The case for FLOYD as the best ever!

[stujones]

James,

I know what you are saying but I do think there is a bit of rose tinted glasses there also.

Hagler did dominate a devision, but if we are going to be critical - lets be objective and criticise accross the generation.

Hearns aside, name me the great Hagler beat? Duran???? Yes absolutely.... but if we are going to critise Mayweather vs Marquez - Then surely Hagler beating a bulked up Lightweight is deserving of some criticism.

There is no way Hopkins is considered a P4P top 20 fighter, but how much poorer was his 10 year domination of the middleweight devision compared to Hagler.

Not dissing Hagler as a fighter, for me definately among the best because of his skill set.... but he didn't have a talent loaded devision.

[Ezzard]

You have to remember though that Hagler cleaned out the division before becoming the champion. His pre championship opponents were of a very high standard. He fought every single middleweight there was for about 10 years and he held all the titles for a long time (think it was 7 years).

I agree that his biggest challenges came from fighters south of 160. That’s fair comment.

But he landed at 160 and took on everybody. He didn’t retire and re-retire and re-re-retire to suit who he wanted to fight. He was the division. He was in plain view for everyone to shoot at. He didn’t allow anyone else to hold a version of the title. To fight him you needed to campaign at middleweight and win fights.

[stujones]

You have to remember though that Hagler cleaned out the division before becoming the champion. His pre championship opponents were of a very high standard. He fought every single middleweight there was for about 10 years and he held all the titles for a long time (think it was 7 years).

I agree that his biggest challenges came from fighters south of 160. That’s fair comment.

But he landed at 160 and took on everybody. He didn’t retire and re-retire and re-re-retire to suit who he wanted to fight. He was the division. He was in plain view for everyone to shoot at. He didn’t allow anyone else to hold a version of the title. To fight him you needed to campaign at middleweight and win fights.

Yes, I am not disagreeing but I think the question has been asked when asked who more at 154 could Floyd had fought that would still be a sellable fight.

In one fight, Floyd has just beaten the clear #1 in the devision.... everyone else he fights at 154 will be a downward step. It will either be excellent 147 fighters moving up or people who he has already beaten or fighters who have lost to Alvarez.

I am not discrediting Hagler or his achievements, but times have changes and for me what Floyd has done through jumping the weights up and down not only has made him more money cause we are getting "super fights" with some of the better champions, but also better for his legacy.

Would we really want Floyd to fight on for say 4 years at 154 only and beating up the likes of Molina, Smith, Bunderage, Spinks etc. I would rather see him move down to fight Danny Garcia etc. Unfortunately in these days of multiple devisions with equal appeal (not like in Hagler's day) - thats the only way Floyd can get some sort of legacy.... but with that comes a cost (e.g. "oh he is the bigger man etc). I think people seem to have dismissed the Robert Geurrero win.... yes, I didn't give him a Geurrero a chance, thought he was too small.... but no-one can dispute the Geurrero is a quality fighter.

As I said don't want to dis Hagler in anyway, but I do find it a bit "rose tinted" when people can say Floyd "hand picked" his fighters, fought nobody througout his career and then look at Hagler's record. Floyd has fought just about the best out there, maybe not consistently, but his resume is loaded with champions and ex champions. Floyd cannot help that many of these might not be of the talent to transcend the sport or might have been a world champion in days gone by.... but lets not suggest these were any worse than the majority of 160 lbs fighters that Hagler fought.

Unfortunately, in many ways, these days the "super fight" is expected - like I suggested before Hopkins in the main got criticised for not challenging himself when he was 160 champion. He fought everyone he could (practically)... but fans wanted him to move up, fight Joe, fight Toney etc... cannot remember Hagler getting the same problem with the press.

[orbtastic]

Conversely, you can't look back at Hagler's career and point to one fight in or around middleweight that he didn't make.

Ok so the rematch with Leonard didn't happen but I don't think that's entirely Hagler's fault, and it's not like he chased it.

Hearns II was mooted but I don't think anyone blames Marvin for it not coming off.

McCallum would have been interesting but he was still several years off dipping his toe in the 160 waters by the time Hagler retired.

