The dumbest shit I've ever heard.

Ali have Parker brothers disease

 

:cheer:

 

:hammert:

 

Yes, Leonard was a better fighter than ANY fucking version of Floyd. And I think PRETTY DAMN HIGHLY of the 130 version of Floyd.

But no, for Christ sake, the stripper lover was never as good as Leonard.

 

agREED

 

nonsense. P4P Leonard doesn't have a height or strength advantage and gets whupped! Outboxed clearly. Ok not clearly, but there's no doubt as to who the winner is. P4P Leonard only has hand speed on Floyd. Mayweather is the smarter and more adaptable fighter.

 

leonard had more "phoney" retirements than Floyd and when he came back he fought Lalonde, washed up Hearns and old fat Duran, so please. When Floyd fought Cotto, Cotto was still Cotto. Y'all may laugh at Ortiz now but he was the first man to beat Berto and so was relevant. Marquez was smaller but he's been winning impressively and so what that he was smaller, Hagler and Leonard both fought smaller fighters. The issue isn't size the issue is how good the fighter is. Marquez was a class fighter. Fuck Margarito and when Floyd fought Mosley, Mosley was considered "live" based on destroying Margarito in his most recent fight. Williams? Hadn't he already moved up by the time Floyd returned from retirement?

 

Oh and Hatton was a decent matchup. Hatton was undefeated and had some good scalps under his belt. So what if he was a former 140lb fighter, Mayweather was a former 130lb fighter!!!! Hagler fought Hearns, Leonard, Duran and Mugabi in his biggest fights and none of them were true middleweights.

 

P4P matchups are a fallacy

 

Agreed, but trying to evaluate who's better between these two guys causes us to look at them at relative sizes else we just agree to say that we can't state who's better.

 

What?

 

Forget it. Lol

 

I just think Floyd is a better fighter than Leonard in terms of who beats who if they were the same size.

Mayweather vs Corrales and Mayweather vs Gatti impressed me more than anything I've seen from Leonard against any Titlist. Corrales especially. I never saw Leonard beat champions as easily.

 

I think Leonard was more talented than Mayweather. He was faster and had more power. He also was more offensive minded. Imagine Leonard allowing the likes of Marquez, Guerrero, and Maidana go the distance with him.

Floyd was a great 130, 135, and 140 pounder. But as a welterweight, I'm skeptical as to how he ranks among the true greats at that weight, let alone if he would beat them.

 

leonard had more power at Welterweight but in a pound for pound sense I'm not so sure. 130lb Floyd could bang. Being more offensive minded is not necessarily an advantage, it just means he was more exciting. Pavlik was more offensive minded than Hopkins, meant nothing on fight night.

Floyd never lost at welterweight or jnr middleweight and only looked even slightly vulnerable when he was nearly 40. Therefore there's no blueprint as to how to beat a Prime Floyd even at Welterweight.

As I said before, from their fighters I've seen I'd only pick Leonard and Hearns to do it. Not curry, not Benitez, not quartey, not de la Hoya, not Trinidad, not Duran. SRR possibly but none of us really know how good he was at 147lbs....and for all his amazing gifts he was able to be out hustled and outboxed by decent but not spectacular fighters

 

Sly, you had to make up so many caveats in the "undefeated" thread because Floyds greatness is mainly based on his longevity and his resume isn't full of the kind of a-list wins to support how highly you rate him.

Now you're saying he was at least as good as a guy that beat Duran, Hearns and Benitez in their primes. What is your evidence? That he beat Angel Manfredy and Victor Ortiz 10 years apart?

 

you can't penalize Floyd because he wasn't around at the time of Hearns, Duran and Benitez any more than you can criticize Jones for not fighting Spinks, Qawi or Foster or Ezzard Charles. You have to look at how well a fighter performed vs his peers and contemporaries. Mayweather was dominant. That's all you can ask of a man in the absence of a time machine.

 

It seems like you're giving him extra credit for fighting in a weak era with your assumptions. If you consider Floyds longevity, consistency and undefeated record to be such a notable and rare accomplishment than his era and opposition have to mean something. Is it just a coincidence that of all the fighters worthy of consideration of the top 20 the one guy who's undefeated fought the fewest prime great fighters?

 

The common trend amongst those who are saying that Mayweather beats Leonard is the lame attempt at pumping up Floyd's opposition... On that very YouTube video in the comments section, you have people pumping up Canelo, Pacquiao, and even Maidana as top flight opposition, and say that Pacquiao would have beaten Duran and Benitez up, or that if Hearns could outbox Leonard, so too could Mayweather. Also that Maidana is a beast.

My only conclusion is that it's an age thing. It's one thing to like Floyd but when you see that even his OPPONENTS are being raised to levels they are not even close to, the only conclusion I can come to is that these youngsters just haven't watched much of the sport.

Oh and yes, I have to add that somebody on that same comment page just asked me WHY Tommy Hearns is a hall of famer...alm: