Who has better odds of winning? Ward or Floyd?

Who would you give the better chance of pulling an upset?

Floyd against Leonard at 147

Or Ward against Roy at 168.

 

If they fought 3 or 4 times, ward has the ring IQ/size/strength to trouble jones jr and perhaps win one

And I dislike ward. 147 simply wasn't Mayweather jrs best weight, although I consider jones jr at 168 a harder man to beat than 147lb leonard

 

I'd say Floyd over Leonard. Ward was a very good technical boxer, but I doubt someone that textbook would do well against a rhythm breaker as adept as Jones. Add his unpredictability, hand speed, power and his own Ring IQ, and I don't see how Ward would get out of this one. Just a bad style match up.

Floyd on the other hand, while not at his best weight, with considerably less power than before, could rely on his superior defense and his underrated infighting, with some decent counterpunches thrown in-between, spoiling Leonard's fight, thus possibly squeaking by with a close decision win. Very unlikely against someone like Leonard, who was both bigger and better, but I find it more plausible than Ward beating Jones.

 

Neither one has a great chance.

Maybe Floyd possibly stands a chance of getting into Leonard’s head and making him over pursue and make mistakes but even then, best outcome for Floyd is to last 15 rounds.

I don’t see Ward having an answer for Roy’s speed. It would be similar to the Jones-Hopkins fight in the sense that Ward may have moments, but not enough of them to do any significant damage.

I say Floyd, but he doesn’t have a great chance either way.

 

I'd say that Ward makes the better fight, but Floyd has a better (albeit very slight) chance of winning.

Floyd does have one advantage over Leonard even at 147 and that's defense. Mayweather was more difficult to hit. So maybe Floyd could, on some night, block and slip Ray's punches and steal points to capture close rounds.

It is a long shot, but perhaps possible.

As for Ward, I don't think he had any advantages over Roy on which he could base his success. He would make a fight out of it with his craft

 

I gave it some thought: I would say there's a better chance of Ward beating Roy, as remote as it may be.

The way Leonard dominated Benitez plus the fact that Floyd had a tough fight with a washed up Oscar, leads me to conclude that Floyd's odds against the early 80s Leonard are very low.

However, and this is interesting:

While Ward has a slightly better chance of winning, he's more likely to get stopped than Floyd.

 

I could see ward making it an ugly fight with his clinching and infighting and win a very close one. I cant see a scenario where pbf has a chance against SRL

 

Problem for Ward is I don't think it's possible to beat a prime Roy without hurting him. That's why Spinks, Foster, and Charles are problematic for Roy.

Griffin gave Roy problems for a while, but he was on his way to getting stopped.

There's a 98% chance that Dre's strategy goes out the window when he's getting continually beat the punch, and with counters that hurt him (potentially knock him out).

That's a danger Floyd doesn't quite have, 1. Because Leonard wasn't a 1-punch ko artist, and 2. Because Floyd had a great chin.

Ward legitimately could make one mistake, and go to sleep.

 

Ward is better, smarter and stronger than griffin. If he had Futch to come up with such a game plan instead of useless hunter he could have executed it to fruition better than griffin, who did manage to win anyhow.

 

I would argue that Griffin being a midget gave Roy problems. It's not easy to fight a 5'7 cutey. That's a reason why Qawi would be a very dangerous MM for Roy.

Ward wasn't as awkward as Griffin, and he's a comparable height to Roy. That's advantageous for Roy.

In my mind, I'm thinking about how easily and how FAST Roy countered the jab of Hill. I think Ward would face similar problems. Ward and Hill are more physically similar than Ward and Montell.

 

Leonard was also a master of studying and preparing for individual fighters. He wouldn't be as befuddled as most were.

 

I give Ward a better chance at beating Roy. Mainly because I rate Ward much higher than Tarver. If Roy lost to a guy like Tarver then it's not a big shock if he lost to Ward. Leonard wouldn't lose to Mayweather. Leonard was on a whole different level of greatness compared to Mayweather.

 

Come to think of it id give Mayweather Jr a better shot based on the leonard Norris fight

 

Wilder would destroy a prime Tyson. After all, Mike couldn't even beat Danny Williams.

 

I think Floyd would stop Leonard based on Leonard-Camacho.

 

I actually had someone say that to me. Lmao

 

I noticed a trend with you too. Act dumb when it suits your argument. Big difference Tyson never lost to a scrub (other than Douglas) in his prime. All those loses Tyson had were post jail down hill Tyson. You're so full of shit you know damn well Roid was at the top of the p4p list in 2003 and 2004 when he lost to Tarver so miss me with your fasticious comments. Hardly the same thing comparing old washed up Leonard losing to Norris and 40 year old Tyson losing to Williams. Gtfo.


Ring magazine 2003 top p4p list

1. Roy Jones
2.Bernard Hopkins
3.Shane Mosley
4.DLH
5.Mayweather
6.Manny Pacquio
7.Kostya Tszyu
8.Erick Morales
9. James Toney

 

Roy gain 15-20 pounds for the Ruiz fight…mostly all of it in muscle…then had to lose it all for the first fight vs Tarver.

Roy was never the same….he wasn’t past it but he wasn’t in his prime.