Curry? Not Marvin's fault the guy kept losing.

You also can't really blame him for not wanting to bulk up and face off against Mike Spinks.

[jessi]

I think stujones has hit the nail on the head ! Great post

[stujones]

Conversely, you can't look back at Hagler's career and point to one fight in or around middleweight that he didn't make.

Ok so the rematch with Leonard didn't happen but I don't think that's entirely Hagler's fault, and it's not like he chased it.

Hearns II was mooted but I don't think anyone blames Marvin for it not coming off.

McCallum would have been interesting but he was still several years off dipping his toe in the 160 waters by the time Hagler retired.

Curry? Not Marvin's fault the guy kept losing.

You also can't really blame him for not wanting to bulk up and face off against Mike Spinks.

Benitez after he beat Maurice Hope? Herol Graham?

Not blaming Hagler at all and he cannot help he wasn't in the most talent loaded devision at the time. But all I am saying is we cannot give one treatment to Floyd and not treat the others the same. Floyd beat the #1 154 fighter, undisputed.... now though he is crap. Perhaps he was always was crap, but he was the best in the division... who else would you rather see Floyd fight at 154.

No, we cannot blame Hagler for not facing Mike Spinks, but we are expecting Floyd to go up to 160 to face GGG before we can remotely comparing in the Hagler bracket. Like with Hopkins there wasn't a fighter out there really who he could have fought at 160 that he didn't, but people were still disapointed and yes... they did expect him to go to 175 to fight Roy Jones or James Toney.

Because Floyd has done it through jumping devisions he would never please some people. I would have loved to have seen him fight Paul Williams - yes I would have.... but at the expense of his fights with??? Hatton? Oscar? Judah? - No. I think those fights all meant more financially and (for me) in terms of a challenge... Baldomir... okay, not the best - but there would have been criticisms had he not fought the # 147 fighter.

[hurlock]

Srl would of bashed mayweather @ l welter & l middle & over @ welter would be floyds best chance. Srl was as fast banged harder & put combos together at lightning speed & impressed the judges. You only have to look at srl as an amateur wiping the floor with Russian & Cuban champs & I mean wipe the floor!! He was special neither Roy jones or mayweather impressed close to Leonard's level

[jessi]

Srl would of bashed mayweather @ l welter & l middle & over @ welter would be floyds best chance. Srl was as fast banged harder & put combos together at lightning speed & impressed the judges. You only have to look at srl as an amateur wiping the floor with Russian & Cuban champs & I mean wipe the floor!! He was special neither Roy jones or mayweather impressed close to Leonard's level

[hurlock]

Hagler was top of his game a beast at middle strong as an ox!
Reigning champ for 7 years & active srl coming off a 3 year lay off coming up to a new weight no catchweight middle!! & what skill & razzmatazz you saw amazing.

Dlh 2-3 years inactive alcoholic gets pipped possibly robbed by mayweather & dlh lost all the important fights Trinidad,mosely so hardly from the hagler mould.

Mayweather is a great I don't believe he'd make the other greats look ordinary no way it's more a buisness now of picking & staying undefeated no doubt his predecessors would of done the same

[loaded_gloves]

The criticism isn't with Floyd at 36 potentially 'not' moving up and facing a Martinez or GGG (Why is GG anybody, by the way?).

The criticism is over what happened before.

There is a quite frightening list of opponents that Floyd ducked year after year. A few of them he did finally fight - albeit once they were 40 years old, or already had been broken by other men, or both.

The "17 years undefeated" is also grossly misleading. "No one ever did it before!" Yeah, that's because the greats of yesteryear were routinely fighting their chief rivals. Conversely, Floyd was taking whole years out, and instead fighting one handpicked guy, weight handicapped, once a year!

And you all want to bestow all time greatness on him. Mind. Blown.

Give me Robinson or Leonard's or Ali's legacy over Floyd's any day.

[Datsue]

(Why is GG anybody, by the way?)

Have I by any chance explained "Datsue's Inimitable Theory of Plodding Punchers & Their Pulchritude As Perceived By Online Punditry"?

I think it might have some bearing in this case.

