True or False: Floyd never defeated fighters as great as Crawford, Stevenson, Davis, Ennis, orSpence

Canelo wasn’t at his peak, and he’d only fought a handful of world class fighters, with him barely having beaten Trout.

 

This isn’t of importance.

It just depends how strong the era is/was.

They’re just meaningless stats really.

I think Crawford is great, but for example, he’d never have been rated that highly in the 90’s.

Do you get me?

We have to analyse their skill sets etc.

You can’t just claim that a P4P no.1 rated fighter from this era is better than a P4P no.7 fighter from the 90’s or 00’s, on the grounds that he’s rated 6 places higher.

 

Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Hatton wouldn’t get anywhere a top 10 P4P list from the 90’s.

 

Your question is slightly confusing for me.

Prime for prime?

Not all of today’s guys are in their prime yet.

Yes, I believe that Spence and Crawford are better than a few of Floyd’s opponents. Definitely the specific versions that he fought. Although they are still somewhat unproven.

It does get interesting if you’re looking at the specific versions of guys who Floyd fought.

Obviously a prime Manny is better than everyone today, but Floyd fought a faded and injured Manny. So for me, today’s Spence and Crawford are better than that specific version of Manny.

 

How so?

 

This is where it’s confusing.

The TS said the versions who Floyd fought.

That makes a big difference.

Does Crawford get beaten by a young, 152 pound Canelo who scraped by Lara and Trout?

Does Crawford get beat by a faded and injured Manny?

Those were the specific versions who Floyd beat.

You have a little JMM who Floyd fought beating Crawford? Really?

 

You think JMM would beat Crawford?

Also, are we viewing Floyd’s opponents from when they were prime, or are we looking at the specific versions that he fought?

Because that makes a difference.

For example:

You might think that a prime version of Manny would have beaten Spence and Crawford, but not the specific version of Manny who Floyd fought, who was faded and injured.

Same applies to Canelo.

I’d back current Spence over the 152 pound version of Canelo who Floyd fought, who barely won a round, and who barely beat Lara or Trout.

 

If he learned alot he sure didn't show it against bivol. That's a myth he just hadn't fought guys like pbf and bivol who could expose his flaws.

 

Then if that's the case neither was pbf who was 36 and faded.

 

That’s right.

 

You saw how much he learned when a top calibre fighter like Bivol was able to use the same tactics. The truth is since Floyd few he has faced we’re fully equipped to implement the same tactics apart from Plant and Bivol. The problem for Plant is he did not have enough pop on his punches like Floyd and Bivol to dissuade Canelo and had less skill.

 

Floyd way past his athletic and physical prime outclassed Canelo and made it look so easy. It was so easy you could not sell the rematch if you tried. Bivol proved Canelo has always been the same guy and perhaps there is a reason guys like Charlo, Andrade and David Benaividez are not his preferred options. We already know Eddy Reynoso is not keen on these fights. They made a mistake thinking he could eventually overpower Bivol because they thought he struggled with Richards. The thing is people don’t pay close attention. I am and remain a Canelo fan but having been ringside and watched him close up I know what he is good at and what he struggles with. He is not the typical Mexican fighter rather he is more like Juan Manuel Marquez a counter puncher by inclination with good skills however he is susceptible to skilled, skillful , fast athletic boxers with superior IQ who throw combinations.

 

Castillo 1 might have been a close fight because he tore his rotator cuff but he won the fight. A close fight does not mean you have lost and for the avoidance of doubt he gave him an immediate rematch and proved he was the better fighter just as my Uncle Azumah Nelson did against the great Jeff Fenech. Like I have said many times people don’t have to like it and are entitled to their opinions however they are not entitled to their own facts or alternative facts.

 

Even the past-it version of Pacquiao that Floyd beat is better than ANYONE Crawford, Stevenson, Davis, Ennis, or Spence have beaten so far.

 

How did Tyson do the same? Leonard met Hearns, Duran, Benitez and Hagler with only Hagler being past his best in 87.