guess what? I also watched the Minchillo fight years ago on CBS and your description doesnt match up with what I saw. Duran looked flat then, just two guys fighting in the clinches, and flat in the Benitez fight, the Laing fight and was a heavy underdog against Ayala in their upcoming fight which was cancelled, and then in the Batten fight and didnt get serious until the Cuevas fight. it's like I said, it's not that Wilfred did anything special; it's that Duran was unmotivated. its great to THINK Wilfred was just that good, that Duran couldnt do anything with him until you realize Duran was in the middle of a slump, no doubt brought on by Sugar Ray Leonard and the no mas incident the Laing fight just confirms it
What's does Tommy have to do with anything? Did Ray & tommy grow up in the same division? Floyd comes further down and besides, smaller men have always done well with Ray Duran jumped two divisions, and beat him Ray ducked Pryor Howard decked Ray and sent him packing for two years Camacho knocked him out so again, what does Hearns have to do with it? I tell u what kid; when Ray goes unbeaten thru out his entire career the way Floyd did, and at 38 still can brag he's unbeaten, then u can preach to me about greatness Ray got dumped all over at age 34 so u cant say much can you? Floyd's just cut from a better stock. live with it!! born N bred to fight, a warrior born, and a prince of the realm!
Thomas Hearns/ Roberto Duran/Wilfredo Benitez/Ayube Kalue/Marvin Hagler-now pick any of Mayweathers 5 best opponents and see if they match up to these 5 -and remember except for Hagler all were at or pretty near their prime.
You watched the fight years ago. I watched it yesterday. Maybe watch it again today. Refresh your memory. Maybe you just like to debate but do not understand boxing. They fought toe to toe in a very entertaining fight that Duran was cut in. Duran looked and good shape and he fought ripping off uppercut-left hook-right hand combinations. Flat. He looked like he was ready to put this guy on his back in around. He looked great and Benitez made him look normal. Lets get something straight. Duran never looked like he did in Montreal or before then after the New Orleans bout. Plain and simple, he was a deminished fighter yet he still put together great performances. You want to take credit away for Benitez because is Benitez is "nothing special" then that is just one more arguement in favor of your perspective that Leonard is nothing special. I know Benitez was great and Leonard confirmed it. Palomino, Duran, Cervantes, and Tommy Hearn would not call Benitez, "nothing special", nor anyone else beside you.
Great post! I feel exactly the same way. It's good fun, it's great research, you get to learn new things, and it gives your brain a workout. The downside is, my girlfriend shouts at me, and says things such as "you'd rather be on your forum, than spend time with me" To which I reply with.. "don't be silly, I love you. Just let me post this, and I'll be right with you."
Is Floyd Mayweather the greatest fighter that ever lived? You obviously "know" that he is This content is protected I am pretty sure I have Leonard in my five, definately in my top 10. Is Floyd the greatest fighter that every lived? Where would you rank his greatest opponents on the all-time list?
redrooster, As my lovely Mum would say, stop spitting hairs. What difference does it make? Ray was advised to retire in 82. He then came back against Howard, and then retired again. Now your argument is, why didn't Ray try to make the fight earlier than 87, which is a fair point to make. But what I'm saying is, even though Ray didn't do that, and the fight eventually happened in 87, it was still a GREAT win. Marvin was past his absolute peak, but Ray hadn't fought in three years, he'd had no tune up, and he'd never faced a guy of that size. So it's only fair to class that as a great win. But again, you won't allow for circumstances. It doesn't matter, you're not being objective. There's valid reasons why Floyd missed certain guys. But it seems that there wasn't when Ray missed some, and he was ducking. That's your analysis. I couldn't agree more. But where not talking about Oscar, and comparing him to Ray. We're talking about Floyd and comparing him to Ray. Floyd could have cashed in big time on a rematch with Oscar, but he didn't want any part of it. As soon as Oscar pleaded for one and told the media that he knew in his heart, that he could beat him, Floyd was ready for a break. Why would he have walked away from all that money, to then comeback and sign to fight Hatton a few months later for LESS money? My guess is, his win over Oscar was too close for comfort. Ha! What unlike Floyd? So reluctant he went toe to toe with a prime Hearns and then fought Marvin after three years of inactivity. He