Didn’t the same thing happened to Tarver years later? He gain weight to play Dixon in the Rocky movie, then had kill himself to take it off for the Hopkins fight.

 

Floyd isn’t beating Leonard….what can Floyd do to win? There is nothing he can not 1 thing…. 0.0% chance…

Ward isn’t beating Roy Jones….not if they fought 100 times….0.5% chance, maybe Roy plays a basketball game on the morning of the fight..& sprains an ankle or something.

 

Now you are being dumb on purpose. You know the circumstances around Roy vs Tarver.

But if you want to apply this logic, then Leonard has no excuse. He was merely 32 (younger than Roy), undefeated for over a decade and had an excellent run of wins and a draw against Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Lalonde. So obviously he was at his best against Norris

 

Canelo moved up to 175 and back down to 168 when he won undisputed. That's just excuses Roy and his fans came up with to save face after his loss to Tarver. And how can you say Roy wasn't in his prime when he was considered the 1# p4p fighter that year(2003-2004)? You could argue he wasn't Montel Griffith or James Toney Roy but he definitely wasn't that far removed from his prime as the washed up Tyson who fought Danny Williams or faded Leonard that fought Norris. That comparison was just lazy and stupid.

 

The 2004 Roy who was the #1 P4P fighter according to Ring magazine losing to a recovering drug addict is hardly the same thing as washed up Leonard losing to Norris. And no I'm not playing dumb. Terry Norris beating Leonard at the tail end of his career after a 14 month lay off. And no Leonard wasn't 32 he was 34 that's 11 years Norris's senior. Coming into the ring having just beat a glorified Duran in his last fight at 160. Leonard had to move down to 154 to fight Norris for the first time in 10 years and still came a pound and a half over on fight night. The same Leonard that had announced his retirement and comebacks 7 years prior. My point was that if Roy lost to Ward in his prime it wouldn't be a big shock to me as Mayweather beating Leonard. Let's not act like Roy was on the same level of greatness as Leonard. There are levels and Roy is much much lower down the ladder.

 

Ill get called a contrarian, but i dont think we cant completely dismiss the norris fight when evaluating leonard. Obviously, he wasnt in his prime, but he was so uncompetitive that i think that even in his prime, norria would have gave him a hell of a fight

 

The eyes don't lie. Ray's snap was gone, his speed was gone, his reflexes were gone, his legs were gone, and his punch resistance was gone.

You don't go from withstanding the bombs of Hearns and Duran a decade earlier, to get wobbled with every shot by Terry Norris a decade later, unless there's serious serious decline.

The 81 Leonard would bury Norris.

 

The same exact thing would happen to Norris just 6 years later, when the eye test clearly showed that he was washed up in losing to a TOTALLY AVERAGE fighter in Keith Mullings.

I certainly don't think Mullings would be able to cope with the 91 Norris.

 

I am at the middle.

I don't think the Norris bout affects Leonard's all-time status at all, cos he proved himself several times before. I see this as a bout similar to Roy vs Glencoffe in that sense.

However, it might tell us something about some aspects of Leonard's game being overrated.

If he were a big puncher (as often claimed), I believe that at that age he should have had enough pop to hurt Norris, who wasn't exactly a granite chin. And most greats when they lose their speed, they have skill to fall back on. Norris was no joke, but Leonard did not look good at all, he wasn't a Hopkins-type master there. Also, Leonard often gets a pass on his chin here, while Roy does not

My conclusion is that Leonard's game was based a lot on his speed and timing (not unlike Roy's) and less on his skill and punch than often is proclaimed. When he lost those physical abilities, his fall was rather quick.

Now, IMO it does not matter how a fighter achieves his success. Leonard was one of the very best, however he got there.

It is just that he was such a fabulous fighter that you easily start seeing attributes in him that are not really there. The same way Shane Mosley was portrayed as a master technician early in his career, because of how impressive he looked overall.

 

Leonard is taunted as one of the most talented fighters in ring history, which he was. None of his skill was gonna be enough to overcome or even compete with the fact that Norris was simply too physically much for him by 91.

Secondly, no one ever calls Leonard a "big" puncher. He's never been put in the same class as a Foster or Jackson when it comes to power.

His power was generated by the snap of his punches, and that "snap" comes from velocity. Velocity gone. Snap gone. Power gone.

I agree with you though, not unlike Roy, once Leonard's physical gifts were gone, the fall was fast.

I just think Leonard generally IS known for his physical gifts. That, and his incredible determination and killer instinct.

I think it's unfair to mention Mosley in that last paragraph. Unlike Mosley, Leonard and Jones had high ring IQs.

 

To address BoxFan, we need to clear here that's a difference between greatness and actual prime worth.

The perfect example of what I mean would be Tyson. Most consider Mike to be outside the top 5 of all time greatest heavyweights. But virtually everyone accepts that Mike had one of the top 5 best primes in heavyweight history.

Jones fell short of being as great as Leonard, no arguments there.

In terms of prime... Roy in the 90s was EVERY BIT as good as Leonard in the early 80s, and yes, you can argue even better.

I consider Jones, Leonard, and Duran, in their primes, to be the three BEST fighters of the last 50 years.