Floyd Mayweather is in my top 3 of all time let the hate begin!

[Johnwoo8686]

Johnwoo8686,



Your points are all over the place.

We don't need an unnecessary analogy with Ray Robinson and a HW, because the guys we're discussing all fought at the same weights.



Greater how?

Did he have greater skills?

I don't think so.

I think they were both equally as skilled, but in different ways. Floyd was better defensively, but Ray was better offensively.

Ray has the better resume.

Floyd has the better longevity.

Again, you're obsessed with the undefeated record.

So what if Ray lost to Duran?

Duran was better than Castillo.

Go and actually watch the 'Brawl in Montreal'

We don't know whether Floyd could have beaten that version of Duran.

A blown up LW? Ha!

You really are struggling.



Yes, this we can agree on. Although Ray was done at that point and had absolutely no business whatsoever up at SMW.



1. If you're not claiming that Manny would have beaten Hearns, then why have you disagreed with me when I said that if Manny had fought in Hearns' era, he wouldn't have replicated what he achieved in his own era?

2. Hearns wasn't a natural LHW draining himself down to WW. What on earth are you talking about? Hearns was a freak a nature, but he wasn't a LHW. He fought in the amateurs at 18 lighter than WW, and he fought in the days of same day weigh-ins. You are talking absolute nonsense.

3. Once again, you cannot rate Floyd's win over Manny as being greater than Ray's win over Hearns, just because you rate Manny higher than Hearns overall. That is absolutely ridiculous. You simply have to look at the circumstances involved.

It would be like rating Danny Williams' win over Mike Tyson as being greater than Tyson Fury's win over Wlad Klitschko, because you rated Tyson as the better overall HW.

It would be like rating Joe Calzaghe's win over Roy Jones as being greater than Bernard Hopkins' win over Trinidad, because you rated Roy higher than Trinidad.

You simply have no idea how to debate.

You aren't objective.

You don't analyse all of the factors.

You don't allow for circumstances.

All you see are black and white statistics.

You are a poor poster who has a lot to learn.

I don't think you understand the concept of pound for pound. So this is like talking to a brick wall. NO I don't believe Manny would have beat Hearns for the simple fact that Manny is a lot smaller. How many times do I have to break this down to you?? My point is that Manny performed better against guys his size and even bigger than himself all the while Hearns most humiliating losses came to guys smaller than himself. That is why I rate Manny higher than Hearns and that is why many all time great lists also rank him higher.

Yes I believe Floyd is more skilled than Leonard. Leonard was knocked down multiple times in his career while Floyd has only been down briefly once in his 20 year career. I've never seen Floyd struggle with a smaller opponent the way Leonard did with a smaller opponent in Duran. Leonard also came back and took on what he thought was an easy opponent in Camacho only to get stopped by Camacho. An old fat and short Camacho. And please don't use the age excuse because we've seen fighters Leonard's age and even older still kick ass.

[ELPacman]

If he fought and beat Pacquiao 5-6 years prior I would agree. Now, no way.

[robertzimmerman]

Johnwoo8686,

I don't think you understand the concept of pound for pound. So this is like talking to a brick wall. NO I don't believe Manny would have beat Hearns for the simple fact that Manny is a lot smaller. How many times do I have to break this down to you?? My point is that Manny performed better against guys his size and even bigger than himself all the while Hearns most humiliating losses came to guys smaller than himself. That is why I rate Manny higher than Hearns and that is why many all time great lists also rank him higher.

I understand the concept perfectly.

It's you who doesn't understand context.

Okay, so we've now established that you don't think Manny would have beaten Hearns. Hallelujah! So I'll ask you again:

"Why have you got an issue with me saying that Manny couldn't have replicated his 8 division wins if he'd have fought in Hearns' era?"

What humiliating losses did Hearns suffer?

You clearly know nothing about the guy.

Once again, I have no issue with you or anybody else ranking Manny higher than Hearns. But for the last time, that isn't grounds to rank Floyd's win over Manny as being better than Ray's win over Hearns.

