Whos the greater fighter SRL or FMJ

No, he hasn’t.

You only believe this for 3 reasons:

1. You’re not a knowledgeable boxing fan who knows of the sport’s history.

2. As always, you get entangled by the statistics, where they always somehow wow you.

3. You want to give Floyd’s resume a boost.


I don’t care how many titles he’s won, and in what divisions.

We are now living in an era of 17 weight classes, with 4 main organisations, with even some of those organisations now having more than one belt in the SAME division.


Yes, he’s a great fighter.

Yes, he deserves respect.

However, we’re talking here about the best 50 fighters ever to fight, across all weight classes, throughout the entire history of the sport.

Whilst his accomplishments have to be respected, they also need putting into context.


Fighters aren’t just ranked on their statistics.

They are ranked on their ability and their wins.

Who did they fight, and at what point.

What were the manner of their victories etc.


You’re talking about a guy who won a vacant JMW belt against a Euro level fighter in Matthew Hatton.

He then beat a washed Shane.

He then barely beat Lara.

He then couldn’t win a round off of a 36 year old Floyd.

He then barely beat Austin Trout.

He then beat a faded, non legit MW in Cotto.


Is there anything there that you disagree with?


I’ll continue:

He then swerved an aged GGG for as long as possible, before getting a gift draw.

He then beat an aged GGG.

He then beat a faded Kovalev.

He then cleared out SMW, which was impressive, but against non great fighters.

He then lost to Bivol at LHW.


Do you disagree with any of that?


Here are his best wins:

Shane Mosley
Erislandy Lara
Austin Trout
Amir Khan
Caleb Plant
BJS
Calum Smith
Sergei Kovalev
Danny Jacobs
GGG
Miguel Cotto

Again, he’s a great fighter, with great skills.

However, he has done NOTHING to be considered one of the best 50 fighters that has EVER fought throughout the entire history of the sport.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

A top 50 fighter of all time, would not have struggled with the calibre of fighters that he did.

 

ODLH was 8 years past his best imo ... great work with the jab giving Floyd problems, but he gassed and it showed as I remember .. I scored a clear but close win for May ( it was one of koolkevs fights of the week and many posters scored it and participated in it) .. May he went up for the fight, credit for that .. and May went lefty for half a round and looked amazing scoring points at will .. one of his best rounds
The JLC Maidana fights were both a better case for a lose for May than the oscar fight ... imo
Oscar wasn't weight starved in 2007? or just going down for the Manny fight? I cant remember

Hagler wasnt nearly that far out of it then compared to Oscar . .he took some punishment and had 2 hard fights prior that he really got up for
This fight was closer imo

And would better compared to each other on the timings of it ... When May chose to fight Oscar and when Ray chose to fight Hagler
The Ray win is a much better win ,, imo

 

Since this is a greatness list, I take into account 3 main factors: achievements in their own era - 50%, impact on the sport - 25% and H2H ability - 25%.
If I were to rank them just based on H2H ability, only an handful of old timers would make it.
From this perspective, guys like Tyson and RJJ would be top 5 all time.
I don't think it's fair to rank them this way. One can only beat what he faces in his era.

 

I don’t have to deal with anything.

Floyd was a genius.

I watched him from the 96 Olympics.

He’s one of the greatest fighters who’s ever lived.

Yet so was Ray.


This is what you fail to grasp:

At WW, Ray was PRIME.

At WW, Floyd WASN’T.


It doesn’t matter if you believe that Floyd was the better overall fighter, in terms of offense and defence.

The most important thing is how they’d have matched up on the night stylistically.


At WW, Floyd was faded, where in the majority of his fights, he fought cautiously due to hand issues.

Ray matched him for size and speed, but he had a BETTER and more dynamic offense at the weight, whilst also possessing huge firepower.

Ray threw blistering combinations.

He used a bigger variety of shots.

He threw power punches.


Floyd would not have beaten him every day of the week, because as I’ve told you many times before, had Ray have turned up the heat and fought Floyd aggressively, Floyd would have had no answer to those tactics.

Yes, Floyd had the better defence. But possessing a better defence against a prime Ray Leonard, would not have gotten him a victory.

Floyd never saw a guy like a prime Leonard in his entire career.

It would have been a huge shock to his system, as he always had advantages in speed and skills over every single one of his opponents.

