BoxRec

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Some fair points there to be sure (no pun intended) however, I would argue that Mayweather, when entirely dominating his opponents, always opted for the safest route possible, certainly the latter part of his career, choosing to be as risk averse possible, rather than entertain the fans.

Yes, I understand it's his life on the line, yes, I know he has bad hands, but whatever the reason, the end result were one-sided but incredibly dull fights where even the winner landed only a handful of shots each round.

The name of the sport is called "boxing" not brawling, not knockout. A fighter is in this game for one thing, =MONEY!! They are not Entertainers, they don't put their life on the line for your enjoyment or for the like of making you feel enthused.

It is still up to the other opponent to make Floyd do something else, it's just too bad that you guys cannot appreciate an artist that was so great at what he was able to do in the ring to the point that most fighters could rarely lay a glove on him but yet many of you choose to be critical of that artistry rather than appreciate the beauty of it.

Have a nice day.

Hang on a moment there now buster.

It's called 'prizefighting' people pay to see them fight, if not, there's a thing called amateur boxing. So I'm afraid they are entertainers, and if they aren't doing it for the entertainment of others, then why would they expect people to pay them for it. I've lost count of the number of Floyd PPV's I got, that left me with a very sour taste in my mouth, I even fell for the Pacquaio fight, where Floyd nullified Manny, and then picked and poked with as few shots as possible to win. I'm afraid Floyd was every bit as responsible for it being boring, he had Manny entirely flummoxed and could have won any way he saw fit - the way he saw fit, was to avoid danger, and do the absolute bare minimum to win. Turgid. If you enjoy watching that, good for you, but that's not what inspires me about watching boxing.

I can admire ballet dancing, for what it is, but I don't enjoy watching it.

I love good boxers - I used to love Mike McCallum, a great fighter in his day, and very cute, but the difference with Mike is if he saw the opening he would go for it, and he was always putting on his opponents, not just avoiding their punches and throwing the odd shot to nick a round.

I just don't find fighters who nullify their opponents offence, and do as little as possible themselves much fun.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hang on a moment there now buster. It's called 'prizefighting' people pay to see them fight, if not, there's a thing called amateur boxing. So I'm afraid they are entertainers, and if they aren't doing it for the entertainment of others, then why would they expect people to pay them for it. I've lost count of the number of Floyd PPV's I got, that left me with a very sour taste in my mouth, I even fell for the Pacquaio fight, where Floyd nullified Manny, and then picked and poked with as few shots as possible to win. I'm afraid Floyd was every bit as responsible for it being boring, he had Manny entirely flummoxed and could have won any way he saw fit - the way he saw fit, was to avoid danger, and do the absolute bare minimum to win. Turgid. If you enjoy watching that, good for you, but that's not what inspires me about watching boxing.

I can admire ballet dancing, for what it is, but I don't enjoy watching it.

I love good boxers - I used to love Mike McCallum, a great fighter in his day, and very cute, but the difference with Mike is if he saw the opening he would go for it, and he was always putting on his opponents, not just avoiding their punches and throwing the odd shot to nick a round.

I just don't find fighters who nullify their opponents offence, and do as little as possible themselves much fun.

Yes, it's true that the powers that be put it on tv as a form of entertainment but the fighters themselves are not paid to be entertaining, they are paid to fight and if the consequence of that mixing up of two individuals just so happens to be entertaining then you are getting the byproduct.

They are paid to fight, normally fights generate action and that action can be entertaining but if one fighter is just so damn good that he totally makes his opponent inept or incapable of forcing the action that would create the entertainment that you are seeking then so be it but they are simply paid to fight.

Yes, you are again blaming Floyd for fighting just like Ali and just like SRL have, so in essence it is always up to the other fighter that they've faced to be able to do something different to make them come out of their comfort zone.