How can you not look from Ray and Floyd's perspective??

Yes, Floyd wasn't young himself. I acknowledge that. But he was fighting a smaller guy who was faded. Manny was a shell of the guy he'd once been. It's also clear that he had an injury. You can tell that by looking at his performance. Then there's the IV controversy.

Ray had to fight a peak version of Tommy Hearns, who was significantly bigger with more power. And to get the win, he had to have a shootout with an absolutely fearsome puncher.

Do you understand?

Manny didn't offer much of a threat to Floyd.

Tommy was a huge threat to Ray.

Floyd won easy whilst being in cruise control.

Ray had to go through hell.

Ray faced a far tougher challenge.

Ray's win was clearly better, despite Manny ranking higher than Hearns overall.

If you can't comprehend that then you're a fool.

Yes I believe Floyd is more skilled than Leonard. Leonard was knocked down multiple times in his career while Floyd has only been down briefly once in his 20 year career. I've never seen Floyd struggle with a smaller opponent the way Leonard did with a smaller opponent in Duran. Leonard also came back and took on what he thought was an easy opponent in Camacho only to get stopped by Camacho. An old fat and short Camacho. And please don't use the age excuse because we've seen fighters Leonard's age and even older still kick ass.

Well of course you believe that Floyd was more skilled. But we've already established that you don't know anything about the 'Fab Four'

I don't know why I'm debating you.

Yes, Ray got knocked down more. And? He fought better opponents.

No, you've never seen Floyd struggle with a guy as small as Duran. But Duran was a great fighter. And Floyd never fought anybody as good as the version of Duran who Ray fought in Montreal, and he also struggled with lesser fighters.

If you knew anything about this sport, you'd know that age and ring age are 2 very different things. Yes, Ray got stopped by Camacho. So what? He was clearly past prime. He'd had injuries and drug issues. His career ended badly like so many other greats before him. It's only like Roy Jones losing to Green, Johnson and Lebedev etc. Again, it has to be put into context.

Floyd deserves all the credit in the world for his professionalism and longevity. He was still elite in his 30's and 40's, and he was unbeaten. But that doesn't mean he was better than Ray. There's many factors to analyse. But you've only got the capacity to look at the wins and losses columns. Like I've already said, you're a poor poster.

I'm debating a guy who thinks that Hearns was a natural LHW who boiled down to 147 in the days of same day weigh-ins.

I must be dafter than what you are to keep replying.

[BattlingNelson]

Johnwoo8686,



Your points are all over the place.

We don't need an unnecessary analogy with Ray Robinson and a HW, because the guys we're discussing all fought at the same weights.



Greater how?

Did he have greater skills?

I don't think so.

I think they were both equally as skilled, but in different ways. Floyd was better defensively, but Ray was better offensively.

Ray has the better resume.

Floyd has the better longevity.

Again, you're obsessed with the undefeated record.

So what if Ray lost to Duran?

Duran was better than Castillo.

Go and actually watch the 'Brawl in Montreal'

We don't know whether Floyd could have beaten that version of Duran.

A blown up LW? Ha!

You really are struggling.



Yes, this we can agree on. Although Ray was done at that point and had absolutely no business whatsoever up at SMW.



1. If you're not claiming that Manny would have beaten Hearns, then why have you disagreed with me when I said that if Manny had fought in Hearns' era, he wouldn't have replicated what he achieved in his own era?

2. Hearns wasn't a natural LHW draining himself down to WW. What on earth are you talking about? Hearns was a freak a nature, but he wasn't a LHW. He fought in the amateurs at 18 lighter than WW, and he fought in the days of same day weigh-ins. You are talking absolute nonsense.

3. Once again, you cannot rate Floyd's win over Manny as being greater than Ray's win over Hearns, just because you rate Manny higher than Hearns overall. That is absolutely ridiculous. You simply have to look at the circumstances involved.

It would be like rating Danny Williams' win over Mike Tyson as being greater than Tyson Fury's win over Wlad Klitschko, because you rated Tyson as the better overall HW.

