Floyd Mayweather vs Ray Leonard...

how is it an insult when its the truth? if you're a liar and he calls you out on it, then that's what you are. We have both proven that to be true.

we have provlem you to be a liar and we have been the ones being truthful

 

redrooster,

Again, they were from different era's, different backgrounds, fought different guys, at different points in their careers, and at different weights.

Once again, Wlad is still at the top of his game.

Ali lost to Leon Spinks at 36.

So what?

Rocky Marciano NEVER tasted defeat. Ali lost 5 times. What does that tell us?

Nothing!

Also, Floyd's just looked like **** against Maidana. Now I know that had Maidana pulled out the win, the second after the scores were announced, you'd have jumped up, logged on here, and told everybody that Floyd was 36 and past his best.

If you want to do a fantasy fight, then again, do a comparison between both fighters at WW, which realistically, was the only weight they could have fought at.

That means you are comparing Floyd at 147, against the VERSION of Ray that also fought at 147.

Forget Norris and Camacho, you're looking at Ray Leonard at his peak, in his 20's.

Floyd hasn't got better footwork, and I wouldn't say he was faster. I'd say he's got a better defence though.

Heart?

Ha! You're having a laugh.


Floyd - A guy who demanded that Manny had to be tested, based on nothing.

A guy who deliberately ignored the catchweight against Marquez to gain an advantage.

A guy who said "We don't care what Canelo rehydrates too, skills pay the bills" before dragging him down to 152, in the hope he would struggle, to gain an advantage.


Ray - A guy who fought a peak Tommy Hearns because he was getting out boxed.

A guy who fought a peak Roberto Duran.

A guy who fought Hagler at MW, after a THREE YEAR lay off, with NO tune up.

Ha!

Ali was no match for Spinks.

Roy was no match for Glen Johnson and Danny Green.

MAB was no match for Amir Khan.

Ray would have zero respect for Floyd's power, and he held far more advantages.

Stop talking about Norris, it's embarrassing.

If Floyd had've fought Ray at WW, he wouldn't have been fighting the LMW version of Ray at 35. He'd have been fighting a peak WW version of Ray at 25.

This is just getting ridiculous, and I'm just repeating myself.

Again, it would be like me saying that Ali would have beaten Wlad, and you saying he couldn't, because he lost to Leon Spinks.

Throughout this thread, you've neither used logic or allowed for circumstances.

Your arguments are extremely weak.

 

Foxy 01,

There's never been truer words spoken IMHO.

There's hundreds of examples to give.

Ray and Angelo may have thought that Manny and Tommy would have come in with a different game plan, but that doesn't alter the fact that Ray had huge problems getting past Tommy's jab, to get in range to try and out box him. Tommy's physical attributes, plus the fact that he was also a great boxer, played a huge part in his success.

Maybe, but I don't see why.

How many WW's could have out boxed Tommy at WW?

I agree with you 100%

There's no doubt about that.

But he'd still be facing a guy who was just as skilled, just as fast, if not faster, and who was bigger with a lot more power.

Fair enough, you can break the word skill down into many parts, including different aspects of defence etc.

But Ray threw more combinations at WW, and used more variation. He was better offensively, and Floyd is a safety first fighter.

It would be a good example to use, if Ray hadn't been at the end of his career, and way past his best at 35.

If you're doing a fantasy fight between Floyd at 154 vs the Norris version of Ray, then that's a different debate altogether.

But looking at a fight at 147 between Ray and Floyd, Norris's name shouldn't be mentioned IMHO.

It's of no relevance.

Floyd and Norris aren't really alike, and Floyd would have been fighting a version of Ray in his 20's.

 

It's Loudon. :good

 

He shouldnt have come back against Hagler either. but you have no problem with that do you?

If Ray came back against Hagler in a weight class he'd never compted at with no tuneups, and ring rust all over him, shouldnt he have LESS problems at a more comfortable weight with the ring rust off him? logic dictates that he would

How come no one from the press gave Terry a chance? This all points to the fact that it was Terry's style, not Ray's age, that did him in

people do it all the time. The press does it, posters from ESB do it. Posters on other forums do it. It's quite common. It takes some skill, and not everyone can do it.

