TEKGaming

I hope that clears it up for you,,, lots of inaccurate statements you have said,,,, Once again Floyd's best wins wouldnt crack SRL's top 5 wins,,, I'm not hyping up the win over Zab, I merely argued it because you complained about the Zab fight. And anyone who knows boxing knows Zab was in sh*t shape for that Baldomir fight. By the time he fought Floyd, he was in one of the best shapes he's ever been in of those recent years. I don't consider Floyd at 2007 prime, and it's more than just the points you said. I look at the Hatton fight which came after and notice a slowing down of certain direction-changing movements that were far quicker in earlier fights. I consider his physical prime to have ended after the Zab fight, but he has continued to improve with each year that passed by in terms of ring-knowledge and boxing wisdom. A Floyd today with 2006-Floyd's physicality, would be ridiculous, or take Floyd's brain today and put it in his head back when he was fighting pre-2007. Anyway, I find it funny that people cite fights like DLH where DLH was outboxed in nearly double the connect, while weighing upwards 15+ lbs and every variable in the contract going in his favor. And it doesn't matter, Duran was still a lightweight who just recently moved up to Welter at the first fight. My point is, you're maximizing credit to fit what's convenient for your argument, but minimizing credit where it fits as well. Your inability to maintain an completely objective stance is what ruins your arguments' credibility. If you stretch things in your favor for SRL, but squeeze things the other direction when it comes to Floyd. "SRL had an eye injury", which I understand, but my entire point here has been to show you how biased you are because you can't do the same for all fighters, including Floyd.

I am in the Leonard beats May camp (not devastatingly so), but agree with this statement. That being said, I think Hearns would easily handle all current WW and only May can give him a match (still favor Hearns) I agree he beats him if they were in the same era but only due to the natural size difference. Floyd started at 130 and Leonard was a natural Welterweight. That being said, if we were to require they fight in prime stages, that is to say, physical prime, we'd have to assume they started their careers at roughly the same time or around the same stage of their individual aging process. Due to that, they never would have been able to fight because Floyd would have been dominating the 130-140 divisions for the most part of Leonard's career. By the time Floyd was big enough to be at Welterweight, Leonard would be entering past prime and Floyd would still be within his physical prime (Floyd has a longer and more healthy career in terms of age). A fight at that stage would be more even. Now if we're talking about a theoretical matchup where both happen to be the same size (in terms of natural weight, meaning assuming Floyd fights at WW like he did at 135 in terms of physicality), and both are at physical prime, and at their peak boxing intelligence (meaning both are at the height of their learning experience), I give Floyd the edge by a pretty decent amount. If we're talking about Hearns at the same theoretical variables, Hearns would be the greater threat to Floyd, way more than Leonard or Hagler. That long jab and the sheer height difference even if Floyd started at Welterweight would be a few of the key variables in such a matchup. I see Floyd losing this match but I would be confident in him winning the rematch.

Floyd is a really great fighter, but if oscar pushed prime floyd to the ropes and had some moments, then no doubt a prime leonard would do the same and would be faster and more powerful than oscar,,, Oscar was reported to have come in at over 165 lbs. Compubox had Floyd outlanding him by almost double. I don't consider 2007 to still be Prime Floyd. I think after coming back from retirement he has continued to improve skill-wise and ring knowledge-wise, but his PHYSICAL prime IMO ended after the Judah fight.

Doesnt have the jab? Did you see his jab against Canelo? Floyd isnt a NATURAL jabber. He was never known for his jab. He ONLY started using it when he fought JMM. And he had PERFECTED it. If Floyd knows that its important for him to use it against a certain opponent, he will come in with the best jab in the game like against Juan and Canelo. At ww, I dont even think Floyd would run the way SRL did. He would move in certain spots, but he's going to beat a little guy like that up really bad I think. As far as his feet, he only uses his feet against very tall guys like Ghost. Against big buff muscly guys he walks them down. Against a guy like Duran, I think he would simply use range, a touch jab to keep Duran away, and just batter the little guy. I just wanted to correct that, he's been using consistent jabs, even more so, since his amateur days. He's been deploying the oldschool "move in a circle towards your left (your opponent's right) while shooting a rising jab with the chin behind the trajectory of your own elbow that's jabbing". He just doesn't use it when he feels he doesn't need to. This is one of the reasons that people really can't (even if they were quick enough and athletic enough) shoot a counter-right over his jab like he does to them, because he positions his face behind his jabbing arm's elbow, head tilted towards the right just slightly, and the glove is always higher than the rest of the arm. My trainer stresses the same basics all day and gets angry as **** if I don't do it rofl.

