Floyd says he's better than Ali............

Leonard was arguably a better fighter than Ali.

I say that as a man who loves Ali, and was always mehhhh about liking Leonard.

But Floyd is a different story. Floyd, to me, is not only not as good as Leonard and Ali, but he wasn't as good as Whitaker either.

I'd even say that Spinks at 175 was better than any version of Floyd.

 

:giggle:

 

Yeah its like the guys who used to ask me when was Oscar going to fight Hamed...............:wack:

 

I think Floyd will win. Doesn't change the fact that from a historical standpoint Manny is the greater fighter between the two. I look at it no differently than how Hearns destroyed Duran but in an all-time sense Duran is without question the greater fighter.

 

Time and objective analysis have made it clear that Ali was not even close to TBE. I don't see the OOTRAGE in all of this.

 

I dont consider Ali the goat. He's the heavyweight goat but not the overall goat.

But he was better and greater than Floyd.

 

NO

 

Floyd is a gobby wee shit...how "TBE" he would have been when Oscar, Tito, Chavez, Pea, Taylor and co were about.

 

He's clearly the best heavyweight ever ... Utterly amazing in his prime and then proved all manner of substance in his second act against examplary competition ... No other heavyweight had a comparable resume

 

"He woulda kicked Joe LOUIISSS ASSSSS!!"

 

Who's that new boy... Tyson??

 

Look like a bulldog!

 

:bears:

 

Saying "better" is subjective and difficult to be objective when talking about oneself. I'm alright with that. Saying he accomplished more would be outright delusional.

 

Exactly. If you look at the top ten heavyweights throughout the 70's Ali fought and beat pretty much all of them. Can't say he ducked anyone. Especially considering most view the 70's as the best heavyweight era ever.

Think about it this way...if Ali & Frazier would have gone the Mayweather Pacquio route they would have fought in 1976 than 1971. Look at all the notable fights Ali had within that timeframe alone.

Frazier 3x's
Foreman
Norton 3x's
Shavers
Lyle

What Floyd doesn't realize and neophyte boxing fans forget is that a perfect record doesn't make you a great fighter. Great fighters are built on several factors one of which includes adversity and how they deal with it. Floyd is a classic front runner.

 

BTW...fuck Floyd.

Can't wait until he's fighting in Billings, Montana looking for rent money.

 

I was just about to say the above.

Floyd never fought his generation and those he did fight were not in their prime or were hamstrung by weight or age or whatever.

Ali fought some shit, and looked awful against some shit, but he also fought the rest.

He has 5 losses, 3 of which occurred in the final two years of his career when he was an old, damaged man.

Of the 5 losses, 3 were avenged.

 

of course he's better, Ali had a shit left and no body punches
he's not greater though....resume is the only thing that matters

 

Ali's hook and jab were not shit. Yes he had no body punches.

 

A fight of this magnitude deserves the presence of the Sly One for a brief period of time.

Floyd is not better than Ali.

The Ali of '64 to '67 is better, P4P, than any fighter in history not named Roy Jones Jnr. By P4P, I mean compared with peers in his weight class....in other words, how much better was he than others in his weight class...when comparing him to other great fighters and how they compared with their contemporaries in their weight class). Ali fought like a Welterweight, not even a middleweight. Light on his feet, fast handed, reflexes like Pernell Whitaker or Willie Pep. ONLY...Roy Jones matched or exceeded him in overall talent. Guys that denigrate Ali look at his performances in the 70s. That's unfair. We have to evaluate him as he was at his very best as we should evaluate all fighters.

Make no mistake though, Floyd is better than the much celebrated Fabulous 4 of Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and Duran.

Boxing fans are notoriously ignorant. They tend to disparage contemporary fighters (Larry Holmes, and Roy Jones, for example, got no love in their primes), fighters that have arrogant/annoying personalities and fighters who are not in exciting fights. Floyd suffers from all three conditions and that's why some of the ignorant fight fans on this site refuse to acknowledge his greatness.

Subjectively or objectively...Floyd is greater than Ray Leonard. The only argument against it...is based, not boxing related, but on personal bias (Leonard was more exciting, he's a legend from the '80s, he's more likable).

Records.

Mayweather is 47 fights without a first defeat. Leonard was defeated on his 27th fight.

Now...suuuurrreeee...it was Duran who inflicted that defeat, the great Duran "that floyd would never have fought through fear of losing" etc. Duran was considered a lightweight, a great lightweight, but a lightweight nevertheless and one that was already somewhat removed from his prime. In any event, Leonard was the CLEAR favourite to win that fight..being the bigger taller faster man who had stopped Benitez and was knocking other welterweights out. When we revise history in Leonard's favour we act as though he was some threat and that Ray was ultra brave (unlike Floyd) to take him on...but there was a reason why Leonard underestimated him and brawled with him. He expected to knock him out...and with good reason. So losing to Duran DOES go against Leonard. Beating him in the rematch DOES NOT add to Leonard (objectively) because he should have beaten him in the first place.