It's just too bad you have a one-sided mind and have a finger that only seems to point one way, Floyd did more than enough to win vs Manny, he fought better than most 38 year old fighters today in just about any combat sport and he is still capable of boxing most any fighter and reducing them to being nothing. So if you find fault with that and continue to point your one finger then that is just the way you are, have a nice day.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hang on a moment there now buster. It's called 'prizefighting' people pay to see them fight, if not, there's a thing called amateur boxing. So I'm afraid they are entertainers, and if they aren't doing it for the entertainment of others, then why would they expect people to pay them for it. I've lost count of the number of Floyd PPV's I got, that left me with a very sour taste in my mouth, I even fell for the Pacquaio fight, where Floyd nullified Manny, and then picked and poked with as few shots as possible to win. I'm afraid Floyd was every bit as responsible for it being boring, he had Manny entirely flummoxed and could have won any way he saw fit - the way he saw fit, was to avoid danger, and do the absolute bare minimum to win. Turgid. If you enjoy watching that, good for you, but that's not what inspires me about watching boxing.

I can admire ballet dancing, for what it is, but I don't enjoy watching it.

I love good boxers - I used to love Mike McCallum, a great fighter in his day, and very cute, but the difference with Mike is if he saw the opening he would go for it, and he was always putting on his opponents, not just avoiding their punches and throwing the odd shot to nick a round.

I just don't find fighters who nullify their opponents offence, and do as little as possible themselves much fun.

Yes, it's true that the powers that be put it on tv as a form of entertainment but the fighters themselves are not paid to be entertaining, they are paid to fight and if the consequence of that mixing up of two individuals just so happens to be entertaining then you are getting the byproduct.

They are paid to fight, normally fights generate action and that action can be entertaining but if one fighter is just so damn good that he totally makes his opponent inept or incapable of forcing the action that would create the entertainment that you are seeking then so be it but they are simply paid to fight.

Yes, you are again blaming Floyd for fighting just like Ali and just like SRL have, so in essence it is always up to the other fighter that they've faced to be able to do something different to make them come out of their comfort zone.

It's just too bad you have a one-sided mind and have a finger that only seems to point one way, Floyd did more than enough to win vs Manny, he fought better than most 38 year old fighters today in just about any combat sport and he is still capable of boxing most any fighter and reducing them to being nothing. So if you find fault with that and continue to point your one finger then that is just the way you are, have a nice day.

You are comparing Floyd to Ali and SRL?!! WTF!!

SRL took way more chances than Floyd, even right at the end of his career. His fight against Hagler makes Floyd's late career look like Gatti v Ward

No way on god's earth would Floyd have ever gone to war with Hearns, not even in his prime.

Ali even in his later years threw and landed a hell of a lot more leather than Floyd did at any stage of his career, certainly his later career. Aside from the Holmes and Berbick fights where he was pretty much a punchbag, and even then he tried to have a go, and was too proud to run - foolishly as it turned out, though he already had signs of parkinsonism by then.

That comparison is frankly an utter crock of shite.

Just because Floyd is able to beat people at 38, doesn't mean it is enjoyable.

I blame Floyd for fighting as Floyd chooses to do so.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You are comparing Floyd to Ali and SRL?!! WTF!! SRL took way more chances than Floyd, even right at the end of his career. His fight against Hagler makes Floyd's late career look like Gatti v Ward No way on god's earth would Floyd have ever gone to war with Hearns, not even in his prime.

Ali even in his later years threw and landed a hell of a lot more leather than Floyd did at any stage of his career, certainly his later career. Aside from the Holmes and Berbick fights where he was pretty much a punchbag, and even then he tried to have a go, and was too proud to run - foolishly as it turned out, though he already had signs of parkinsonism by then.

That comparison is frankly an utter crock of shite.

Just because Floyd is able to beat people at 38, doesn't mean it is enjoyable.

I blame Floyd for fighting as Floyd chooses to do so.

Just so you know that SRL didn't go to war with TH, he was on his bike most of the fight until Hearns faded and he was being soundly outboxed, it was well known that had that fight continued with the way it was going that SRL needed KO to win it.

