Hypothetical: Floyd dominates DLH enroute to a wide UD...

[Gerry M]

We never got to see him against Eubank, Benn, Nunn, or Michelewski (sp)

Eubank turned down Jones almost on a weekly basis for years, wanted nothing to do with him.

Benn was contracted to King, and Jones wouldn't fight for King.

Nunn? Jones didn't want to fight him, wouldn't even mention him. He knew he'd probably lose, and not get paid much in the process.

Michalczewski wouldn't leave Germany, and Jones wouldn't fight in Germany.

[cortdawg25]

He's undefeated, a champion in 4 weight classes, 5 if he beats Oscar, and he's dominated every man he's ever faced...and woman! He's one of a kind and easily ranks up there. If he beats the middleweight champ, he's top 3 all time without a doubt.

lo, that was cute!!

[pbftxrs316]

lo, that was cute!!

what's up cort? where you been man? what's new with you my friend? how's the dvd's holding up? i hope very well. mine tend to pause and skip some, but that's okay. i'm thinking about buying oscar's and then roy jones. after them, i'll get pernell's and then ray leonard's. after him, i'll get tyson's and then zab judah's, and then tommy hearns. then i'll get... uh man, you get the point.lol

[K-DOGG]

I am afraid I will have to correct your logic here:

if you say floyd has been a champ in only 3 divisions, because those are the ones where he beat the man (and I agree with that), then you cannot complain about no alphabet bull****, because in those 3 divisions he beat the man, and so he would have been the champ even with only one belt.

or you can say he is a 4 division champ and then you can blame alphabet bull**** all you want.

but he is a 3 division champion like any 3 division champ from the past (well except someone like armstrong who was champ in a wider weight span of course)

I was primarily referring to the credit he received for defeating Gatti, who was not "the man" at 140. I have not arguement with him beating "the man" at junior lightweight, lightweight, and welterweight.

[K-DOGG]

man,

you are slipping if you have to use this kind of "logic"

this is like those that say that if you KO wlad, then you can KO vitali

No, bud. I was pointing out that "style-wise", Floyd is not unbeatable. That's all. And, I do think Starling would beat him, even if Jr. was the only Mayweather....ergo, if there were NEVER any matches between Starling and Sr. to draw upon. Styles make fights; this has always been my primary edict.

[K-DOGG]

Well at least you aren't being a **** about it.
1. You say Leonard, I think Sugar Ray Leonard. Most people do.
2. Benny Leonard goes right along with Gans and Armstrong. ANCIENT.
3. I asked for fighters 140 and down that could beat Floyd, you gave me a bunch of guys who my great grandfather watched and some guys that ended their careers up around light heavyweight.
4. Thank you, come again.

If I'm coming off as a "****", it's becauase, quite frankly, I'm fed the **** up with argueing with people who have no ****ing clue about any fighter who donned gloves prior to 1990 and who consistantly dismiss them as if they didn't know how to "box" and those grainy black and white nitrate films mean their fighting techniques are comparably "ancient" to today's techni-color, high definition, live in 1080p wonders.

Uh,uh....that is just plain falacy, whether you realize it or not. Or, in short, it matters not when a fighter fought, if he were a great fighter.

[ThaHorseman]

If I'm coming off as a "****", it's becauase, quite frankly, I'm fed the **** up with argueing with people who have no ****ing clue about any fighter who donned gloves prior to 1990 and who consistantly dismiss them as if they didn't know how to "box" and those grainy black and white nitrate films mean their fighting techniques are comparably "ancient" to today's techni-color, high definition, live in 1080p wonders.

Uh,uh....that is just plain falacy, whether you realize it or not. Or, in short, it matters not when a fighter fought, if he were a great fighter.

Sorry pal, but I've never watched a fight before the '50's that I was impressed with. That includes the guys you mentioned. I don't see how you can honestly think that a guy like Gans could even compete with fighters today, especially Floyd. Perhaps they were great in their day, but they would get embarrassed in todays fight game.
As for the age thing, I'm sorry I'm not an 80-100 year old. All I have to base my opinions on is the same video that you've based yours on and I'm not impressed. You can keep on loving your "old school" fighters all you want, but inside you know they couldn't hang with todays fighters.

