Floyd Keeps Saying There's no "Blueprint" to beat him...

No need to disagree Stoney, I did say 'arguably'. You could reasonably make arguments for one and all of them, but you have to agree that they're definitely worthy of mention. I'd actually have Meldrick and Macho Camacho above Floyd for physical talents, but Floyd's carry more worth because, IMO, they are rooted in sound technique and a ring intelligence that exceeds their own.

Hop's whole career and fundamentals don't give him the credit he warrants for my money. Who you think is greater is probably as dependent on your assessment how good they were in their prime as the bredth of their whole record. I do think that Hop's record overall is greater as of course, he has a strong tenure at MW (yes, I know it's not full of stellar opposition, but there's a good consistency), which is excelled by his post-MW exploits. Beating Tarver as convincingly in addition to other victories, as well as what the consideration of his age does for my assessment of his performances.

Pac should be held to the same as what we hold Floyd to. Yes, I agree that Pac's been doing it for a time, but you could with hindsight make strong arguments that he's taken on fighters that he obviously should've beat. I'm not going to do that because, I, too, am more than happy with how Pac has chosen to go about his business, but I do, however, believe that Marquez beat him, just, that Cotto was overrated, that Hatton and Oscar weren't what they once were. I cannot, however, argue about the performance. Whilst, with Floyd, if I wanted to nitpick, I could do the same, but Pac's comparative performances in winning totally blow Floyd's last half decade at least, into the water.

I think Floyd needs Pac more than the other way around, because Floyd has the skillset to push him higher, be that when and if, he wins their bout. I hold it against both of them that the fight fell through, as I think they owe it to themselves and each other to dare to prove their greatness. If they didn't fight, Pac is still taking on the best that there is, for the most part - Floyd isn't.

Agreed, which is why I say that Floyd has better footwork than Sweet Pea and is arguably just as skilled, if not more, in all departments, but Pernell's much more proven, much higher in the echelons of greatness. It is the reason why Hop can still box with semblences of greatness and Roy's less sound self cannot.

 

Which legacies? And I do mean this serious. Both have some decent names on their resume and jumped through weightclasses with ease. Roy even beat a great fighter in his prime. That´s all very good. And that what makes them the elite of their generations. But both avoided the challenges that would have defined their careers. If Roy would have done so he would have arguments to be ranked Top10 all-time. Just think about it! This would have been incredible. Instead he chose to fight policemen and firefighters because it did not matter who he fought as long as he fought to make big money. He robbed us of watching a fighter becoming a legend worthy of beeing named alongside Willie Pep, Benny Leonard, Ezzard Charles. That´s terrible. For him. For boxing. For the fans.
Mayweather is not as bad. In the lower weightclasses he took risks and fought some/most of the best. He showed us what his quality was and imo it´s not much less than that of Jones Jr. But then he did the same. He chose money over legacy. Keeping his "0" over proving his worth. He still took on some good fighters but he also took a side out of DLH´s book when doing so. He just fought them when the odds where stacked in his favour. Be it that those fighters where past it´s best, above their best weight or both. He chose to fight DLH over Cotto or Margo. Because the money was more. But, hell, when you earn millions for a fight, does it matter if the number is a bit bigger or not?
That´s why I fault them both. For choosing some millions more over a legacy. Maybe I´m too critical, maybe I´m too harsh but I dont like to be robbed. And they robbed me of seeing two true atgs.

Now, Floyd still has the chance to get it right. He fights Mosley. I disagree with Stonehands that this is what shows us his greatness. Mosley is too much past it to force Floyd to dig deep. But if Mosley has one great performance left, he may be right. I hope so. But what PBF really needs is something else. These days Floyd needs Pac on his resume. Simple as that. Before his retirement Floyd was seen as the best of his generation and then this guy comes along and makes everything right thatb Floyd´s doing wrong. Floyd needs Pac to prove his point. I hope this fight happens. I´d pick Floyd if it does happen this year.

 

Do you really expect I talk to you on a Jones or Mayweather topic? Sorry to dissapoint you but I´m no lunatic.

