BoxRec

Ezzard wrote:Floyd would effing smash Tony Adams.

Ezzard wrote:I'm not really sure Floyd's act would have made him so rich in past decades. To earn that money he would have needed to take more risks in the ring...which would hinder him.

As for he beats Leonard before they get in the ring... I'm guessing that was a wisecrack....right out of the top drawer...

Can we leave it that Floyd is a great fighter? Certainly one of the greatest defensive fighters ever... His defence is up there with Pep, Gans, Johnson, Whittaker, Benitez, Leonard (Benny).

But I think a peak Don Curry could have beaten him...

Ezzard wrote:Floyd would effing smash Tony Adams.

Ezzard wrote:The two wins over Starling are really very underrated. Starling was a terrific fighter. And he was in his prime.

loaded_gloves wrote:

jessi wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: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

Failing to analyse leads people to making regrettable, embarrassing and untenable statements such as 'Oscar de la Hoya beats Marvin Hagler'.

Oscar de la Hoya = 0-2 at middleweight
Marvin Hagler = 62-3-2 at middleweight

hurlock wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The two wins over Starling are really very underrated. Starling was a terrific fighter. And he was in his prime.

Close fights!! Starling was extremely underrated!!

loaded_gloves wrote:

jessi wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: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

It's actually a good thing to thoroughly analyse matters, Jessi. That way you arrive at a sound and intelligent conclusion. Failing to analyse leads people to making regrettable, embarrassing and untenable statements such as 'Oscar de la Hoya beats Marvin Hagler'.

Oscar de la Hoya = 0-2 at middleweight
Marvin Hagler = 62-3-2 at middleweight

loaded_gloves wrote:So there are at least two people on this forum (jessi and Fasteddie) who want to believe Oscar de la Hoya beat Felix Sturm.

You both must have also agreed with CJ Ross's scorecard for Mayweather/Canelo.

Oscar is 0-2 at middle, and yet there is a person on this forum who says this 0-2 man defeats Marvin Hagler at 62-3-2.

But does she elaborate? Does she explain how Oscar would perform this impossible feat? No, she just resorts to infantile namecalling.

loaded_gloves wrote:So there are at least two people on this forum (jessi and Fasteddie) who want to believe Oscar de la Hoya beat Felix Sturm.

You both must have also agreed with CJ Ross's scorecard for Mayweather/Canelo.

Oscar is 0-2 at middle, and yet there is a person on this forum who says this 0-2 man defeats Marvin Hagler at 62-3-2.

But does she elaborate? Does she explain how Oscar would perform this impossible feat? No, she just resorts to infantile namecalling.

stujones wrote:DLH vs Sturm was a close fight, its quite amazing that people who scored it close to DLH are now considered terrible judges etc.

If memory serves me correctly, Sky scored the fight to DLH - the controvesy ran more after when DLH did not look like he thought he won after the fight.

Bit like Helenius vs Chisora, when commentating McKenzie and Rawling both said it is razor tight... when Helenius got the decision they started shouting robbery.... opposite to that was Froch vs Dirrel, the commentary team had it to Dirrel (quite clearly) - scorecards announced and then "oh just decision".

Anyway, its moving from the topic... DLH was no more than a belt holder at Middleweight, he lost his true world title challenge - but up a decent fight, but ultimately fell short.

Manchester Massive wrote:

Trojans44 wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quality post and agree with most of it although still think SRL would beat him

loaded_gloves wrote:So there are at least two people on this forum (jessi and Fasteddie) who want to believe Oscar de la Hoya beat Felix Sturm.

You both must have also agreed with CJ Ross's scorecard for Mayweather/Canelo.

Oscar is 0-2 at middle, and yet there is a person on this forum who says this 0-2 man defeats Marvin Hagler at 62-3-2.

But does she elaborate? Does she explain how Oscar would perform this impossible feat? No, she just resorts to infantile namecalling.

jessi wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:So there are at least two people on this forum (jessi and Fasteddie) who want to believe Oscar de la Hoya beat Felix Sturm.

You both must have also agreed with CJ Ross's scorecard for Mayweather/Canelo.

Oscar is 0-2 at middle, and yet there is a person on this forum who says this 0-2 man defeats Marvin Hagler at 62-3-2.

But does she elaborate? Does she explain how Oscar would perform this impossible feat? No, she just resorts to infantile namecalling.

You tell me to analysis before posting and then you start making boxing records up which suit your opinion, the woman judge from floyds scorecard has nothing to do with this, but the 3 judges who had Oscar up at the end of the fight to hopkins might be more relevant to this argument. And you know I'm not a she so take that dick off your head again.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

jessi wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:So there are at least two people on this forum (jessi and Fasteddie) who want to believe Oscar de la Hoya beat Felix Sturm.

You both must have also agreed with CJ Ross's scorecard for Mayweather/Canelo.

Oscar is 0-2 at middle, and yet there is a person on this forum who says this 0-2 man defeats Marvin Hagler at 62-3-2.

But does she elaborate? Does she explain how Oscar would perform this impossible feat? No, she just resorts to infantile namecalling.

You tell me to analysis before posting and then you start making boxing records up which suit your opinion, the woman judge from floyds scorecard has nothing to do with this, but the 3 judges who had Oscar up at the end of the fight to hopkins might be more relevant to this argument. And you know I'm not a she so take that dick off your head again.

Oscar lost the decision to Floyd on the judges cards, and most independent observers had him losing a close fight clearly - he faded down the stretch as is so often the case in his fights.

Being ahead against Bernard is really a total irrelevance - if you don't make it to the end of the fight, then the scores are meaningless, he was dropped by a body shot, and couldn't continue.

Hagler was meaner, and hit way harder than Bernard - if an old Hopkins could manage to stop DLH, I've little doubt that Hagler would have torn him to pieces. Only real, tough, genuine hardnuts like Duran and Mugabi and Antefuermo to an extent, gave Hagler problems at 160. Jesus, Hearns was torn to pieces by Hagler despite landing everything but the kitchen sink on him in the 1st round, does anyone here see DLH beating Hearns - I sure as hell don't.

Oscar was never a top fighter at MW really beyond 154 he wasn't that effective. His best weight was undoubtedly 147, his fight with Mosley was phenomenal.