-
-
What are you basing your opinion on? I've always seen Floyd as kinda a crossbred between Roy and Hopkins anyway. Roy had freakish talent. Hopkins didn't, but he was a master and prefected his craft. Floyd was Roy physically. But, if Roy was a 10, Floyd was at worst an 8. And he combined that with the same, if not better skill set that Hopkins had.
Is it accomplishment? All three were on top for a ridiculously long time. Hopkins just took it to a freakish level. Floyd won totles in more divisions than both. Although they're bigger than Floyd and the weight jump was more difficult.
I'm not knocking you. Because all-time don't mean all that much to me. I've never sat down and made one. And personally, I don't even think they're relevant. But strictly water cooler talk. I don't see too many logical points that can be made to say Roy and Nard were better than Floyd. Floyd accompliahed more. Plus, the eye test tells me every time I pull up an old fight that he was just a better, more complete fighter than them bpth.Comment
-
Now when you say "I don't see how you can give respect if you're a true boxing fan" what do you mean by that? Are you saying that Floyd isn't getting enough respect or his generation isn't given enough respect?
Floyd is a master. He was the total package but to me his competition wasn't as great as other's had in the past.
Don't get me wrong there were a lot of boxers who had great talent in his generation but very few came close to maxing out there abilities.Comment
-
I agree with you, that such kind of ATG talk is actually quite pointless.
I think Floyd is probably the best 130 pounder of all time.
He had an incredible run.
Perhaps I rate Hopkins and Jones higher because I perceive them as having taken more risks.
To me, an undefeated record doesn't mean a lot. I prefer to see a fighter test himself.
Floyd did test himself at times. But a lot of his career was carefully managed.
That is just the nature of the business, and he did a good job making a lot of money.
But, I think Jones was more dominant, and that Hopkins tested himself more.
It is true though that ATG lists are basically meaningless.
I agree with your assessment, if I'm reading it right, that Jones was probably the one with the most natural talent among the three; Hopkins is a consummate professional. (Though Hopkins has plenty of natural talent.)
Floyd is a great fighter. But I don't rate him above Hopkins and Jones, if I must make an ATG list.
I could be off my rocker or a little bit biased, but that's how I have it.
I never thought Floyd tested himself much after moving up from 130. He just took the most convenient fights.
His fight with Gatti was the beginning of 'Money Mayweather'.
Gatti was big for his action style, and Floyd knew he had the antidote.
His match making was strictly business decisions from then on.Comment
-
Jones is debatable but definitely Mayweather over Hopkins. Hopkins is an ATG but after Tarver, his resume is a bit overrated and the very definition of cherry-picking.Comment
Tweet
Comment