Floyd haters: Isn't it about time to discuss him in the same breath as SRR?

John, I respect you probably more than anyone else on here, and I love reading your posts.

I don't like Floyd's persona, but I acknowledge his true greatness.

Could you please do a head to head breakdown between the two, before we take into account the era's they've fought in, and the many factors and circumstances involved.

I would love your opinion's on the following:

F or R?

Jab
Footwork
Hand speed
Timing
Power
Defence - slipping and feinting
Shot variation - hooks, upper cuts, combinations, countering, body punches etc
Toughness
Will, heart, resolve


Also, in a fantasy fight at 147, over 15 rounds, what do you think would have happened?


Kind regards, Loudon.

 

Mayweather is the best of our era! Glad we have such a great boxer to be able to compare to the old greats. Mayweather is in a league of his own. Kind of sucks canelo is out of the way now, who else can even be thought of competition to floyd. No one!

 

Great post Drew.

People are saying that Floyd wouldn't have lost to the guys that Ray did.

Maybe not, if fully fit, with a three month camp etc.

But what about with a 100 fights behind him, fighting every month etc?

People aren't taking any circumstances into consideration.

Nobody could fight 200 times into their 40's without losing. It wouldn't be possible.

We're comparing a guy who wouldn't fight Manny or Alvarez at 152 (I'm not hating) with a guy who rematched Jake La Motta three weeks after his loss in their 2nd fight.

 

It still wouldn't be enough.

 

who is the hagler of his time?

 

JG:

Out of curiosity, what do you think would have happened if Floyd had fought a prime Robinson? Just interested to hear your take, as you were able to watch Robinson's fights live.

As for the question in the thread title...I'm actually a fan of Floyd's abilities in the ring, and he's definitely the best boxer of his era. I think the main reason that people scoff at comparing him to Robinson is his record, not his skills. His record is very good, but it doesn't really match his talent. The lack of a prime Pacman is a particularly glaring hole -- if he had taken that fight and won, as many people thought he would, then I think he would get a lot more respect. As it stands, his best wins are probably the ones over Corrales and a faded De La Hoya. Good wins, but do they hold up against Robinson's best wins? The second Sugar, Ray Leonard, also has wins over Hearns, Duran and Hagler. We're comfortable calling him great because we've seen him overcome great fighters. Mayweather lacks those career defining kind of fights. I think Mayweather will be acknowledged as a great after he retires, but some people will always question his record.

 

Would Floyd have beaten Duran at 135, and Ray Leonard and Hearns at 147?

If he'd have been around in the 70's and 80's, and he'd have had the opportunity to have fought them, would he have done so?

 

Floyd is a better fighter then anyone SRL has ever faced.

 

Ray fought Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler at MW after a three year lay off.

 

Don't know about that. If I were a betting man I'd bet big that Hearns would beat Floyd, and I'd bet less $$ that Duran would beat him. And I don't think he'd even get into the ring with Hagler, never mind beat him.

Mayweather's a great, great fighter, but he doesn't risk his health for a win, that's for damn sure. Essentially he's a boxer, not a fighter and I prefer someone who can do both.

 

Yes he did.

Floyd is better then all of them.

 

Bar something exceptional mayweather will probs be a solid 15 in the atg list. If he wants to move down he need pacman and another great on his record.

 

Floyd aint better than duran hearns or hagler or even benitez . His resume csnt bak up his skill yet. He almost there not quite yet.

 

Hearns would ko him . Duran could go either way but if duran turned up maywesther would lose. Benitez i always thought would get the better of him. And ray would also beat him.