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

So much so that it tarnished their legacies to the overblown proportions that so many people seem to think? I dont know... seems like its always been more media driven for the sake of something to write and talk about. Sure there is some validity but in the case of these two fighters I think its overblown a bit, but thats my opinion.

 

The toughest challenges at 130 was Corrales, Hernandez, Manfredy, Chavez and he fought them all.

The toughest challenge at 135 was Castillo.

The toughest challenge at 140 was Hatton who turned the fight down 5times according to Ray Hatton and eventually fought him.

The toughest challenges at 147 when he moved up were Judah and Magarito, hes now fighting a man who beat Margarito.

The toughest challenge at 154 was Delahoya

The current toughest challenges at 147 are Mosley and Pacquaio. Mosley hes fighting and Pacman turned the fight down.

Jones dominated the best 2 boxers of his era

 

Sure but stop pretending that he was a shot boxer when he fought Mayweather.

 

Both Roy and Floyd are great fighters and when you talk about physically talented, we're arguably talking about the most talented in Roy and a top 3 or 5 of all time in Floyd. In fact, I've often stated that Floyd is perhaps the only fighter that I've seen as consistently well skilled in seemingly all areas of the sweet science. His footwork, defence, whether defence of torso with elbows and parries, headmovement, leg movement and reflexes, parrying to the head etc. is at a level that many defensive specialists rarely employ so consistently well across the breadth of defensive manoeuvres, but Floyd like Roy, simply doesn't have the overall career to shoot him into the utmost upper echelons.

I do think that such fighters do suffer from being so dominant that a) it's very difficult for another fighter to become as great as them - see Joe Louis' reign, simply put, if you beat everyone in your weight division so comprehensively, who can raise a record that will allow themself to be talked about as if equally great? It's very difficult to do so, but alas, skills on film speak for themselves and more importantly because of this I arrive at the conclusion that:
b) the quality of the overall field of fighters, is quite simply not as deep as when the ATGs of yesteryear were plying their trade. The modern phenomenon of being seen as a veteran after just 40 fights robs fighters of gaining that in-ring experience that busy fighters like Pep, Greb, Charles, Robinson etc were able to gain. In fact, look at the fights that Ray Leonard amassed in his professional career, extremely short, comparatively, considering the place that he has earned in the pantheon of the greats.

However, that being said, there are ways in which one can become great when not having 150 plus fights in a career, which let's face it, is probably a thing of the past now. The truest test of an ATG is when they come face to face with an alive and kicking ATG .... skills on film count massively, of course they do, but skills on film versus subpar opposition usually leave a wealth of questions about one's true capabilities that even an avid Roy or Floyd fan such as myself cannot avoid asking.

As mentioned Ray Leonard had a short career, but you only need see that he holds victory over Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler to know that he proved himself versus elite fighters. Roy beat Hop and Toney, true, but he spent a long time avoiding putting his skills to the test. I give him more credit than others do for beating Ruiz, but then qualify the victory with the fact that yes, Ruiz is tailor made for a guy of Roy's talents and that there were more formiddable challenges than Ruiz. Roy could've banged about with true heavyweights, as Moore or Charles did, rather than staged a one night, this looks set up to give me a title, adventure into the historical prestige division. If Roy had taken on a Lewis and lost a close battle in which he showed heart, showed courage, and showed that he was prepared to put it on the line to gain greatness, I gaurantee you that people would talk about the night with the folklore than Conn receives. Some might say that Conn isn't as good or as rated as Roy, I'd say that this arguable distinction is merely due to the intervention of the War halting the progress of what looked like a man capable of building a Charleseque legacy.

Floyd's is harder to judge than Roy ... at least Roy holds wins over genuine ATGs in my opinion by beating Hopkins and Toney. Floyd's best name is Oscar and his best wins for me are Corrales and Castillo. However, hindsight shows that Corrales wasn't mentally ready and arguably capable and Castillo will always be second rate compared to a JCC and a Duran. This makes it harder to judge Floyd because he's shown skill, yes, but has he truly, truly been tested by the very best? Some would say that Hop was green and Toney was drained and so nothing can truly be taken away by these fights. Poppycock - Roy in prime would always beat Hop and Toney for my money - would Floyd beat a JCC or a Duran? At 130lbs, I don't think that even an Arguello would best a prime Floyd, other than stopping him late, which I don't see, personally, but that's another discussion. However, Floyd's lack of true quality competition, in comparison with long retired ATGs, leaves questions.

Floyd has shown the skills to tangle with the very best of the best, IMO and the one intangiable that he does extremely well and I believe him to be underrated in, is his ability to go out round after round and manifest the will of his corner. He makes round to round adjustments depending on what his experiments allow himself and Roger to deduce about an opponent's arsenal and strategy. This is an extra special quality that cannot be overstated IMO. However, Floyd remains a prototype Formula 1 car, wind tested, passing all the technical and theoretical tests ... however, he hasn't faced the Monaco circuit, the Le Mans mental and physical endurance and skills tests that a fighter such as prime versions of Duran or a Pernell or a Hearns or a Leonard or a Napoles or a Robinson would've brought to the table. I know it's not 'fair' to take away from the man for not facing fighters of this calibre because simply put, they don't currently exist. Him facing Shane is a step closer, however, I agree that it would've been more meaningful if it happened 8 - 10 years ago. Again, like the Oscar fight, Floyd is in a lose-lose situation with the harshest of critics, but credit where credit is due, if he beats Shane that's another victory against another formiddable fighter. However, when we talk about the best of the best, just how formiddable is he in relation to the upper echelons of the ATGs?