PS: You lot are so lucky I haven't rubbed in how right I was about Matthysse, as well.

[Final round]

(Why is GG anybody, by the way?)

Have I by any chance explained "Datsue's Inimitable Theory of Plodding Punchers & Their Pulchritude As Perceived By Online Punditry"?

I think it might have some bearing in this case.

PS: You lot are so lucky I haven't rubbed in how right I was about Matthysse, as well.

Rub it in!!

[Bard of Boxrec]

(Why is GG anybody, by the way?)

Have I by any chance explained "Datsue's Inimitable Theory of Plodding Punchers & Their Pulchritude As Perceived By Online Punditry"?

I think it might have some bearing in this case.

PS: You lot are so lucky I haven't rubbed in how right I was about Matthysse, as well.

I honestly thought I was the only boxing fan alive who can't for the life of him understand what the hype about GGG is all about.

[Trojans44]

Lots of good posts but don't have time to reply in full right now. Quickly though this thing about Mayweather ducking is just completely unsubstantiated. He chased Mosley and De La Hoya for years, he called out Tszyu time after time and even Hamed. Who does that leave? Cotto and Margarito were both with Top Rank. He dominated Cotto later and are we really saying anyone needs Margarito on their record to be considered the greatest? Paul Williams - really?

On this topic I managed to dig out this article from 2004/5. 2 things struck me 1) Its assumed Cotto and not Mayweather will be the big ticket star and 2) How much Mayweather's media approach has changed since the construction of the 'Money' character.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/article- ... mayweather

[Bricks]

James,

I know what you are saying but I do think there is a bit of rose tinted glasses there also.

Hagler did dominate a devision, but if we are going to be critical - lets be objective and criticise accross the generation.

Hearns aside, name me the great Hagler beat? Duran???? Yes absolutely.... but if we are going to critise Mayweather vs Marquez - Then surely Hagler beating a bulked up Lightweight is deserving of some criticism.

There is no way Hopkins is considered a P4P top 20 fighter, but how much poorer was his 10 year domination of the middleweight devision compared to Hagler.

Not dissing Hagler as a fighter, for me definately among the best because of his skill set.... but he didn't have a talent loaded devision.

Really? The guys hagler beat before winning the title are arguably almost as impressive as the guys any mw champ in history sans Ray Robinson beat during their respective title reigns.

Finnegan,Briscoe,Monroe,Hart,watts,antuofermo,sugar ray seales, hagler fought a replica list of me a

And hearns would have wrecked Floyd either earlier or tortured him over a long fight.mayweatherad nothing to trouble Tommy at 147-160.as sure a stylistic win as any fight for me I can think of

[Deserter]

Good to see a reasoned debate on here and the sign of a really good post is that it really made me think – the longevity argument in particular is a very compelling one. Inevitably, I’d like to add some counter-points in the interests of balance:

Great thread. For me Mayweather is obviously in the conversation for being the best ever and it astonishes me that is questioned. Loaded Gloves always has plenty to say on this topic but I have to object to the idea people who agree with me are fringe lunatics with no ability to judge boxers - some may recall LG tipping Guerrero to defeat Mayweather! Here's my take on some of the key themes:

The Record

He doesn't have the names Leonard has no doubt about it. He cant say he defeated three of the best ever. Nevertheless Mayweather's record is one of the best in boxing history and to suggest otherwise is churlish. Since 1997 he has consistently and consecutively fought world class opponent after world class opponent. That's 16 years fighting the best and winning. There are no poo, spurious mandatories or tune-ups and not even Robinson could say that. Yes there are some names missing, but they are small in number and almost always closely related to his hatred for Bob Arum e.g. he fought Cotto instantly when he left Arum.

A couple of things here. Firstly, there seems to be unanimity about the fact that ‘world-class’ is a relative term and Floyd, through no fault of his own, is operating in an era where the strength of opposition is significantly weaker.
Secondly, you can’t really talk about not fighting tune-ups as it’s completely out of context. What I mean by that is that is SRR fought just twice a year as well, he wouldn’t have been going through the spurious mandatories. Equally, if Floyd had been more active, he undoubtedly would have. Therefore it’s really a moot point.

