How hard can Floyd punch?

I didn't see, no, but as Ive said before apart from when we're talking about the Floyd/Pac affair we tend to be on the same page a ridiculous proportion of the time.::

 

True, the level of disagreement on the recent fiasco was quite surprising :kidcool:

 

Which is also what Xplosive does. Now that's ok in MYTHICAL MATCHUPS because you can never be proven wrong...but in actual matchups that's the very definition of BULLSHIT. And that's why it frustrates guys like me that pick based upon actual analysis of fights (for the most part...I have a little bias in me too I admit..but only a little).

It's people like you that admit to picking fights based upon who they want to win that have no right to criticize others for a position based upon a well reasoned argument.

For example...Xplosive and others would pick Duran over every modern fighter..JUST because he's Duran and he's a legend and he was exciting and ...and..blah blah

They wouldn't look at his weaknesses or the fights he lost and look and the strengths and styles of modern fighters and how they may exploit these things.

Noooooooooo...he's Duran and he pisses lightening and craps thunder!

 

It's rare for you to be so screamingly wrong:dunno::: ;)

 

No, because he's better than every modern fighter.

Just like we'd pick Hagler over any current middleweights, Ali over every modern heavyweight, Sanchez over every modern featherweight etc. Hero worship has nothing to do with it, just a sensible evaluation of the level of the fighters.

 

See....it's posts like this that make me get crazy! :laughing:

You realize of course that this statement means that it's pointless in ever trying to have a discussion with you about comparing Duran or any 80s legend with a contemporary fighter.

The fate of the discussion is already sealed.

 

Anyway..

I agree with Ali.

Hopkins would have beaten Hagler IMO (he'd have beaten hearns too). Hopkins is, like Floyd, another GROSSLY underrated fighter. Hopkins would have beaten Hagler 8 times out of 10, 12 rounder or 15 rounder.

Sanchez against Pacquiao at Featherweight? Gimme Pacman please. Pacquaio is as great a fighter as anyone in history.

Too much motherfucking nostalgia in this forum..clouding our otherwise better judgement.

 

Sly, the thing is, Duran isn't just an 80's legend. For a start, his prime was 70's, but that's beside the point, the fact is, Duran is acknowledged by most as one of the very best P4P fighters of all time.

Era has nothing to do with it. Personally I think Pacquiao is also one of the best fighters in boxing history, and he's around right now.

 

Uh huh, and this makes you 'crazy', why? Duran was one of the 5 best fighter in the history of the sport. As was Ali. Not many guys in history match up against these guys at their very best yet you expect there to always be a fighter of that calibre in their weight class, every passing year that goes by, just so we can pretend the mythical match ups are interesting?:notallthere:

 

Yeah..and so is Ray Robinson. And as such..NO ONE (besides guys like me) would entertain the idea that he could have been beaten..regardless of the fact that he WAS beaten by Lamotta and Turpin when he was still young and prime.

Of Course people will say that Lamotta was much bigger than him at the time and Turpin was just plain lucky...but the fact is he wasn't Achilles.

 

Hopkins isn't a current Middleweight. Pacquiao isn't a current featherweight. Though I agree that Pac & Hopkins give Sanchez & Hagler hella tough fights. I'd probably take Hagler & Sanchez to pip trilogies in those match ups.

 

You're ignoring the fact that those were at Middleweight, and you usually see people pick the creme de la creme middleweights over Robinson.

It also ignores the fact that MMs presume to pit guys against each other AT THIER best. And in eras where guys were fighting fortnightly there were frequently occasions where they weren't at their best.

 

you're missing my point (or at least ignoring it in your response). your claim is that because i pick fights worse than you (which you haven't even proven by the way), it's evidence i can't apply my knowledge of boxing. but it's not the case since i admit that my picks are largely based on who i want to win, and not my knowledge. it doesn't mean yours is superior, only that i let my emotions get the best of me when i pick winners. it's called betting with your heart, and it's why i don't put money on fights involving fighters whose careers i care about.

 

He was beaten by Lamotta in what...his 75th fight? he won the rematch something like three weeks later.

