Why does everyone rate the fab 4 greater than Floyd

1. Duran 2. Leonard 3. Mayweather 4. Hearns 5. Hagler
In terms of greatness.

Yes, Duran would ruin Mayweather. The only reason why Leonard won in the Duran rematch is because of the following:

1. Duran was not in the best condition, he was famous for this for so many fights post-135.

2. Leonard is the most complete fighter boxing has ever seen. Leonard didn't simply win by 'outpointing-to-win', Mayweather style, but because he was able to mix that fight philosophy with 'fighting to win', he went to war with Duran in spots in ways that were necessary to win rounds, and ways that Mayweather couldn't.

Leonard is a better point-scorer than Mayweather.

Duran held that the way to beat Mayweather would be by roughing him up, also Duran was a stylistic nightmare for Mayweather. Remember, Mayweather lost to Castillo at 135lbs who can't hold Duran's spit bucket. Mayweather went on to draw IMO with Maidana, who certainly isn't elite.

 

Do you know how many fighters have tried pressure, brawling, rough house tactics and still loss to Floyd?

But yet you convinced that a guy who said "no mas" to facing a Floyd-type style would
ruin mayweather? Let me ask does Duran ruin Pernell Whitaker to, or just Floyd?

 

I don't know why you're here. You're not even reading comments properly.

Yes, I do know, and they're not exactly elite fighters, or those who know how do it the right way. Castillo beat Mayweather IMO and Maidana earned a draw IMO, especially considering that any two Floyd fanboys scorecards would even make a case for a Maidana victory as they differ over the number of rounds he won.

Leonard vs Duran 2 was NOT a Floyd-type style. It was a very careful, intelligent fusion of that and Leonard's outpoint-by-fighting style to maximise point-scoring.

Pernell manages better than Mayweather because Pernell has a better offensive ****nal, and thus can get closest to Leonard's successful approach. He also has greater instinct and fluid intelligence than Mayweather, who shuts down when there's high output because of his mental requirement to over-control, hence why we saw Maidana stay very competitive.
With that said, I still favour Duran over Pernell.

 

Being an ignorant, condescending piece of **** does not make for good debate.

 

LOL Code Red has got to be a sucker for punishment. Although not as much punishment (and this thread has been a stomp) as PBF would get if a time machine could bring him back to face prime versions of Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran. Featherfist Floyd would be called "Snoozy" after that series and all his money would go towards hospital bills :tired

 

You can say what you want about Castillo I.. You cam believe Floyd was hurt, or you can believe he lied for some stupid reason but you can't ignore the second fight which he clearly won.. So Castillo's own blueprint didn't work..

Maidana was a fight in which Floyd stood toe to toe with and it made the fight close.. He didn't respect Maidana and the way he fought surprised him.. You can belive Maidana fought clean or super dirty but you can't say the rematch wasn't a clear boring win.. Plus we're talking about a 37 year old Floyd for that fight...

 

Rematches always favour the boxer. It's one well known principle in boxing.

Floyd literally had no option but to fight more. Maidana was forcing the fight. He wasn't fighting 'toe-to-toe' because he wanted to. Maidana was feinting Floyd to perfection to get him to the ropes. Floyd became extremely receptive to Maidana's feints and spent a lot of time on the ropes (unless when Maidana was largely pacing himself). He clearly over-respected Maidana hence he shut down and was victim of effective aggression.

The rematch was very frustrating to watch. Maidana is too much of a warrior for his own good. They made one fundamental error, they didn't focus enough on 'outpoint-to-win'. Maidana could have won more rounds by not unnecessarily using up his already questionable stamina in rounds that were definitely going to go down as Maidana rounds. Moreover, Maidana turned more towards pure boxing at the centre of the ring compared to his first fight, an awful idea. If Maidana had taken this approach, he would have won WIDE. But Maidana is just grateful he went from being a B grade fighter to one that could put Mayweather through hell.
..None of this is hogwash. The most common scorecard for the first fight is 115-113 Mayweather. With the strategy I mentioned, you can clearly see how easy it could have been for a Maidana victory.


This is why I love Anatoly and Vasyl Lomachenko, they 'get it', they know how to get the win. It's a reason why I respect Mayweather, too.

 

You haven't produced a logical argument for Floyd beating Tommy Hearns.

As great as Floyd is, he couldn't have outboxed a great boxer who was 6'1, with a 78" reach.

It's ilogical.

How would he have banked the rounds?

Ray and Benitez couldn't outbox him, but 5'8 Floyd could have done?

It's just silly.

As soon as Tommy stepped on the gas, Floyd would have been on the defensive.

