Whose undefeated record is most impressive

yikesyikes

That's you being HONEST?

Mate, you need to be locked up for your own protection, and society's. You don't work with kids, do you?

 

He was offered, more than he got paid for the first fight (by 15k) but turned it down

 

atsch

Let me tell you something.

If Floyd had ever beaten someone whilst conceding 4" in height, 8" in reach, and 30 pounds in weight, you wouldn't have cared whether his opponent had been in his 80's.

The result of the above would have created a huge explosion in your pants, and you'd have been on here everyday discussing it.

On a serious note, of course Joe was faded. But he wasn't shot to sh*t. It was still an impressive win for Rocky. Rocky was only one of two guys who ever stopped Joe, and Joe only lost 3 fights. Joe was 36 at the time. Yet Joe Archer had beaten a 44 year old version of Ray who'd had 200 fights.

The point I'm trying to emphasise, is despite that fact that Floyd was one of the greatest of all time, he never overcame the adversity that Rocky did.

You have to take into account that a small guy like Floyd has reach that was 4" bigger than a former HW champion.

 

[YT]pd87y_bQwKI[/YT]

:good

 

What I'm taking into account is resume/quality of opponents beaten, that's what was asked. Which undefeated streak is more impressive. I understand your point about Rocky being a smaller fighter having to fight bigger fighters.

But Floyd's quality of opposition is vastly better. End of story.

Joe was 36, but was always so over the hill it was unreal. Please. :rofl

Floyd's resume is farrr better than Rocky's. Even aficionados agreed.

 

We are in agreement, yes - Robin's way prettier than Sergio? :smooch

 

I know that.

Look, if your average sized world class HW had beaten Rocky's opponents, it wouldn't be a huge achievement.

Rocky's resume isn't littered with great HW's.

What I'm saying is, it was a great achievment for Rocky, because of the huge disadvantages he faced. And that is what a lot of guys are overlooking. It's not just about looking at who each of these guys fought and looking at how many 'named' fighters they fought, it's also about looking through their eyes, to see specifically what they were up against.

For example, Joe Calzaghe was a great fighter. But he was a tall southpaw, with good reach, great skills and phenomenal speed.

Compare that to Rocky.

That's why Rocky's record is more impressive to me.

 

I remember the build up to his Calzaghe fight wasall about who was more of a hunk than boxing chatter

 

Uh, really? :blood That was even a debate?

Absolutely no contest. That one isn't close enough to be a SD.

Joe's alright. Robin is a heart-stopper. (no homo)

 

Well here in England, Ward and Dirrell were 20/1 to win! Huge returns for such talented fighters.

In the states they may have had a profile due to Olympic exposure, but in the paid ranks they were nobodies.

Let's be real: NOBODY expected Ward to handle Kessler (albeit a lot of foul play) like that. 100% guarantee that Joe was thinking "A rookie has just trumped my best win better than I did".

Ward and Dirrell, IMO, just made up the numbers. With the names and hitters there nobody expected them to win. They were like boys in the men.

Bute should have jumped in there, IMO.

And I always wanted to see Kessler/Abraham. That'd have been fun.

Ward/Taylor, too. That'd have been a chess match.

 

Kessler would have carved Abraham up, maybe even stopped him.

 

Maybe.

Taylor was supposed to do the same and Arthur was the start of his downfall.

Kessler/Taylor is another fight that could have been something.

 

Taylor was, like Abraham himself, a natural middleweight (and neither of them was ever super effective at 168lbs, IMO, despite Abraham eventually becoming a titlist)

Kessler was a larger-framed super middleweight than Abraham's constant foil at super middle, Stieglitz, and better than him in every way.

 

Only thing Joe ever lost though