Yet for the only time in his career, Ray would have taken those huge advantages away from him.


Ray would have been the significant favourite.

 

I said it could be debated not that it was a credible debate. For example Ottke retired undefeated and RJJ had 9 losses.
Does this make Ottke a better fighter ofcourse not but Ottke will still always have this over RJJ.

 

I completely agree with this, but based on it, you could tear apart resumes from any boxer that ever lived.
Sure, you can definitely find boxers that beat more good boxers in their prime than he did, but you certainly won't find 50.

 

Cheers.

Your criteria is different to mine, which is 100% based on achievements in their own era, so it stands to reason our lists will be different.

I sympathise with the viewpoint modern fighters would have an advantage in "time machine" fights against boxers from c.100+ years ago, but even when making allowance for H2H ability, which only accounts for 25% of your criteria, that doesn't seem to account for the heavy bias to modern fighters on your list. For example, it's really difficult for me to see Hamed, Froch, Vitali, McClellan and (presumably Julian?) Jackson, ranked ahead of Greb, Fitzsimmons and McFarland, using your criteria.

 

If it doesn't need to be credible, a lot of things can be "debated". Anyway, you've acknowledged that win-loss numbers aren't the sole determining factor when appraising fighters, which was the point the poster was originally trying to make to you.

 

It's mind blowing that people really think that a 30 year old Floyd, well above his best weight, would get in the ring with a 26 year old Prime Ray Leonard

 

I never said they are ahead. Like I said, the boxers I mentioned are not in order.
And yes, I was talking about Julian Jackson.

 

No I made my point about Ottke and RJJ. My point still stands that SRL doesent have anything on FMM.

 

Ha!

This is definitely your best post of the thread.

It literally made me laugh out loud.

I applaud you.


Yeah, I’m sure that it’s only MY opinion that the Fab Four were better than faded versions of Oscar and Manny, and better than a pre-prime Canelo.


Yeah, I’m sure that in your fantasy world, Floyd would have beaten Godzilla, due to possessing better statistics on BoxRec.

Back in the real world, Floyd would never have fought those guys.

He wouldn’t fight a prime Manny, or let a young Canelo weigh-in at the limit.

But yeah, that same guy would DEFINITELY have fought the Fab Four.

Ha!

Get real.


Duran:

Floyd could have beaten Duran, but it would never have been easy.


Hagler:

Marvin would never have shown Floyd the same level of respect as he did Ray, and Floyd didn’t have the combinations or the power to have deterred Marvin in the way that Ray did.

If Marvin had’ve boxed Floyd in a chess match, Floyd could have had success. But if Marvin had’ve fought him aggressively, he’d have backed him up and completely shut down his offense. And if this was a JMW version of Floyd, we have to remember that he had a competitive fight with a faded Cotto, and he’d fought even with a faded Oscar for 9 rounds.


Hearns:

The only question mark?

Ha!

Floyd had nothing for Hearns.

Ray got outboxed just like everybody else who tried to box with Hearns.

Hearns was 6’1, with a laser jab from a huge 78” reach.

Floyd didn’t have the size to have outboxed Hearns.

Ray beat Hearns by enforcing a shootout. An option that Floyd never had, as he had zero power.


I can’t wait to read some more comedy from you.

 

He’s delusional.

On what planet would Ray having beaten a prime Toney at SMW, have equalled Floyd’s win over Canelo?

If Ray had easily beaten a prime James Toney at SMW, then that win would have been in another stratosphere to having beaten a young Canelo at an enforced catch-weight. A version of Canelo who could barely beat Lara and Trout at that point.

 

The chronology of your exchange with Loudon & I is recorded on this thread:

BB - FM has a better win loss ratio, won more WTs & made more defences that SRL
L - Stats without context are meaningless
BB - I just proved FM was better than SRL using numbers
L - Numbers alone aren't proof. Otherwise Ottke would be better than RJJ
BB - It could be debated that Ottke is better than RJJ based on his superior numbers
GP - Not credibly, it couldn't
BB - I agree, not credibly it couldn't*.

*thereby proving Loudon's original point that numbers without context are meaningless and by definition disproving your assertion that you've "proved" SRL doesn't have anything on FM, purely based on the numbers quoted in the post you made that Loudon originally quoted.

Btw, I've no problem with someone ranking FM over SRL. It's close either way, imo.