(new Ring Magazine) Mayweather vs. All Time Greats

It's his only answer. He doesn't know boxing, so he can't defend the picks. He has to rattle on about Pacquiao.

 

:rofl

 

Floyd has a good chance against any of them except SRL, SRR & Hearns. Not saying he beats them but he is in the same league as far as skill and athleticism goes. Call me crazy but I think he decisions Armstrong. Now some pseudo-experts who knows more about boxing history than boxing technical analysis is probably gonna come here and call me stupid...

 

Floyd is very technically advanced, a guy like him wouldn't exist without all the previous elusive fighters, so it's hard to say he would be as good as he is now back then.

 

have to agree that style wise, floyd would have enjoyed an advantage over a constantly moving, aggressive fighter like armstrong. he was brilliant at "educated pressure" (stolen from scar) but i think mayweather would have been better served against him than basillo due to basillo's size and strength; against armstrong floyd would be at least the same size and be able to counter punch armstrong with precision. not saying he'd win but style wise, he'd have a shot. it's similar to ring's pick of azumah over pacquiao. just makes sense

 

They probably would, and they'd be just as out of sorts as they were in this article. Noone's shitting on Floyd, just putting into perspective how absurd those results are. Again, the same would be true of Pacquiao if they stated as much. Then again, they already made an article on him in reference to his standings against the all time great Featherweights. I'll see if I can look it up, but from memory it's no better than this one on Floyd.

 

I'll admit, Floyd does have the best chance against Armstrong IMO, albeit over 12 rounds under the rules of the modern era. Both due to styles and the fact that Armstrong himself was a natural Feather/Lightweight. I still wouldn't favor him, but I wouldn't fault anyone who did, so long as they gave a conclusive analysis to back that opinion up.

 

the ring article on pac was actually quite balanced and based on styles not accomplishments per se. he only won about half the fights and they had him losing to (i believe) azumah nelson, sanchez, saddler and pep. there were one or two others as well as they had him beating elorde, ortiz and olivares. if memory serves it was quite well written and not terribly biased towards pac

 

Dude, you can't even analyze your own clip you posted. Did you forget that part of the conversation? So come again on my only argument??

I have Napoles in my top 30 all time. But just because I don't agree he is the greatest in every aspect of the sport I am a worthless debater and poster?? Get over yourself douchebag. your personal life can't be that bad where you have to come on here and claim to be the greatset boxing evaluator ever. Napoles is an all time great. He is not the best ever. Sorry.


Keith

 

To be honest i think floyd cud give any all time great a close fight because he is that gud. Im not sayin he can beat them all but he cud beaqt sum of them and maybe most of them. My dad always says he wudnt last with any of the old fighters but he is that gud i think he cud. No ATG wud have an easy time hittin him and breaking that defense.

 

I think you're a little biased there pretty boy.

 

Wow Napoles has moved up heaps in your rankings since yesterday.

 

Why are people making such a big deal about Napoles defense?

First of all he was a much more offensive minded fighter then Floyd. Secondly this is an all attack over a guy who had got the decision in their last fight. Supposedly it was controversial, I cant verify that but if it was then you could understand why Napoles wanted to end matters early.
Mind you Urbina was known for his chin...and Im pretty sure in over 80 or so fights Napoles is the only guy to ever stop him.

Its like judging Floyd's defensive ability in the Augustus fight. Which admittedly was still very good but he chose to stand his ground and trade a lot more in that fight and subsequently took more shots then usual.

Napoles was happy to play the aggressor because he was confident that his chin could take the occasional shots he would be copping. Even when he was aggressive and on the front foot, with his hands down, he still didnt take a hell of a lot of leather.

 

Nope hasn't moved up one bit.

I know my top ten by heart, and figthers I have in my top 64, but I don't know the order outside thetop ten. Just that they are in my top 64. After this thrad I went and looked up my list and have Napoles at 29.

Pretty simple.


Keith

 

The clip was used to illustrate Napoles defense footwork and balance.

The retort was that he could have probably found a better clip to exemplify all of those attributes.

Again, no one has bad mouthed Napoles at all. It's just a huge Napoles fan has got butt hurt that some don't consider him the best at every aspect of the game. That's all.


Keith