[K-DOGG]

K-dogg has a wierd top 10 p4p list. I love modern fighters but i would never think about putting roy in it. Muhammad Ali beat virtually every important heavyweight from the 60's and 70's. He lost a few fights, big deal no one is superman. Ali clearly deserves to be top 10 p4p of all times. He has beat 4 guys that are in the ring magazine top 80 of the last 80 years. Only 1 man beat more guys from that list, sugar ray robinson.

Sugar ray leonard has also defeated 4 guys that are true elites, i would put him on there.

In all honesty, i hold julio cesar chavez in a higher regard than roy jones jr. People bash him for fighting tijiuana cab drivers, i dont get it. If you compare the list of guys that chavez beat with the ones that roy beat, chavez is superior.

I rank roy the same way ring magazine does, top 40 but definetly not top 10.

Like I said, that list was "off the cuff". Some other time I'll actually put down a well-thought out p4p list. But, in regards to Ali....I generally don't rank ANY heavyweights on a pound-4-pound list as that list was originated to give credit to non-heavies.

[K-DOGG]

Sorry pal, but I've never watched a fight before the '50's that I was impressed with. That includes the guys you mentioned. I don't see how you can honestly think that a guy like Gans could even compete with fighters today, especially Floyd. Perhaps they were great in their day, but they would get embarrassed in todays fight game.
As for the age thing, I'm sorry I'm not an 80-100 year old. All I have to base my opinions on is the same video that you've based yours on and I'm not impressed. You can keep on loving your "old school" fighters all you want, but inside you know they couldn't hang with todays fighters.

If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have posted it. Nostaligia has very little to do with my opinions as I am not a sentimentalist and learned about these fighters soley in the last 15 years of my life. If anything, I had to swallow my prided in regards to these "older fighters" and how great they were....and time truly has nothing to do with it. It's about technique and while some technique seems better, that solely depends on the fighter using it. In many regards, modern fighters don't pay as much attention to the "little things", which is why James Toney, who hasn't enough power to bust a g**** in a heavyweight food fight, was able to beat the heavies he did; they weren't as well schooled. Same with Roy Jones Jr. and John Ruiz. While Jones wasn't the best technically, the fact that Ruiz was woefully skilled enabled Jones talents to overwhelm him, whereas if Ruiz had honed his skills to the point of actually mastering his craft, the smaller man should never have beaten him.

Mayweather, actually, is one of the few modern fighters who has masted his craft, and I applaud him for it. I think he is a tremendous fighter; but just because he is a tremendous fighter in 2007, I"m not going to automatically give him the nod over a tremendous fighter in 1907. Time is abstract and obscures the vision and the logic of many; and it is not a contributing factor in the least for every thing balances out. Fighters today have more high-tech training techniques. Fine; but fighters then fought more often, which helped them really refine their abilities and also due to the hard life many lived, they were naturally "tougher" men because they had to be to survive, whereas today's athletes are comparitively pampered....which makes them "weaker" on the "inside".

Whatever you believe, in the end, it is ONLY your opinion as mine is ONLY mine. None of this can be proved. Perhaps Mayweather could have beaten Gans and Leonard; but then again, perhaps not. The truth is we'll never know and you will Never be "more right" than me or I you.

Take it as you wish. I know what I know and I think what I think....and Mayweather, talented as he is, has yet to really have his mettle tested; and UNTIL THAT HAPPENS.....we're never going to really know how "Great" Floyd is, for that is the area where "Greatness" is judged.

[K-DOGG]

Eubank turned down Jones almost on a weekly basis for years, wanted nothing to do with him.

Benn was contracted to King, and Jones wouldn't fight for King.

Nunn? Jones didn't want to fight him, wouldn't even mention him. He knew he'd probably lose, and not get paid much in the process.

Michalczewski wouldn't leave Germany, and Jones wouldn't fight in Germany.

Aye, which is why I don't blame it all on Jones. However, if he really wanted to prove he were the best......he would have pursued both Nunn and Michalczewski as great fighters of the past did, though it can be argued that Robinson avoided Burley for the very same reason Jones Jr. avoided Nunn.