It would be like rating Joe Calzaghe's win over Roy Jones as being greater than Bernard Hopkins' win over Trinidad, because you rated Roy higher than Trinidad.

You simply have no idea how to debate.

You aren't objective.

You don't analyse all of the factors.

You don't allow for circumstances.

All you see are black and white statistics.

You are a poor poster who has a lot to learn.

You are absolutely destroying the floydstans mate. Wow.

[robertzimmerman]

You are absolutely destroying the floydstans mate. Wow.

I'm tagging you in Bat.

It's your turn to debate him.

Ha!

[Johnwoo8686]

Johnwoo8686,



I understand the concept perfectly.

It's you who doesn't understand context.

Okay, so we've now established that you don't think Manny would have beaten Hearns. Hallelujah! So I'll ask you again:

"Why have you got an issue with me saying that Manny couldn't have replicated his 8 division wins if he'd have fought in Hearns' era?"

What humiliating losses did Hearns suffer?

You clearly know nothing about the guy.

Once again, I have no issue with you or anybody else ranking Manny higher than Hearns. But for the last time, that isn't grounds to rank Floyd's win over Manny as being better than Ray's win over Hearns.

How can you not look from Ray and Floyd's perspective??

Yes, Floyd wasn't young himself. I acknowledge that. But he was fighting a smaller guy who was faded. Manny was a shell of the guy he'd once been. It's also clear that he had an injury. You can tell that by looking at his performance. Then there's the IV controversy.

Ray had to fight a peak version of Tommy Hearns, who was significantly bigger with more power. And to get the win, he had to have a shootout with an absolutely fearsome puncher.

Do you understand?

Manny didn't offer much of a threat to Floyd.

Tommy was a huge threat to Ray.

Floyd won easy whilst being in cruise control.

Ray had to go through hell.

Ray faced a far tougher challenge.

Ray's win was clearly better, despite Manny ranking higher than Hearns overall.

If you can't comprehend that then you're a fool.



Well of course you believe that Floyd was more skilled. But we've already established that you don't know anything about the 'Fab Four'

I don't know why I'm debating you.

Yes, Ray got knocked down more. And? He fought better opponents.

No, you've never seen Floyd struggle with a guy as small as Duran. But Duran was a great fighter. And Floyd never fought anybody as good as the version of Duran who Ray fought in Montreal, and he also struggled with lesser fighters.

If you knew anything about this sport, you'd know that age and ring age are 2 very different things. Yes, Ray got stopped by Camacho. So what? He was clearly past prime. He'd had injuries and drug issues. His career ended badly like so many other greats before him. It's only like Roy Jones losing to Green, Johnson and Lebedev etc. Again, it has to be put into context.

Floyd deserves all the credit in the world for his professionalism and longevity. He was still elite in his 30's and 40's, and he was unbeaten. But that doesn't mean he was better than Ray. There's many factors to analyse. But you've only got the capacity to look at the wins and losses columns. Like I've already said, you're a poor poster.

I'm debating a guy who thinks that Hearns was a natural LHW who boiled down to 147 in the days of same day weigh-ins.

I must be dafter than what you are to keep replying.

I don't know why you keep comparing Ray's win over Hearns to Floyds win over Manny. Floyd's win over Manny came at the end of his career while Ray's win over Hearns came relatively early in his career. Ray was young while Floyd was old. It's a ****** comparison on your part. When Ray was over the age of 35 he was nowhere near what Floyd was when he was over 35. Ray by the time he turned 34 never won another world title fight for the rest of his career. While Floyd won 8 title fights after turning 34, two against guys who will surely be in the hall of fame in Cotto and Pacquiao, and one against a young undefeated champion in Canelo Alvarez.

How can you say Floyd never fought anyone as good as Duran? I think even a 33 year old Oscar could have likely beat Duran if they were to fight head to head. He would have size, reach and power over Duran and Oscar had some of his easiest fights against come forward fighters. Oscar was a gold medalist who won titles in 6 weight divisions while Duran was a 4 division champion.