thats fine about oscar's weight, im sure he did put 10lbs on after the weigh-ins,, But floyd was still in his prime,,, he had just beaten zab and baldomir months before the oscar fight,,, i think now floyd has lost alot of his bounce and combination punching,,,,, Prime floyd for me, was him before the retirements,, now he seems not to have that explosive combos or movements like he used to,,,, if floyd that fought oscar had fought ghost, ghost would have looked like gatti, just getting hit with everything and floyd would have stopped him,, but age has slowly crept up on floyd and now he is not as explosive as he was vs oscar, baldomir, gatti etc either way,,, a prime leonard beats a prime floyd in a close competitive fight,,,, No, Floyd looked slow and sluggish relative to his other fights in that DLH fight. It was his first time going up that high in weight and was forced to wear gloves a brand and size he's never fought at before against a guy who rehydrated back up to 165+. Let's not squeeze facts. I'm not even a Floyd fan, just a boxing enthusiast who use to box as an amateur, but the lack of objectivity and accuracy in some of these posts in this thread is remarkable.

How did we see this exactly? It was Leonard's 10th fight, he was still a brand new rookie, and yet he still dominated every single round, beat the absolute ****e out of him, hurt him nearly every round, then knocked him out. If you want to play that game, let's look at Floyd having even more trouble with Ausgustus, Corley, Judah and that was in his prime as champion. If Corley stunned him, Leonard knocks him clean out. If Ausgustus tagged him as much as he did and gave him his toughest fight, Leonard dominates. Etc etc. Except you're using totally different fighting styles. Floyd Sr. is very close to Floyd's shadow, but without the rolling, the inside-work, the accuracy, the same level of power, or the same level of defense. SRL won the fight very convincingly, but why can't boxing fans ever look at a fight with a more analytical mind? Such as looking at what fundamentals is giving a certain fighter tactical problems. Floyd Jr. begins to diminish problems he initially has by adapting on the fly is the difference, while SRL does not on anywhere near the same extent. So while you could say "well what about the problems that the fundamentals deployed by SRL could give Floyd Jr.?", what we DO know is that Floyd adapts within the same fight, and has continued to improve skill-wise throughout his career. So the following issue is more emphasized, "How well is SRL going to answer the problems that Floyd Jr. brings to their matchup?". We know Floyd finds answers, very effectively, but how well will Leonard against a guy who's going to be adapting quicker than him throughout the fight?" Furthermore, Floyd in his 10th fight towards now, versus SRL in his 10th fight towards the later parts of his career, Floyd has the greater gap of improvement between his younger self and later self. SRL made adjustments to his skillset throughout his career, but not to the same extent. From a boxing fundamental standpoint, Floyd Sr. posed several tactical problems for SRL and SRL has admitted that, even going as far to say that he had the greatest defense he ever went up against in his entire career. If you choose not to see that, or you simply can't, then I can't help you.

Leonards a bad fight for Floyd imo. You have a guy who is naturally bigger, more powerful, just as fast and as great an offensive fighter as Floyd is a defensive fighter. He would probably go the distance, but its hard to envision him being able to offensively make enough of a mark to get the decision. Leonard would be all over him constantly jabbing, coming from angles, flurrying, throwing power shots, Floyd would just get outworked and outfought. Why is it so hard to envision? We saw glimpses of how he can lose in his fight vs Mayweather Sr., who's conditioning and skills as a boxer is nowhere near his son's. Lol....

