The case for FLOYD as the best ever!

[Teddy's Toupee]

Mike McCallum at light-middleweight would have beaten Floyd Mayweather (even at a catch-weight).

[Deserter]

Sportsman get better, it's proven in every sport, boxing is no different.

Absolute nonsense as there are a multitude of variables at play that affect this such as participation levels and TV interest. Name me anyone who thinks the current heavyweight scene and standard is the best it's ever been, for example?
If you want an example outside of boxing, tell me why no British middle distance runners can come close to the times set by the likes of Coe and Cram 30 years ago?
The idea that De La Hoya could have beaten Hagler still leaves me chuckling and if you can find one other person to support this hypothesis I salute you.

[jimcook]

Wow is this boxrec or some daft forum for boxing newbies?

Absolutely mental that anyone is even considering this- you need to educate yourself if you truly believe he's the best based on his very name heavy résume and performances against good but hardly any great opposition.

He's picked and chosen his way to 45-0. Yes there are some brilliant wins in there Manfreddy, Genaro Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Hatton but other then that its all a little bit smoke and Mirrors. Great names sure but a long way removed from their primes. Even the lower tier guys like Judah and Shamba Mitchell had ran into moderate form before he decided to take them on.

He downright ducked an unbeaten Cotto, Paul Williams, Margarito, Tszyu, Freitas, prime Mosley and of course Pacquiao. For the record I think he'd have beaten them but not without hiccup. It's ok that now - at this advanced stage in his career that he is suddenly saying 'you choose and I'll fight anybody'. But the divisions around him are laden with mediocre (world class) fighters. It's like Man Utd saying they'll play anybody once Arsenal, Chelsea and City have retired from the league.

Personally to me records mean very little these days. It's easy to pick and choose your way to virtually any record you like if your talented. He's got a fabulous system of fighting. It's very clever and means he has an answer for almost anything his opponent does, but you've got to remember who he is fighting. These aren't Durans, Benitez's or Hearns' they are a series of mostly good not great fighters. I always try and imagine the fighters your comparing the subject with and how they would have got on in the same matches.

Are we in any doubt that Leonard, Duran and co would have barely lost a round on route to 45-0 against the same men.

He is a great but for me he sits somewhere around the same place as the earlier mentioned Felix Trinidad. Probably above Don Curry head to head and certainly legacy wise. Before you come back and say oh well it's different eras ask yourself this. Would he have beaten Winky Wright who was a tremendous fighter not generally considered an ATG? I have my doubts.

good post.

[loaded_gloves]

De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

[Datsue]

Wow is this boxrec or some daft forum for boxing newbies?

Absolutely mental that anyone is even considering this- you need to educate yourself if you truly believe he's the best based on his very name heavy résume and performances against good but hardly any great opposition.

He's picked and chosen his way to 45-0. Yes there are some brilliant wins in there Manfreddy, Genaro Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Hatton but other then that its all a little bit smoke and Mirrors. Great names sure but a long way removed from their primes. Even the lower tier guys like Judah and Shamba Mitchell had ran into moderate form before he decided to take them on.

He downright ducked an unbeaten Cotto, Paul Williams, Margarito, Tszyu, Freitas, prime Mosley and of course Pacquiao. For the record I think he'd have beaten them but not without hiccup. It's ok that now - at this advanced stage in his career that he is suddenly saying 'you choose and I'll fight anybody'. But the divisions around him are laden with mediocre (world class) fighters. It's like Man Utd saying they'll play anybody once Arsenal, Chelsea and City have retired from the league.

Personally to me records mean very little these days. It's easy to pick and choose your way to virtually any record you like if your talented. He's got a fabulous system of fighting. It's very clever and means he has an answer for almost anything his opponent does, but you've got to remember who he is fighting. These aren't Durans, Benitez's or Hearns' they are a series of mostly good not great fighters. I always try and imagine the fighters your comparing the subject with and how they would have got on in the same matches.

Are we in any doubt that Leonard, Duran and co would have barely lost a round on route to 45-0 against the same men.

He is a great but for me he sits somewhere around the same place as the earlier mentioned Felix Trinidad. Probably above Don Curry head to head and certainly legacy wise. Before you come back and say oh well it's different eras ask yourself this. Would he have beaten Winky Wright who was a tremendous fighter not generally considered an ATG? I have my doubts.

Thank you, Jeff.

[Lenny]

Nice one Jeff. I'd include Casamayor in the fighters he should have fought list because I'd love to have seen that fight. Someone who was as clever and dirty as Floyd up close.

Floyd is the best of his era, no shame in that.

Also i'm still struggling with the concept of De La Hoya beating Hagler, can you explain how that fight would go for me please Jessi?