had the one comeback fight in which he looked poor in, so he retired again. It's not like he came back and boxed on a regular basis but wouldn't fight him. This is how simple it is. Keep dismissing Ray's win over Hagler. Because all you're doing is painting yourself into a corner. Everytime you dismiss the win, Floyd's resume takes a hit. Because once again, Floyd hasn't got A SINGLE WIN that compares to Ray beating Marvin after three years of inactivity. FLOYD HAS NEVER BEATEN AN ATG FIGHTER WHILE THEY WERE PRIME. THAT'S A FACT! Just give me the names of the guys that Floyd beat, that compare to Ray's wins over Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler. Oh the irony. Your arguments are unbelievably weak. Like I've alluded to previously, You're ignorant on many issues. You don't allow for circumstances. You try and do direct comparisons with fighters from different era's and different backgrounds. You try and do direct comparisons with fighters who fought different opposition, at different weights. You're obsessed with statistics. So take a close look at yourself and how you debate, before trying to break down anyone else's posts. Right, so you can't claim it as a GREAT win for Floyd then. Just like you can't for Mosley, who almost lost to Mayorga, and who could only draw with Mora afterwards. Miguel Cotto was never the same after the Marg fight. So what's left? You keep bragging about Floyd's resume, but there's nothing on it that even comes close to Ray's best wins. Every fighter misses guys. But Ray didn't have to prove anything at that point. Ray was advised to retire in 82. So he missed all of 83, and decided to try and comeback in 84, with a tune up to see how he performed. He was very unhappy with his performance, so again he retired. Now had he come back and felt great, he may have fully resumed his career at that point. The only reason you're saying Marvin was SHOT, is to DISCREDIT Ray. He wasn't SHOT! He was past his absolute peak, but he wasn't shot. A definition of a shot fighter, is Mike Tyson against Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. Why don't you tell me when Marvin became shot? Was he shot in 85, when he knocked out Hearns? I don't thinks so. So when? The year after when he fought Mugabi? When? Ray fought Hagler in April of 87, just 13 months after Hagler had stopped Mugabi who was a very good fighter. But again, it's all irrelevant, because Floyd doesn't have any win that compares to Ray's win in 87. I know it, you know it, and everyone else knows it. So stop waving Floyd's resume in everyone's faces, because when you break it down, it's not a GREAT resume. Your agenda is taking the shine off of a good debate.
That's your opinion. A casual fan, a new fan, or a young fan of the sport, might wish to see two guys smashing the hell out of each other, in a great back and forth fight, such as Gatti vs Ward. They might find technical fights boring. But if they become bigger fans over time, and they start delving back into the history of the sport and it's great fighters, their perspectives might change. It all depends how interested they are. When I was a kid, I just wanted to see Mike Tyson knock someone out. A points fight to me was boring. Because simply put, I couldn't appreciate what I was seeing. But as I got older, I started to look at fighters much closer than I had previously, and was fascinated by the different styles. I became fascinated with the jabs, and the feints etc. I started looking at a guys footwork. Fights that would never have interested me years ago, are now my favourite fights. How much action do you think they would have been in a Floyd vs Whittaker fight? I would have loved to have seen that. So everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if you're telling me that Benitez vs Ray was boring, that just tells me that you can't appreciate the skills on show, and you haven't got great knowledge of the sport.
Ray gets the bragging rights. Because any knowledgeable fan knows that he achieved more in his career. Nobody cares that Floyd's unbeaten. Otherwise, he'd be classed as a greater fighter than Ray Robinson. If an unbeaten record was so important, Joe Calzaghe and Rocky Marciano would be classed as two of the greatest fighters who've ever lived.
Hahaha! Exactly. I was talking to my wife on the phone and she was explaining something to me that I was half listening to. Why? Because at the same time I was watching Duran vs. Nino Gonzales to get more context for the debate in this thread.
Floyd has faced many fighters with excellent records, some of them unbeaten, and defeated them all with ease. He is truly king of kings Ray Leonard needs a little more help, who faced one big puncher all his life (Hearns) and so requires more hype. Not Floyd tho. What Leonard did once, Floyd does routinely