More important is the manner of the victories. Aside from Castillo 1 and De La Hoya (both not as close as is often portrayed and both special fighters) he has systematically destroyed every single one of these world class fighters barely dropping a round in the process. I have watched many great fights and fighters but I have never seen a fighter consistently and completely remove all sense of purpose from world class opponents to the point where they look utterly bewildered, confused and wander around the ring with an air of total hopelessness. It may well be the case that the big 3 or 4 from the 1980s would also go undefeated with the same opponents but there is no chance any of them would make Marquez or Canelo or Corrales look like they had never been in a boxing ring in their entire life. I thought Canelo was going to burst into tears! He doesn't just win, he outclasses the best every single time.

Sorry, but Castillo 1 was definitely close (though Floyd definitely won it) and Castillo is not a “special fighter” by any means in historical terms. I’d also point out that someone like Leonard or Hearns not only could have dominated the fighters you’ve named, they’d also have been strongly favoured to have stopped them.

Another important factor is the longevity. Yes on any given night Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran could beat the same guys. Could they do it consecutively, never missing a step, for 16 years? Could they have delivered one sided dominations every time out? We know they couldn't because they didn't. Were any of them still arguably improving at 36? As a matter of record most of these guys struggled with dedication to the life at one time or another. Mayweather hasn't and that is a factor in considering greatness - "oh but Duran was out of shape in that fight". Mayweather is never out of shape.

I think this is a great point and it’s the one ‘USP’ that puts Floyd into the list of ATGs (albeit scraping into Top 10 max for me). Again, in the interests of balance, I just have to point out though that it only stands to reason that it’s a lot easier to maintain that longevity when you’re fighting so infrequently. Doesn’t mean it’s still not an amazing achievement, I just want to place it in the correct context.

Mayweather in the '80s

For me he beats all the main guys. We always focus on how Mayweather would deal with the legends. Someone tell me how on earth they deal with him? How can anyone say a particular type of guy or style beats Mayweather when we've seen him thrash every every style? Its just not credible to say e.g. Hearns would smash him. No-one else has managed it! A frequently cited example is that Mosley chinned him. Sorry but does that not prove how great he is? The best you can come up with is that one fighter, Sugar Shane Mosley no less, landed a solid dig! Fairly sure every other guy in the history of the sport has also been punched very hard square in the face.

It’s perfectly credible to say Hearns could have beaten him. Floyd did struggle at times with Oscar’s jab, particularly when it was doubled up, and Hearns’ jab was superior to Oscar’s. Add in a missile of a right hand that had power that Floyd has never come close to tasting before and his huge reach, and based on the old adge of styles making fights, you have the worst possible scenario for Floyd. If De La Hoya could push him close, it’s perfectly plausible to think that Hearns could have beaten him.
You talk about Floyd thrashing every style, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it’s about levels – the idea that beating fighters below Hearns’ stature somehow proves he could therefore beat Hearns is illogical.

Leonard outboxed Hearns, Hagler and Duran - therefore they could be outboxed. Much lesser fighters outboxed all 3 too. Mayweather's chin is solid, he's one of the greatest strategists of all time, he significantly reduces the punch output of his opponents, avoids 80% plus and lands 50% irrespective of opponent or style. If Leonard could outbox those guys then so could Mayweather.

Only time where you’re factually incorrect. Hearns actually outboxed Leonard in that classic fight (which again demonstrates why he would have been a nightmare opponent for Floyd) and Leonard had to switch tactics during the fight to pull it out of the bag (another sign of a truly great fighter).
Who were the much lesser fighters who outboxed Hagler by the way?

That leaves Leonard, the greatest of the 4. Leonard, in comparison with Mayweather, is mentally weak. He had troubles with dedication, he liked to party, he could be provoked into fighting the other guy's fight. Critically he also sometimes struggled with fighters he couldn't catch, Dick Ecklund anyone? On the flip side Leonard is clearly easier to catch than Mayweather. Is it really so difficult to imagine Mayweather frustrating the life out him with his elusiveness and popping him with single right hands? I can imagine it and that's what I think would've happened.

