Duran was a flat out jerk

I much prefer Tommy to Floyd but I can't agree with all of this, Pernell. Tommy was exciting and will be remembered far more than Floyd because we're increasingly in an age where the consumer wants the money shot there and then. Tommy has the highlight reel to give that with the Duran, Roldan, Cuevas kayoes. Boom, boom, boom. Ten seconds on youtube and you love him.

Floyd's exquisite defence and canny ring craft does not make good highlight reel for the casual fan (which begs the question, how the hell has he made so much money? I wouldn't pay a penny to watch him). Consumers brought up on youtube kayo compilations will not have the patience to sit through Floyd's best moments, much less understand and appreciate what they're seeing. Tommy, notwithstanding his far more attractive personality, will always capture hearts more than Floyd.

However, like those that argue SRL waited until Hagler was shot before he fought him but neglect to mention that Ray was getting older and rustier at the same time, I feel you are denying Floyd the credit he deserves. He moved up from 130-154lbs and fought till he was nearly 40. That'd hardly stacking the cards in his favour throughout his career. He fought Canelo who was much younger and much bigger. As you said yourself - 'You could see Hagler doing that?'

 

Mayweather was the premier fighter of his era. #1 lb for lb and undefeated. Tommy was the least of the 4 kings. Floyd will be hated and bitched about for generations. Even if we are at his grave to **** on it, we'll still be there.

 

Really? It seems to me he could fight a little too

 

I am not sure the consumer wants it as much as the public likes to see definitive ending in fights and Hearns provided this. Hearns came to fight. Consumers/people/those who pay for the fights want a guy who comes to fight to give them their money's worth. Not a fellow who says pay me 100 million for a fight and that brags about money team making a guy go to 152 for a title at 154.

He had great defense and instincts in a decent era, but not really strong Cotto? He lost to many fighters including Margarito a fellow Floyd would not fight. The era was not great and Floyd did handpick . Floyd was the top fighter in a weak enough era and he knew when to fight guys and he used his undefeated record well, even now to explain things. He needed it since he will not have a great fighter or great fights he fought when they were prime to talk about. Sort of like how someone talked about can Fury have the legacy of Lennox. I said, well not in the long reign Lennox had but maybe in resume.

Talking about Canelo. Why the 2 pound different to 152 for Canelo? Why would Floyd need that sort of advantage? Hagler fought anyone and so did Hearns. When Hagler and Hearns fought you knew both were the tops and only one could come out victorious. For people to say Hearns lost and Floyd didn't. I just don't think it is that simple since Floyd did not have a Hagler to fight or a Hearns to fight or a Leonard or Duran to fight. Or Benitez. He didn't. How can those facts be ignored. And when he did fight an elite fighter with Manny he postponed it until Manny was older, and if we go against the thought he postponed it, he still fought him way too late for it to mean as much.

 

Floyd wasn't involved in a 4 kings. I don't think he could be. You have to be willing to fight the best to be in that group. Any where anyone is rated on a list of 4 greats is better than not being on a list at all. I think people have things against Floyd because they know he was not for the fans. He was for himself and money team and all that nonsense. Holding money up and acting like he had so much of it he could throw it away. It is amusing but that does not mean he is better than the elites which he never wanted to fight. His objective was to be undefeated and stay undefeated so when he retired he could use that as his claim to greatness.

 

Pac, De La Hoya, Cotto and Marquez. Canelo.

 

Floyd ducked a hand wrap cheat. Call it intuition.

 

None of those guys were prime when they fought him. Not even close.

 

I guess so.

 

Ya but look when he fought them escudo .. names are one thing , context is everything

 

Better to win. Complain about context to your hearts content. Floyd beat his entire generation. Tommy got knocked out by 2 bigger names in his own time.

 

Better to win? huh .. Then why isn't he a top 20 p4p all timer? He never lost right? Again resume, not too difficult here

 

I suppose that would depend on the list. Arguments can be made since it's all subjective anyway. But we aren't putting Floyd up against top 20 all timers. We are putting Floyd's legacy against Tommy Hearns. Floyd has a legacy of not getting KOed in his biggest fights. You can talk about context all you want but there is no way around that simple fact. Tommy Hearns not only lost his biggest fights, he got knocked out in them.

 

that is probably the biggest crock of **** post I have ever seen... Completely not true. Hearns didn't win any BIG FIGHTS?? what are you selecting his losses only and none of his wins ??You need to go back to the drawing board..And if Mayweather had one "great" fight, there would be a refence point for him .. BUT THERE ISN"T

 

You have a tough road ahead of you if you can't separate the morality of a man from his athletic achievement, not only in regards to boxing but any sport. It's the hurt business, classy guys are the exception, not the rule.