Originally Posted by Sugarj
One of the main reasons is because its hard to compare Floyd to fighters of the past that simply were so much more active and proved themselves more often (and often repeatedly!) against other all time great fighters. Floyd has looked superb for over a decade, but his activity level is very low.
I personally think Floyd is one of the pound for pound 'most talented' guys to have ever laced them up. But when you compare his record to that of Robinson, Charles, Moore, Pep or even Ali you realise that it is nigh on impossible for him to ever be considered the best of all time.
Has your friend seen much of prime Roy Jones Jnr (1993-2003)? On the talent front I'd give Roy the edge over Floyd.
On a head to head front I'm not confident that Floyd would beat prime Whitaker/Duran at lightweight or prime Hearns/Robinson/Leonard at welterweight.
I think Floyd has a better resume than say Roy Jones. Again direct comparison is useless and the reason old timers still stand as the best there was. It's unfair if you think about it. Fighters just can't fight as often and with all the things we know about brain damage there is no way things are going back in those regards. I didn't even mentioned the marketing every big fight requires and that also takes time. But what i can honestly tell you is Floyd is the best I've seen fighting. The most complete, the best technique. I think he's better than hearns, duran and leonard and I saw all those guys fighting. All great, all more incomplete than Floyd is. Apart from a 1 punch KO power at these higher weights, Floyd has it all.