Good point about Leonard’s mental weakness – it’s a fair point I hadn’t considered. However, as Leonard proved in the second Duran fight, he could be just as elusive as Floyd when he wanted to be, but he was far more offensive by nature. It’s because of this latter point that I absolutely can imagine him catching Floyd – Floyd has never faced anyone with the speed, accuracy, ringcraft and dig of Leonard – like I said earlier in the thread, you can face the Alvarez’s of this world and pop them with single right hands, but to extrapolate from that that he could do the same to SRL is optimistic to say the least – akin to saying that because Man Utd look a million dollars against a Championship side, they could definitely do the same against a Real Madrid. I’d see a scenario where Floyd would undoubtedly be competitive, but ultimately Leonard’s assets that I’ve mentioned above would prevail, as he can match Floyd in virtually all departments, but punch harder, fight at a higher pace and is a better combination puncher (an essential quality if you're going to prevent Floyd getting into his 'pot-shotting' groove).

The Athletes are Better Now Argument

This is so obviously true its staggering people deny it. Only in boxing do fans still seriously believe that competitors from decades ago could compete with today's guys. All the more ridiculous since boxing requires intense conditioning. No baseball fan thinks Babe Ruth would compete today, no tennis fan thinks Boris Becker never mind Fred Perry could compete today, no football fan thinks Stanley Matthews would have Ronaldo on the bench. Most obviously in athletics where records from decades ago are often unlikely to get you in a final. Yet boxing fans want to tell us that Robinson or Lammotta or Greb would dominate in any era. Sorry but that is clearly refuted by a mass of evidence to the contrary. Today's guys as a totality are extremely likely to be better athletes and therefore better fighters than their predecessors.

This point has already had an excellent riposte, so I’ll simply add that you fall into the pitfall of believing that better athletes automatically equal better fighters. I’ve actually studied strength and conditioning, so please don’t discount me as some ‘old school’ stick-in-the-mud, but as has been pointed out, the need for ‘purposeful practice’ is key. There’s a strong body of evidence that a lot of modern day fighters have sacrificed technique, hence references to the ‘lost art of body punching’ and renowned trainers such as Eddie Futch ruing the loss of skills and knowledge. Two other elements to factor in are the declining participation levels, which obviously impact on the levels of talent as the laws of probability dictate that the more participants, the higher the standard will be at the top. Take Alvarez, for example, I think it’s fair to say that in a different era he’d have been a top 10 fighter at best in his division.
Secondly, there’s a strong argument to be made, ironically given Floyd’s skills, that defence has been increasingly neglected due to TV/commercial pressures for ‘fan-friendly’ fighters, which has led to a decline in that skill-set. Floyd’s a complete anomaly in terms of being able to monetize his style and is very much the exception to the rule. Indeed, one could play devil’s advocate and say that it’s because Floyd has been more ‘old school’ in terms of his focus on technique over S&C that has allowed him to achieve such dominance.

Last thing is why do all the Mayweather naysayers even follow boxing? What joy can you possibly take from this sport if you're not loving watching one of the greatest talents we've ever seen do his stuff?

Yep, completely true that we should appreciate his ringcraft and you shouldn't mistake people who feel he's not the GOAT as having a complete downer on him. Being rated as a Top 20 ATG and the best fighter of his era is still an amazing achievement. Just feel that fighting the guys he’s been fighting means we’ll never get to see how he could have coped against a fellow great. Someone who was capable of taking him into deeper waters would have either proved those of us who believe it would have shown up his limitations to be correct, or he’d have raised his game to a new level and proved us wrong.
Sad thing is that we’ll never actually know, as there’s clearly no-one on the horizon to provide that test.

[curtis wood]

this thread is why boxrec is the best forum around, great read lads, top stuff

[Ezzard]

You have to remember though that Hagler cleaned out the division before becoming the champion. His pre championship opponents were of a very high standard. He fought every single middleweight there was for about 10 years and he held all the titles for a long time (think it was 7 years).

I agree that his biggest challenges came from fighters south of 160. That’s fair comment.

