What fighters do you admit to being biased for and against?

Maybe, but that's like saying if George Bush, Britney Spears, and Roseanne Barr were in a room, that Roseanne looks the closest like Britney in comparison to Bush. In other words, it's a meaningless comparison, as Hearns has no similarities to Corrales other than a height advantage on the opposition, and power. Style/skill-wise, nothing alike.

Anyways, your points are not bad as far as competition in different eras, but I believe you're one of the ones who likes to talk down Tyson for this very reason, not including him among the greats like Ali and such, because in his prime he never faced a fighter the caliber of some of Ali's opponents. How do you justify this?

 

Mayweather would have KO'd Leonard inside 6 rounds at welterweight. Probably a counter left hook, just like the one he floored Hatton with, then followed up with both hands after Leonard resumed combat. Leonard's never fought anyone close to Mayweather, and that includes Hearns, Duran, and Hagler. Fighters like Mayweather are like hen's teeth, they come around once in a lifetime.

 

SRL faced all the best in his era, which is the best you can do. Floyd has not faced all the best in his era, nor has he shown the desire to fight them, that is accepted by everyone except massive Floyd fans.

 

Biased for: John Ruiz, Peter Manfredo Jr., Micky Ward, Andre Ward, Sergio Mora, ODLH, Manny Pacqiao

Biased against: Sugar Shane Mosely, PBF, Roy Jones Jr., Joe Calzaghe

 

By the way, this is a great question.

 

I talked down about Tyson because he was an undisicplined fool, who squandered his talent. How can I put Tyson up there with Ali when, according to so many people, his prime lasted about 3 years and ended when he was 23? Tyson was knocked clean the **** out at age 23 to a 40/1 underdog. Mike's comp was the least of his problems.

 

Go ahead, continue being ignorant.

 

In other words, you're biased for fighters that suck(other than Oscar), and biased against good fighters?

 

In his prime, he had the best, most dominant, impressive run of any Heavyweight champion. His personal life and bad habits got in the way of his future, but noone can deny how awesome he was in his prime.

 

The fighter in your avatar would have beaten Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and Hagler. All matches at middleweight of course. And I'm not being ignorant and fooling around this time. Just ask Pea, and he'll tell you what I think of Hopkins v's the fab four.

 

:good And you know I disagree in one of those cases, that being Hagler. Otherwise, I have to agree.

 

SRL was widely criticised for cherry picking opposition and not fighting the best once he moved up in weight. Leonard had some good wins at 147 in the form of Hearns and Benitez. He also beat Duran which, considering the circumstances, was a good but not great win. When Floyd fought at 130, he had the same attitude as SRL and was willing to fight the best out there. Unfortunately, Floyd didn't have the leverage the Leonard had.

Leonard was a cash cow from the beginning, everyone wanted to fight him. This wasn't the case with Floyd. Not only was the talent level not as deep, but some of the good fighters wanted no parts of Floyd. After Floyd dismantled Corrales, he called out the winner of Casamayor/Freitas. Of course, neither was too keen on taking that fight. Hamed fought 1 division below Floyd. Floyd tried to call him out, but Hamed wasn't even willing to fight him at 128. This is the problem with leaning too much on resumes, alot of times you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

I'm biased against James Toney and Ricardo Mayorga because I hate trash talkers who do not deliver the goods in the ring.

 

Hagler takes BHop imo