned all 3 have their brains intact and aren't punch drunk.

In fact if I was a fighter, I would prefer to go out and leave the game like Hagler and Foreman. Both ended their careers with controversial losses and didn't stick around to get beat up by lesser fighters and both have gobs of cash in their accounts.

[marbleheadmaui]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

Yeah, mystery is probably the wrong word. An enigma perhaps? I just honestly think that he has the skills to literally be remembered as the best fighter ever (or at least be in the discussion), but while his early resume is quite strong he has absolutely pissed away his legacy in the past half-decade. Skill-wise, he's miles ahead of Hopkins, but he doesn't have the same desire that the old man does and I'd have him well behind at this point.

I still don't think Hopkins comes anywhere close to Pacquiao though.

The bold is why Floyd infuriates me. See I suspect his looniest, least rational fans are probably correct that he could have fought guys like Johnston and Spadafora and Casamyor and Kosta and HaTTON (AT 140) and Cotto and Margarito and Popo and Shane (when it mattered) and Manny and have beaten them all. I want to see greatness fully tested. But it isn't what Floyd wants and it is his life.

People's imaginations mean nothing. What happens, or doesn't, in the ring is everything.

The sad thing is that I think he would have beaten every fighter you listed. But, like Floyd has said for years, he fights for money, not glory. With that mind-set he'll always be taking the easiest route because his name alone will make him millions and he's able to keep fighting guys who are no real threat to his future earning power.

It's his life and if he can end up rich, healthy and personally satisfied? More power to him. I just wish real glory matterred to him a bit more.

I do too. Like I said, I think his skill-set is amazing. However, speaking objectively I think he's clearly made the more intelligent decision. I'd much rather end up a millionaire with my mind intact and have people question my legacy than be Evander Holyfield.

LOL. Yup. I'm not sure the opinions of a bunch of boxing nerds should matter much in that equation.

[ICB]

Well in my own personal opinion, i think B-Hop should be rated higher. Because i don't think he's legitmately lost a fight since 1993, where as i think Manny Pacquiao lost twice to JMM.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Personally, I think Hopkins should travel to Russia to fight Jean Paul Gaultier.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

The funny thing is, I remember about 6 or 7 years ago, there was an interview where Lil' Floyd was discrediting what Bernard had achieved @ 160 saying something like ''Anyone can dominate just one division''.

I remember thinking to myself, 'Why would a great fighter who is completely out of competition with another great fighter, make the effort to try and talk down a man's legacy like that?'

Anyway it's funny now though, that Bernard at 46, is still mastering his sport while Floyd is talking his own legacy down the toilet.