Yes, I compare their styles, they all used the ring and lateral movement, why do you act as if that never happened? Did you not see them fight before??

It's obvious you just came here to b*tch and hate on about Floyd because you continually make it sound as though he was the only person in the ring for his fights.

Hate on.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You are comparing Floyd to Ali and SRL?!! WTF!! SRL took way more chances than Floyd, even right at the end of his career. His fight against Hagler makes Floyd's late career look like Gatti v Ward No way on god's earth would Floyd have ever gone to war with Hearns, not even in his prime.

Ali even in his later years threw and landed a hell of a lot more leather than Floyd did at any stage of his career, certainly his later career. Aside from the Holmes and Berbick fights where he was pretty much a punchbag, and even then he tried to have a go, and was too proud to run - foolishly as it turned out, though he already had signs of parkinsonism by then.

That comparison is frankly an utter crock of shite.

Just because Floyd is able to beat people at 38, doesn't mean it is enjoyable.

I blame Floyd for fighting as Floyd chooses to do so.

Just so you know that SRL didn't go to war with TH, he was on his bike most of the fight until Hearns faded and he was being soundly outboxed, it was well known that had that fight continued with the way it was going that SRL needed KO to win it.

Yes, I compare their styles, they all used the ring and lateral movement, why do you act as if that never happened? Did you not see them fight before??

It's obvious you just came here to b*tch and hate on about Floyd because you continually make it sound as though he was the only person in the ring for his fights.

Hate on.

I've most of SRL's fights many many times, and i'm sorry, but he was always more aggressive than Floyd. Same with Ali, despite their lateral movement and defensive skills, both men turned it on when they saw openings. Leonard was totally outboxed in the early running by Tommy, and couldn't get near him for much of the fight, but when push came to shove, he turned on the pressure when Hearns began to tire, and battered him. If he hadn't Tommy would have cruised to a win, he was well ahead, and wasn't so tired he wasn't punching any more, Leonard had to do something dramatic to win, which is why I admire him.

I didn't come here to bitch and moan, I'm criticising Floyd, something you seem to find very hard to deal with.

You enjoy watching him skating around the ring, I don't, we will have to just agree to differ, as we're going nowhere slowly here. Yes, he's very clever and polished and has great defensive skills, but it's just not my cup of tea to watch.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Leonard was totally outboxed in the early running by Tommy, and couldn't get near him for much of the fight, but when push came to shove, he turned on the pressure when Hearns began to tire, and battered him. .

IE, for the second half of round 6, the whole of rounds 7 and eight, round 13 and round 14.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I've most of SRL's fights many many times, and i'm sorry, but he was always more aggressive than Floyd. Same with Ali, despite their lateral movement and defensive skills, both men turned it on when they saw openings. Leonard was totally outboxed in the early running by Tommy, and couldn't get near him for much of the fight, but when push came to shove, he turned on the pressure when Hearns began to tire, and battered him. If he hadn't Tommy would have cruised to a win, he was well ahead, and wasn't so tired he wasn't punching any more, Leonard had to do something dramatic to win, which is why I admire him.

I didn't come here to bitch and moan, I'm criticising Floyd, something you seem to find very hard to deal with.

You enjoy watching him skating around the ring, I don't, we will have to just agree to differ, as we're going nowhere slowly here. Yes, he's very clever and polished and has great defensive skills, but it's just not my cup of tea to watch.

Yes you're hating, not being critical. There's a difference, you are claiming that he didn't do enough for you, that is hating not criticism.

Learn the difference between the two. Floyd is basically a counterpuncher, I'm not sure why you think a fighter like that would be there to walk someone down (though he has done it to many fighters, even Canelo most recently) because that isn't his style. If he bored you so much then all you had to do was not watch him, personally i have no qualms with you about being critical of him but I do have one when it comes to hate because if you claim you're a boxing fan then hate shouldn't be part of the equation when assessing one's performance.

