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

[Santa_]

Top 3 of the last generation (25 years) without a doubt.


Anybody that says he isn't is probably just trolling.

[Johnwoo8686]

Johnwoo8686,



A biased opinion?

Please!

You are the guy who thinks Floyd's win over Manny was better than Ray's win over Hearns, because Manny ranks higher than Hearns overall.

If you can't see how ridiculous that is, then you've got an awful lot to learn.

Again, you have also said that Oscar ranks higher than Marvin by just comparing numbers.

I'm not biased. It's you who's uneducated.

Regarding Hearns, of course he may have sustained more losses if he'd have fought at the higher weight classes. And that applies to absolutely anybody. He kept pushing himself fighting dangerous guys at the higher weights as he aged. But if he'd have stayed at JMW, he'd have taken some beating.



It's called an EDUCATED guess based on all of the evidence that is available.

Manny struggled with JMM 4 times.

Floyd struggled with Castillo and a faded Oscar.

So I think it's safe to say that Floyd wouldn't have gone unbeaten and Manny wouldn't have won titles in 8 divisions, had they have fought guys like Pryor, Benitez, McCallum and the 'Fab Four' etc.

You don't need to hire Columbo or possess a time machine to be certain.

If you have a functioning pair of eyes and an understanding of the sport, then you KNOW.

You know that Floyd's best weight wasn't WW. You know that he was a safety first fighter there. You know that he had hand issues. You've seen how Ray and Benitez struggled to outbox a guy like Hearns. So any knowledgeable fan knows that Floyd also wouldnt have been able to have outboxed him at 5'8. And you know full well that he didn't possess the power required to have outfought him. It's common sense. So yes, if Floyd had fought those types of guys when they were prime, logic tells you that he wouldn't have retired undefeated. And the exact same applies to Manny. If his road to winning titles in 8 divisions had seen him fight the likes of Ray and Hearns instead of guys like Cotto and Margarito, then it's absolutely obvious that he'd never have accomplished the same feat. And that isn't merely conjecture, again, it's logic.



Again, I don't mind if you rate Manny higher. As long as you've been objective and your opinion isn't based purely on statistics. Manny was great. Yes, WW was his 7th division. But Duran started out 20 pounds lower than WW when he turned pro. But there were less weight classes back then and his circumstances were different. Under different circumstances in the modern era, WW could have been his 4th weight class.

Whilst I can envisage Manny troubling Duran, I can't envisage him beating the other great WW's that I've mentioned.

Again you seem to be misunderstanding my point. I'm talking pound for pound greatness NOT head to head. Ray Robinson was considered the greatest pound for pound boxer of all time but he would get starched by even the most mediocre heavyweight of his time.

Pound for pound Floyd is greater than Ray. Welterweight was Ray's first weight class and he could not remain undefeated there. Yes, he faced top guys at 147 pounds but he still did lose to a blown up lightweight in Roberto Duran. You keep saying Floyd struggled with Castillo but Leonard LOST to Duran. The Castillo fight happened at Floyd's second weight class and Castillo significantly outweighed Floyd on the night of the fight and Floyd still won and proceeded to beat him more convincingly in the rematch.

And Ray really lost the Hearns rematch but Hearns was robbed with the score of a draw. Hearns put Ray on his ass twice and outpointed him in most of the rounds but somehow only got a draw? That is b.s.

Manny is greater than Hearns pound for pound but I am NOT saying Manny would beat Hearns in a head to head match up. Hearns was a natural light heavyweight draining himself to welterweight to smash little guys. That is not as impressive as a guy who moved up and won titles in 8 weight divisions like Manny did. That is why I put a win over Manny as greater than a win over Hearns. Remember We are talking about POUND for POUND greatness.

[robertzimmerman]

Johnwoo8686,

Again you seem to be misunderstanding my point. I'm talking pound for pound greatness NOT head to head. Ray Robinson was considered the greatest pound for pound boxer of all time but he would get starched by even the most mediocre heavyweight of his time.

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.