So fighting unbeaten HOFer in his prime benitez was a cherrypick or fighting duran twice was a cherrypick or unbeaten prime hearns was a cherrypick or unbeaten ayuble the jr mid champ was a cherrypick,, or dethroning hagler after a 5 year layoff was a cherrypick... Yes SRL had some cherrypicks here and there, but he also fought all the fights people wanted to see,, with floyd that is not the case,,,, If SRL was like floyd, then SRL would have fought hearns for the 1st time in like 88 instead of 81,, There is no way you can even compare floyd's cherrypicking with SRL's cherrypicking,,, Every fighter takes some easy fights, but also fight to top guys,, floyd fights the easy fights but then waits till top guys become alittle faded and then fights them,,,,, You can go thru his whole resume,, Floyd was great at 130 and that was about the only time he didnt cherrypick and took on nearly everyone, except for casamoyer and freitas,,,,, Zab was coming off a loss gatti was a huge cherrypick shambra and bruscles,,, hahahahaha baldomir was not a threat and had lineal title hatton at 147, everyone knew hatton was garbage at 147 Ortiz and ghost were coming off career best victories,, they beat berto, that is the highlight of both careers,,,,,,, SRL retired because of a detached retina caused by the hearns war,,,, FLoyd retired because why again???????????????????????? He was fresh out of cherrypicks,, He was in a situation were he was going to have to fight cotto, margs, shane, williams, but left till all those guys had beaten themselves up, then swooped in like a vulture and took care of old shane, old cotto, and never has-beens like canelo, ortiz, ghost,, I know it may sound like im hating on floyd, but im just really telling the facts,,, Floyd is the biggest cherrypicker of all-time because he never has secured any big fights with other prime guys,,,, None of his wins would even crack SRL's top5 wins,,,, By your logic I can say: SRL made Duran go up in weight, and then purposely caught him in a well timed rematch. Even SRL admits this. SRL waited for Hagler to get old, avoided him throughout prior (and that fight could've been scored either way, I personally had Hagler up on the scorecards). Zab and Floyd already had plans to fight because its what the people wanted at the time, unfortunately Zab lost all his belts to Baldomir. Gatti wasn't a cherry pick because Gatti was the WBC champion and Floyd was coming up in weight for that fight to go after that WBC belt of that weight class. I could go on but you like to take things out of context.

You won't another fighter of the last fifty years who fought a tougher level of competition - in succession - like Leonard did from 1978-1981, so the notion that he cherry-picked throughout his career is pure fallacy. The argument that he avoided Hagler carries about as much weight as the argument that Hagler avoided Michael Spinks. I don't think you know how to use the word 'fallacy' properly. Also :lol1: @ "even then" - as if Leonard was expected to even last more than a couple of rounds. The fact that it was so close and so competitive is of no credit to Hagler, believe me. It was Hagler's last fight. Herp derp.

Sorry Im not here to push an agenda that just because a fighter is fighting in a current era, that he automatically loses to a past ATG. I speak facts about the one sided azzwhoopin SRL would take if he fought Floyd. His own brother knows that he isnt good enough. Agreed. Sometimes the fighter themselves are not the best judge of their own abilities when comparing simulations to another, but rather someone close to them who understands the mechanics that make that person work. I think his own brother picking Floyd over him, while not the end all be all variable, is one that is very profound. People love to turn past ATGs into some sort of invincible mythological demi-god. Objectivity seems to be more lacking among boxing fans than any other sport. I also agree with some points another made on here about SRL having more room for mistakes and Floyd having less room though. I give the edge to Floyd and my money would be confidently on him if this ever took place in some pocket pseudo-parallel universe where both were prime and same size.

