Where does Floyd rank in the top 100?

Floyd should be around the 40's for now. Corrales was elite. Castillo was considered an elite fighter by all networks and newspapers back then, Judah was being condered p4p after the attaining the undisputed 147, Oscar at 154 well I believe if he wanted to could have beaten anyone at 154 before losing to Floyd so as far as losing his elite status? No has beaten the crap out of him just yet and he still did a hell of a job when he fought Floyd. If many fans are calling Floyd P4P best, the Oscar can't be too far behind. As far as Hatton, he is not a B fighter at 140. At 147, yes. Gatti was always a B fighter, but would do enough to beat some of the champs. At 130, Floyd shined and I remember him challenging Kostza after Kostza koed Judah. Actually, I remember him challenging Oscar and also Winky to no avail.

 

He is around 35 right now. A fight with Cotto is a must for him to be in the top 30.

 

If you think that Hatton, an undisputed champion and top ten pound-for-pound in THE WORLD is not an A-level fighter, then all of your opinions on boxing are null and void.

 

Corrales, Castillo, Chavez were not elite but they were the best in the division which was proven after Floyd left. At least those guys were not here today gone tomorrow and proved there metal...Not those guys on Calfaggy's resume..lol

 

Hatton, at 147, is not an A level fighter. His performance against a fellow B level in Luis Collazo should prove this. He's not A level at 140 either, despite being the best at the weight class.

A class is Calzaghe, Mayweather, Cotto, Marquez, Pacquiao, etc. Hatton doesn't fit in there.

And don't start again with the "all your opinions are null and void" bull****. You've already responded to one of my posts a few months back regarding Hatton not being elite saying "how can a Benitez fan be so lame." You're the one making this personal.

I've been following the sport for 30+ years and have had 45 amateur fights out of Detroit and Brockton. I know what the **** I'm talking about. Go ahead and consider my opinions null and void. Fine by me.

 

Top 10 is a stretch. I fail to see how he ranks above Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Ali, Charles, Langford, Duran, B Leonard, Pep, or SR Leonard.

 

That would be like saying:

a) Mayweather won a very close decision against Castillo.
b) Hatton beat the **** out of Castillo.
c) Because of that, Hatton > Mayweather.


(But I agree, btw, that Whitaker is greater than Mayweather.)

 

Another thing to think about: Floyd goes close and should have lost to Jose Luis Castillo while Whitaker dominates Julio Cesar Chavez in a fight that 116-112 is the closest you could logically have it.

Whitaker is a step up from Mayweather. H2H, I see him winning a very clear decision over him at 135.

And Whitaker would have beaten Castillo 12-0 or 11-1, no question. he thrived against slower, methodical pressure fighters with leaky defenses.

 

is it really that ludicrous to put him in top 20

 

I had it 10-2 as well. If memory serves me correctly, Al Bernstein had the same score.

Agreed

A coked up Whitaker having a controversial loss against a prime De La Hoya indicates that Whitaker's best version as a welterweight would have been more than enough to beat De La Hoya. And a (near) prime Mayweather's close win against an older De La Hoya indicates that he may very well have lost had it been the Oscar of 1999 and 2000.

When looking at "how" they beat their opponents, I think Whitaker's wins over Ramirez, Vasquez, and McGirt rank above Mayweather's wins over Castillo, Judah, and Hatton.[/quote]

I'm not sure whether or not a jump up to lightweight would be better or worse for Guzman. Some have said he'll lose a lot of speed, his reflexes will greatly slow, and he'll notice a big decrease in stamina. I'm leaning towards a jump up in weight being beneficial. He won't have to drain as much, which equates to better stamina and perhaps only a small loss in speed that won't really make a difference in his ability.

I'd pick him over everybody at lightweight currently.

 

Unless this era of boxing is particularly weak, PBF should be no less than top 60. PBF considered p4p best of his era for roughly 5 years, boxing atg entrants date back roughly 100years. PBF in theory can be compared amongst the rest who were best of their generation and possibly 2nd, 3rd best of their generation. Now even if you were to place every single top 3 fighter of their 5 year generation above Floyd, the lowest ranking Floyd could get is still 60th best p4p of all time. Cos lets face it, how do you rank fighters who were considered 10th best of their generation(maybe odd 1 or 2 generation where comp was really tough) over PBF who has proven to be the best of his for 5 years. Unless your implying that this is the weakest boxing era of them all. Now how that translates to ATG....

 

the OP's threads are quickly becoming because of his extreme bias