For instance, I don't like Klitshcko at all but when I evaluate his performance I do find them uninspiring but effective, so i can appreciate the fact that he still wins. For some reason or another a fighter like him would not do enough for you because you prefer to see a toe to toe fight or a brawl.

This is BOXING!! There is a difference.

Counter-puncher wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Leonard was totally outboxed in the early running by Tommy, and couldn't get near him for much of the fight, but when push came to shove, he turned on the pressure when Hearns began to tire, and battered him. .

IE, for the second half of round 6, the whole of rounds 7 and eight, round 13 and round 14.

I can't work out if you're agreeing with me, or having a pop, or maybe neither.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I've most of SRL's fights many many times, and i'm sorry, but he was always more aggressive than Floyd. Same with Ali, despite their lateral movement and defensive skills, both men turned it on when they saw openings. Leonard was totally outboxed in the early running by Tommy, and couldn't get near him for much of the fight, but when push came to shove, he turned on the pressure when Hearns began to tire, and battered him. If he hadn't Tommy would have cruised to a win, he was well ahead, and wasn't so tired he wasn't punching any more, Leonard had to do something dramatic to win, which is why I admire him.

I didn't come here to bitch and moan, I'm criticising Floyd, something you seem to find very hard to deal with.

You enjoy watching him skating around the ring, I don't, we will have to just agree to differ, as we're going nowhere slowly here. Yes, he's very clever and polished and has great defensive skills, but it's just not my cup of tea to watch.

Yes you're hating, not being critical. There's a difference, you are claiming that he didn't do enough for you, that is hating not criticism.

Learn the difference between the two. Floyd is basically a counterpuncher, I'm not sure why you think a fighter like that would be there to walk someone down (though he has done it to many fighters, even Canelo most recently) because that isn't his style. If he bored you so much then all you had to do was not watch him, personally i have no qualms with you about being critical of him but I do have one when it comes to hate because if you claim you're a boxing fan then hate shouldn't be part of the equation when assessing one's performance.

For instance, I don't like Klitshcko at all but when I evaluate his performance I do find them uninspiring but effective, so i can appreciate the fact that he still wins. For some reason or another a fighter like him would not do enough for you because you prefer to see a toe to toe fight or a brawl.

This is BOXING!! There is a difference.

No. I'm not. I don't have an emotional problem with Floyd. I find him boring to watch. I understand the difference between boxing and street fighting mate, I just like to see a bit of action.

Floyd had countless openings against Pacquaio, he chose not to exploit them. Surely a counterpuncher would make his opponent pay when he misses, as Pacquaio did almost every time he initiated anything.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:No. I'm not. I don't have an emotional problem with Floyd. I find him boring to watch. I understand the difference between boxing and street fighting mate, I just like to see a bit of action.

Floyd had countless openings against Pacquaio, he chose not to exploit them. Surely a counterpuncher would make his opponent pay when he misses, as Pacquaio did almost every time he initiated anything.

So how is it that Floyd was able to do exactly that and outland Pacquiao but you still cannot find that enough?

Amazing.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:No. I'm not. I don't have an emotional problem with Floyd. I find him boring to watch. I understand the difference between boxing and street fighting mate, I just like to see a bit of action.

Floyd had countless openings against Pacquaio, he chose not to exploit them. Surely a counterpuncher would make his opponent pay when he misses, as Pacquaio did almost every time he initiated anything.

So how is it that Floyd was able to do exactly that and outland Pacquiao but you still cannot find that enough?

Amazing.

Ok, this is my last post in response to you, as this is really tedious.

As I said many times FLOYD LANDED THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PUNCHES TO WIN. He could have landed plenty more shots on Pacquaio, he had him completely outthought and out of position the whole fight, and had height and reach advantage - he chose to land just enough to steal the rounds and nothing more.

