Floyd Mayweather vs Ray Leonard...

well then he whipped him before he stopped Manny which is even better

Floyd rules and aint nothing any of you can do about it

Floyd is the perfect fighter who has successfully dealt with every style (unlike Ray Leonard) which is why he is 38 and still on top

 

He's never fought anyone like Terry Norris in his later years.

 

Foxy 01,

Hi,

The reason I asked the questions that I did, was directly in response to rooster's comments on his previous posts.

I don't mind at all that you have highlighted my post and replied, that's cool, but again, the questions were set up for him to answer, which is why you may think some of them are strange.

That's right, but I was just asking the question to rooster, because if Floyd misses a guy, there's a valid reason why, yet when Ray did, he won't make the same allowances.

As per my previous response above.

I don't think he's faced anyone really similar to Ray at WW, and Ray has overcome more styles against better opposition.

Of course they weren't. I agree.

But Floyd hasn't beaten anyone as good as Ray's best wins.

Now you can say that's down to circumstances, and it's not Floyd's fault. But that's the truth.

Oscar and Shane etc were past their best.

Floyd has some great names on his resume, but they weren't great when he fought them.

Benitez was great, Duran was almost peak, Tommy was peak, and Hagler although past his peak, was still a hell of a challenge at 160, after three years out, with no tune up.

Floyd hasn't got one win that compares IMHO.

I think Ray's win over Hagler, eclipses Floyd's win over Oscar, due the circumstances.

Those are fair points, but I was highlighting to rooster, that Floyd isn't the unbeatable guy that he portrays him to be.

Yes, he's obviously undefeated. But that doesn't mean he was better than Ray, and that he could have beaten him, because Ray lost and he hasn't.

I was saying that guys like rooster put too much emphasis on a fighters zero.

Statistics don't allow for circumstances.

You say that Ray would do anything to protect his 0, but look at the challenges he took?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think that Floyd would have taken those same challenges, if he'd have had those same opportunities.

IMHO, a guy who had no issue signing to fight Hearns in 81, and Hagler after a three year lay off, also wouldn't have had any issue in signing to fight Floyd had he been around.

Especially when I think that he held more advantages.

Again, I respect your opinion, but the question was directly put to rooster.

He mentions Terry Norris every day, but has yet to explain in detail, exactly what he thinks Floyd would have done.

 

Are you for real?

Comparing how much Floyd earns in today in 2014, to what Ray earnt over 30 years ago? atsch

Floyd's opposition is LIVE?

 

rooster,

let me ask you a question.

Seeing as though Marcos Maidana has just caused Floyd a variety of problems, what do you think would have happened had he fought the version of Terry Norris that Ray fought in 1991?

 

A fantastic post! :good

 

The fact that you weren't impressed with the Duran fight, and that you (incredibly) thought that Benitez and Leonard was boring, speaks volumes about the type of person you are, and your knowledge of the sport.

 

An absolutely outstanding post!

I agree entirely with your great assessment.

Floyd couldn't have kept him at bay and also have accumulated enough points to have won the fight.

 

I never said he did.

But you could bet your life that he'd have been a stylistic problem and would have caused him trouble.

A southpaw, that had/has great stamina, along with power, that also throws lots of shots, would have been very problematic for Floyd.

Although, I have always believed that Floyd would have won had they fought.

 

Duran was not able to touch Benitez and he was trying. I am not saying that Duran was absolute best but neither was Benitez and he embarassed Duran completely.

Leonard-Benitez was a classic. Sure it was not a war but that is not that point of you thought. You said Never! Never! was able to handle a slick boxer and you were wrong. He handled one of the slickest in his first championship fight. No one else every made Leonard "sit and stare". Leonard was extremely impressed by Benitez and he never forgot how great he was. No one else except you has.

 

redrooster,

He was advised to retire at the time.

It's hilarious and also sad, that you don't credit Ray's win over Hagler, because it wasn't a peak version of Hagler.

Because if you're going to go down that road, then surely you can't give Floyd a lot of credit for ANY of his wins, right?

What have you got to say about that?

Hagler wasn't peak in 87 = Not a great win for Ray.

Fine.

Then Floyd didn't have great wins over Oscar, Mosley and Cotto, because none of them were peak.

They point out his deficiencies when he was 35, not as a whole.

You can bring it up however many times you want. But it's irrelevant in discussing what could/would have happened if Ray had fought Floyd.

Because for what seems like me typing this out for the hundredth time, Ray was younger at WW, and was a different fighter, and Terry Norris and Floyd aren't alike.

If you don't want to take this information on board from me, then ask Foxy.

Because Foxy also notes that Ray had lost his athleticism at almost 35.

No, because again, if we match Floyd up at WW, it's a different version of Ray, and Floyd would have been concentrating more on defence than offense, because he wouldn't have had anything in his arsenal to keep Ray off of him.

I can't envisage it.

Ray would certainly have been the agresser, and Floyd would have been in a defensive shell.

Floyd may well have had the skills to have avoided getting hurt, but he wouldn't have been able to have scored enough points at the same time.

That's why he'd have had no chance against Hearns.

I've no issue with anyone who says that Floyd is an all-around better fighter than Hearns, and obviously Floyd's peak was at the lower weights.

But Floyd would never have been able to have out boxed him, and he certainly would never have tried to have fought him like Ray did.

What do you think about Floyd vs Hearns? Do you agree?

 

I've quoted what you said.

Your Marquez analogy was poor.

I haven't made any excuses for Floyd's success. The problem is, you're dismissing Ray's successes, but are failing to realise that he had MORE success than Floyd.

What the hell has Floyd's bank balance have to do with anything?

You don't think that if Ray was peak today, that he wouldn't also be making ridiculous amounts of money?

Buying an NBA team doesn't equal success.

That's just being financially successful, due to circumstances.

A mans worth is not just defined by his financial success.

Again, why are you comparing where both fighters were at the same age?

It's completely IRRELEVANT.

Otherwise, Wlad K is better than Ali, because he beat Haye at 35/36, whilst at the same age, Ali had lost to Leon Spinks.

 

:good

 

Seriously...I am in awe at the reason being applied here. Is there anyone else that understands what is happening to Redrooster and Foxy? They are being taken apart.

Loudon. Thank you for stopping by today.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

BING!

 

Thanks.

I've just edited the post, it was full of typos.

I've spent ages on here today, because it was my day off.

I'm really enjoying the debate though, it's been great fun, with no name calling for the most part.

It's a lot more civil on here, than on the general.

You have also made some great points today. :good