I'm getting a kick out of your responses...you're accusing others of giving too much historical preference while you're doing the exact opposite.

I have no issues saying Floyd matches up well with most junior lightweights and lightweights of all-time. I'd say he'd beat more guys than you think, "however" his place at welterweight...he has none.

Neil's list of contemporary fighters who'd beat Floyd is more on point than not.

At lightweight and below...there are guys who won titles who never would have gotten them if Floyd were around and vice versa.

Case in point, we're about to witness Floyd-Mosley now...has no bearing on what the fight would have looked like when both were at 135.

 

no no no no...I got your point loud and clear, Loveland. I'm saying that I can't trust your opinion on any mythical matchup or upcoming matchup PRECISELY for the reasons that you've just stated. Your STATED opinion (not the one in your head..that no one knows) is based upon who you like better and want to win. So it shouldn't be taken seriously and anyone who wants to have a logical discussion is wasting their time obviously.

 

Fair enough.

 

Hagler - Hopkins would be a close fight. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Nard won. He is one of the best middleweights ever without a doubt. I think a prime King Carlos is the best middleweight ever though, then Robinson/Hagler/Hopkins.

I would be confident of Pacquiao beating Sanchez. He's just a better fighter. Sanchez would make it fairly close but Pacquiao would win. Sanchez was one of the best featherweights ever, Pacquiao is one of the best pound for pound fighters ever.

I think Sanchez gets slightly overrated because his career was cut short obviously. It wouldn't remotely surprise me if a prime Marquez, Barrera or Morales beat Sanchez. The fights would be damn close, that's for sure, very close.

 

Hatton was a bully who had only one great win in his career. He probably achieved more then his talent allowed for, which is a credit too him.

Pac and PBF are probably top 20 of all time as of now so there's no shame in his losses to them, but on paper it reads a lot better then it was. His name shouldn't be mentioned near Duran's and to suggest PBF would do something similar to him is boxing blasphemy.

And Leonard's footwork was superior to Floyd's. I Agree Floyd "Relies" on it more but that doesn't mean it's better. Duran got to Leonard in their fights and he would be on PBF from round one. It wouldn't be one way traffic but Duran would stop him late or win an 8-4 type decision.

And I agree with Sly that Hopkins would beat Hagler. Hagler wasn't a defensive whiz and had trouble with guys as 'quick' as Hopkins.

Hagler was too tough for a lot of guys, but that wouldn't be a factor here. Hopkins superior skills and smarts would get a very clear decision.

 

Good post. I'd certainly say Flid beats most guys in history at 130 and even 135.

But despite me saying Floyd would school Tito, that's more down to styles, and Trinidad being schooled so easily by a good boxer.

Regarding Floyd against other welters - the thing is, Floyd has been at welterweight for 5 years and his best win is a split decision over part time Oscar. It hasn't exactly been a spectacular half a decade for Floyd, and doesn't really say much for how he would have done against all time great welterweights.

 

Agreed.

As much as i have the "Ultimate Floyd Nuthugger" tag on this site (a tag I'm rather proud of actually)..i will admit..that he hasn't proven yet that he'd beat either Leonard or Hearns at 147. In fact I'd pick both (as I keep saying).

I pick them though..not because I think that they are better in a pound for pound sense, I don't, I just think that their natural size advantage coupled with their styles (incredibly fast hands and great boxing skills) means that these two guys would probably be Floyd's achilles heel at Welterweight.

 

Good post, I was thinking Duran would win 8-4 type decision too, after pretty much overwhelming Floyd, with Floyd being too defensive.

Regarding Hagler, his defense wasn't great, but it wasn't awful, and I do think he was a better boxer and more skilled than given credit for by a lot of people. Hagler against Hopkins would be a close fight.

 

Don't you wish Floyd had tested himself more for the past 5 years though Sly? Maybe fought Mosley already, fought someone like Paul Williams, maybe even fought Winky at 154 etc etc?

It annoys me that Floyd is a sort of waste of talent, or at least has been for the last 5 years.