You won't another fighter of the last fifty years who fought a tougher level of competition - in succession - like Leonard did from 1978-1981, so the notion that he cherry-picked throughout his career is pure fallacy. The argument that he avoided Hagler carries about as much weight as the argument that Hagler avoided Michael Spinks. Fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. By calling my argument pure fallacy, you are claiming that there is substantial overwhelming evidence that SRL did not cherry pick, and that my reasoning contradicts either the available facts in a factual manner or it's own premise, in a purely subjective issue. And this is where your use of the word ends up being forceful, and it sounds more like you saw someone else use it and you decided to start using it yourself (lmao). It can be of your opinion that my reasoning wasn't sufficient, but as long as my reasoning is sound (meaning they are not contradictory to facts or within it's own system and premise), you can't call it "fallacy". Smh, I have to educate these pseudo-intellectuals. Also :lol1: @ "even then" - as if Leonard was expected to even last more than a couple of rounds. The fact that it was so close and so competitive is of no credit to Hagler, believe me. The fact that it was Hagler's last fight, regardless of who was expected to win by the majority of fans, is very telling of what stage Hagler was in in his career. Just like the majority of fans believed DLH had the advantage versus Pacquiao, but I was one of the few who quickly said DLH would lose or might even get knocked out the moment he took off his robe and his body looked like a zombie, yet people keep swinging that premise around to make the beat down more impressive than it was. I wasn't shocked, the fact most of everyone else was is just testament to how much lack of credibility most people actually have when it comes to analyzing matchups based on available data. If YOU were shocked, then you fall in the same category.

Duran hadn't fought as a lightweight for two and a half years by the time of the Leonard fight. He'd fought well over a dozen times at 140 before he even had his last fight at lightweight, and had just whitewashed Carlos Palomino the year previous. This notion that he was "still a lightweight" is wrong. You're right, I just checked boxrec and his wiki to be sure. My memory was off I guess because most of those fights in between were record-padders. Regardless, my point remains true. People overhype champions of the past and consider conditions for fighters like SRL but not for every other fighter, namely Floyd. We forget so easily how SRL cherry picked pretty damn hard throughout his career and avoided Hagler until he was way past his prime. Even then, the fight was extremely competitive and I remember having Hagler winning a close score.

Before writing this book, you should have looked at the 2nd sentence in Benny's post. That was SRL's 10th fight. Before making this response, you should have read the first sentence in the third paragraph. Hurr durr. And I dunno how long it takes some of you old people on here to type up a post, but that post of mine took me a few seconds over a minute to type.

Cant believe this thread is still going its amazing that anyone could think a little man like Floyd who has never really beaten a great fighter at their peak could concede every advantage to possibly the second best welter of all time and win. Leonard stops him by half way, Hearns beats him easier and KOs Floyd in 2 no little man lasts with the power of the Hitman just ask the iron chinned Duran. Floyd is great but he is in the right place at the right time. If Tommy Hearns was around today at his peak he would destroy every fighter out there and we would be declaring him one of the 5 best of all time and saying no way Leonard or anyone else beats him. Sadly for Hearns he was around at a golden time of boxing and was competing with other ATGs, unlike Floyd who has dominated a fairly bland era and avoided his biggest challengers completely or until they have slipped. Sorry that some of us like to look at boxing objectively and realistically and not turn history into mythological demi-gods.

Leonard KO's Jr like he did his daddy. Leonard was not bothered by the shoulder roll, neither was Dundee, they made the Old Mayweather come to Leonard. Floyd Sr. never shoulder rolled anywhere as accurately or as cleanly as Floyd Jr. With that said though, I doubt Floyd would have utilized the shoulder roll as much versus a Leonard. He would've utilized other skillsets for a matchup like that. Hearns is a bigger threat to Floyd than Leonard.

Pac is the biggest gentleman in boxing, see running poll. Gentlemen take it easy on the wounded. If you win 9-3 on the average press scorecard, you've proved your point. See, this is the bull**** that I can't stand with some people. That they insist that Pacquiao "takes it easy" on some of his opponents. Lmao. Oh, and that he's a "religious man" who's a "saint" and "can do no wrong" even though he's cheated 3x on his wife. When it comes to Pacquiao, nothing is too farfetched is it?

Calling out? More like begging to redeem himself. Just needs to get one win before they make him fight Canelo next year Canelo would give him a boxing lesson. And what is with your obsession with that ugly cosplayer (Jessica Nigri), ugh, her face.....

