Interesting comment. If you can't be bothered then it's cool mate, but I'd like to ask you to explan why you believe Winky was a better defensive fighter than Hopkins or Toney?? Not saying he isn't, just asking for a bit of an explanation why you think that. :good
Basically for what I said in comment 33 Dina: "When it came to being in range and not getting hit with punches, which to me is the keystone to defense, Winky was better than the rest." Floyd and Hopkins had better mobility and diversity with their defense, Toney was better at rolling with shots, but when in range of being hit, Winky had a tighter D than the others. That's the impression I got, anyway. Within range Hopkins would often hold to not get hit, Floyd was loathe to stay within striking range for the most part, and Toney, whilst daring others to hit him, would actually take shots when launching good counter offensives. Winky had worse offense than the rest, but he could shut up shop just about perfectly when he wanted to, even though it was a basic blocking move, and large puffy gloves that allowed him to do so. :good
What possible justification can you have for ranking Floyd above Sweet Pea in defensive stakes? The only evidence you need is the De La Hoya fights, Floyd was still getting hit by a way past prime De La Hoya. Whitaker made a prime De La Hoya look stupid when past his best himself. Sweet Pea. And by a mile.
Willie Pep, the boxer who was said to have won a round on pure defense, without throwing a single punch literally! Can anybody beat that?:huh