Comments Thread For: R. Mayweather Explains Why Floyd Ranks Behind Robinson

[Brother Jay]

And the question will always be:

How many PRIME HoF'ers has Floyd face (beated) ?

Plzzz WESS, LeadUppercut, Flint.....etc!! Answer this one!

This question was written to suggest that a fighter is responsible for who is prime or willing to fight them at any given time.

The premise alone is weak.

Floyd Mayweather fought the #1, #2 and #3 in every division he's competed in EXCEPT ONE: He didn't get a chance to fight Kostya Tszyu because Tszyu wanted a 60/40 split with Floyd taking the 40% .. killing the fight before it ever got started.

You can try to phrase your questions or frame Floyd's career any way you want to. That doesn't change anything.

Floyd had tried to fight Mosley when Mosley was king of the LWs. Mosley declined. Floyd has been calling out DLH for YEARS. DLH was willing to move down for Pacquiao, but he DAMN SURE wasn't willing to move down for Mayweather all those years before!

Floyd has always been willing to fight the best, and he has. Many didn't want any part of him as they knew it was almost an automatic L on their record.

You might have forgotten. Real fans haven't.

Even now Pacquiao is stalling a match that could have been made YEARS ago, but the only way fans feel that they can help Manny not look like a pusssy is to claim that Floyd is holding up the fight.

The embarrassing part is that no one believes that Manny can beat Floyd after what JMM did to him. The odds will reflect that no one believes that Manny has more than a puncher's chance.

But paqtards, being what they are, wage a campaign to hide Pacquiao's cowardice and complacency as Arum's slave.

Then they say that he's being avoided because no one is willing to chase him! Manny simply isn't worth chasing. He's coming to the table with weaker demanding power and he knows it.

This is just another attempt to use "names" in place of "rank" because other fighters simply don't have the resume to be ATGs. So they try to hack their way in by counting names and not their rank or what condition the opponents were in at fight time.

[hugh grant]

I disagree with you Grant. Robinson is the best ever. Floyd may not be right below him, but he is certainly way above Pacquiao. If Pac would've avoided the catchweights, then it be different!

Pacs resume is better than Floyds even without the couple of CWs fights.

[Brother Jay]

Pacs resume is better than Floyds even without the couple of CWs fights.

About as much as the Philippines is a world power.

[GOD-FR33]

I disagree..........

Of course Roger thinks that. Just like Floyd thinks he is the greatest trainer ever. Neither is remotely true. I look at Robinson in the same way I do ALI. They are held in very high regard because they were the first to do what they did but does that mean they are the greates fighters ever? No, what it means is that they are two of the greatest fighters ever. There is no one "greatest" fighter ever. It is unfair to the other great fighters state that claim. Anyway, I rank Whitaker and Leonard over Robinson. Leonard had one real loss out of all the great fighters he fought and that was to Duran. Whitaker never loss in his prime and the only real loss I saw was against Tito. I think they both beat Robinson so what does that make them? I am tired of hearing that Robinson is the greatest Sugar and that he is The greatest honestly. What about how great Leonard was? He was faster, had better reflexes, better legs, he was def. the smartest. A fight between the two would have been one-sided in my opinion. Everyone is always talking about records and how often fighters use to fight back in the day. Well, I don't think they could have done that in another era. You notice how as time progressed, fighters started to fight less and less? That is because the competition kept getting better and better.

[daggum]

roger mayweather don't know s-hit about boxing! they didn't even have lame catchweight divisions like 130, 140, and 154 when robinson fought. mayweather is the fake catchweight division king! he's only been a champ in 2 real divisions while a guy like pac has been a champ in 4 original divisions.

[disolly]

what the **** is roger talking about. now first off, i agree, sugar ray was the best there ever was, and probably the best there ever will be. but his record was 173-19-6.
actually when sugar ray was on top of middleweight and had been for a couple years, carmen basilio the WW champion moved up to middleweight and beat sugar ray in a split decison, and then they had a rematch befor eifghting anyone else and sugar won by split decision, and he was a decent amoount smaller than robinson.

[kidaguilar]

It's sad to see that Roger Mayweather is still smoking crack.