But he landed at 160 and took on everybody. He didn’t retire and re-retire and re-re-retire to suit who he wanted to fight. He was the division. He was in plain view for everyone to shoot at. He didn’t allow anyone else to hold a version of the title. To fight him you needed to campaign at middleweight and win fights.

Yes, I am not disagreeing but I think the question has been asked when asked who more at 154 could Floyd had fought that would still be a sellable fight.

In one fight, Floyd has just beaten the clear #1 in the devision.... everyone else he fights at 154 will be a downward step. It will either be excellent 147 fighters moving up or people who he has already beaten or fighters who have lost to Alvarez.

I am not discrediting Hagler or his achievements, but times have changes and for me what Floyd has done through jumping the weights up and down not only has made him more money cause we are getting "super fights" with some of the better champions, but also better for his legacy.

Would we really want Floyd to fight on for say 4 years at 154 only and beating up the likes of Molina, Smith, Bunderage, Spinks etc. I would rather see him move down to fight Danny Garcia etc. Unfortunately in these days of multiple devisions with equal appeal (not like in Hagler's day) - thats the only way Floyd can get some sort of legacy.... but with that comes a cost (e.g. "oh he is the bigger man etc). I think people seem to have dismissed the Robert Geurrero win.... yes, I didn't give him a Geurrero a chance, thought he was too small.... but no-one can dispute the Geurrero is a quality fighter.

As I said don't want to dis Hagler in anyway, but I do find it a bit "rose tinted" when people can say Floyd "hand picked" his fighters, fought nobody througout his career and then look at Hagler's record. Floyd has fought just about the best out there, maybe not consistently, but his resume is loaded with champions and ex champions. Floyd cannot help that many of these might not be of the talent to transcend the sport or might have been a world champion in days gone by.... but lets not suggest these were any worse than the majority of 160 lbs fighters that Hagler fought.

Unfortunately, in many ways, these days the "super fight" is expected - like I suggested before Hopkins in the main got criticised for not challenging himself when he was 160 champion. He fought everyone he could (practically)... but fans wanted him to move up, fight Joe, fight Toney etc... cannot remember Hagler getting the same problem with the press.

It's all fair comment but there's a few things I don't agree with.

Floyd's fights are not superfights. Just because it's billed that way doesn't make it so. Alvarez is a good fighter and his size made it intriguing...but one win over Trout did not make him Tommy Hearns. It was big news because of the money involved. Alvarez may go on to be a great but he's a long way off it right now. That's not me diminishing Floyd's win. That's just the way it is.

Staying as a champ of a division and fighting everyone means nobody can accuse you of ducking or hand picking. You just fight whoever comes after you. No weight stipulations, nor retiring...

Hagler was pursued by Spinks for a 175 showdown but Hagler was small for a middle and could have made 157 even back in those days. If being a champion has become devalued then Mayweather has been a large part of that process.

I don't really buy into "...it's not Fighter A's fault..." I do appreciate Floyd has to make as much money as possible and wants to sell himself for the biggest pay day.

What leaves the bad taste is the fact that Floyd makes people move up and down weights etc... He doesn't want a level playing field and he should get criticised for that.

[Tom Ford]

With the exception of JMM I think every opponent has outweighed floyd fight night. Whose to say JMM didn't also? As said before - there are lightweights who get in the ring heavier then Floyd.
Floyd could make 10st if he wanted to.

[Bard of Boxrec]

Deserter has owned the thread, it's over guys. There's nothing more to be said.

[Ezzard]

If he could he would.

What he weighs on the scales is what counts.

[loaded_gloves]

Deserter is far more patient than me, and has explained in straight, simple detail the problem with ranking Floyd so highly, given the dubious career path he has taken.

It must be spirit crushing to present all these intelligent, carefully thought out points and have a user like Tom Ford sweep them aside with one inane sentence about 'his opponents weigh more than him on fight night'. Sigh.

'The athletes are better now therefore boxers must be better now' is the argument that irks me the most. Just watch Georgie Benton, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe, Ezzard Charles et al and show me the modern fighters who can exhibit those simply sublime skills, that effortless execution, that dazzling level of expertise. That classic technique has died out, along with the classic trainers who taught it.

