jezzamundo wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Floyd for the fact that there was no Roberto Duran is his era for him to fight. I wasn't referring to anyone at all, I don't think Casamayor or Freitas were great and am confident Floyd would have beaten them soundly. I'm not interested in discussing whose fault certain fights getting made or not made is, but it remains a shame that Floyd was never tested against a fellow ATG in their prime. For me, this lack of a A+ level win makes it impossible for me to consider him for the all-time top 10, or the welterweight top 10. It's not that Floyd isn't great, it's just boxing has a long history and others have superior wins and more proof of greatness.
I wasn't blaming you for anything, just asking a question. Honestly Corrales was an A+ level fighter at that time, he was undefeated had all KO's much in the same way Tommy Hearns was when he fought Leonard, and both he and Floyd had beaten nearly everyone with the exception of Casamayor and Freitas and most of both guys wins were by stoppage.
If that isn't A+ enough for you then I don't know what is. Ray Leonard wasn't considered great until he beat Hearns and Duran, Floyd had already beaten two of the best in his division but because namesake means something different in this era as opposed to past eras people tend to water down the accomplishments of fighters today.
I really hate comparing eras of fighters because all it does is discredits any fighters of today, the reason being is that back in the day those fighters had to fight more often because of the low wages they made so it was relatively easy to run a record up into the 100s of fights.
When we mention Duran, SRL, Ali and the likes we cannot even begin to try and mention anyone from the present eras because people give far too much credence to the names of the past, they make it sound as though every fighter from back then beat all A+ fighters and that just isn't true.
Why can't fighters just be measured by the eras they were in? With the exception of a few great names in each division in each era basically every era is loaded with more journeymen, contenders and B level fighters moreso than there were Elites/A+ fighters with only a few of them facing one another and even fewer winning vs they're greatest competition which is no different than today's era fighters.
Comparing Corrales to Hearns is retarted in his self. Corrales was never that good nor fought the competiton Hearns did even at 130.
I guess you failed to consider the fact that we were talking about Floyd and Corrales at that specific time period. At the time SRL and Hearns met both were undefeated and considered the best in their weight class much like Floyd and Corrales was.
So that's your idea to think that it's an unfair comparison to make.
jezzamundo wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Floyd for the fact that there was no Roberto Duran is his era for him to fight. I wasn't referring to anyone at all, I don't think Casamayor or Freitas were great and am confident Floyd would have beaten them soundly. I'm not interested in discussing whose fault certain fights getting made or not made is, but it remains a shame that Floyd was never tested against a fellow ATG in their prime. For me, this lack of a A+ level win makes it impossible for me to consider him for the all-time top 10, or the welterweight top 10. It's not that Floyd isn't great, it's just boxing has a long history and others have superior wins and more proof of greatness.
I wasn't blaming you for anything, just asking a question. Honestly Corrales was an A+ level fighter at that time, he was undefeated had all KO's much in the same way Tommy Hearns was when he fought Leonard, and both he and Floyd had beaten nearly everyone with the exception of Casamayor and Freitas and most of both guys wins were by stoppage.
If that isn't A+ enough for you then I don't know what is. Ray Leonard wasn't considered great until he beat Hearns and Duran, Floyd had already beaten two of the best in his division but because namesake means something different in this era as opposed to past eras people tend to water down the accomplishments of fighters today.
I really hate comparing eras of fighters because all it does is discredits any fighters of today, the reason being is that back in the day those fighters had to fight more often because of the low wages they made so it was relatively easy to run a record up into the 100s of fights.
When we mention Duran, SRL, Ali and the likes we cannot even begin to try and mention anyone from the present eras because people give far too much credence to the names of the past, they make it sound as though every fighter from back then beat all A+ fighters and that just isn't true.
Why can't fighters just be measured by the eras they were in? With the exception of a few great names in each division in each era basically every era is loaded with more journeymen, contenders and B level fighters moreso than there were Elites/A+ fighters with only a few of them facing one another and even fewer winning vs they're greatest competition which is no different than today's era fighters.
Comparing Corrales to Hearns is retarted in his self. Corrales was never that good nor fought the competiton Hearns did even at 130.
It's a fair comparison - of course Corralles was not half the fighter Hearns was, but he was a lanky power puncher who was unusually tall and rangy for his weight division.
I do wonder how good Corralles might have been had Floyd not dismantled him. Corralles had some very good career wins, including wins over Casamayor, Castillo and making Freitas quit.