No, he aged rapidly after 1975. please, your statements are full of half truths. I moved past that stage by the end of kindergarten

you mean Hearns, a half champ with 3 title defenses over the course of one year, a bloated lightweight who just shed 40 pounds, Hagler who he waited 5 years to become shot, and Norris who he proved no match for

You're right, Floyd did better. Floyd did more, he was in there with better people

so what? floyd is 38. I'm sure he's sowed down too but you dont see him losing. Ray had been winning up to that point. How does 11 years unbeaten and picking up 3 more titles, make you suddenly inept? It doesnt

fact is, Ray just couldnt handle that style, that kind of quickness, those kind of moves. if you want to be an all time great, you must SUCCEED, not fail and then look for excuses. Obviously, he WOULD HAVE been great had he defeated Norris becuz that's what great fighters do, the defeat all comers both young and old. Ray beat the old but he couldnt beat the young, and that's where the main challenges lie

Ray's just not as good as Floyd

He was at the end of his career becuz Terry put him there

a fighter with a puny record of 30 fights, ALREADY washed up? That wouldnt have happened with Floyd

Monzon had near 100 fights at the same age and still competed at the top level with near 100 fights so why cant Ray?

very poor example with very poor comparing of whre each man was at the same point in their careers

Roy had already been destroyed two straight times back to back with several other losses after that while Ray had just fought the perfect fight according to Steve Farhood ,, in uno mas, and according to Tim Ryan "an absolutely briiliant performance" . In point of fact, Ray had shown no sign of slip and how can you when you win every round? You can only go by each man's previous bout, and the fact is, Ray wasnt touched in his previous bout. why are you so afraid to acknowledge this?

of course not. the defeat was so overwhelming and so unexpected, what else can they say? But, if you are an objective observer, it highlights Sugar's weaknesses, and then you can point to it and say "well, Terry didnt have Tommy's huge height and reach and he did just as well. In fact, better!"

The problem is you dont know how to be objective. at least not in this case with these two fighters. Your bias clouds your thought process and wont allow you to see clearly

been there. done that. The only three fights in which Ray was presented with movement, he lost two (badly) and the other, had to wait until the 14th for his opponent to slow down enough before catching him with a haymaker

Floyd's speed N moves make this an easy fight or him. Sorry but Ray loses again

Stronger? probably. unfortunately for him, he wasnt very good at hitting moving targets, a problem that will forever stigmatize him. Floyd would put into plan the same strategy put into effect by Abel Sanchez and carried out by Terry Norris, MOVE JAB! MOVE JAB! MOVE JAB!

Neither did Terry norris and neither would Floyd

you can put them both in the senior's tour. the fact is, this was the only fight Ray had the confidence to take. Like Floyd, the fans thought "Oh Hector? He's safe. he has no HEART! Ray will break him down in a few rounds"

Ray couldnt even do that! Opposite in build, height, reach, it was actually Hector, WASHED UP Hector who was at a disadvantage, coming from severl weight classes below, who made the fight, backed Ray up, and knocked him out. The handpseed of Hector's hurt Ray terribly. Hector took Ray's best shot point blank and walked thru it. at tha point Ray lost what little heart he had. he certainly couldnt match Hector's, and after four rounds you could see it in his eyes; he didnt want it anymore. but that was too bad becuz you could see Hector was going to make Sugar take his medicine no matter how bad it tasted

Honestly, for you Ray Leonard fans, considering his two straight losses, I dont know how you sleep at night

he doesnt need to. He just has to replicate the fight plan of Norris/Sayatovich/Abel Sanchez

YAwn! I think this is a good time for my nap

 

redrooster,

How about using this logic. He was FOUR years older, with more fights on his resume. A fighter can't go on forever.

It was Terry's style, mixed with the fact that Ray had slowed down, his reflexes wasn't as fast, and Terry was 11 years younger.

Glen Johnson out boxed Roy Jones for nine rounds and then put him to sleep.

But could he have done that against a 25 year old version of Roy?

Would Norris have beaten Ray at Ray's peak? Not in my opinion.

It's fun to debate, but you have to be objective, and allow for certain circumstances. Again, every fighter has a different set of circumstances surrounding them.

You cannot say that Floyd was better than Ray, just because Ray lost, and Floyd is still undefeated at 36.

You can't compare statistics from different eras.

Statistics don't allow for circumstances.

If you think Floyd was better than Ray, that's fine. But give me something other than BoxRec stats.

I said he was old at 32. Which he was. He was worn out, and had slowed considerably and took huge punishment in the gym. Hopkins looked fresh at 37. I was just pointing out that everyone ages differently, and that you can't do direct comparisons.

How can I debate with you, when you type up this NONSESNE?!

It's just a joke.

Floyd did more, and fought better people? :rofl

Of course.

Ray's four fights against Hearns, Benitez, Duran and Hagler, are greater than ANYTHING that Floyd has ever done.

What are Floyd's biggest wins? A 34 year old Oscar, who'd hardly fought in three years? Shane Mosley, who was lucky not have lost to Mayorga? Marquez? Ricky Hatton? Canelo? Corrales? Who?

What win has Floyd had, that compares to beating Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler?

Ha! Come back to me when the LSD has worn off.

What don't you understand, about the fact that fighters have different circumstances and age differently?

Also, Floyd could well lose in the near future. He's just had a scare against Maidana.

Floyd craves the spotlight, and he's a huge gambler.

