Better Win Roy or Floyd

1. You can't penalize Floyd for having long arms. He was the smaller fighter, hence he weighed much less than Canelo on fight night.
2. It's Floyd's fault that Canelo was wary of his right hand counters and lead rights.
Neither of those are criteria that take away from Floyd's win.

 

We should be taking absolutely everything into account.

Floyd weighed significantly less than Canelo. He also wasn't as strong. But in terms of height and reach, Floyd wasn't smaller.

I'm not penalising him. But in my opinion, this current version of Canelo wouldn't have stood off of him as much. This current version of Canelo would have given Floyd a tougher fight, just in the same way that a later version of Bernard would have troubled Roy more.

 

Hop was 22-1, ranked #1 by the IBF, had defended the USBA once, was 28 and entering his physical prime. Roy was 21-0 having faced similar competition. Hopkins didn't lose for nearly 12 years after the jones loss. I have a hard time considering him "green". Yes, he excelled as he aged, but he's an outlier. Two guys at, or entering their physical primes, with similar pro experience against similar competition.

Even though Floyd was older and up in his 4-5th weight class, Canelo wasn't the version of today, and watching the fight i distinctly remember thinking this kid will be a champion, but this is too much for him at his current development.

Roy

 

I don't care about Manny. He probably isn't natural ethier. IVs are used to flush the system out. And if you want too remember all the time he shot up his hands.

 

There's also a glaringly obvious reason for using an IV which you haven't stated.

 

Floyd's height and reach is a nonargument. Do you also discredit Hearns' time at welterweight because of his height and reach?

 

Hopkins wrecked Mercado in the rematch. The first fight was fought at like 10,000 ft right?

 

And the bums Floyd fought weren't too slow? Outside a washed up, injured Pac, the only guy Floyd ever fought that was fast was bum zab judah and he gave Floyd fits before he gassed out. Unlike Floyd, atleast Jones fought and beat legit ATGS in their primes. What did Floyd do? Barely beat a washed up Oscar, ran away from a washed up midget, dominated a completely shot to crap Mosley who almost KO'd him because he still had maybe half of his speed left but wasn't nearly the same speed as Mosley was during his prime. Oh and of course Floyd fought a UFC fighter. Floyd's best wins = Corrales and Castillo but most thought Floyd lost his first fight vs Castillo. And Jones best wins were Hopkins and Toney, that trumps anything Floyd ever did. P4P, Jones would humiliate Floyd.

 

Yes and yes.

Thats my point. Hopkins grew and got significantly better with experience and seasoning. Take a late 90's version and Mercado doesn't take more than a round or two off him regardless of fight venue.

 

You can't say that for sure as we never again saw Hopkins fighting at that kind of elevation. The rematch was only 4 months after the first fight and it was a rout with Hopkins winning every round and destroying Mercado. It's a real stretch to say experience and seasoning are what made the difference after only 4 months.

 

Everyone who knows anything about boxing knows Canelo wasn't as good back then, he barely beat, if he did really beat, Erislandy Lara less than a year later. Floyd knew Canelo had no chance, if Canelo was a legit threat at that point, Floyd wouldn't have went near him.

 

There is no real definitive answer really , both are great wins equally.

Floyd's win is greater significantly since it was a lineal , unification fight between #1 and #2 at 154. Hopkins wasn't a top 5 MW at the time when he fought Roy for a vacant belt but Roys win plays out even because of what Hopkins went onto achieve.

Canelo wasn't 'green' either. He was on the P4P list , ranked #2 in his division and had 43 professional fights under his belt going in.

Plus , Hop never fought a bigger , more dangerous guy than himself during his MW run. Canelo moved up and took on a much greater challenge when he fought Golovkin.

They're still around the same , but if Canelo wins the rematch , then Floyd gets the better win.

 

Why take a late 90's Hop?? ...Mid 90's Hop creamed Mercado. He probably would have first time too had the fight not been fought at high altitude in Ecuador.

 

Erislandy Lara is still his best win.

 

It's no stretch at all to suggest going 12 rounds with a fighter can help an analytical fighter in the rematch. I'm positive Ward going 12 with Kovalev helped him in the rematch.

It's also no stretch to suggest that the experience of fighting that high helped him prepare better in future fights because he learned not to take certain variables for granted. And that's if we assume the knockdowns were only because of elevation.

That's the benefit of experience. The dude experienced, then learned what worked and what didn't, then he applied what he learned to achieve better outcomes in the future. That's growth.

After the JDJ fight, I think everything really started coming together for him. By that point, he was a truly seasoned fighter with championship experience. The Roy and Mercado I setbacks (and even the debut Mitchell fight!) were necessary for that growth to take place.

That's why I find it insulting to pretend the 93 version was just as good as the late 90's. It robs him of one of the most impressive aspects of his career. It took him 3 times to win a title, but every hurdle he faced, he didn't let stop him. He'd lose a battle or two, but he wasn't stopping until he won the war.

This thread makes it seem like those hurdles weren't there in the first place because he was always an ATG. It's an embarrassment.