[I Love Jesus!]

stay away from crack kids

[boxingfan76]

Of course Roger thinks that. Just like Floyd thinks he is the greatest trainer ever. Neither is remotely true. I look at Robinson in the same way I do ALI. They are held in very high regard because they were the first to do what they did but does that mean they are the greates fighters ever? No, what it means is that they are two of the greatest fighters ever. There is no one "greatest" fighter ever. It is unfair to the other great fighters state that claim. Anyway, I rank Whitaker and Leonard over Robinson. Leonard had one real loss out of all the great fighters he fought and that was to Duran. Whitaker never loss in his prime and the only real loss I saw was against Tito. I think they both beat Robinson so what does that make them? I am tired of hearing that Robinson is the greatest Sugar and that he is The greatest honestly. What about how great Leonard was? He was faster, had better reflexes, better legs, he was def. the smartest. A fight between the two would have been one-sided in my opinion. Everyone is always talking about records and how often fighters use to fight back in the day. Well, I don't think they could have done that in another era. You notice how as time progressed, fighters started to fight less and less? That is because the competition kept getting better and better.

uhh no, the reason fighters fight less and less is because they no longer need to they get paid far more, then they did back then todays fighters are very mediocre, fighting 15round fights 3 weeks apart for years takes a much harder fighter, the Very term POUND FOR POUND was invented for robinson in his prime thats how unbeatable he was.Even Ray leaonard himself has been quoted as saying "theres no way I could be compared to Robinson because theres no comparison theres no fighter that will ever live up to that"and its true you may get a fighter now and then that has some robinesque attributes but not all of them.

Robinsons greatest attributes were speed,punching power defense combination punching,inside fighting outside,jab bodypunching,and iron chin the guy simply didnt have weaknesses.Todays fighters fight 12 rounds in halfway wt classes against fighters with a name and not much ability, truth is in Robinsons era there were many many all-time greats with 100+ fights, todays fighters cant even make 50 fights without showing serious wear and tear or losing and getting bruatlly ko'ed theres a few throwback fighters here and there...Whitakers record and leaonard and attributes still dont even come close to Robinson, leanard only had very very few fights, and he wasnt very dominant in many .dudes were every bit as strong and fast and technique as they have now probably rowdier because fighters of those eras had far more work ethic .fighters nowadays are too incomplete in their attack.,look at pac anf floyd they would be considered weak retired fighters in that era.pac is basically a one handed fighter anf floyd fights really ugly his style is very unappealing flyds style comes off as cowardly, you can have defense without looking like a scared pansy.either guy woulda been ko'd by leanard or duran or hearns......as

[NearHypnos]

what the **** is roger talking about. now first off, i agree, sugar ray was the best there ever was, and probably the best there ever will be. but his record was 173-19-6.
actually when sugar ray was on top of middleweight and had been for a couple years, carmen basilio the WW champion moved up to middleweight and beat sugar ray in a split decison, and then they had a rematch befor eifghting anyone else and sugar won by split decision, and he was a decent amoount smaller than robinson.

To be fair, Roger is talking about a point in time that Robinson had a record like that. It might be a few wins off, I'd have to look it up but he's not wrong.

Not many have had insane runs like that, another notable name that comes to mind is another atg (my opinion, course) in Chavez Sr. I think there's been better fighters since Robinson. The sport, training, fitness, etc has evolved but it doesn't diminish what he did. I guess you could say Robinson was so great that his greatness was better than the greatness of others (not necessarily his skills). Just like the Whitaker-Floyd thing...some people think Floyd is better than Whitaker was, as a fighter (personally, I can neither agree or disagree with that and can only agree on Floyd being better gifted physically) but as far as perception, Pernell ranks higher.

Floyd is the best right now until someone can prove otherwise. Hate it or love it, that's pretty much all there is to it. Pac has proven to be less than the best and it's his title (of best) to win and Floyd's to lose. Floyd losing to Cotto still wouldn't convince people Pac is better, which is a pretty damn good spot to be in if you ask me. Floyd is possibly one of the best fighters to ever live that is this hated. But, over the years he's earned some respect, even by most people who hate him. There's a very small, but vocal group who thinks he's no good..some of these guys are fanatics of a certain fighter.