Tweet
Whenever anyone asks me "How good is Floyd?" - I usually default to:
"Floyd's as good as he needs to be".
I haven't always felt this way. Indeed, I'm something of a late convert.
His performance against Sugar Shane tipped the balance. Yes, Mosley was past his best. But it wasn't that long since he comprehensively destroyed Margarito in what I felt was a very strong performance.
Shane took a lot of stick for being a shot fighter after Floyd. Unfortunately, Floyd didn't get nearly enough credit for putting ten years on him in twelve rounds.
I'm sure there will be the usual howl of disapproval from Floyd's detractors. But you'd have to be pretty biased not to credit him with not just surviving that monstrous punch early in the bout (which we were told Floyd could never take) but showing a true champions' instinct to immediately wrestle back the initiative (in the same round!) - never to relinquish it to the final bell.
Leading up to that fight the only question I had was whether Floyd possessed the kind of champion's mentality which settles for absolutely nothing less than victory. From therein I was a believer.
I agree that he can be annoying at times. Although I'm convinced most of it is hype. But before condemning the guy I wish people would think about what we'll have lost when he's gone. Guys like Floyd don't come along often. Best savour his gifts in the short span of his career than miss them whilst venting one's spleen.
As for Floyd vs Hopkins - I think far too many people retrospectively brush the talents Hopkins showed in his final decade across his entire career. That's a mistake when comparing to Floyd who demonstrated freakish skills from an early age.
Hopkins lucks out because he's able to apply himself to a punishing training and gym routine in his forties when most fighters are losing the motivation.
Yes, it's to Bernard's credit he can push himself ten years further than average. But his skillset is a PRODUCT of extended age. It was NOT pathological.
Even into his late forties I'm still not convinced he accumulated enough wisdom to outfox Floyd in his mid twenties. And let's not forget his workrate dropped off a cliff years ago. I'm not saying his record has been manipulated by declining offers from fighters with high tempo. But I think it's fair to say he's unlikely to win too many shootouts.
On the other hand, I feel Floyd can up the pace to anything he chooses. One of his many unique virtues is the rare talent for not just calculating his performance - but calculating it RELATIVE to his opponent.
If nothing else I feel he will go on to show he's an uncannily accurate ringside analyst.
"Floyd's as good as he needs to be".
I haven't always felt this way. Indeed, I'm something of a late convert.
His performance against Sugar Shane tipped the balance. Yes, Mosley was past his best. But it wasn't that long since he comprehensively destroyed Margarito in what I felt was a very strong performance.
Shane took a lot of stick for being a shot fighter after Floyd. Unfortunately, Floyd didn't get nearly enough credit for putting ten years on him in twelve rounds.
I'm sure there will be the usual howl of disapproval from Floyd's detractors. But you'd have to be pretty biased not to credit him with not just surviving that monstrous punch early in the bout (which we were told Floyd could never take) but showing a true champions' instinct to immediately wrestle back the initiative (in the same round!) - never to relinquish it to the final bell.
Leading up to that fight the only question I had was whether Floyd possessed the kind of champion's mentality which settles for absolutely nothing less than victory. From therein I was a believer.
I agree that he can be annoying at times. Although I'm convinced most of it is hype. But before condemning the guy I wish people would think about what we'll have lost when he's gone. Guys like Floyd don't come along often. Best savour his gifts in the short span of his career than miss them whilst venting one's spleen.
As for Floyd vs Hopkins - I think far too many people retrospectively brush the talents Hopkins showed in his final decade across his entire career. That's a mistake when comparing to Floyd who demonstrated freakish skills from an early age.
Hopkins lucks out because he's able to apply himself to a punishing training and gym routine in his forties when most fighters are losing the motivation.
Yes, it's to Bernard's credit he can push himself ten years further than average. But his skillset is a PRODUCT of extended age. It was NOT pathological.
Even into his late forties I'm still not convinced he accumulated enough wisdom to outfox Floyd in his mid twenties. And let's not forget his workrate dropped off a cliff years ago. I'm not saying his record has been manipulated by declining offers from fighters with high tempo. But I think it's fair to say he's unlikely to win too many shootouts.
On the other hand, I feel Floyd can up the pace to anything he chooses. One of his many unique virtues is the rare talent for not just calculating his performance - but calculating it RELATIVE to his opponent.
If nothing else I feel he will go on to show he's an uncannily accurate ringside analyst.
Comment