the way he has fought old guys and avoided the top level opponents who were prime, I cannot put him top 50. His skill level is great and had he fought the guys he could have and fought them when they were prime he could have been top 15. But he has squandered the chance to be a top atg. Before you rate someone top 10, you have to see who is there and also who that person beat. I think the biggest criteria for greatness is beating other proven great fighters. Floyd did not do that.
Skill can only be properly gauged based on the presence of adversity. Example- Joan Guzman looked very skilled and that is not even open for debate. Yet how skilled really is he? Mike Tyson got very good defense and superb offensive capability. A true measure of greatness is not how he avoided going down but how he rises after going down. Otherwise, a fighter who never went that way never actually faced adversity worthy of his skill. Skill is just perception
I think there is some truth to this. No doubt Floyd is one of the more skilled fighters ever. But at the same time, he didn't fight some of the top opponents of his era. Who is to say how his "skills" would've looked against them.
true. people base it on how aesthetically a move is executed or a punch is thrown. but a lot of factors come into play in boxing. ultimately, what decides the outcome is not just styles.
IN A POST MARK MCGUIRE ERA IN SPORTS-WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN "SANCTIONED VIOLENCE"...THERE SHOULD BE 0 REASON AND 0 TOLERANCE AS AN ATHLETE, FOR ANY TYPE OF DRUG TESTING, WETHER REQUIRED OR NOT- PERIODhi: EVEN PAC HIMSELF AGREED N U FUKIN *******S ARE STILL IN DENIAL-PATHETIC:deal
I agree with this. Resume and results of, have to be the biggest determinant of ATG. Still I put him in the top 50.
top 10 ever? holy **** son, not bad for a waste of talent imagine if he didn't waste that ****.....move over SRR