Who was better? Serious question guys. Lets not turn this thread into silly comments. I'm intrigued to read who people think was better at the same age.
I have to go with Floyd, although in fairness Broner has a solid resume for his age. But Floyd gets it, mostly because of the wins over Hernandez and Manfredy. Thow in the win over Juuko, who was very good, as well as Gerena and Vargas. Also, Floyd had never had a close shave against a smaller guy at that age like Broner had with PDL.
Yeah, even though I followed Floyd during his early career, it's shocking in retrospect to watch just how mobile he was during that first reign. I don't tink that means he's lost his legs, I think that means he's evolved from a sort of Suar Ray Leonard esque boxer puncher.
Well what people don't seem to get is that Mayweather is like a once in a 20-30 years talent. You won't see another fighter like him in ages.
mayweather is most likely the greatest super featherweight of all time, comparing him to adrien broner is just silly.
Broner is never going to come even close to floyds level. Broner has his own lane and should separate himself from floyd. the comparison is will only hurt him as he can't match up to the skill level. He will be criticize for not preforming to a certain level. Already its he never even hurt paulie, his power didn't carry to 147. He relies on his power, he's too inactve for a guy that's 23. It seems instead of doing work to win fights he's sitting back thinking he's going to get the ko. This will come back to bite him one day. Paulie had no power but clearly outworked him, if paulie had some power he may have been able to get the win.
