Pea, Roy or Floyd?

[GOD-FR33]

Long enough....

It seems to me by reading this thread that most people have these guys quite close (I certainly do) and Pea is being treated fairly. No one is suggesting the JC fights is anything else than Pea dominating. No one is holding the Tito fight against Pea... etc.

It is hard to not notice that Pea lacks the longevity the other two have had, and that it is his fault.

Pea didn't lack longevity. He had an ATG career. He jut did it in lesser fights than Roy and Floyd because he constantly fought the best. They didn't. They played around with lesser opposition. They chose money over legacy. Therefore, you cannot rate either of them over Pea. Pea didn't lose a legit fight until he was 34 yrs old, against Tito. Fighting prime Tito, Oscar, and Chavez, kill anything they ever did.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Pea didn't lack longevity. He had an ATG career. He jut did it in lesser fights than Roy and Floyd because he constantly fought the best. They didn't. They played around with lesser opposition. They chose money over legacy. Therefore, you cannot rate either of them over Pea. Pea didn't lose a legit fight until he was 34 yrs old, against Tito. Fighting prime Tito, Oscar, and Chavez, kill anything they ever did.

While floyd and roy both cherrypicked a lot, they still fought and beat top competition..

Roy's wins over hopkins and toney

Floyd's wins over corrales, manny, canelo, Oscar, cotto, marquez, castillo


Let's not act like floyd or roy don't have some good scaples

[wmute]

Pea didn't lack longevity. He had an ATG career. He jut did it in lesser fights than Roy and Floyd because he constantly fought the best. They didn't. They played around with lesser opposition. They chose money over legacy. Therefore, you cannot rate either of them over Pea. Pea didn't lose a legit fight until he was 34 yrs old, against Tito. Fighting prime Tito, Oscar, and Chavez, kill anything they ever did.

Pea didn't lack longevity???

Pea: champ from 89 to 97
Floyd: champ from 98 to 2015
Roy: champ from 93 to 2004


As for the fights, do you understand that his record says he is 0-2-1 in those fights? I have no problem making it 1-2-0 making the Chavez fight, but the case is not obvious at all for the Oscar fight. Finally, fighting close to prime Hopkins and Toney and winning is still better than fighting Oscar and Tito and losing.

EDIT: You have already been corrected on Pea's age when he fought Tito... it is not 33 or 34. It is THIRTY FIVE. 1999-1964=35. Start from here, maybe you will slowly get the rest.

[wmute]

Among other things, I was thinking Floyd's impressive record of fighting alphabet champions (past, present, and future) should not be compared to Roy and Pea's number, because the WBO increased his status to become a legit belt in the meantime.

[On the other hand, one cannot just remove the WBO champions from Floyd's list to make the comparison, because the fact that the WBO became legit, means some guys who fought for WBO today would not have done so 30 years ago, and would have instead looked for shots at WBC etc...]

[BennyST]

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.

eh?

You serious? You actually think Pac could have won that fight? Did you watch it? Are we talking about the same fight?

Floyd vs Pacquiao right? Not Lloyd vs Drakiow.

[GOD-FR33]

LoL.....

Pea didn't lack longevity???

Pea: champ from 89 to 97
Floyd: champ from 98 to 2015
Roy: champ from 93 to 2004


As for the fights, do you understand that his record says he is 0-2-1 in those fights? I have no problem making it 1-2-0 making the Chavez fight, but the case is not obvious at all for the Oscar fight. Finally, fighting close to prime Hopkins and Toney and winning is still better than fighting Oscar and Tito and losing.

EDIT: You have already been corrected on Pea's age when he fought Tito... it is not 33 or 34. It is THIRTY FIVE. 1999-1964=35. Start from here, maybe you will slowly get the rest.

Your point? One year I was off and I guess I don't know anything about boxing, ey? I guess you told me. LoL. Anyway, Pea was 33 when he faced a prime Oscar, 35 when he faced a prime Tito. My point has already been proven. Pea's place in history is WAY higher than both. Hopkin's was not in his prime when Roy fought him. Toney was BUT Toney didn't even train for Roy and he lost an uneventful affair. Why didn't Roy go after him at all in that fight? Roy was no killer, that's why. The really special ones want to hurt and humiliate you nomatter what. As for Floyd, he lost to Castillo in the first fight, got touched up by Corley, Agustus, Judah for five rounds, Hoya, Cotto, Maidana, and Manny. Pea would've never struggled with a 40 year old Mosley, a washed up Cotto, a limited Maidana, etc. I could go on and on. I'll stop there. Roy and Floyd are beneath Sweet Pea. Roy doesn't even have fundamental skill at ALL. He's all flash and athletic gifts.