Just go and watch both of them fight.

It wouldn't even have been a fair fight.

Floyd's peak was at the lower weights.

I don't think Tommy would have won because I think he was on another level, I think he would have won due to his size and his attributes.

If you told me Floyd was better than Tommy, I won't argue with you. But head to head, Floyd would have been at a huge disadvantage.

He was too small to outbox him, and he didn't possess the power or the will to have outfought him.

 

You can leave Hagler out, Floyd is not a middleweight. Unlike you I see no reason to believe that a welterweight ATG can't compete with another welterweight ATG simply because one is from a different decade than the other; especially when they have loss to lesser fighters than the undefeated ATG you criticizing.

 

It's not simply because he was from a different decade you silly ignorant f*ck!

It's because Floyd was significantly smaller than a guy like Tommy Hearns, and he possessed no power at the weight.

Just stop posting.

You are clueless!

How many times do we have to explain things to you??

One AGAIN, yes, lesser fighters than Floyd did beat Tommy Hearns. But they were bigger, stronger and much more powerful than Floyd, which meant they could outfight him in a way that Floyd couldn't have.

You're now just embarrassing yourself.

Floyd would not have beaten a guy like Tommy.

NOT BECAUSE HE WASN'T AS GOOD AS HIM, BUT BECAUSE OF THE HIS LACK OF SIZE AND POWER.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

PEOPLE ARE PICKING TOMMY, NOT BECAUSE THEY HATE FLOYD AND THEY'RE ON A NOSTALGIA TRIP, BUT BECAUSE OF THE STYLES AND THE ATTRIBUTES OF EACH FIGHTERS.

SORT YOURSELF OUT!!

 

And now I'm done talking to you cause you insult me and call me out my name. Tommy's style in my view is not unbeatable or some insurmountable obstacle for Mayweather. It has been proven and demonstrated that Tommy can be beat, hurt, roughed up, forced out of his gameplan, outboxed, etc...If Floyd fights smart, fights careful, he can win. Just like your boy SRL did at 147. Just cause Tommy leveled Duran with one punch don't mean that's going to happen to Floyd!

Now just cause I don't agree with you does not warrant calling me out my name, also the fact that you are "emotional" indicates bias not objectivity.

 

Diego Corales had size and attributes, Oscar had size and attributes, Alvarez had size and attributes, Hernandez had size and attributes, Castillo had size and attributes, Pac had power, speed, the whole world rooting for him didn't he?, Cotto had size and attributes. Mosley was suppose to beat Floyd wasn't he?

Now that I think about it Floyd's big wins are actually greater than Hearns

 

Duran >>>> floyds entire resume

 

Code red, you make a good argument, but everything is based on what ifs. However, you have not addressed the only point that this whole thread is based upon. How? How is Mayweather going to keep Hearns honest? How is mayweather going to make Hearns back up? How is Mayweather going to bank rounds against Hearns? How is Mayweather going to handle the power that Hearns packed? How is Mayweather going to overcome the size difference, 6'1", 78" reach? How is Mayweather, a pure boxer, defensive master going to bring an inside fight to Hearns while already at a height, reach, and power disadvantage? How?

 

Insult you?

What do you expect?

Look at the previous post that I replied to.

You have said that people like me have only picked Tommy because he was from a different decade, one which we're big fans of.

Basically, you have ignorantly ignored everything we've said, and have implied that we're all biased against Floyd because we're on a nostalgia trip.


Now why don't you do yourself a favour and carefully read the following text:

Yes, Tommy could be beaten, roughed up, and taken out of his game plan. You are correct. But Floyd would not have been the guy to have done that. Why? Because again, he was a small WW, who had zero power, and who boxed in a non aggressive manner.

Ray Leonard was getting outboxed and marked up. And he ended up winning the fight by going to war with Tommy in actual fight, as opposed to a boxing match. But again, Floyd couldn't do that, because he didn't possess Ray's firepower.

Do you understand?

Am I getting through?

In my opinion, Floyd is better than Marvin Hagler and was light years ahead of Iran Barkley. But he could not have fought and roughed up Tommy in the way that they could.

I could explain this to a small child.

It's a question of styles and attributes.

How many more examples do you want?

I love Roy Jones. In my opinion he was light years ahead of a guy like Corrie Sanders at HW. But in a head to head fight, I think Corrie would have crushed him. Why? Because Corrie was a big, hard hitting southpaw who wouldn't have showed Roy an ounce of respect.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Marcos Maidana gave Floyd one of his toughest fights, yet was a lesser fighter than many of Floyd's other opponents.


Now if you can't appreciate what's been written above, do not bother to respond to me.