I found his lack of desire to even land anything significant or put on any kind of a show against a totally overmatched opponent, in one of the most hyped fights of the last 20 years, pretty piss poor.

I'm going to have to hit ignore now, as I'm getting RSI, and fear I'll have an embolism if I continue to engage with you. We differ in our appreciation of Floyd, end of. That doesn't mean i'm not a fan of the sweet science, I just have different ideas of what entertains me, now move along.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Ok, this is my last post in response to you, as this is really tedious. As I said many times FLOYD LANDED THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PUNCHES TO WIN. He could have landed plenty more shots on Pacquaio, he had him completely outthought and out of position the whole fight, and had height and reach advantage - he chose to land just enough to steal the rounds and nothing more.

I found his lack of desire to even land anything significant or put on any kind of a show against a totally overmatched opponent, in one of the most hyped fights of the last 20 years, pretty piss poor.

I'm going to have to hit ignore now, as I'm getting RSI, and fear I'll have an embolism if I continue to engage with you. We differ in our appreciation of Floyd, end of. That doesn't mean i'm not a fan of the sweet science, I just have different ideas of what entertains me, now move along.

Floyd landed what was offered to him, he's 38 years old. What do you expect from a fighter of his age?? Klitschko throws one shot and then hugs his opponent to oblivion, is that ok??

Yet he was in a fight where the winner gets to be called the FOTY!! What a joke. Have a nice day and not an embolism.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Ok, this is my last post in response to you, as this is really tedious. As I said many times FLOYD LANDED THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PUNCHES TO WIN. He could have landed plenty more shots on Pacquaio, he had him completely outthought and out of position the whole fight, and had height and reach advantage - he chose to land just enough to steal the rounds and nothing more.

I found his lack of desire to even land anything significant or put on any kind of a show against a totally overmatched opponent, in one of the most hyped fights of the last 20 years, pretty piss poor.

I'm going to have to hit ignore now, as I'm getting RSI, and fear I'll have an embolism if I continue to engage with you. We differ in our appreciation of Floyd, end of. That doesn't mean i'm not a fan of the sweet science, I just have different ideas of what entertains me, now move along.

Floyd landed what was offered to him, he's 38 years old. What do you expect from a fighter of his age?? Klitschko throws one shot and then hugs his opponent to oblivion, is that ok??

Yet he was in a fight where the winner gets to be called the FOTY!! What a joke. Have a nice day and not an embolism.

For what it is worth, I thought that Fury's fight with Klitschko was absolutely abysmal. I can kind of see the reasoning for him getting fighter of the year, given the scale of the upset. Utter garbage as a fight.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:For what it is worth, I thought that Fury's fight with Klitschko was absolutely abysmal. I can kind of see the reasoning for him getting fighter of the year, given the scale of the upset. Utter garbage as a fight.

So he deserves FOTY by facing a guy who does nothing but throws one shot and then hugs you?? That must be very narrow-minded criteria to warrant crowning him as FOTY for beating such a skilled fighter<<<being extremely facetious.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:For what it is worth, I thought that Fury's fight with Klitschko was absolutely abysmal. I can kind of see the reasoning for him getting fighter of the year, given the scale of the upset. Utter garbage as a fight.

So he deserves FOTY by facing a guy who does nothing but throws one shot and then hugs you?? That must be very narrow-minded criteria to warrant crowning him as FOTY for beating such a skilled fighter<<<being extremely facetious.

I feel Mayweather should have nicked FOTY. But, I can see why people pick Fury as well. Wlad had been so extremely dominate for so long. I hate his style, but no one could beat him. You use the same excuse for Floyd... I don't really go for Floyd's safety first approach and lack of drama myself, but no one could beat him. So, since Fury is the first person in such a long time to beat such a dominate champion, most think he deserves the honor. Manny lost badly to JMM not too long ago. So, not dominate

However, I still think Manny is better scalp... But, I can still see why people pick Fury.