 

Translation, you just got owned and you cant beat logic :yep

 

Im not disagreeing with you only pointing out the reality of what is now boxing. The fighter has become a lot more involved in the business side of their career, and its changed the sport. I dont think it will ever be like it was again. The only positive thing is that in most cases the biggest challenges represent the biggest paydays and as the fighters gain more control over their career paths, they will look to make those fights.
Its just a different motivating factor. In the past would a fighter be satisfied winning one title or winning five? Now fighters are motivated by making a good amount of money, or striving to make the most.

 

Therein lies the salvaging factor. With a Floyd and Pac, the one fight that would generate the most money is the fight that would bestow greatness. Eventually, boxing fans will cotton onto the fact that fighters, who I have no problem with in exercising more control of their careers, are duping them and cheating them of great fights with great fighters.

I think that eventually, the fans will vote with their feet so to say ... how many sideshows do you think the fans will stand for before they start to demand the best fights? I think that in the long run, it will always be to a fighter's best interests to seek the best fights with the best fighters and prove themselves. What fan wouldn't pay to watch a fighter such as this? I like Floyd much more than I like Pac as a fighter, but guess what, I'd much rather pay to watch a Pac than a Floyd.

 

And there's the rub when it comes to Floyd, because he has displayed a level of character (read: toughness) inside the ring that, along with his undeniable talent, makes him very difficult to defeat. This is a guy who, when forced into a situation through injury and perhaps a bit overconfidence, that required him to trade for the last half of the fight with a prime, determined version of Jose Luis Castillo, he did so and held his own well enough that he was able to secure victory on the judges' card and a draw on my own.

This is a a guy who when confronted with a fighter who exceeded him in terms of the attributes of power and speed (Judah), found a way to grind him down by utilising a pressure based style that he wasn't ncessarily his first choice. When de la Hoya jabbed his way to early success in his fight, Floyd found a way to nullify that strategy in the later portion of the fight, through countering, movement and defense. Yeah, he didn't counter all of DLH's jabs, but he certainly countered enough of them to make his opponent throw that punch with any degree of regularity.

Whether this character is based upon deep-seated insecurity or self-belief, Floyd still finds a way to META said, impose his will upon the nature of the fight. So, getting back to the original point of the thread, that means that there really isn't a blueprint to defeat him per se. Floyd can certainly be defeated, but that's not going to be the result of a specific style or strategy, but rather the case of a fighter who can match Floyd's charcter and toughness, while possessing the talent needed to adjudt in turn when Floyd begins to accelerate.

 

I just dont understand how you can feel that Jones fighting DM would have changed his legacy to the extent you think?? It would not nor would Hopkins at a lower weight after he went to heavyweight. Hopkins at the time proved nothing over 160 pounds.
As far as Mayweather I agree with you, but he just isnt motivated to box for those reasons. Now if you think hes wrong for claiming hes the best without fighting under a certain criteria for claiming so, Im not arugeing that, but Im not going to say hes purposely avoided challenges to keep his "0" in tact. Agree with it or not, I think hes very clear in his intentions, "title belts collect dust", "legacy dont pay bills". He fights and is motivated by one thing and one thing only, money, thats it.

 

:dead

 

Where DM and Hopkins the only ones? Hell, no!

I disagree with you. As obsessed as Mayweather is with his "0", I think he did. I have the impression that PBF thinkgs keeping an "0" and collecting belts secures greatness. Somebody should tell him he is wrong.
If somebody tells me that he chose to fight one fighter over another who would be a bigger challenge because he could make a few millions more and needs to pay his bills I would want to see those bills. I mean, most people on this planet don´t earn one million in their whole life. Put it into context.

 

It only takes one viewing of the current 24/7 to see he has astronomical bills. He probably spends in a month what the majority make in a lifetime. Its sickening really.
As far as Jones, I would like to know who you feel had he fought would have significantly enhanced his legacy, and not at heavyweight.

 

Barrera was great that night, very controled.

 

No they did not, but there is always going to be a guy that is the wrong match up and once you have been beaten and the 'blue print' set it will be easier the opponnts to get one over them.