Why do people hate Floyd so much?

[The Big Dunn]

its not about knocking floyd down as much as it is putting his career in its proper perspective...if thats what larry is talking about, he's confusing people hating floyd, with people that just have an opinion that differs from his...

...never fought an all-time great fighter in his prime doesn't sound very denigrating nor is it ridiculous...its a fair across the board criteria when comparing all-time great fighters from different eras, not just floyd, but any fighter who claims to be the greatest, the best ever, etc...

and the ongoing debate on when guys chose to fight him, or who ducked who, all of that is dependent on what side of the fence you sit on, and the floyd guys just have to live with that...

floyd guys can give you blow by blow why all of these prime fighters ducked floyd and he should get a pass for that but it don't work like that, plus the counter from the critics will always be, that floyd ducked the division by taking an extended vacation in that critical time period where even his staunchest critics would have been hard pressed to debate that...plus, if all of these guys were scared to fight floyd, there was always the option to seek bigger challenges as guys like roy jones did...lets not act like there weren't any bigger challenges than marquez or shane or ortiz or berto...

when it comes to guys like sugar ray, all you have to say is prime hearns, prime benitez, slightly past prime hagler and duran and call it a day...with floyd, you say oscar or cotto or pac, the critics will say they are past prime, then the floyd guys need a couple more paragraphs to go through all the excuses its the other guys fault why the fights weren't made and never just hold their guy accountable...when the going get tough they resort to disrespectful comments and name-calling...

i think the floyd supporters just got to get some thicker skin...

If it's about putting his career in proper perspective then we'd go with the facts, not the false narratives.

What he claims to be has no bearing on this or what I am talking about. If you have the facts, use them. That would give anyone the most honest account of his career.

WHat you feel about a fighter has no bearing on the facts, only how you as the individual will justify the actions. Whether you like Manny or love him, he refused the fight over drug testing. whether you like shane or hate him, he claimed the toothache, regardless of what side of the fence you occupy.

Again, just go with the facts, not your spin on it. I never claimed anyone ducked Floyd or was scared to fight him, I simply pointed out the fact they all either waited to or didn't fight him. Maybe they were afraid to take a loss at that time in their career.

Floyd did retire. He said it was because his hands were hurt. To add that it was to avoid comp is the exact thing I am talking about.

Interesting point. You can say Duran about SRL but if I say JMM about Floyd he is called a blown up LW. What exactly was Duran when he fought Floyd? When its SRL, you say just say Hagler. What about the 5 year wait you ask we bring up when its Floyd and Manny? see my point?

I have no problem with just saying names if we do that for everyone. I have no problem doing scruitny and analysis if we do that for everyone. I'm just asking for consistency.

I think most Floyd fans have thick skin. If those criticizing him used the same criteria all the time for all fighters, there wouldn't be an issue.

Is Floyd so good that we need to skew the way we evaluate fighters careers when he is the one being evaluated?

[djtmal]

Leonard went 1-1 vs a Prime Duran and 1-0 vs an out of prime Duran. He went 1-0 vs a prime Hearns and drew an out of prime Hearns that should have been a Hearns Win. Hagler fight was a huge controversy and Leonard had all the benefits in that fight. Was Benitez in his prime at almost 32? Not sure.

Like I said, you can pick apart the resume of any fighter and that includes both Sugar Rays.

We know Corrales was a prime undefeated HOF fighter when Floyd dismantled him. We know Cotto was the 154 lb Champ and was at his best weight when Mayweather beat him. Having just turned 32 was ODH more out of prime than Benitez or Hagler were when SRL fought them? Did Floyd fight ODH and give him all the advantages? Yes.

Castillo was at his prime and couldn't convince a lot of big name fighters to try him, Floyd fought him twice and won both. Hatton was also an undefeated Champ when Floyd destroyed him.

When should he have fought Canelo? Also another undefeated fighter. Canelo already had close to 45 fights, should Floyd have waited a couple years because he wasn't sure Canelo was in his prime after 43 professional fights without a loss? Say Canelo now beats GGG and goes undefeated the rest of his career, that Canelo win might be better than any win SRL had.

His resume holds up under scrutiny the same as SRL's and many other all time greats. You can nitpick them all and you can see the good in them all. I know some old timers who will pick apart Sugar Ray Robinson's record for you and they'll also say he ducked some guys.

Hold Floyd to the same standards as anyone else, but the problem is few do, they hold him to a standard way higher.

the standards that the ali's and sugar rays set is high so thats just going to be what its going to be..an undefeated record and beating more champions as we see can and will be challenged...ain't much you can do about that...

being real...floyd when he was active did a lot of antics to sell fights, thats the name of the game..but now? these days he just brings a lot of negative on himself with the disparaging remarks about past greats and guys who are getting a little shine now...instead of just allowing his legacy to speak for itself...playa rule #1 is to keep the bragging and boasting about yourself to an absolute minimum...

i don't have a problem with the manner in which you broke things down...what i don't like is the excuses in which fights didn't happen at certain times...

[The Big Dunn]

the standards that the ali's and sugar rays set is high so thats just going to be what its going to be..an undefeated record and beating more champions as we see can and will be challenged...ain't much you can do about that...

being real...floyd when he was active did a lot of antics to sell fights, thats the name of the game..but now? these days he just brings a lot of negative on himself with the disparaging remarks about past greats and guys who are getting a little shine now...instead of just allowing his legacy to speak for itself...playa rule #1 is to keep the bragging and boasting about yourself to an absolute minimum...

i don't have a problem with the manner in which you broke things down...what i don't like is the excuses in which fights didn't happen at certain times...