Floyd is 19 years undefeated, Leonard's undefeated streak was 4 years. Destruction and Mayhem for Floyd in that statistic but let's dig deeper into it.

Fighting the best available opposition.

Leonard fought the best of the lightweights moving up, a genuine top 3 P4Pder. Mayweather fought an undefeated fighter who was 43-0, the undisputed king of the 140lb division who had beaten, among others Kostya Tszyu and Jose Luis Castillo, STOPPED THEM in fact. PLUS the guy was still considered PRIME. Yes, his name happens to be Ricky Hatton and not the legendary name of Roberto Duran, but it was objectively the equivalent matchup considering AVAILABLE opposition. Floyd....DID NOT LOSE.

Leonard fought Hearns. Hearns is a greater name than Corrales....but the matchup is equivalent. Corrales was a co-titlist at Floyd's weight (or stripped only because of politics), UNDEFEATED, taller, a big puncher, destroying everyone else in the division. He was teh BEST matchup available for Floyd at that weight. He was a RISK. Did Floyd struggle with him? I seem to recall him bouncing Corrales off the canvas like a basketball and stopping him in 10 one-sided rounds.

Leonard fought Hagler. The great Marvin Hagler. Great name of course. But Hagler was 36 and years past his peak, was only fighting one fight a year at that point. Last fight was against Mugabi and it was a war, and Mugabi was a blown up 154lber who had never proven SHIT against top flight competition at either 154lbs or 160lbs. Leonard gets credit for beating Hagler no doubt...but Floyd's equivalent matchup of Oscar De La Hoya at 154lbs when Floyd started off at 130lbs should not be overlooked. In Oscar's previous fight he had destroyed Mayorga in 6 one-sided rounds.

"Floyd ducked Margarito, Cintron, Paul Williams, Cotto.....Leonard ducked no one".

This is so laughable. Floyd fights Zab Judah, who had recently been the undisputed Welterweight champion, was still in his prime and was a guy that knocked out the guy that beat the guy who knocked out the guy than beat up Mosley....for a version of the welterweight title. Margarito was irrelevant. Then he legitimized the title by taking on the lineal guy, Baldomir (regardless of whether or not Baldomir was rubbish) and then jumps up to challenge de la hoya. These other fellas were irrelevant at the time.

We can play the same game with Leonard (or hearns . hagler, duran or anyone else) if we try hard enough.

Guys that Leonard could have fought but didn't (remember Ray fought Lalonde and washed up Hearns and Duran instead of the following):

Michael Nunn
James Toney
Mike McCallum
Chris Eubank
Nigel Benn


Before he fought an older Hagler there were the following:

Don Curry
Aaron Pryor
Marlon Starling


The list goes on.

My point is....I'm not trying to criticize Ray's choices or career...I'm just saying that with everything you try to criticize Floyd with, you can point the same fingers at Leonard and a host of other characters. Boxing fans are hypocritical by nature and I'm here to expose the hypocrisy that no one else present has the intelligence to do (that's why ABSOLUTE MORONS like that fool Xplosive are running this joint in my absence)


So how do we measure greatness?

Proven ability
Longevity
Significant achievements
Quality of opposition
Dominance



Very few people in history have been able to shut out unbeaten top 10 pound for pounders in a cake walk, but when it happens you have to admit that the victor is special.

First time I saw it happen was Jones-Toney...which was teh greatest single performance in the ring since Ali's fight against Williams. Mayweather did it to Corrales. He proved his ability that night. In his career since, he has proven that it was not a fluke. He has triumphed over all styles: Southpaws, speedsters, sluggers, power punchers, bigger fighters, smaller fighters. 19 years undefeated. He's beaten...Mosley, De La hOya, Cotto, Hatton, Castillo, Corrales, Canelo, Herandez...it's not like he hasn't fougth anyone.

He's proven his greatness and you can only evaluate a fighter as compared with the people of his era. He's been more dominant than Leonard, hearns etc., more successful by every objective measure.


Better than Ali? No. Better than Jones? No...but greater.