 

Something else to consider...Hagler, Hearns and Leonard even Ali...when you go back and look at the year after year top 10 contenders (in their division)...those lists are littered with guys they all beat.

Contrast that with Floyd, most of those lists is a who's who of guys he didn't or wouldn't fight.

That plays into it.

That's always been my biggest defense of Roy Jones...say what you want about his competition but save for Europeans who didn't want to fight, look at the list of guys who won titles after they lost to him and how long they remained in the rankings.

Floyd's legacy gives him Corrales and Castillo and those fights were eight and nine years ago respectively.

What's he been doing since?

 

Well....like I said before...

The problem was Floyd's "retirements"..not that he's been ducking anyone.

Plus guys like Mosley and Cotto BOTH refused to fight him at times when he was open to fighting them..people forget this.

But back to the point about Floyd not ducking..

Since moving up to Welterweight he's fought the fights he should have fought..in between retirements...that is..

He needed a tune up to get used to the division..Sharmba Mitchell wasn't a bad choice.

Then he fought Zab Judah...not a bad choice either as Zab was still prime and always dangerous...and still had a "title" to boot. In his 3rd fight in teh division he fights the TRUE champion..Baldomir. Then he fights someone more dangerous than any Welterweight at the time and that was the rejuvenated Oscar de La Hoya at 154lbs.

he then retires...
Hatton calls him out..the undefeated Hatton who had stopped Castillo and Tszyu..and Floyd comes back and knocks the white off him.

He "retires again" (which is the annoying part) and then needs a tune up...and yeah Marquez is undersized...but Marquez had proven to be a GREAT fighter..and Marquez is naturally bigger than Pacquiao it can be argued. After Marquez he goes for teh biggest threat..Pacquiao himself. Fight falls through and so he goes for Mosley.

When you look at it objectively..floyd didn't duck fighters really..certain fights made no sense at the time and others were not willing to fight him at the times when he wanted them.

 

I don't think he's overrated at all. Gomez, Nelson, Lopez, La Porte, Castillo all beaten soundly. Certainly he was a better featherweight than Marquez or Morales, IMO. Better in every single department. Which makes picking Pac over him problematic to me, though of course, it's a very competitive fight.

 

I actually agree with this take on things. The complaint for me is that he has shown so little initiative or interest in seeking out the fights that would define his career, not that he's actively ducked anyone.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Hagler fan and would pick him against most. But he wasn't a smart fighter either. He could only fight one way and didn't have different game plans. Take the Leonard fight, everyone expected Hagler to win but Ray suckered him in and he fought stupidly.

Hopkins is almost without peer when it comes to ring intelligence, and in my mind he'd make Hagler almost look like an ordinary fighter.

 

'Hagler could only fight one way'. Exceedingly silly statement.

 

I don't think he was better than them, certainly not in every single department.

Although he could box - he was fairly slow for a featherweight. I think prime Morales and Marquez would have beaten those same fighters. They were both more accurate than him for a start, Sanchez threw some pretty wide, slow, looping punches, and missed a lot. Pacman would be smacking him with that incredibly straight left hand through the middle all night.

Sanchez wasn't really a sharp shooter like Arguello. I think Arguello would have beaten Sanchez actually.

Even though he was undoubtedly an excellent fighter with some good wins, I've never watched one of his fights and thought wow this guy is amazing. The win over Gomez was impressive, but Gomez proved to be not much of a featherweight, he was one of those guys that was suited to his natural weight class and that's it, similar to Hatton etc.

I mean watch this fight and tell me he could have beaten Pacquiao - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXTotOBL0sU

 

You said it.

That's what it boils down to. Not that he's out and out ducked everyone, more that he hasn't made the effort to consistently challenge himself and fight the top fighters since Castillo really.

The fighters have been there, there have been challenges available for him at 140, 147, and 154, but you have to make an effort to make those fights happen.

Guys like Pacman and Mosley have actively seeked out the top challenges and basically fought all comers. Floyd hasn't made that same effort, he's been content to fight mostly overmatched fighters for the past 7 years or so.