Pound for pound Floyd is greater than Ray. Welterweight was Ray's first weight class and he could not remain undefeated there. Yes, he faced top guys at 147 pounds but he still did lose to a blown up lightweight in Roberto Duran. You keep saying Floyd struggled with Castillo but Leonard LOST to Duran. The Castillo fight happened at Floyd's second weight class and Castillo significantly outweighed Floyd on the night of the fight and Floyd still won and proceeded to beat him more convincingly in the rematch.

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.

And Ray really lost the Hearns rematch but Hearns was robbed with the score of a draw. Hearns put Ray on his ass twice and outpointed him in most of the rounds but somehow only got a draw? That is b.s.

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

Manny is greater than Hearns pound for pound but I am NOT saying Manny would beat Hearns in a head to head match up. Hearns was a natural light heavyweight draining himself to welterweight to smash little guys. That is not as impressive as a guy who moved up and won titles in 8 weight divisions like Manny did. That is why I put a win over Manny as greater than a win over Hearns. Remember We are talking about POUND for POUND greatness.

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 of 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.

[Thraxox]

Again you seem to be misunderstanding my point. I'm talking pound for pound greatness NOT head to head. Ray Robinson was considered the greatest pound for pound boxer of all time but he would get starched by even the most mediocre heavyweight of his time.

Pound for pound Floyd is greater than Ray. Welterweight was Ray's first weight class and he could not remain undefeated there. Yes, he faced top guys at 147 pounds but he still did lose to a blown up lightweight in Roberto Duran. You keep saying Floyd struggled with Castillo but Leonard LOST to Duran. The Castillo fight happened at Floyd's second weight class and Castillo significantly outweighed Floyd on the night of the fight and Floyd still won and proceeded to beat him more convincingly in the rematch.

And Ray really lost the Hearns rematch but Hearns was robbed with the score of a draw. Hearns put Ray on his ass twice and outpointed him in most of the rounds but somehow only got a draw? That is b.s.

Manny is greater than Hearns pound for pound but I am NOT saying Manny would beat Hearns in a head to head match up. Hearns was a natural light heavyweight draining himself to welterweight to smash little guys. That is not as impressive as a guy who moved up and won titles in 8 weight divisions like Manny did. That is why I put a win over Manny as greater than a win over Hearns. Remember We are talking about POUND for POUND greatness.

You are not accounting how Tommy Hearns was in his prime and how Manny was 36 years old and got recently KTFO by Marquez?

[robertzimmerman]

You are not accounting how Tommy Hearns was in his prime and how Manny was 36 years old and got recently KTFO by Marquez?

Exactly.

He's not objective.

He's just a 'Stat Man'

[Thraxox]

Johnwoo8686,



A biased opinion?

Please!

You are the guy who thinks Floyd's win over Manny was better than Ray's win over Hearns, because Manny ranks higher than Hearns overall.

If you can't see how ridiculous that is, then you've got an awful lot to learn.

Again, you have also said that Oscar ranks higher than Marvin by just comparing numbers.

I'm not biased. It's you who's uneducated.

Regarding Hearns, of course he may have sustained more losses if he'd have fought at the higher weight classes. And that applies to absolutely anybody. He kept pushing himself fighting dangerous guys at the higher weights as he aged. But if he'd have stayed at JMW, he'd have taken some beating.



It's called an EDUCATED guess based on all of the evidence that is available.

Manny struggled with JMM 4 times.

Floyd struggled with Castillo and a faded Oscar.

So I think it's safe to say that Floyd wouldn't have gone unbeaten and Manny wouldn't have won titles in 8 divisions, had they have fought guys like Pryor, Benitez, McCallum and the 'Fab Four' etc.

You don't need to hire Columbo or possess a time machine to be certain.

If you have a functioning pair of eyes and an understanding of the sport, then you KNOW.

You know that Floyd's best weight wasn't WW. You know that he was a safety first fighter there. You know that he had hand issues. You've seen how Ray and Benitez struggled to outbox a guy like Hearns. So any knowledgeable fan knows that Floyd also wouldnt have been able to have outboxed him at 5'8. And you know full well that he didn't possess the power required to have outfought him. It's common sense. So yes, if Floyd had fought those types of guys when they were prime, logic tells you that he wouldn't have retired undefeated. And the exact same applies to Manny. If his road to winning titles in 8 divisions had seen him fight the likes of Ray and Hearns instead of guys like Cotto and Margarito, then it's absolutely obvious that he'd never have accomplished the same feat. And that isn't merely conjecture, again, it's logic.



