Pea, Roy or Floyd?

[billeau2]

??? Roy fought some people who Floyd would have got lynched for.

That being said, I am not sure who had the best career. Floyd -longer and more consistent- should take it. But Roy was more impressive. To me Pea has the best win (altough it was a draw).

Yes but Roy fought two guys in or near prime who are up for being ATG's. Floyd simply never did. The issue of comp has more than this dimension but its just an important aspect of greatness.

[joseph5620]

I was just giving reasons on why discussing these 3 by themselves was a good idea. I also rank all those they beat below them (as much as Toney is my favorite fighter post Hagler, I just have to) but it is my opinion.

I would like to say something in favor of Roy's heart: the last 2 rounds of the 1st Tarver fight.

I also think PBF's offense is better than Pea's, but I see a few people here thinking otherwise, I will watch me some Pea in the not so distant future. I think you and others do not take into account that we don't know how Pea would have fought in his late 30s.

I am thinking Pea's defense is better than PBF, but I think that particular ranking depends on what is defense and what is strategy/iq/control. Perhaps I would make a more precise statement by saying that I think Pea has the best defensive moves.

I agree with you there. As far as offense between Mayweather and Whitaker I think the skills were equal but Mayweather had more power and his offense looked more dynamic.

[BKM-2010]

Yes but Roy fought two guys in or near prime who are up for being ATG's. Floyd simply never did. The issue of comp has more than this dimension but its just an important aspect of greatness.

I'd say Pacquiao @ #2 pound for pound was near prime and De La Hoya was past prime but Floyd moved up to 154 to beat him in a physical fight. The win against Cotto was also very good. I think Floyd has the best resume out of these 3 by far.

I also disagree with people who say Whitaker's offense was better than Floyd's. Defense maybe but offense not at all.

I'm really not a Mayweather fanboy but I could see him being better than these two greats in most things.

[soul_survivor]

I was just giving reasons on why discussing these 3 by themselves was a good idea. I also rank all those they beat below them (as much as Toney is my favorite fighter post Hagler, I just have to) but it is my opinion.

I would like to say something in favor of Roy's heart: the last 2 rounds of the 1st Tarver fight.

I also think PBF's offense is better than Pea's, but I see a few people here thinking otherwise, I will watch me some Pea in the not so distant future. I think you and others do not take into account that we don't know how Pea would have fought in his late 30s.

I am thinking Pea's defense is better than PBF, but I think that particular ranking depends on what is defense and what is strategy/iq/control. Perhaps I would make a more precise statement by saying that I think Pea has the best defensive moves.

The highlighted point is irrelevant.

I'd personally rank Hopkins and Pacquiao above Floyd and RJJ but you know that's another argument for another day lol

You make some good points about the defense aspect, I think Floyd is/was smarter in the ring and makes him a better defensive fighter. Whitaker was much more instinctive and his reflexes are some of the best ever. He made guys miss by a whisker and then made them pay (which feeds into the whole offense side of things).

Floyd, against his very best opponents (Oscar, Cotto and Manny) is a stiff, defensive fighter. What I mean by that is he takes their shots on his arms and shoulders and can't start his offense till the other guy has finished unloading. Whitaker, on his best nights (Ramirez, Nelson, Chavez) would weave in and out, make opponents miss and hit them mid swing.

Yes May did that too but against less opponents and not so often or never against bigger, better opponents.

So, it's why I think Whitaker is better when looking at offense and defense OVERALL.

[Ray Corso]

Boxing Methodology is how & why you plan your course to win a bout.
It has alot to do with what a fighter performs well and what he lacks. Also the plus & minuses of his opponent.

In Floyds case his lack of commitment to offense in the past years has allowed sub par opponents to last the distance against him. His skill level allows him to win but there always chances when an opponent can go the distance. Extended chances of a cut or injury that can stop the fight and deliver a tko loss while easily winning.
Theres pros & cons to consider in boxing methodology, a plan of attack should be devised wisely.
Ray

[billeau2]

I'd say Pacquiao @ #2 pound for pound was near prime and De La Hoya was past prime but Floyd moved up to 154 to beat him in a physical fight. The win against Cotto was also very good. I think Floyd has the best resume out of these 3 by far.

I also disagree with people who say Whitaker's offense was better than Floyd's. Defense maybe but offense not at all.

I'm really not a Mayweather fanboy but I could see him being better than these two greats in most things.

Pac was not near prime by any stretch. Floyd has a lot of "very good" wins, so do Maxie Rosenblume....yeah a lot of people have not heard of him.

I can grokk your feelings on Sweet Pea. I actually like the opinion expressed by Dan and Ray regarding the flexability of the pea as more complete than idiot savante, but its not my opinion. To reiterate I think what Sweet pea did was make his defense win fights. Beautiful counter punching is a defensive strategy at the onset.... making a guy miss repeatedly and working off of that ability to set traps is also a defensive minded enterprise.

[BKM-2010]

Pac was not near prime by any stretch. Floyd has a lot of "very good" wins, so do Maxie Rosenblume....yeah a lot of people have not heard of him.

I can grokk your feelings on Sweet Pea. I actually like the opinion expressed by Dan and Ray regarding the flexability of the pea as more complete than idiot savante, but its not my opinion. To reiterate I think what Sweet pea did was make his defense win fights. Beautiful counter punching is a defensive strategy at the onset.... making a guy miss repeatedly and working off of that ability to set traps is also a defensive minded enterprise.