You, on the other hand, cannot see anything else other than your opinion and cannot get beyond your affection for Floyd. So, anyone who disagrees with you, you label as narrow minded, or idiots or what have you. It's what makes debating with you completely useless. You refuse to take any other account except for your own, no matter how flawed your take actually is.

Impractical Poster wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:For what it is worth, I thought that Fury's fight with Klitschko was absolutely abysmal. I can kind of see the reasoning for him getting fighter of the year, given the scale of the upset. Utter garbage as a fight.

So he deserves FOTY by facing a guy who does nothing but throws one shot and then hugs you?? That must be very narrow-minded criteria to warrant crowning him as FOTY for beating such a skilled fighter<<<being extremely facetious.

I feel Mayweather should have nicked FOTY. But, I can see why people pick Fury as well. Wlad had been so extremely dominate for so long. I hate his style, but no one could beat him. You use the same excuse for Floyd... I don't really go for Floyd's safety first approach and lack of drama myself, but no one could beat him. So, since Fury is the first person in such a long time to beat such a dominate champion, most think he deserves the honor. Manny lost badly to JMM not too long ago. So, not dominate

However, I still think Manny is better scalp... But, I can still see why people pick Fury.

You, on the other hand, cannot see anything else other than your opinion and cannot get beyond your affection for Floyd. So, anyone who disagrees with you, you label as narrow minded, or idiots or what have you. It's what makes debating with you completely useless. You refuse to take any other account except for your own, no matter how flawed your take actually is.

Yeah Manny wasn't the scalp he'd have been 5 years ago. Wlad was utterly dominant until that night for over a decade.

reggaereggae wrote:I much,much prefer boxing to MMA, but McGregor has more character and fighting heart in his foreskin than Mayweather has ever had....

Huh? Floyd is loaded with fighting heart. I've almost always cheered against him, but that dude has been hurt twice(that I've seen) and he was kicking his opponents ass by the end of the round. His two closest fights were immediate rematches. Say what you will, that dudes fighting heart is off the charts. His skill just enabled him to keep it in reserve. Not a shot at manny, but Floyd would never follow someone around the ring and get pecked without pressing the action.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Yeah Manny wasn't the scalp he'd have been 5 years ago. Wlad was utterly dominant until that night for over a decade.

Yeah... I have no issue w Fury. I had actually picked him originally because I had forgotten Floyd/Manny was 2015. lol... Feels so long ago.

I also have no issue with those who picked GGG or Gonzo. If performance is their criteria. They both performed outstandingly at a very high level.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:I much,much prefer boxing to MMA, but McGregor has more character and fighting heart in his foreskin than Mayweather has ever had....

Huh? Floyd is loaded with fighting heart. I've almost always cheered against him, but that dude has been hurt twice(that I've seen) and he was kicking his opponents ass by the end of the round. His two closest fights were immediate rematches. Say what you will, that dudes fighting heart is off the charts. His skill just enabled him to keep it in reserve. Not a shot at manny, but Floyd would never follow someone around the ring and get pecked without pressing the action.

As much as I can't stand Floyd, he really surprised me the way he came out to start the 3rd with Shane after having just made it through, arguably, the worst round of his pro career.

However, I do feel Floyd lacks the killer instinct Conor possesses.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:I much,much prefer boxing to MMA, but McGregor has more character and fighting heart in his foreskin than Mayweather has ever had....

Huh? Floyd is loaded with fighting heart. I've almost always cheered against him, but that dude has been hurt twice(that I've seen) and he was kicking his opponents ass by the end of the round. His two closest fights were immediate rematches. Say what you will, that dudes fighting heart is off the charts. His skill just enabled him to keep it in reserve. Not a shot at manny, but Floyd would never follow someone around the ring and get pecked without pressing the action.

I agree he has heart, and he's tougher than he appears. However, he's not a guy who would fight to the death type. I agree he would never have done what Manny did, partly because he's too smart.