[Counter-puncher]

Nice one Jeff. I'd include Casamayor in the fighters he should have fought list because I'd love to have seen that fight. Someone who was as clever and dirty as Floyd up close.

i have said this for ages, but it seems to be a minority view

[Syntax Error]

17 years at the top and undefeated.

Floyd is up there.

17 years!

History will be very kind to Floyd, but I just can't see him as the best ever, although he is the best of this generation by far.

I wish he was born in 1957 instead of 1977, because he would have had some hellacious opposition to face had he been born 20 years earlier.

[Syntax Error]

De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Who wrote that?

[Teddy's Toupee]

De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Who wrote that?

Oscar De La Hoya?

[orbtastic]

I think McCallum would have beaten Floyd, but I also think against the "fabulous four" he'd have got at least one win.

Not so sure he'd have made 152 though. He was a big old lump for a light middle.

[Chris W 1982]

I think McCallum would have beaten Floyd, but I also think against the "fabulous four" he'd have got at least one win.

Not so sure he'd have made 152 though. He was a big old lump for a light middle.

I don't. If you took them all at the their prime then I think Floyd would do well to hear the final bell against any of them.

Leonard would have dazzled him

He was made for Hearns

Hagler far too big

Duran the night he beat Leonard was arguably the greatest man to ever step foot in the ring

A prime Floyd would certainly have beaten versions of the fab 4 but each at their best would have got the win.

[Lenny]

Nice one Jeff. I'd include Casamayor in the fighters he should have fought list because I'd love to have seen that fight. Someone who was as clever and dirty as Floyd up close.

i have said this for ages, but it seems to be a minority view

I rate Casamayor pretty highly. Can pretty much fight whatever way he needed to. Would easily be the most intelligent fighter Floyd had fought (not counting the Marquez he faced).

Lightweight and light-welter were breezed though by Mayweather, avoiding the divisions biggest talents along the way, these divisions should have defined him imo

[stujones]

I think McCallum would have beaten Floyd, but I also think against the "fabulous four" he'd have got at least one win.

Not so sure he'd have made 152 though. He was a big old lump for a light middle.

I don't. If you took them all at the their prime then I think Floyd would do well to hear the final bell against any of them.

Leonard would have dazzled him

He was made for Hearns

Hagler far too big

Duran the night he beat Leonard was arguably the greatest man to ever step foot in the ring

A prime Floyd would certainly have beaten versions of the fab 4 but each at their best would have got the win.

I disagree that Duran the night he beat Leonard was the greatest man to step foot in the ring. He was better as a lightweight period than at Welter.

and for me that performance by Leonard that night, although an honourable defeat in a great fight, leaves me questioning the one poster who commented on this thread that Leonard was a more complete fighter than Floyd.

Could Leonard deal with the rough, brawling, mauling type of opponent as well as Floyd. I am NOT comparing Duran to Hatton, but Floyd beat Ricky at his own game. Of all the styles that Floyd has faced not one fighter has truly shown the blueprint of how to beat him.

Its actually some of the performances that have been labelled as "weaknesses" for Floyd that for me show how good a fighter he is. How he dealt with Mosley after being hurt was remarkable... you cannot even afford to hurt Floyd! Every fighter that you think has the style to beat Floyd he proves you wrong with interest.

A crying shame he is not an era that is jammed backed with talent. Shame he even missed out on a Trinidad or a beyond question prime DLH... shame he hasn't (yet) fought Manny.

[Counter-puncher]

Nice one Jeff. I'd include Casamayor in the fighters he should have fought list because I'd love to have seen that fight. Someone who was as clever and dirty as Floyd up close.

i have said this for ages, but it seems to be a minority view

I rate Casamayor pretty highly. Can pretty much fight whatever way he needed to. Would easily be the most intelligent fighter Floyd had fought (not counting the Marquez he faced).

Lightweight and light-welter were breezed though by Mayweather, avoiding the divisions biggest talents along the way, these divisions should have defined him imo

aye, understandable he ended up going up for twice/thrice the money at the higher weights though

[orbtastic]

I think McCallum would have beaten Floyd, but I also think against the "fabulous four" he'd have got at least one win.

Not so sure he'd have made 152 though. He was a big old lump for a light middle.

I don't. If you took them all at the their prime then I think Floyd would do well to hear the final bell against any of them.

Leonard would have dazzled him

He was made for Hearns

Hagler far too big

Duran the night he beat Leonard was arguably the greatest man to ever step foot in the ring

A prime Floyd would certainly have beaten versions of the fab 4 but each at their best would have got the win.

No, I meant McCallum would have at least one win.

I said elsewhere I'd give Mayweather a chance against Hearns (but not Leonard) but I also can make a strong case for Hearns stopping him.

Hagler wasn't a huge middleweight but he was never about imposing his size, he was all about accuracy.