So don't be shocked if he fights into his 40's.

It could well happen.

No, the fact is, Ray couldn't handle that style AT THAT STAGE OF HIS CAREER.

He beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler, yet couldn't beat Norris?

Terry Norris was stopped by Simon Brown just three years after beating Ray.

We could use your crazy logic, and say that Brown would easily have beaten Hearns.

In which departments? Give us all a breakdown.

He was at the end of his career, because he was a peak WW, who was fighting at LMW at 35 years of age.

How the f**k do you know?

Floyd didn't fight Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler did he?

Every fighter is different.

Again, Ali was old in his early 30's, and Hopkins looked great in late 30's/early 40's.

There's countless examples to give.

I'm not afraid to acknowledge anything. Terry was good, and his speed and style beat Ray. But Ray had slowed down, and I don't think Terry would have beaten Ray at his peak, just like I don't think that Tarver or Johnson could have beaten a younger version of Roy.

Go and analyse Terry Norris's career. He was a good fighter, and better than Ray on the night. But as a whole, Ray was the better fighter.

Start a thread asking who was the better fighter was.

Terry doesn't get huge credit, because it wasn't the version of Ray that Duran beat.

Tommy's height played a huge part in 1981, because both fighters were in their PRIMES and were equal to each other.

Huge difference.

How can you say that, when you've just dismissed Ray's wins over Hearns and Duran, and have claimed that Floyd did more and fought better fighters. Ha!

You haven't been there. You haven't done a head to head break down and looked at Ray in his 20's. Your only evidence, is that Norris beat him at 35. That's not evidence, because Floyd isn't Norris, and again, Ray wasn't the same at 35, as what he'd been in his 20's peak.

Try again.

1. It would be highly unlikely that Floyd would have taken the fight.

2. Floyd is a safety first fighter, and Ray wouldn't have given any respect to his power.

So it would have been extremely difficult for Floyd to have scored enough points to have won rounds.

What would Floyd have done, if Ray had've fought him, and not boxed him? Because there's no way Floyd is fighting fire with fire against Ray.

Don't you think that Angelo and Ray would also have implemented a game plan for Floyd?

That's right, but they wouldn't have been able to have out boxed Ray in his 20's.

Seriously, WTF?

Nobody cared about the result of the fight, people just didn't want to see anybody hurt.

A win for either guy meant nothing.

Wow! How many more times?? Ha!

He just had to replicate the fight plan of facing a 35 year old Leonard, even though he'd have been facing a version that was in his 20's?

Right.

Me too.

 

Mullings, Boudani, Jackson,Rosenblatt and Brown... This higly ranked ATG`s ALL whipped Chinny !!

 

Last year the Ring held a round robin tournament to determine the best welterwieght of all time, SRR won it and SRL was second the voters were boxers,trainers, boxing writers and managers ,seems they were all wrong.:huh
This month its the lightweights with Duran winning it comfortably, Floyd came third.

 

Because your whole argument of there never having been a case of heavy betting favourite being dominated just got completely and utterly destroyed and reduced to ground dust?


Now go ahead and challenge me on those other examples listed, Elton.

It's difficult to retire from something you've never once participated in. As far as I know, sponging off your parents doesn't actually qualify as actual employment.

The only one who brings up Leonard's "UNBEATEN 11 year run" is Elton, so go and take it up with him, you mentally deranged, dribbling spazbot.

 

nobody said he could but relatively speaking, Floyd's edged him in both ways. That to me spells out the fact that Floyd is tougher, better, and has accomplished more

 

Tht's a terrible example. Roy had been getting knocked out regularly. Terry's win counts and counts big becuz Ray had gone unbeaten in the last 11 years. How does that compare with Roy's getting knocked out? you really need to think before you type.

another thing: how do you PROVE a slowdown? Monzon was 35 and still competed at the top level with near 100 fights. Ray only had around 30 fights and fought the perfectfight according to Steve Farhood. Tim Ryan told im it was an absolutely breathtaking performance

and remember: it's beating younger oppoition that makes you special, as Haglerhad often done. but I dont see that with Ray Leonard

 

well why would any of you WANT to bring it up? It would only embarass you

tell me why bringing up facts is deranged?

If you dont like it, dont start fights you know you you'll come off second best!

 

already have. aint my fault you wont accept facts. and the fact is, both men had had enough fights where they fought enough. it's nt like they were prospects and needed more exosure. Leonard fought the best in one division while Floyd faced the best in his FOUR divisons and still cant be topped while Ray hurt himself when he stepped into his second divison (vs Norris)

 

Lennox Lewis hasn't lost in 11 years either. Maybe he should be favored to beat Wlad

 

How do you know he was worn out? Did he tell you? If he was worn out, why did he push for the fight and challenge Terry for his title?