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

You said he was better than SRL...

 

I'd not even mention him in the same sentence as SRL. Certainly not until he's mixed it with the very best, and even then he'll more than likely not be a SRL.

He's probably a nuthugger.

 

What, is there some rule stating no one can be better than SRL? There's no way for anyone to prove one was better than the other anyway.

 

No, just a guy with an opinion. You guys are the nuthuggers who continue to kiss Sugar Ray's ass and refuse to even consider that Floyd could be better than him.

 

Leonard over Mayweather P4P. Skills, equal.

 

SRL is arguably not even top 10(I have him #8, but have seen lists that state otherwise). There is no rule against saying a fighter is better than SRL, there are a few, but Floyd is surely not one of them. Not in a sense of career accomplishments anyway, not by far. Not in a sense of opposition faced. The only thing you could argue in his favor(and I say argue) is that the best Floyd at 130 was as good or better than SRL at 147. I would not go that far, but it arguable. In any other sense, SRL is the greater fighter, easily.

 

Biased for Quebec boxers: Alcine, Bute, Pascal, Diaconu, Ngoudjo.
Somewhat biased against Paulina.

 

Floyd, not Berto. But the same things still apply. Just edit it with Floyd's name in there.

 

You guys? Does that include myself?. Because I'm not even a Leonard fan, but I give him credit where it's due.

 

Oppppps. Anyway, when it comes to skills I would put Mayweather up there with Leonard. But skills need to be combined with quality of opposition to have one fighter over another. I'd have Leonard over Mayweather P4P. But skills, its argueable.

 

atsch Silly me. The post has been edited. Cheers for the correction.

 

This post is so stupid and filled with illogical nonsense, it's not even funny. Clearly, skillwise, Berto is nowhere near on the level of SRL. Anyone with two eyes can see this. The same cannot be said when comparing Floyd to SRL. As far as the resume comparisons, it's completely unfair. Once again, there was nobody at any of Floyd's weight classes that were on the level of a Duran, Hearns, or Hagler. By your logic, a fighter could automatically be considered better than another fighter just because he happened to be around in a more talent layden era.

Floyd and SRL fought in two different eras, comparing resumes won't neccesarily prove one's superiority over the other. Remember, SRL was losing to Hearns until Hearns ran out of gas and Leonard got the stoppage in the 14th. If that fight occured today, SRL loses a 12 round decision. The closest person Floyd ever was able to fight to Hearns was Corrales. We all saw what happened there. Do you see where I'm going with this? Floyd could've beaten the absolute **** out of every top ten SFW while he was at that weight class, and SRL's resume at WW would still be considered better. SRL was a benefactor of circumstances, that doesn't mean he was better than Floyd.

 

Corrales was the closest to Hearns due to the fact that he was freakishly tall for his weight class. But that's where the comparisons end.

 

I can accept this reasoning. However, I have addressed the competition issue, and why I don't hold that too much against Floyd when comparing him to SRL.

 

No ****, my point was, there was no Tommy Hearns. How the **** is Floyd going to trump SRL's win over Hearns when there was no one on that level for him to fight? Are you going to tell me Joe Montana is automatically better than Tom Brady because the comp. was stiffer in the 80's than it is now?