[stujones]

You have to remember though that Hagler cleaned out the division before becoming the champion. His pre championship opponents were of a very high standard. He fought every single middleweight there was for about 10 years and he held all the titles for a long time (think it was 7 years).

I agree that his biggest challenges came from fighters south of 160. That’s fair comment.

But he landed at 160 and took on everybody. He didn’t retire and re-retire and re-re-retire to suit who he wanted to fight. He was the division. He was in plain view for everyone to shoot at. He didn’t allow anyone else to hold a version of the title. To fight him you needed to campaign at middleweight and win fights.

Yes, I am not disagreeing but I think the question has been asked when asked who more at 154 could Floyd had fought that would still be a sellable fight.

In one fight, Floyd has just beaten the clear #1 in the devision.... everyone else he fights at 154 will be a downward step. It will either be excellent 147 fighters moving up or people who he has already beaten or fighters who have lost to Alvarez.

I am not discrediting Hagler or his achievements, but times have changes and for me what Floyd has done through jumping the weights up and down not only has made him more money cause we are getting "super fights" with some of the better champions, but also better for his legacy.

Would we really want Floyd to fight on for say 4 years at 154 only and beating up the likes of Molina, Smith, Bunderage, Spinks etc. I would rather see him move down to fight Danny Garcia etc. Unfortunately in these days of multiple devisions with equal appeal (not like in Hagler's day) - thats the only way Floyd can get some sort of legacy.... but with that comes a cost (e.g. "oh he is the bigger man etc). I think people seem to have dismissed the Robert Geurrero win.... yes, I didn't give him a Geurrero a chance, thought he was too small.... but no-one can dispute the Geurrero is a quality fighter.

As I said don't want to dis Hagler in anyway, but I do find it a bit "rose tinted" when people can say Floyd "hand picked" his fighters, fought nobody througout his career and then look at Hagler's record. Floyd has fought just about the best out there, maybe not consistently, but his resume is loaded with champions and ex champions. Floyd cannot help that many of these might not be of the talent to transcend the sport or might have been a world champion in days gone by.... but lets not suggest these were any worse than the majority of 160 lbs fighters that Hagler fought.

Unfortunately, in many ways, these days the "super fight" is expected - like I suggested before Hopkins in the main got criticised for not challenging himself when he was 160 champion. He fought everyone he could (practically)... but fans wanted him to move up, fight Joe, fight Toney etc... cannot remember Hagler getting the same problem with the press.

It's all fair comment but there's a few things I don't agree with.

Floyd's fights are not superfights. Just because it's billed that way doesn't make it so. Alvarez is a good fighter and his size made it intriguing...but one win over Trout did not make him Tommy Hearns. It was big news because of the money involved. Alvarez may go on to be a great but he's a long way off it right now. That's not me diminishing Floyd's win. That's just the way it is.

Staying as a champ of a division and fighting everyone means nobody can accuse you of ducking or hand picking. You just fight whoever comes after you. No weight stipulations, nor retiring...

Hagler was pursued by Spinks for a 175 showdown but Hagler was small for a middle and could have made 157 even back in those days. If being a champion has become devalued then Mayweather has been a large part of that process.

I don't really buy into "...it's not Fighter A's fault..." I do appreciate Floyd has to make as much money as possible and wants to sell himself for the biggest pay day.

What leaves the bad taste is the fact that Floyd makes people move up and down weights etc... He doesn't want a level playing field and he should get criticised for that.

Good counter, but I do repeat my question - what would you rather Floyd do.... stay at 154 and beat up the entire top ten because the devision is a bit crap at the moment - or move up down and around and fight the likes of Garcia, Alexander, Khan etc? Personally I think both options in some ways aren't ideal cause I don't give the likes of Garcia, Alexander, Khan etc a chance either.... but I think each of these 147 fighters are better than most (if not all) in the top ten at 154 and would actually win a version of the world title at 154 if Molina was in the other corner.... so I would rather see Floyd fight them for their title, I think it not only makes financial sense but it is a more interesting fight.