Again, I don't mind if you rate Manny higher. As long as you've been objective and your opinion isn't based purely on statistics. Manny was great. Yes, WW was his 7th division. But Duran started out 20 pounds lower than WW when he turned pro. But there were less weight classes back then and his circumstances were different. Under different circumstances in the modern era, WW could have been his 4th weight class.

Whilst I can envisage Manny troubling Duran, I can't envisage him beating the other great WW's that I've mentioned.

We don't know that. I would agree that they may not beat the Fab Four but I would give them both chances to beat Benitez and Duran at 135-140. Aaron Pryor is the easiest of the bunch because how hittable he is.

[robertzimmerman]

We don't know that. I would agree that they may not beat the Fab Four but I would give them both chances to beat Benitez and Duran at 135-140. Aaron Pryor is the easiest of the bunch because how hittable he is.

Come on now.

We know that neither Floyd or Manny would have beaten a guy like Hearns at WW or JMW.

They were truly outstanding fighters, but there were limits as to what they could achieve.

We know that Floyd and Manny peaked at the lower weights.

If Manny had fought Ray and Hearns instead of Cotto and Marg, then he'd never have won those WW and JMW titles.

If Floyd had fought Benitez, 3 of the 'Fab Four' as well as a guy like McCallum instead of Oscar, then he'd never have gotten to 50-0.

That's not hating, that's just being logical based on the evidence that's available.

[Johnwoo8686]

You are not accounting how Tommy Hearns was in his prime and how Manny was 36 years old and got recently KTFO by Marquez?

Pacquiao has been KTFO multiple times in his career. And even after losing to Floyd became world champion again and successfully defended the belt again before losing it to Jeff Horn. Plus, Hearns never really had that great of a chin and was ko'd multiple times in his career just like Manny.

[Thraxox]

Pacquiao has been KTFO multiple times in his career. And even after losing to Floyd became world champion again and successfully defended the belt again before losing it to Jeff Horn. Plus, Hearns never really had that great of a chin and was ko'd multiple times in his career just like Manny.

Here is the KO losses of Manny when he was of age: 16 years old vs Torrecampo, 20 years old vs Singasurat, and then 34 years old vs Juan Manuel Marquez, that's a 14 year interval between the KO of Singasurat and Juan Manuel Marquez

Come now, it's not rocket science.

Tommy Hearns 23 years old 6'1 80 reach, 29 wins-0 (27 KO's) vs Manny Pacquiao 36 years, 5'5 67 reach coming off from the knock out of the century at 36 years old with 2 losses of his last 5.

Floyd fought a shell of Manny, had he fought Manny in his prime you could make a case, but he didn't.

[Johnwoo8686]

Here is the KO losses of Manny when he was of age: 16 years old vs Torrecampo, 20 years old vs Singasurat, and then 34 years old vs Juan Manuel Marquez, that's a 14 year interval between the KO of Singasurat and Juan Manuel Marquez

Come now, it's not rocket science.

Tommy Hearns 23 years old 6'1 80 reach, 29 wins-0 (27 KO's) vs Manny Pacquiao 36 years, 5'5 67 reach coming off from the knock out of the century at 36 years old with 2 losses of his last 5.

Floyd fought a shell of Manny, had he fought Manny in his prime you could make a case, but he didn't.

I understand your point. But you also have to remember Floyd was an old man himself when he fought Manny, even older than Pacquiao was. Leonard was in his absolute prime when he faced Hearns.

Here's the problem that people like to create, they compare an old Floyd to fighters of the past when they were in their absolute primes and use that as the standard. When the truth is when those fighters were the same age as Floyd was in the last few years of his career they got their asses spanked multiple times.

I look at the totality of a fighters career not just their physical prime when I try to compare greatness. Floyd had more longevity and greater consistency at the world title level than Leonard did all while beating solid competition.