The one fighter who it seems would dare to be great exists in Manny Pac and if Floyd doesn't fight him, it would be more a slight against Floyd than it would be against Pac, IMO. Pac is the name that Floyd needs if he wants to kick his name up a few rungs on the ladder to immortality. I already have my suspicion that Floyd is all wrong for Pac, in that his ability to use what is a superior skillset is too great and Pac, despite the improvement, still flatters to deceive, but I don't make the rules - Pac is the one fighter other than a pre-Pac Cotto that would allow fans to actually give Floyd some of the credit he so desperately craves.

Then there's the intangiable of quality of victory ... if it's clear that he can knock the guy out but he settles for a coasting points victory, it is this same quality that both captivates and infuriates fans. With the lack of true quality opposition and the relative short careers of modern fighters, anyone like a Roy or Floyd that wants to challenge the very best of the best for historical accolades needs to take on the very best that the sport has to offers, no matter what - they need to win in commanding fashion. When Ivan Drago beat Creed, Rocky gave up his title and went to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and took on a more powerful, more scientifically trained, more brutal man - yes, it may be just Hollywood movies, but the notion of truly challenging yourself to prove yourself and being willing to go that extra mile for greatness holds true.

 

No my point is the fighters that he could have supposedly made his legacy greater with, were not what your making them out to be. There was noone on the level of a James Toney, thats why he was forced to move up and take on similar type challenges at higher weights.

 

i thought it was obvious for all , that James Toney moved up in weights because he could not maintain them. including even 190 in my opinion , as he loves eating more than he loves success and his health combined.
James grew fatter and fatter more than he actually grew in lean mass which he did too , but much less than the increase of fats he had.

 

Your post is very good and lot of it is true, but unfortunately the sport is no longer looked upon the way it was, especially by the fighters themselves. Its buisness first, legacy last these days, and thats ashame, but true. If this wasnt the case a fighter like Manny P is just as guilty as Mayweather for not searching out the most legacy defining fight, and instead opting for a house fighter. Clottey danced and smiled his way into the ring and left after his one sided loss with that same smile on his face, because he had won in his mind the day he signed the contract.
Fighters like Mayweather are setting a new path of "success" in boxing and money trumps, titles and legacy. Before fighters were programmed to fight and win titles, that was their glory, the money was secondary.
There are a whole new parameter or rules. The fact that Mayweather puts so much stock in cash receipts when speaking about his legacy is crazy, so dont expect that to change, its the future of boxing and we can only hope that guys like Arum and King who are the true roadblocks in keeping these fights from happening, get out sooner rather than later, because they wont do business with this new breed of businessman/fighter.

 

I slightly disagree. With fighters such as Robinson and Ray Leonard, the business was always important - Robinson wouldn't fight if his terms weren't met - but the love of the game and challenge of taking on the best the game had to offer still mattered. In fact, if it didn't matter, like the shennanigans or not, Leonard wouldn't have dared step in the ring with the beast that was Hagler, irrespective of Hagler being past his prime.

That these modern fighters value the business before the legacy and greatness that can be attained is to their detriment. They shouldn't get leniency from those of us that believe in boxing in as pure a degree as possible without the over-interference of politricks involved. Simply put, I like my boxer to have a respect for the game and especially more, a respect for their talents, which let's be honest, Floyd and Roy had/have in abundance - for me, that means proving to the boxing fraternity just how great you are. Do you do something such as boxing for the love of the game or for the money? If it's for the money then don't even dare to throw your name in amongst the greatest of all times. If it's for the passion and love of the game, then if you want to be considered amongst the best, you have to accept that your career must be an indication that you deserve such self-imposed plaudits.

A surgeon becomes a surgeon because he's drawn to it in most cases, and usually the best ones do it expertly time and time again because they are driven to succeed, driven to excel, driven to be the best they can be. If the money's the predominant factor then surely, they go for less ethically responsible vocations? The same, I would think, to apply to a boxer ... if money's the predominant factor, then there's surely other sports, with longer shelf life and more lucrativity than boxing, if one had the crossover physical attributes that a fighter like Roy or Floyd possessed. I think that greatness should be your driving factor in any vocation and then the money should come as a by-product of said greatness.

Regardless of how the sport changes, I will always judge and hold boxers up to the same standard. I like my world title bouts to be 15 rounds and I like greatness to be proved against great fighters.

 

A world class steady jab is always a great tool for fighting the best slip and counter guys and defensive specialists imo.even if it's just something to keep them busy and focused on their defensive instinct to make you miss first and wait for nice looking counter oppurtinities.It will let you get off first. if you use it well enough, and as long as you aren't trying to wing in combinations in 3's and 4's after it.

Often better to tone down the offense and go for minimalist precision against a great defensive fighter, especially the counterpunching ones.

Good footwork is usually needed to, so alas between that, a fine educated jab, straight punchign and fighting smart...it's almost entirely beyond any fighter around Floyd's weightclass today.Bunch of unskilled toilers.