Tweet
I look forward to some totally objective "yes" votes from posters with names like "FloydLover2006" and "MayweatherFan" 
Me? Nah. Sure, he's a superb athlete, but I don't think the talent pool is rich enough around his division for him to be able to prove it even if he DID beat them all. As for what he's achieved thus far, while he's had some very good - if not GREAT - opponents in the past, since he got awarded the No.1 P4P status (by default, let's not forget - he didn't get it for beating a third-tier opponent in Gatti, he got it because Hopkins lost) he seems to have resided in a comfort zone.
He looked superb on Saturday night, but Baldomir was never anything but a journeyman who got lucky. A very lovable one, but a journeyman all the same. Sure, Floyd's most vocal fans will counter that this is after the event, but come on... do you SERIOUSLY consider Baldomir a legitimate opponent for someone who modestly compares himself with the greatest in history?
Floyd became a four-weight champ - though was a paper champ in at least one of them - though he has consolodated this somewhat by becoming the linear champion at welterweight. Yet the diversity of titles - and sub-par status of the opponents - make this less of an achievement in the modern age.
There's the distinct possibility that Floyd could beat anyone in his weight class out of sight. But since I've been on this site I've noticed a Hell of a lot of "kinetic praise". By that, I mean boxers that look absolutely tremendous in the ring, but haven't had the opposition to test those skills to their fullest, yet are talked up as "all time greats" just because of how good they LOOK against third-rank opponents. I'm thinking of a certain China Chop here, who is praised to the hills by the video game generation with total disregard for Ali, Robinson et al. It's as if Ali would have been an ATG just for fighting Al "Blue" Lewis. Nah, he fought MORE than that, see? He fought the best in his era, in arguably the most competitive time to be a heavyweight.
I don't give a **** about "20 defences"... if you think that makes a boxer better than Sugar Ray, as far as I'm concerned you're a BoxRec lover without an opinion other than that spewed out by HBO/The Ring. The Ring's a fine publication, but trying to convince us that a "career defining" fight can be staged against a tiny Mexican, or that "20 defences" (when really it's actually 19 - one was a N/C) is in and of itself an achievement that makes a "great" is just bull****.
But I'm getting off the subject here. I don't want future generations on this site to be talking about Floyd as an ATG. He ISN'T. He is a very, very good boxer. I might even have him in the top 100 on potential alone. But greatest of all time? get a grip.
Me? Nah. Sure, he's a superb athlete, but I don't think the talent pool is rich enough around his division for him to be able to prove it even if he DID beat them all. As for what he's achieved thus far, while he's had some very good - if not GREAT - opponents in the past, since he got awarded the No.1 P4P status (by default, let's not forget - he didn't get it for beating a third-tier opponent in Gatti, he got it because Hopkins lost) he seems to have resided in a comfort zone.
He looked superb on Saturday night, but Baldomir was never anything but a journeyman who got lucky. A very lovable one, but a journeyman all the same. Sure, Floyd's most vocal fans will counter that this is after the event, but come on... do you SERIOUSLY consider Baldomir a legitimate opponent for someone who modestly compares himself with the greatest in history?
Floyd became a four-weight champ - though was a paper champ in at least one of them - though he has consolodated this somewhat by becoming the linear champion at welterweight. Yet the diversity of titles - and sub-par status of the opponents - make this less of an achievement in the modern age.
There's the distinct possibility that Floyd could beat anyone in his weight class out of sight. But since I've been on this site I've noticed a Hell of a lot of "kinetic praise". By that, I mean boxers that look absolutely tremendous in the ring, but haven't had the opposition to test those skills to their fullest, yet are talked up as "all time greats" just because of how good they LOOK against third-rank opponents. I'm thinking of a certain China Chop here, who is praised to the hills by the video game generation with total disregard for Ali, Robinson et al. It's as if Ali would have been an ATG just for fighting Al "Blue" Lewis. Nah, he fought MORE than that, see? He fought the best in his era, in arguably the most competitive time to be a heavyweight.
I don't give a **** about "20 defences"... if you think that makes a boxer better than Sugar Ray, as far as I'm concerned you're a BoxRec lover without an opinion other than that spewed out by HBO/The Ring. The Ring's a fine publication, but trying to convince us that a "career defining" fight can be staged against a tiny Mexican, or that "20 defences" (when really it's actually 19 - one was a N/C) is in and of itself an achievement that makes a "great" is just bull****.
But I'm getting off the subject here. I don't want future generations on this site to be talking about Floyd as an ATG. He ISN'T. He is a very, very good boxer. I might even have him in the top 100 on potential alone. But greatest of all time? get a grip.
Comment