Dead Mouse wrote:I agree with pretty much all that Deserter has said. The problem with Mayweather is that he hasn’t had that defining night. It isn’t just about a name on the record, it’s about your journey to that name and the fight itself. If you’re in a weaker era then you’re going to suffer for it as there’s fewer points of comparison. It’s equivalent to putting a great racing driver into a go kart on a junior circuit and trying to gauge him in comparison to a guy in an F1 car on one of the great, most challenging, circuits in the world.
Longevity is a big part of judging a fighter, but that’s also a simplistic way of looking at it. You’ve got to add how they achieve this longevity as well. Holyfield has longevity, but not in a good way. The great fighters don’t just peak once, in the main, they have a physical peak then a later peak beyond their physical prime and once they’ve adapted their style to the aging process. Floyd has done this, but so did Hagler, who was a different kettle of fish in contention and even early in his reign, and Hearns also adapted over time to hit later peaks.
I don’t buy that Leonard was mentally weak, not in the ring at any rate, as he could adapt mid-fight. He could see that a plan wasn’t working and had the strength to go for an alternative, with the Hearns fight being the big example of this. He also showed a lot of mental strength in the second Duran fight as he faced extreme provocation, the type of which Floyd has never faced, but gives out himself, and stuck to a rigid plan to defuse Duran, one that wasn’t as fan friendly as the tack he took in fight number one. Outside the ring, maybe, but in the ring Leonard never mentally collapsed, not by any definition of the word.
The athletes are better now spiel has been done to death. Athletically, yes, but skills are on the wane and records tend to get smashed in sports that are easily measurable and come down to pure power and speed. Football, boxing etc. are harder to gauge. Sure, you get some great, and athletic players, but there’s also a lot of so-called top-level players who base everything on athleticism and lack what we’d call ring intelligence and technical ability in boxing. Look at Arsenal, they went for size and power a few years ago and to no avail, now their best players are the slighter guys who, while good athletes, aren’t bigger, faster or stronger than their historical counterparts. They’re proper players and talent, not athleticism, is the most-sought after attribute in football.
There’s very few naysayers on this forum, I’d say it is quite pro-Floyd, but, because of his era, there’s few hooks to pin his all-time greatness on simply because he’s not had the same level of opposition that the likes of Hagler etc. had. One of his toughest, defining fights came against De La Hoya, who was massively flawed as a fighter, had a tendency to box well in spurts then fade and, in my opinion, spent his entire career trapped between styles due to his constant swapping of trainers. Winning a close one, well relatively close, I had him a handy winner, over De La Hoya isn’t a big positive point when looking at his all-time standing as Oscar, although very good in this era, would not have coped with any of the names mentioned above, he’d have taken a sustained beating from all of them and been lucky to hear the final bell.
As I’ve said before, all Floyd can do is be the best he can be and beat the people around him, but unfortunately it leaves him in a similar position to Larry Holmes.
Terry, completely agree with your last sentence there. For me, Larry Holmes should be up there easily top 3 for the Heavyweights... although the difference between Floyd and Holmes is that Floyd was more consistent and dominated his fights more often. He hasn't had a Ken Norton esque life and death struggle etc. I would also argue that he fought better opponents on the whole, but I do agree with what you are saying.
However, on a side note - isn't Larry Holmes in a similar position to Hagler? beat the people around him, but the people around him were not all timers (two fighters aside).
As for your other point at GGG at 154..... great, but lets gets real.... how many people on here would be happy with that. You might be, but the naysayers will be critical.
Just a look back at the forum history here will show that.... When Floyd fought Cotto, what many forum members saying "why isn't he fighting Alvarez" - "watch him duck Alvarez".... fights Geurrero and yep forum members were saying "pussy won't fight Alvarez", "he's fighting lightweights, typical Floyd (remember JMM)" etc.
Fights Alvarez and people harp on about the two lbs! two freaking lbs!
He fights GGG at 154 and he will get the same criticism.... so no I disagree to vaguely satisfy some he will need to fight "the green" (you watch that one come out) GGG at 160... and then people will want him to fight Martinez (the #1 in the devision).