But whatever Floyd does there always seems to be wrong with others - now people are wanting GGG at 160.... what then Froch at Super Middle (its funny that hasn't been mentioned as a Floyd UK fight.... I would tip Floyd).

As for Floyd dimishing the value of being a champion, not what I meant in my post... what I meant that although there was Light Middle, Super Middleweight etc back in Hagler's day they were not really credited, so Hagler moving up to fight at Super Middleweight wouldn't have made much sense financially or in terms of legacy (as the champions were not well known at the time). Nowadays it is very different - there seems to be parity among the "inbetween" traditional weight classes and it is as big a deal to win the Light Welter championships as it is the Welter championship. If this is an issue in boxing (and I don't think it is) then I am not sure we can blame Floyd... but the instigators of the weight jumping and making "fashionable" the non-traditional weights... the likes of Leonard, Hearns and Duran.

As for the question about who could beat Leonard, Hearns and Duran out of the fighters Floyd has faced.... well for my money Duran in his championship years already lost to worst fighters. If the Duran who lost to Laing turned up then quite a few of them beat him.

[Ezzard]

Good counter, but I do repeat my question - what would you rather Floyd do.... stay at 154 and beat up the entire top ten because the devision is a bit crap at the moment - or move up down and around and fight the likes of Garcia, Alexander, Khan etc? Personally I think both options in some ways aren't ideal cause I don't give the likes of Garcia, Alexander, Khan etc a chance either.... but I think each of these 147 fighters are better than most (if not all) in the top ten at 154 and would actually win a version of the world title at 154 if Molina was in the other corner.... so I would rather see Floyd fight them for their title, I think it not only makes financial sense but it is a more interesting fight.

But whatever Floyd does there always seems to be wrong with others - now people are wanting GGG at 160.... what then Froch at Super Middle (its funny that hasn't been mentioned as a Floyd UK fight.... I would tip Floyd).

As for Floyd dimishing the value of being a champion, not what I meant in my post... what I meant that although there was Light Middle, Super Middleweight etc back in Hagler's day they were not really credited, so Hagler moving up to fight at Super Middleweight wouldn't have made much sense financially or in terms of legacy (as the champions were not well known at the time). Nowadays it is very different - there seems to be parity among the "inbetween" traditional weight classes and it is as big a deal to win the Light Welter championships as it is the Welter championship. If this is an issue in boxing (and I don't think it is) then I am not sure we can blame Floyd... but the instigators of the weight jumping and making "fashionable" the non-traditional weights... the likes of Leonard, Hearns and Duran.

As for the question about who could beat Leonard, Hearns and Duran out of the fighters Floyd has faced.... well for my money Duran in his championship years already lost to worst fighters. If the Duran who lost to Laing turned up then quite a few of them beat him.

I'd like him to stay in one division and fight everyone. If the fighters you mention want to fight him, and they do, then just move up...

But what I want or think...who cares...he'll do what he needs to do so as to maximise his earnings. I don't blame him for that bit at all. I guess he goes for the money, who wouldn't, so he should take a little criticism here and there on the flip side.

I don't agree on the junior divisions point...not in the 1980s... Pryor-Arguello --- Hearns-Duran --- Gomez-Pintor --- Chavez-Taylor were all huge fights. I think the divisions were taken seriously... maybe in the late 60s and early 70s not so much but I can't really say for sure. But plenty of big fish swam in those waters in the 80s.

Not sure why you would bring up Duran the night he beat Laing. Mayweather is consistent. He makes fortunes. He fights maybe once a year. To his own timetable. Floyd is one of the greats but his record does not compare with Roberto's. He's made more money for less risk and will retire unbeaten much to the joy of most of his fans. His time in the ring will be looked back on as being special...just not as special as Duran, Leonard, etc...

[jessi]

Deserter has owned the thread, it's over guys. There's nothing more to be said.

IMO he over analysis to much, he said in his own words that he had to think long and hard before responding, most of his points ( "for balance purposes" as he says ) are great but sometimes people's opinions are there opinions and don't need changing !
Ali, Srl, and hagler themselfs could post on here saying Floyd is the best they have ever seen and he would respond to there post and tell them why they are wrong