All you are doing is elevating fighters of the past without any proof of why they were better. You ignore statistics simply because they dont suit your argument and keep repeating the same misnomers over and over again without anything to back up your claim.

[Dosumpthin]

You are absolutely destroying the floydstans mate. Wow.

Seems more like he's just being hypocritical in his post to me.

He constantly references Floyd vs Castillo I performance - ignoring Floyd's shpulder injury - when comparing Floyd to other ATGs.


Same post he cites Mannys imaginary shoulder injury to discredit Floyd's win. Even brings up the IV as if that had any affect on the outcome.




He's just a naysayer.

[robertzimmerman]

Seems more like he's just being hypocritical in his post to me.

He constantly references Floyd vs Castillo I performance - ignoring Floyd's shpulder injury - when comparing Floyd to other ATGs.

Same post he cites Mannys imaginary shoulder injury to discredit Floyd's win. Even brings up the IV as if that had any affect on the outcome.

He's just a naysayer.

I've referred to the Castillo fight as he thinks that Ray losing to Duran means that Floyd was superior.

I don't need to discredit Floyd's win over Manny. He beat a shell of a once great fighter. It wasn't a great win. Nowhere near the level of Ray beating a prime Hearns.

I've just been reading some of your posts on the IV thread.

You're a rider.

[robertzimmerman]

Johnwoo8686,

I don't know why you keep comparing Ray's win over Hearns to Floyds win over Manny. Floyd's win over Manny came at the end of his career while Ray's win over Hearns came relatively early in his career. Ray was young while Floyd was old. It's a ****** comparison on your part. When Ray was over the age of 35 he was nowhere near what Floyd was when he was over 35. Ray by the time he turned 34 never won another world title fight for the rest of his career. While Floyd won 8 title fights after turning 34, two against guys who will surely be in the hall of fame in Cotto and Pacquiao, and one against a young undefeated champion in Canelo Alvarez.

I'm merely highlighting your ridiculous level of thinking.

We've already established that Floyd had great longevity, and I commend him for it. But it is utterly ridiculous of you to rate wins based on an opponents overall ranking and NOT ON WHERE THEY WERE IN THEIR CAREERS AT THE TIME OF SAID FIGHTS. Again, you can't comprehend the different factors involved. You don't allow for circumstances.

How can you say Floyd never fought anyone as good as Duran? I think even a 33 year old Oscar could have likely beat Duran if they were to fight head to head. He would have size, reach and power over Duran and Oscar had some of his easiest fights against come forward fighters. Oscar was a gold medalist who won titles in 6 weight divisions while Duran was a 4 division champion.

Man, you are an absolute JOKE!

So Oscar was better than Duran, based on a 6-4 win in his favour regarding the amount of divisions he won titles in?

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

Oscar was faded when he fought Floyd. He gassed out in the latter part of the fight, and he'd hardly fought since 2004.

The version of Duran who fought in the 'Brawl in Montreal' was a better fighter than THAT version of Oscar.

All you are doing is elevating fighters of the past without any proof of why they were better. You ignore statistics simply because they dont suit your argument and keep repeating the same misnomers over and over again without anything to back up your claim.

I've backed up many of my claims many of which you have yet to refute.

You are the guy who hides behind statistics.

You are absolutely obsessed by them.

You are a BoxRec warrior.


It's pointless taking this any further. Because not only am I debating someone who is ignorant, I'm also debating a guy who knows nothing about the guys he's disrespecting.

I'll just leave you with this gem:

"Hearns was a LHW who used to boil down to WW to beat up smaller guys...."


Don't bother replying.

I'm done.

[Dosumpthin]

.....I don't need to discredit Floyd's win over Manny......

No?

It's also clear that he had an injury. You can tell that by looking at his performance.

You can?

Then there's the IV controversy.

Right......Floyd had the help of an IV.





And here you are pretending to be knowledgeable about the sport.






You're a hack.