[NChristo]

Your point? One year I was off and I guess I don't know anything about boxing, ey? I guess you told me. LoL. Anyway, Pea was 33 when he faced a prime Oscar, 35 when he faced a prime Tito. My point has already been proven. Pea's place in history is WAY higher than both. Hopkin's was not in his prime when Roy fought him. Toney was BUT Toney didn't even train for Roy and he lost an uneventful affair. Why didn't Roy go after him at all in that fight? Roy was no killer, that's why. The really special ones want to hurt and humiliate you nomatter what. As for Floyd, he lost to Castillo in the first fight, got touched up by Corley, Agustus, Judah for five rounds, Hoya, Cotto, Maidana, and Manny. Pea would've never struggled with a 40 year old Mosley, a washed up Cotto, a limited Maidana, etc. I could go on and on. I'll stop there. Roy and Floyd are beneath Sweet Pea. Roy doesn't even have fundamental skill at ALL. He's all flash and athletic gifts.

What the actual **** .

The Castillo fight could've gone either way, actually watch the fight instead of just going on what people say, it was in no way the huge robbery people make it out too be. As for Floyd getting touched up by some opponents, this is boxing you absolute mush, no matter how good your defense is you're going to get hit and that goes for Pea as well, does getting tagged twice in 1 round by a hard fast puncher then dominating for the rest of the fight really count as struggling ?. Why are you pretending that Mayweather was in his prime for the Cotto and Maidana fights ?, is it because he still looked so good while being 35 / 37 and 3 Classes above where he was at his best ?, because both fights were clear Mayweather wins.

Who in the history of the sport could humiliate a prime Toney ?, name one person, Hopkins wasn't in his prime but immediately went on too his title reign at Middleweight after the Jones fight, it's a great win.
Saying Roy Jones had no fundamentals is just plain dumb, for one his footwork was a thing of beauty, always in position to throw whatever punch he wanted, he could box and brawl, his defense was great and his offence was incredible, you don't get too Jones' level in the sport just by being an athletic monster of which he worked hard to become every single day of his life, it wasn't a 'gift' that was just given too him out of nowhere and it's pathetic to discredit him for it, also discrediting him for his 'athletic gifts' whilst at the same time backing Sweet Pea who you're indirectly saying was all serious and didn't count on his 'athletic gifts' is silly (Why else would you discredit Roy, if Sweet Pea used his gifts shouldn't it be a knock on him as well ?, same with Roy not being a 'killer', are you trying to tell us that Pea was ?).

Guys guys Whitaker got hurt bad against Roger Mayweather therefore because he got hit in this sport of getting hit lets take some points off in rating him, let's forget that he clearly won the fight, let's take points off him for being knocked down at other points in his career for being off balance (Must have had poor fundamentals yo).

[IronDanHamza]

What the actual **** .

The Castillo fight could've gone either way, actually watch the fight instead of just going on what people say, it was in no way the huge robbery people make it out too be. As for Floyd getting touched up by some opponents, this is boxing you absolute mush, no matter how good your defense is you're going to get hit and that goes for Pea as well, does getting tagged twice in 1 round by a hard fast puncher then dominating for the rest of the fight really count as struggling ?. Why are you pretending that Mayweather was in his prime for the Cotto and Maidana fights ?, is it because he still looked so good while being 35 / 37 and 3 Classes above where he was at his best ?, because both fights were clear Mayweather wins.

Who in the history of the sport could humiliate a prime Toney ?, name one person, Hopkins wasn't in his prime but immediately went on too his title reign at Middleweight after the Jones fight, it's a great win.
Saying Roy Jones had no fundamentals is just plain dumb, for one his footwork was a thing of beauty, always in position to throw whatever punch he wanted, he could box and brawl, his defense was great and his offence was incredible, you don't get too Jones' level in the sport just by being an athletic monster of which he worked hard to become every single day of his life, it wasn't a 'gift' that was just given too him out of nowhere and it's pathetic to discredit him for it, also discrediting him for his 'athletic gifts' whilst at the same time backing Sweet Pea who you're indirectly saying was all serious and didn't count on his 'athletic gifts' is silly (Why else would you discredit Roy, if Sweet Pea used his gifts shouldn't it be a knock on him as well ?, same with Roy not being a 'killer', are you trying to tell us that Pea was ?).

Guys guys Whitaker got hurt bad, against Roger Mayweather therefore because he got hit in this sport of getting hit lets take some points off in rating him, let's forget that he clearly won the fight, let's take points off him for being knocked down at other points in his career for being off balance (Must have had poor fundamentals yo).

I wouldn't even bother I'm quite sure the guy has some form of brain damage.

[IronDanHamza]

eh?

You serious? You actually think Pac could have won that fight? Did you watch it? Are we talking about the same fight?

Floyd vs Pacquiao right? Not Lloyd vs Drakiow.

Oh he's serious

[Szef]

eh?

You serious? You actually think Pac could have won that fight? Did you watch it? Are we talking about the same fight?

Floyd vs Pacquiao right? Not Lloyd vs Drakiow.

Oh he's serious

Floyd won, but let's not act like he totally dominated Pacquiao.

He didn't. He out landed him and didn't look nearly as good as he should have against a guy with no jab and the ability to cut off the ring.

Which is why I cringe when people mention Pac as his greatest win.

Dominating prime Toney, beating prime and undefeated JCC > outpointing post KTFO Pacquiao.