I hope they fallout,,, the hype and trash talk would be insane,,,, I think broner could get under floyd's skin quite easily,, I can see broner bringing up: Ms. jackson 50 cent scared of manny etc Floyd would whoop him in the ring, but broner might be the one guy to get into his head with the trash talk,, Broner completely unnerved pauli, and i think he can do the same with floyd,,,, Floyd-broner would be thee fight of 2015, if broner can keep winning,,, Highly doubtful. There are a few guys out there who just have a very good understanding of their own perspectives and thus have a hard time letting their own targets get under their skin. Floyd is one of them, especially now. It would take someone else to do that, especially when it would be too obvious that it's just a marketing ploy.

There's no doubt Pac goes easy on opponents sometime, see badly wounded Marg, or desperate Cotto, etc. I don't give a sh1t about wife cheating. I bet he could do much better than Jinkee, but at least he hasn't ditched her like most do when they get big enough. You not giving a **** about it is irrelevant to the argument. For a man who comes from an extremely religious culture (Catholic), cheating 3x on his wife is a pretty serious act. Point being that it wouldn't be farfetched to be openminded to the possibility that he'd cheat in his sport for more success and money, aka the avoiding of PED testing. But no, to some of you people he's some sort of saint who can't do no wrong and "takes it easy" on his opponents whenever he fails to knock them out rofl. On an unrelated note: Smh @ people who stay using the word "clown".

pac beat his asss and put him in a wheelchair. if you watch on a 4k tv you can see a black eye on bradley & bruises. That fight wasn't even broadcasted on 4K data, but ok. The general consensus seems to be that people think Pacquiao is some sort of super beast when it comes to toe to toe, even though that was proven not to be the case when fighters who were accustomed to going toe to toe with the right mechanics went toe to toe with him. He lost the first Morales fight and this was a past-prime Morales with countless wars prior. Marquez won most of the rounds they fought each other in throughout their series and most of that was due to them trading in front of each other. Marquez was getting the better of the exchanges. Lol @ glorifying a fighter's ability beyond that of what it actually is.

Having sex is directly related to your testosterone...its a hormone. The lower testosterone the weaker you would fell mentally... So YES having sexing before a fight would affect you... LMAO. i love the people who say it doesn't affect people are the ones who sit behind a keyboard and say "nahh." Most of you haven't even fought a true 12 round fight or even sparred for close to it. Yes, it does affect you. You lose testosterone mostly everytime you nut. You might not "see" the results cause a average person doesn't do what these boxers do. Now, i'm not saying i have either, but i used to box for long time in my younger days and it does affect me when the next day or the next few days i have todo drills and workouts that require everything i have in the military. You produce higher levels of testosterone after sex, typically ~1 hour after sex, so sex is good for you athletically. To claim that there's a physical difference on a chemical or physical level, whether positive or negative, a FULL DAY later, is you FOOLING YOURSELF. It's a benefit, not a hindrance, and it only happens within the same few hours. I've always performed physically better after sex. Anyone who still thinks it has a negative effect on you and tries to avoid sex in the days leading up to the fight is retarded. And I spar for a MINIMUM of 8 rounds, most days going up to 18 or 24 rounds depending how many teammates we have rotating in and out. Please don't talk about science if you're just talking out of your ass.

what's hilarious is there's a bunch of retarded fat neckbeards posting "No it doesn't affect you" and other people posting links from Chris Byrd "definitively" saying it doesn't affect you as if Chris Byrd is someone who achieved great things in boxing LOL. Meanwhile a guy just posted a link to one of the top 5 ATG of history Sugar Ray Leonard clearly saying it does affect you and he would be abstinent for at least a couple months before each fight. So who are you going to listen to, guys like Ali, Sugar Ray, etc who all DID believe it affects you? Or Mr. Neckbeard on this forum who says he has sex all the time with his fat girlfriend and can still "spar 8 rounds the next day hurr hurr hurr" No, I'd rather listen to science and bio-chemistry than guys from decades ago, especially not one who's IQ was reported to have been below 90. Oh, and I'd also rather listen to personal first-hand experience than someone else's scientifically unproven superstitions. My trainer always told me when I would perform on some next level sh*t compared to most days, and it just so happened it was those days that I either jerked off several times or just got back from visiting my girl for the weekend.