Unfortunately handsome defense isn't going to always help you in a culture where you have to beat the champ to win. I don't have much sympathy for Pernell.

As for Pac's prime, again he was #2 pound for pound in all of boxing...almost everybody believes he was robbed against Bradley and his one true definitive loss since Morales 2005 came by way of a split second mistake in a fight he was winning against a guy who has always troubled him even in his peak prime.

My point is that Mayweather's win over Pacquiao is better than any wins Roy or Whitaker have on their resume, I believe. Manny is such an ATG that a win over him in May of 2015 is still huge especially when you do it without much trouble.

[billeau2]

Unfortunately handsome defense isn't going to always help you in a culture where you have to beat the champ to win. I don't have much sympathy for Pernell.

As for Pac's prime, again he was #2 pound for pound in all of boxing...almost everybody believes he was robbed against Bradley and his one true definitive loss since Morales 2005 came by way of a split second mistake in a fight he was winning against a guy who has always troubled him even in his peak prime.

My point is that Mayweather's win over Pacquiao is better than any wins Roy or Whitaker have on their resume, I believe. Manny is such an ATG that a win over him in May of 2015 is still huge especially when you do it without much trouble.

I don't want to prod a hornets nest so lets just say the notion that mayweather won that pac fight without much problem is....debatable. I happen to feel that fight could have gone either way. One thing for certain is that tape shows that both guys got hit and that neither guy dominated. Unlike most of mayweather's opponents pac's aggression while not steller, was relatively effective in spots.

If you feel pac was in his prime that is a minority opinion. You would have to account for his loss to Marquez, a roy Jones is down! type loss....You would have to account for the prime age of a fighter in the light to middle weight classes, who had been in some real wars of attrition, and you would have to account for some of Pacs later wins like against Cotto where catch weights had a real impact (theres a reason Cotto hates pac).

There is however not much that can defend the notion that Mayweather's win against Pacquio is better than a DOMINANT win over the likes of Chavez, Toney, or Hopkins....Unlike with Mayweather, in the case of these wins, there was no question about who dominated, despite the fact that the judges were corrupt in the Chavez fight. You could make a case that Pee fought a Chavez that was perhaps not prime...For what its worth (not much) I could buy that argument lol. But I also think one has to look at Pete differently than Jones and Mayweather...two guys who stack up fairly well, if we take post Tarver Roy as a fighter fighting under different circumstances.

Defense for Sweet Pea was...as the saying goes 'not your mother's defense!" I.e. you know how when you buy cookies made in a french Boulangerie they are good in a different way than mom's tollhouse cookies lol. We are talking about knowing you caught him grimacing and just before the punch touches his skin and suddenly geting hit with a a counter. We are talking throwing five punches and hitting air, then getting caught with a perfect jab after the flurry as Whitaker stands in front of you. Pete used D to De-moralize and unbalance...much like Ali actually. So if Pete threw five punches that round and hit you square with four...you couldn't touch him with anything.

Part of the reason Whitaker and early Mayweather (mostly at 135) were so good is that both guys understood what a legitimate counter punch is...and does. It does its work as the opponent is punching, not after when the opponent can brace for impact. Later mayweather generally catches after the opponent completes the punch and he sits there admiring his work...early Mayweather would catch one before the punch completed and he would be out of there. Speaking of which: one thing that makes Robinson so damn good is that when he hit you with a counter he then hit you a few more times at least! But I digress.

[wmute]

The highlighted point is irrelevant.

I'd personally rank Hopkins and Pacquiao above Floyd and RJJ but you know that's another argument for another day lol

You make some good points about the defense aspect, I think Floyd is/was smarter in the ring and makes him a better defensive fighter. Whitaker was much more instinctive and his reflexes are some of the best ever. He made guys miss by a whisker and then made them pay (which feeds into the whole offense side of things).

Floyd, against his very best opponents (Oscar, Cotto and Manny) is a stiff, defensive fighter. What I mean by that is he takes their shots on his arms and shoulders and can't start his offense till the other guy has finished unloading. Whitaker, on his best nights (Ramirez, Nelson, Chavez) would weave in and out, make opponents miss and hit them mid swing.

Yes May did that too but against less opponents and not so often or never against bigger, better opponents.

So, it's why I think Whitaker is better when looking at offense and defense OVERALL.

It is irrelevant to you, but not to me. And it should not be. Nothing suggests that Pea would not become less offensive with age, just like Floyd, Hop and a million others did. And in fact you then proceed to make your arguments mostly based on fights Floyd fought at an age at which Pea was busy snorting coke.

I don't think you are making a great choice of fights to compare. Pea fought JC and co before he was 30, in his first two weight classes (35 and 40). Floyd fought those 3 at 30, 30something and 38 in his 4th and 5th weight (47 and 54) class De La Hoya "beat" Pea. But ok... I guess that is what you need to have PBF and RJ behind Pac and Hop

[wmute]

Boxing Methodology is how & why you plan your course to win a bout.
It has alot to do with what a fighter performs well and what he lacks. Also the plus & minuses of his opponent.

In Floyds case his lack of commitment to offense in the past years has allowed sub par opponents to last the distance against him. His skill level allows him to win but there always chances when an opponent can go the distance. Extended chances of a cut or injury that can stop the fight and deliver a tko loss while easily winning.
Theres pros & cons to consider in boxing methodology, a plan of attack should be devised wisely.
Ray

How is it different from "strategy"?