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I do wonder how good Corralles might have been had Floyd not dismantled him. Corralles had some very good career wins, including wins over Casamayor, Castillo and making Freitas quit.
I think his out of ring problems (prison, domestic issues, weight, money issues) contributed more to his dismantling than Floyd did.
Last edited by IKSRTFO on 19 Aug 2015, 10:28, edited 1 time in total.
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I do wonder how good Corralles might have been had Floyd not dismantled him. Corralles had some very good career wins, including wins over Casamayor, Castillo and making Freitas quit.
I think his out of ring problems (prison, domestic issues, weight, money issues) contributed more than his dismantling than Floyd did.
Yes perhaps - his career was very patchy after that - as he moved up in weight, he became a lot more beatable. Still had some good wins though.
Power - 7.5 (135 and below before he started having major hand problems I'd give him a 8.5)
speed 9 (not the fast, but his timing is the best I've ever seen)
ring IQ 10 (probably the smartest fighter I've ever seen, very good at adapting, making adjustments and fighting with great technique)
reflexes 10 (The way he can jab, lean back counter his opponents jab and come back with a straight right hand then dodge his opponents next shot is a amazing site to see.. Again his timing is the best I've ever seen)
chin 9 (I'd give him a 10, but the fact he's rarely ever hit flush does leave question marks.. But then again I've seen him take some very hard solid shots that did hurt him, but he always recovers quickly and has always took control of the fight shortly after getting caught clean)
condition 9.5 (He doesn't throw a lot of punches, but the fact he's always the stronger fighter down the stretch proves he has great conditioning and is always ready to go 12 rounds or more and would probably have no problem fighting 15 rounds... He's very good at pacing himself , being efficient and not wasting energy which also falls into boxing IQ)
footwork 10 - (Floyd is in the talks of the best footwork, he could easily slide across the ropes and taught the best of them a entire fight if he chose to, he's normally always in the right position to counter a opponent or make them miss, legendary footwork)
athleticism 9 (he's very athletic, but comparing him to a guy like a prime RJJ he just doesn't have the same athleticism, but with Floyds lead left hooks and his ability to close distance or create distance is masterful and does it as good as anyone I've ever seen.)
I love these questions and discussions but it's just impossible to determine who the best was. Unless you personally witnessed boxing for the last 110 years, no one is qualified to determine the best boxer.
Each boxing era was different and just like it is in any major sport, it's impossible to compare athletes from today to athletes back in the day. For instance, in 1970 there was only 1 NFL Lineman weighing in at 300lbs or more. In 2015, there were 579 players weighing 300 or more. Athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before so it's not blasphemy to suggest that a mediocre boxer today could probably beat anyone back in 1950.
Thought it's fun to consider, it really is an effort in futility.
Power - 7.5 (135 and below before he started having major hand problems I'd give him a 8.5)
speed 9 (not the fast, but his timing is the best I've ever seen)
ring IQ 10 (probably the smartest fighter I've ever seen, very good at adapting, making adjustments and fighting with great technique)
reflexes 10 (The way he can jab, lean back counter his opponents jab and come back with a straight right hand then dodge his opponents next shot is a amazing site to see.. Again his timing is the best I've ever seen)
chin 9 (I'd give him a 10, but the fact he's rarely ever hit flush does leave question marks.. But then again I've seen him take some very hard solid shots that did hurt him, but he always recovers quickly and has always took control of the fight shortly after getting caught clean)
condition 9.5 (He doesn't throw a lot of punches, but the fact he's always the stronger fighter down the stretch proves he has great conditioning and is always ready to go 12 rounds or more and would probably have no problem fighting 15 rounds... He's very good at pacing himself , being efficient and not wasting energy which also falls into boxing IQ)
footwork 10 - (Floyd is in the talks of the best footwork, he could easily slide across the ropes and taught the best of them a entire fight if he chose to, he's normally always in the right position to counter a opponent or make them miss, legendary footwork)
athleticism 9 (he's very athletic, but comparing him to a guy like a prime RJJ he just doesn't have the same athleticism, but with Floyds lead left hooks and his ability to close distance or create distance is masterful and does it as good as anyone I've ever seen.)
Boxerbeetle wrote:How did this end up being solely about Floyd as per fvcking usual?
STFU pactard
PACQUIAO:
power 10
speed 10
ring IQ 10<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<BAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA More like 7
reflexes 10
chin 10
condition 10
footwork 10
athleticsm 10