[Lenny]

You kinda are comparing Duran to Hatton though Stu and throughout all their differences as fighters the big, standout, massive ones is their defence.

Duran wasn't just a rough brawling type, he was also incredibly difficult to tag cleanly. Hatton of the other hand has always been wide open and often straight on. Capable of getting out of the way in his younger days with his speed of foot but he was losing this long before he fought Floyd - not that Hatton could have ever beaten him.
Also Floyd didn't have it all his own way against the "rough, brawling, mauling type" that was Castillo

[stujones]

Casamayor was a fantastic fighter no getting away from it, but in the big ones he seemed to find away to lose fights he should never have lost.

Freitas, Corrales 2 and Castillo and he made harder work of Katisdis than necessary.

Barrera at super feather I would have liked to have seen Floyd stick around for.

[Lenny]

Casamayor was a fantastic fighter no getting away from it, but in the big ones he seemed to find away to lose fights he should never have lost.

Freitas, Corrales 2 and Castillo and he made harder work of Katisdis than necessary.

You could make a good case for him winning all 3 fights though...

Barrera at super feather I would have liked to have seen Floyd stick around for.

Yes but unfortunately I think he missed Barrera and Morales by a couple of years, their paths just didn't come close enough to crossing

[stujones]

You kinda are comparing Duran to Hatton though Stu and throughout all their differences as fighters the big, standout, massive ones is their defence.

Duran wasn't just a rough brawling type, he was also incredibly difficult to tag cleanly. Hatton of the other hand has always been wide open and often straight on. Capable of getting out of the way in his younger days with his speed of foot but he was losing this long before he fought Floyd - not that Hatton could have ever beaten him.
Also Floyd didn't have it all his own way against the "rough, brawling, mauling type" that was Castillo

Agree, Lenny. It is kind hard not to compare them given that Duran was Hatton's idol and he often mentioned him.

They are levels apart, thats why I didn't want to make the comparison... but for me, Hatton was the best "Duran style" type of fighter of his generation and it wasn't the fact Floyd won, but how he won that impressed me. I am sure Floyd could have made Hatton look silly and chase air all night to win a wide, dull points decision - but instead he actually out roughed him. He actually backed up the "bull" and out slugged him... it was a different, but fantastic performance.

Floyd was a little green against Castillo and fight with one hand, but as I have said frequently, personally I really cannot see the controvesy in their first fight. He won that fight clear IMO, Castillo won some rounds okay, but I think a 7-5 to Floyd card is kind to Castillo.

DLH might have shown the blueprint to beat Floyd, as that fight I did think was razor close - but the more times Floyd fights since, the more I think something wasn't right with Floyd that night - as no-one has really come close since.

[loaded_gloves]

De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Who wrote that?

Jessi

(a woman)

[stujones]

Casamayor was a fantastic fighter no getting away from it, but in the big ones he seemed to find away to lose fights he should never have lost.

Freitas, Corrales 2 and Castillo and he made harder work of Katisdis than necessary.

You could make a good case for him winning all 3 fights though...

Barrera at super feather I would have liked to have seen Floyd stick around for.

Yes but unfortunately I think he missed Barrera and Morales by a couple of years, their paths just didn't come close enough to crossing

Without meaning to disrespect the three fighters, but talent wise these fights with Casamayor shouldn't even been debated.

Floyd was Super Feather champion when Marco was Feather champion - so maybe it could have happened, but they were not at the same weight at the same time.

[Final round]

Duran from Leonard 1 would have mauled Floyd.

[Deserter]

De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

[jessi]

Absolute nonsense as there are a multitude of variables at play that affect this such as participation levels and TV interest. Name me anyone who thinks the current heavyweight scene and standard is the best it's ever been, for example?
If you want an example outside of boxing, tell me why no British middle distance runners can come close to the times set by the likes of Coe and Cram 30 years ago?
The idea that De La Hoya could have beaten Hagler still leaves me chuckling and if you can find one other person to support this hypothesis I salute you.[/quote]


See your missing the point, the heavyweight scene hasn't got to be the best it's ever been for them to beat the heavyweights from the 50's 60's and 70's. But the human body is getting stronger, bigger, more advanced, with what we eat, how we live, and how we train. It's called evolution.
Your athletics argument was poor, you have chosen one country from the whole world, but for the record the British 1,500 meter record got smashed this year !
Golf, the players scores on average are getting much lower ( you could say equipment is getting better ) but then I would say courses are getter longer, greens are getting faster.
Snooker, players hit maximum 147 breaks all the time now ( so much so the pockets had to be made smaller )
Athletics, times are getting faster, field events are getting longer. ( Carl Lewis was a hero of mine but he wouldn't live with bolt )
Just because haggler was a monster 30 years ago or so dont mean he would of been now. It's all speculation