Better than Leonard? Hell yes. Don't confuse more exciting with being better that's what caused a few fuckers here to pick Lacy over Calzaghe years ago or Matthysse over Garcia. Leonard was in more exciting fights. There is, however a reason for that. Floyd's defensive abilities are light years ahead of Ray's. Floyd is smarter than Leonard, Hearns, Duran and Hagler. Better boxer than all except hearns. Better or as good as chin than all except Hagler. Leonard and Hearns had faster hands (and Ali and Jones P4P) but only Whitaker, Jones and Prime Ali could match Floyd for reflexes. None of them (in history) was a better ring tactician and mid-fight adjuster than Floyd (with the possible exception of the GREAT Bernard "the Executioner" Hopkins"). Leonard's ONLY advantage over floyd in terms of ability is faster hands. P4P Leonard may have an edge in power too...but Ray Leonard's power goes up incrementally every year after his retirement. Floyd is better than Leonard in every other way. Also people forget how TOUGH Floyd is. He's never been officially dropped by a punch and in the time when he was most hurt, re mosley, he came right back in the same round and put Shane on the defensive. Plus he has shown toughness against Cotto, Burton, Castillo and other sin the past. If there are TEN attributes of a fighter, Leonard wins TWO in the head to head at most.

At 147lbs Leonard would have beaten Floyd, as would have Hearns. That's due to the combination of styles and size...not due to differences in talent. Floyd is a small Welterweight. Duran, however would have lost to Floyd. Look at the Benitez fight for a preview.

So it's not a streeeetch to say he was better than Ali, I disagree, but he's in the argument. Dominance and longevity prove greatness. If Floyd was overrated he would have lost to one of teh 45 fighters he fought. He would have lost to Castillo or Corrales or De La Hoya or Cotto or Canelo..you get the point. In any other era...with that equivalent resume...fans today would be calling him the TBE. He's just a victim of his own personality and teh fact that contemporary fighters get no love.


My PREDICTION on the fight (since this is my one and only post)

Floyd Mayweather knocks out Manny Pacquiao with a right hand, either lead or counter, possibly as early as the 1st round and no later than the 10th in a surprisingly exciting and explosive fight.

Mayweather has too many ways to win this fight and only one way to lose. Only way he loses is if he stays on the ropes and plays rope a dope. If he does that he loses a decision. But he will not do that. Floyd can win by moving and pot-shotting, applying teh pressure (like he did to Zab and Shane...his tendency against fast fighters) or slugging it out in the middle of the ring (YES...I said it). Floyd is bigger than Manny, stronger, better chin, longer reach...with better timing and reflexes. It's virtually a physical mismatch.


The Sly One has Spoken!!

Who DARES to disagree!!

Editted to add:

The DEFINITIVE LIST of the top 10 BEST fighters in history, based on PROVEN talent are:

1. Roy Jones Jnr
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Floyd Mayweather Jnr
4. Sugar Ray Robinson (Should be higher? HELL NO. In his prime Lost to Jake Lamotta and Randy Turpin..y'all musta forgot!)
5. Bernard Hopkins
6. Manny Pacquiao
7. Joe Calzaghe (Haters gonna hate...unbiased observers know this guy had EXTREME talent)
8. Roberto Duran
9. Pernell Whitaker
10.Sugar Ray Leonard

 

That makes no sense...

 

Yup. If that were the case, then Calzaghe would rank higher all time than Alexis Arguello.

 

I think Floyd can win BEFORE the first round, apart from that, we are in agreement!!

 

::

I think Floyd gets taken out by Hearns.

 

It's a fair point, obviously fighters generally look MUCH better against subpar opposition than elite fighters, barring the odd case of guys who really fight to their level of opposition.

Truth be told, he didn't look that great against Oscar, or Castillo, or Judah, or Hatton, or Cotto. IE most of the best fighters he's fought. So if you replaced all the scrubs like Alvarez, Guerrero, Ortiz, Bumdomir, Bruseles, Nood etc etc, with Oscar calibre fighters, I think our opinion of him would be significantly different.

To be fair to Floyd though, it's not like he's fought only scrubs, and I do consider he only has 1 loss - the first Castillo fight.

 

::

Yeah, PEDs and sparring partner blocking.

 

Saying Floyd is better than Leonard and Duran is comical.

 

Agreed, they both would have busted him up, and they both have far better resumés and actually did fight the best of their era in all weights, like a true elite fighter is supposed to.

Watching Cotto give Floyd a close fight by doing what was essentially a homeless man's Duran impersonation, I can't believe people think Floyd is better and/or would beat Duran.

As for Leonard, he was just an amazing welterweight, and very complete fighter. He would have busted Floyd up.

 

Floyd is a great fighter, I'd never begrudge him that but he's not better than Muhammad Ali ... That's all I'm saying

 

I think Floyd won the Castillo fight fairly clear. Duran or Leonard vs Castillo would be allot more than 'fairly clear' though.