Sugar Ray Leonard and Floyd Mayweather Jr

I wasnt impressed on how he Fought Sr. Jr. is worlds better.

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

It's also worth noting that I don't really see how Floyd Mayweather Jr could have defeated Hearns at 147lbs either. I mean it's purely conjecture, but Leonard overcame some serious physical disadvantages that night to get the win. I don't think Floyd has that gear.

I can see how you might find it logical to take one of Ray's unheralded lesser performances and use that as basis for your contention that Floyd is 'worlds better'.

Likwise, I wasn't impressed with how Floyd fought Baldomir, Judah or Berto. I think Ray would have rendered them all unconscious inside 12 rounds.

 

Leonard had to deal with real killers and atg's in their prime or close to it. Mayweather had to deal with either highly skilled, but smaller fighters and when he did deal with bigger fighters not nearly as skilled as the smaller ones like Pacman or Marquez. When Leonard getting outboxed by Hearns he adjusted and became the aggressor. Mayweather fought no one even close to the level of a Duran, Hearns, or Hagler. I agree, Leonard tko's Mayweather midway or late in the fight. Leonard wouldn't be fazed at all by Mayweather's speed as Hearns was just as fast and Montreal Duran very close to that speed himself. Leonard would walk thru Floyd's best shots he ain't doing nothing to Leonard.

 

Nah! floyd would adjust in 3 rounds and bye bye leonard. No way leonard has better footwork than floyd. And no way leonard has faster feet than mayweather.

This 80's footwork is overrated. A lot of stamina thrown away for nothing, for no benefit. You can achive the same with less effort in your movements, like floyd does. Very flashy jumpy jumpy, but it isnt worth for nothing.

 

Mayweather gets annihilated.

 

You all refuse to get that every generation of boxers is technically and strategically better than the previous one. Every single generation.

Can anyone imagine a top heavyweight now making the mistakes that foreman made vs ali? NO, that's impossible nowadays.

Can you imagine a top boxer punching to the body in such a horrible way like srr did? NO, that's not possible.

Can you imagine a top pxp fighter nowadays throwing his stamina away with unnecessary movements like leonard or ali did? NO, that's not possible.

You just dont get it. For instance, I was watching armstrong vs ross yesterday. Armstrong would be anihilated by floyd. He would have zero chances.

Does it mean that armstrong is not top 3 al times pxp?. No, it doesnt. He actually is. But, this has nothing to do with winning or losing to a modern boxer.

You just cannot deal with reality.

 

That is one of the worst posts I've ever read Chacal, and I've been a member on this forum for very, very long time. Congratulations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDUVSAgipde

every generation of boxers is technically and strategically better than the previous one.

 

YES, IT IS. Do you want me to repeat?

YES, IT IS

For a very simple reason, actually, that even the dumbest person in the world would get. Every generation had the oportunity to learn from the previous generation.

 

Lol, and you link a fight from 2007. You kidding me? atsch

 

Boxing isn't an exact science though. It's not something you can study and then all of a sudden become good at. You either have athletic gifts or you don't. You either have good punch resistance or you don't. Some of the greatest fighters of all time aren't exactly what you would call technically sound. Michael Spinks was super unorthodox and yet he dominated his division, and dominated many figthers who were perhaps more technically sound than he was. All of the hours in the gym and all of the hours spent watching tapes couldn't adequately prepare you for a guy like that.

You only have to look at some of the elite fighters of the last 15 years to know that your theory is flawed. The same George Foreman that lost to Ali - the one that you ridicule now for his strategy on the night - would have in all probability blown away the vast majority of Heavyweights that have followed him - with the obvious exceptions of Holmes, Tyson, Lewis and Wladimir. And even those names would all struggle with big George.

What Super Bantamweights of the last 20 years would you favour over Wilfredo Gomez?

What Super Featherweights of the last 20 years are beating Julio Cesar Chavez?

What Heavyweights of the last 20 years are beating Muhammad Ali?

According to your logic, every generation continues to get better and produce a greater talent pool of fighters. That is what you have been waxing lyrical about in this thread. I have produced a video showcasing that otherworldy abilities of former Heavyweight Sultan Ibragimov fighting in 2007. Are you telling me Ibragimov has been learning from previous generations? That fighter in the ring with Holyfield would have been a champion in the 60s or 70s?

 

Oh damn. People are stupid.

So, foreman, one of the best of his generation and ATG would have lost to the bests of the following generations, but i'm wrong because he would have won a bad boxer like ibragimov? that's your point?

Ok, m8. Good for you, not in the mood for a stpid discussion. Not going to waste my time explaining the obvious. n8 n8.

 

I apologise. I thought you had every intention of supporting your contentions with factual evidence.

George Foreman is only one example, and I'd favour him to beat a lot of Heavyweights after him that have held a title at one point or another. Muhammad Ali, I'd favour him to beat them all. Lewis, Holmes, Tyson, Wladimir etc. Whoever. On his best night, I favour Ali.

Why don't you address my post and tell me what Super Bantamweights of the last 20 years would beat Wilfredo Gomez? Remember, you have said that "every generation of boxers is technically and strategically better than the previous one. Every single generation".

 

You kidding me? look at my nickname, Guillermo Rigondeaux.

You must be a troll.

 

This is a pretty subjective topic. Does a C level fighter from the past (ie 1940's) brought forward into todays world become a B level fighter if he trained in 2014 and was then projected back into the past? Hard to say, talent is talent, if you couldn't take a punch in 1940 what sort of training in 2014 would allow you to take a punch? If you were a slow fighter in 1940, what training today would speed your reflects up?

The flip side could just as easily be that if you fought 8 fights a year in 1940 and only 2 in 2014, you may have picked up more experience in the past. If the trainers were better in the past then they currently are, you might have learned better fundaments. If the population of fighters in the 1940's for a particular weight class was 75,000 and because of the general decline in the popularity of the sport the same weight class has 50,000, perhaps the elite of the 1940's are better than the elite of 2014. What if a win in the 1940's meant food for your kids and today a win means trading the Toyota for a Lexus? What sort of training do you do to enhance a fighters desire to win and the heart to continue in the championship rounds when you're hurt and dead tired?

Hell I can play this out all day and not come out with a result that has any scientific meaning. All you're doing is generalizing based I presume on Darwin's theory of evolution, but that really was a theory that was meant to be considered over 100's and even 1,000's of years, not 40-50 years.