Mayweather would have been competitive against anyone, even Robinson and Leonard, I think a fighter like that, or even a prime Mosley or DLH would have won, but then WW isn't his best weight. 135-140 was.

Impractical Poster wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:I much,much prefer boxing to MMA, but McGregor has more character and fighting heart in his foreskin than Mayweather has ever had....

Huh? Floyd is loaded with fighting heart. I've almost always cheered against him, but that dude has been hurt twice(that I've seen) and he was kicking his opponents ass by the end of the round. His two closest fights were immediate rematches. Say what you will, that dudes fighting heart is off the charts. His skill just enabled him to keep it in reserve. Not a shot at manny, but Floyd would never follow someone around the ring and get pecked without pressing the action.

As much as I can't stand Floyd, he really surprised me the way he came out to start the 3rd with Shane after having just made it through, arguably, the worst round of his pro career.

Yeah, he imposed himself when he had to, the thing is Floyd is the type that will only go for it like that if he has to. That I think has always been my problem.

The Floyd who mullered Corralles was a thing of beauty.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Yeah, he imposed himself when he had to, the thing is Floyd is the type that will only go for it like that if he has to. That I think has always been my problem.

The Floyd who mullered Corralles was a thing of beauty.

The Floyd who mauled Genero Hernandez for the SFW title is the Floyd I was super excited about.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You are comparing Floyd to Ali and SRL?!! WTF!! SRL took way more chances than Floyd, even right at the end of his career. His fight against Hagler makes Floyd's late career look like Gatti v Ward No way on god's earth would Floyd have ever gone to war with Hearns, not even in his prime.

Ali even in his later years threw and landed a hell of a lot more leather than Floyd did at any stage of his career, certainly his later career. Aside from the Holmes and Berbick fights where he was pretty much a punchbag, and even then he tried to have a go, and was too proud to run - foolishly as it turned out, though he already had signs of parkinsonism by then.

That comparison is frankly an utter crock of shite.

Just because Floyd is able to beat people at 38, doesn't mean it is enjoyable.

I blame Floyd for fighting as Floyd chooses to do so.

Just so you know that SRL didn't go to war with TH, he was on his bike most of the fight until Hearns faded and he was being soundly outboxed, it was well known that had that fight continued with the way it was going that SRL needed KO to win it.

Yes, I compare their styles, they all used the ring and lateral movement, why do you act as if that never happened? Did you not see them fight before??

It's obvious you just came here to b*tch and hate on about Floyd because you continually make it sound as though he was the only person in the ring for his fights.

Hate on.

I've most of SRL's fights many many times, and i'm sorry, but he was always more aggressive than Floyd. Same with Ali, despite their lateral movement and defensive skills, both men turned it on when they saw openings. Leonard was totally outboxed in the early running by Tommy, and couldn't get near him for much of the fight, but when push came to shove, he turned on the pressure when Hearns began to tire, and battered him.

Battered him? LOL, ray definitely came on; but Hearns dropped him in round eleven and the one thing about that fight I feel like I'm the only person that witnessed was Tommy landing 10-15 unanswered punches to open the 12th before leonard went off.

My bad, clearly you're talking about the first fight. Salud! Though ray battered tommy in the 6th of the first and then the hitman turned it back around. Great fight and one of the ballsiest wins in history.

I do have to disagree with Ali being more aggressive than Floyd overall, more than half of Muhammad's fights he had a significant size advantage. Floyd whipped ass at his most comfortable weight.

Conor is actually genuine. That "persona" is actually him. He has undying belief in himself and is incredibly ambitious. He was saying the exact same things now that he's in the spotlight when he was posting on Internet forums 4-5 years ago.

King Carlos wrote:Conor is actually genuine. That "persona" is actually him. He has undying belief in himself and is incredibly ambitious. He was saying the exact same things now that he's in the spotlight when he was posting on Internet forums 4-5 years ago.

He's like a legitimate Charlie Z. As in, all these outlandishly absurd things he says actually come true.