Is it reasonable to judge Floyd or any boxer's career on the actions of other men? They chose not to fight. that should factor into how you judge them, not Floyd.

[LoadedWraps]

Sure he was ****y....BUT WHO THE HELL WOULD RAISE A CHILD AND TELL THEM NOT TO BE CONFIDENT OR ****Y??( believe in yourself) thats what parents tell their kids..all he did was train and try to be the best boxer he could be since he could walk!!!.. He fought he best of the best of his era thru 5 divisions and love or hate him he was an artist in the ring

Because he rose from poverty to become a successful black man and the p4p king, an example and legend for ********** everywhere, and the white man wants nothing more than to keep us back, but you know what they could never do? Stop Floyd from winning!


WAR MAYWEATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[djtmal]

If it's about putting his career in proper perspective then we'd go with the facts, not the false narratives.

What he claims to be has no bearing on this or what I am talking about. If you have the facts, use them. That would give anyone the most honest account of his career.

WHat you feel about a fighter has no bearing on the facts, only how you as the individual will justify the actions. Whether you like Manny or love him, he refused the fight over drug testing. whether you like shane or hate him, he claimed the toothache, regardless of what side of the fence you occupy.

Again, just go with the facts, not your spin on it. I never claimed anyone ducked Floyd or was scared to fight him, I simply pointed out the fact they all either waited to or didn't fight him. Maybe they were afraid to take a loss at that time in their career.

Floyd did retire. He said it was because his hands were hurt. To add that it was to avoid comp is the exact thing I am talking about.

Interesting point. You can say Duran about SRL but if I say JMM about Floyd he is called a blown up LW. What exactly was Duran when he fought Floyd? When its SRL, you say just say Hagler. What about the 5 year wait you ask we bring up when its Floyd and Manny? see my point?

I have no problem with just saying names if we do that for everyone. I have no problem doing scruitny and analysis if we do that for everyone. I'm just asking for consistency.

I think most Floyd fans have thick skin. If those criticizing him used the same criteria all the time for all fighters, there wouldn't be an issue.

Is Floyd so good that we need to skew the way we evaluate fighters careers when he is the one being evaluated?

no we don't have to skew nothing, we just have to keep it 100..

if we putting the career in its proper perspective, best in his era, beat a lot of good champs...multi-division titlist are always the positives, the negative being no atg's in their prime on the resume...you want to break down his atg status against guys like srl we can get busy...

[-Kev-]

He's the best fighter they've ever seen in their lifetime.

Look at which fighter they use as a measuring stick when they're really impressed by another fighter.

If they don't think Floyd is that great, why use him? Why say so and so is better than Floyd to make a point of how great so and so is?

For example, do you see anyone saying Lomachenko has already surpassed or is greater than Arturo Gatti? No, because then they won't be making a point of how great they think Loma is. They have to use the greatest fighter they saw in their era to make a point. So they use Floyd. It's unintentional praise if anything, not really hate. They believe they're hating, but all they're doing is exposing their true beliefs of Floyd without even knowing it, they will be in denial if you accuse them of such thing, but it's true.

They're terrible at hating, they can't even do it properly, they look like they have high respect for Floyd

[djtmal]

Is it reasonable to judge Floyd or any boxer's career on the actions of other men? They chose not to fight. that should factor into how you judge them, not Floyd.

you know me and excuses don't even hang out ...if those guys didn't want to dance...do what roy jones did...there's enough examples in the history books of what cats did to create bigger and better challenges when the obvious ones didn't want to fight so you claim..

hagler my boy, but best believe he'd be getting hogtied if he let hearns walk away from the table, or fought a far less dangerous version..or priced himself out of a fight with srl...sugar ray, gave hagler the $ cause he wanted to put a still dangerous hagler on his resume...no excuses...all you guys are occupied with is whether your guy is exonerated in his own shenanigans

[djtmal]

He's the best fighter they've ever seen in their lifetime.

Look at which fighter they use as a measuring stick when they're really impressed by another fighter.

If they don't think Floyd is that great, why use him? Why say so and so is better than Floyd to make a point of how great so and so is?

For example, do you see anyone saying Lomachenko has already surpassed or is greater than Arturo Gatti? No, because then they won't be making a point of how great they think Loma is. They have to use the greatest fighter they saw in their era to make a point. So they use Floyd. It's unintentional praise if anything, not really hate. They believe they're hating, but all they're doing is exposing their true beliefs of Floyd without even knowing it, they will be in denial if you accuse them of such thing, but it's true.

They're terrible at hating, they can't even do it properly, they look like they have high respect for Floyd

pretty boy floyd was the absolute s**t...

money may, eh, an acquired taste....lol

[Hype job]

Because urrbody wanna keep a brotha down

[The Big Dunn]

you know me and excuses don't even hang out ...if those guys didn't want to dance...do what roy jones did...there's enough examples in the history books of what cats did to create bigger and better challenges when the obvious ones didn't want to fight so you claim..

hagler my boy, but best believe he'd be getting hogtied if he let hearns walk away from the table, or fought a far less dangerous version..or priced himself out of a fight with srl...sugar ray, gave hagler the $ cause he wanted to put a still dangerous hagler on his resume...no excuses...all you guys are occupied with is whether your guy is exonerated in his own shenanigans

It's not what I claim. The facts are available for all to see. Just how could he create bigger and better challenges than the best guys out, a couple who were in higher weight classes at the time he couldn't get fights with them?

Huh? Hagler fought ray when ray offered the fight and came back so I am not sure what you mean.

I'm not asking for anyone to excuse anything, just asking you record history accurately and not try and alter it when it's Floyd. I hate odh, srl and manny but I don't alter history to make them appear worse than they were.