Whos the greater fighter SRL or FMJ

1. Only in their prime, would some of them have been equivalent.

Manny, and POSSIBLY Oscar.


2. Only Corrales was in his prime.


So you have:


A faded version of Cotto who’d already been bashed up by Antonio Margarito and Manny.


A pre-prime version of Canelo who couldn’t clearly beat Erislandy Lara and Austin Trout.


A faded version of Oscar who’d been inactive, and who retired the following year.


A faded version of Manny, who’d been iced by Marquez, and who had a shoulder injury, which needed surgery 5 days after the fight.


So how could they have been the equivalent of Ray’s best opponents??

They weren’t.

 

Apart from Corrales, none of those guys were at their best.

Not that he’ll make allowances for that.

 

All factors have to be considered.

 

This is nonsense.

If they’re your favourite fighters, then cool.

Otherwise, some of those are ridiculous.


Naz?

I loved Naz. But come on.


Joe Calzaghe?

You’ve got to be joking. He sat on a WBO belt for a decade, fighting mostly Euro level opposition.

He had neither the ability or the resume to be ranked anywhere near that high.


Carl Froch?


Gerald?


Ha!

You’re obviously trolling.

Nobody can take this seriously.

 

Ha!

No, it really couldn’t ever be debated that Ottke was better than Roy Jones.

Have a day off.


My narrative?

I’m the guy who has said numbers alone aren’t objective.

I’m the guy advocating that every factor is considered.

A guy with a narrative/agenda would only focus on the one thing like how you have.

So have a think at what type of a fan you are.


You can’t just rank Floyd higher because he’s got the best statistics on BoxRec.

The purpose of the thread is to look at every factor objectively.

Now if you were to do that, you’d see that it was very close.

Floyd had the better longevity and the deeper resume. But Leonard took the bigger risks, where he fought and beat the higher calibre opponents. Leonard had the biggest wins.

 

Pretty clever how you twisted that all around by using a great example of numbers without context by looping in Ottke and RJJ which fits the point but you know thats not what I meant with SRL and FMM. Let me clarify SRL doesnt have anything on FMM with numbers or in any context.

 

Great post.

Oscar was drained for Manny the following year.

IMHO, Floyd’s win over Oscar was the best win of his career.

Oscar was faded and had been inactive, but was a great fighter who totally outsized Floyd in everything. In height, reach and weight.

 

So then it’s worthless as a whole.

So why have you come on here saying that the numbers heavily favour Floyd?

Yeah. We know that they do. But without looking at the other factors, they’re not worth anything.

So it makes no sense why you came on here to originally type that.

Just come and give us your opinion after you’ve taken everything into account.

 

I don't consider paraphrasing the salient points from half a dozen posts as either clever or twisting anything.

And I didn't reference RJJ & Ottke. I suspect Loudon referenced that to demonstrate the concept that numbers without context don't "prove" anything. I doubt he thinks the gap in greatness between SRL & Mayweather is as wide RJJ & Ottke.

I understand you think SRL doesn't have anything on Mayweather, that's your opinion & you are entitled to it. The numbers you quoted in the post Loudon originally quoted, don't "prove it", as you've claimed during this thread, however.

 

It was merely an example to you, as you like paper stats.

I wouldn’t have to find 50.

I’d just have to find 50 who had more ability, with better overall resumes/wins, after the correct context had been applied.

The last few top 50 lists that I saw, didn’t have a guy like Mike McCallum on it. And Canelo wasn’t better than Mike McCallum, nor did he have a better resume, or a better group of wins.

Canelo simply hasn’t done enough to be considered a top 50 fighter of all time.

 

He doesn’t have anything on him?

Apart from the fact that Ray beat prime ATG fighters, whilst Floyd never did.

Apart from the fact that Ray fought guys who Floyd would never have fought.

What are you, another BoxRec guy?

 

Ha!

Brilliant.

It always amuses me when these guys tie themselves up without even realising it.

 

It’s already been clarified that you’re completely biased and out of your depth here.


Did Floyd have any wins that equal Ray’s best wins?

Did Floyd ever fight or beat a prime ATG?

Did Floyd ever take the risks that Ray did?


Yes, Ray did have things over Floyd.

 

Actually, you listed 55 boxers who you said are "worthy of being ranked top 50".

Having counted them just now, I see you did include Greb, so apologies for that. You didn't include Fitzsimmons or McFarland. Or Tommy Ryan for that matter. Again, even allowing for fantasy, "time machine" H2Hs accounting for 25% of your criteria, these guys achieved so much more in their era than the likes of Froch & Julian Jackson did in theirs, that, well to be frank & without intent to cause offense, I can only assume it's either a deliberate bias, a lack of knowledge or a combination of the 2, that can explain you ranking them thusly.

I feel I've achieved my purpose for initially quoting your post on this thread, which was to demonstrate that I don't think you should be so definitive about who is & isn't ranked top 50 p4p all time.

 

I’ve honestly never believed that he was a troll. But there’s no other explanation if he’s listing guys like Carl Froch in a top 50.