What argument is this? You stumble into a wrong thread? Look at the poll results, the biggest gentleman in boxing. But pitiful attempt nevertheless. Wife cheating and PEDs lol, I guess Holyfield is the living proof I like how you respond with essentially nothing but ad hominem.

Don't thank him for advice. And don't listen to anyones advice unless its coming from John Scully. If your looking for advice, shop it around to trainers and get their opinions. People don't have to be a trainer to see with their own eyes how telegraphic someone's movements are, just like you don't need to be a quantum physicist to know when a blue ball is blue with your own eyes unless you're color blind. There are many intelligent, talented fighters in both the pros and amateurs worldwide that are good at eyeing the little details in a fellow boxer but just don't get the limelight. Oh, and FYI, I'm 23-0 amateurs in NYC. That's not much but it shows I did something right. I've sparred and frustrated professional "B" class boxers like Jimmy Lange and Nonito Donaire while being a great deal shorter than the former. Guy took his headgear off out of frustration. I could go on and on about why your statement claiming that he should only seek advice from trainers instead of seeing for himself what should be obvious to the human eye is outrageously misguided and cliche.

Decent, but way too telegraphic when you punch. No reason to even stand toe to toe in front of you if you're gonna be that telegraphic. I can see which punch you're going to do before you even start to do it. It's gonna be more obvious in front of you as well.

A young Roy Jones (160, he never did anything relevant at 154) would get life for premeditated murder if he fought Floyd. Let's assume they were ever the same size, at both at prime. Roy would still get outboxed. Roy was never really able to deploy proper boxing mechanics into his arsenal of boxing knowledge and physical skill set. Using James Toney is a bad example. Roy and Floyd would've had comparable handspeed, but Floyd has the better timing, a vastly larger skill set to utilize and derive solutions to problems from, more boxing IQ, far better visual prowess, and stays in a more consistent focus throughout the fight than the many lapses in Roy's attention.

Yeah floyd is great, the greatest of his generation probably but i wouldn't say that he is equal to fighters like Ali, Leonard and Duran. If he beats Martinez and Golovkin then he is close. I don't understand where some people are having trouble realizing that Floyd is already easily deserving of the level of Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns, if not better. People like to hype up the past just because it's in the past I guess. The same way ESPN somehow has people like Jack Dempsey as #9 on their top 50 of all time list. Watch those Dempsey fights and tell me if it looks any different from a schoolyard brawl with those ultra-telegraphed punches.

We are never privy to actual fight meetings, thus we are spoon fed exactly what each entity would have us believe. One group feels the fight has not been made because of Mayweather, another, Manny (usually based on which fighter you like). At the end of the day, fighters fight and if that's not happening, someone outside of the ring is the culprit. This is the sad reality of the current state of boxing. I don't think for one moment that Floyd or Manny afraid to fight each other. ^ This, exactly. I always found it funny when people were quick to assume that any fighter is scared of another. If you're a fighter yourself, whether in boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or anything else where you train 6 days a week for 4-5 hours a day in order to compete in official or unofficial organized combat, then you'd realize how silly it is to assume a fighter is afraid of another. That sort of stuff is a rarity. People are just quick to assume what they themselves possess within themselves. In other words, projection. They either consciously or subconsciously know that their reaction would be fear in that situation, thus they assume everyone else would be the same. Basic human psychology. I never once thought for a moment that either were scared of the other. The fear of failure or losing is a different issue, and I think for this particular matchup, both were supremely confident they would come out victorious, Pacquiao for his own reasons, and Mayweather for his own reasons.

There is no difference. Just odd that after fighting 39 times, you feel the need to implement extra testing against someone who is doing bigger and better things, because it's impossible for anyone to be better than Floyd Jr. and if they are, they just have to be cheating. just have to. so take your pick, Floyd juiced anywhere between fights 1 and 39, or Manny makes him leave Hershey squirt trails. Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android Or he was in no position to demand anything new from the sport yet. Take your pick.

This thread is a confirmation that Pac is definitely doing this test to remove one excuse to Floyd's book of excuses. The biggest hurdle now is you guessed it 100% revenues goes to Floyd. Pac is setting himself up for a Floyd fight. Who do you think's going to win my fellow boxing fan?