BoxRec

jimcook wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Chris W 1982 wrote:Anyone who thinks Floyd Mayweather would beat Tommy Hearns or Sugar Ray Leonard hasnt watched Tommy Hearns or Sugar Ray Leonard. Its as simple as that.

Can someone please explain to me how Mayweather beats a prime Hearns? It simply cant be done.

These forums are littered with the carcases of posters who have claimed theres no way this fighter could beat that fighter, then been proved wrong when the fights actually happen. I've watched plenty of hagler, hearns, duran and leonard and i think PBF would have beaten them.

you being one of them. i seem to remember you going on about how katsidis was gonna rip burns head off and shit in his neck. what you know about boxing can be written on a postage stamp.you should stick to watching you tube videos of two bob hard men and beating up drunks.
if it wasnt dumb enough that youve got mayweather to beat hearns leonard and duran, youve just stated that he would beat hagler too. you are the man!

At no point did i say anything like that regarding burn v katsidis and i certainly wouldnt write anything like that, the fact you need to make things up just shows the calibre of poster you are.

And just to settle the matter this is what i predicted for the Burns v Katsidis fight.

Hagler2002 wrote:

kingfinn wrote:I fancy burns to win on points - his win over martinez showed he can outbox a world class puncher.

Comparing Martinez and Katsidis is ludicrous!

Must be some pretty big fookin stamps knocking around your ends.

These forums are littered with the carcases of posters who have claimed theres no way this fighter could beat that fighter, then been proved wrong when the fights actually happen. I've watched plenty of hagler, hearns, duran and leonard and i think PBF would have beaten them.[/quote]
you being one of them. i seem to remember you going on about how katsidis was gonna rip burns head off and shit in his neck. what you know about boxing can be written on a postage stamp.you should stick to watching you tube videos of two bob hard men and beating up drunks.
if it wasnt dumb enough that youve got mayweather to beat hearns leonard and duran, youve just stated that he would beat hagler too. you are the man![/quote]

At no point did i say anything like that regarding burn v katsidis and i certainly wouldnt write anything like that, the fact you need to make things up just shows the calibre of poster you are. [/quote]
you never said rip off his head and shit down his neck, but thats not important ... go and look at your posts you were adamant that katsidis would destroy burns...
dont worry about my calibre, i dont come on here bragging about being a hard man ( wrath of finn production etc etc)

getting back to the point....mayweather would have beaten hager....explain yourself. and try to make it short as im gonna watch the italy spain match.... oh wait a minute , i suppose mayweather would beat them aswell

Robinson was past his best when Turpin beat him.

Is Buster Douglas in the top 100 for beating Tyson?

Is Billy Papke in for beating Stanley Ketchel?

Esteban DeJesus?

And just to settle the matter this is what i predicted for the Burns v Katsidis fight.

Hagler2002 wrote:

kingfinn wrote:I fancy burns to win on points - his win over martinez showed he can outbox a world class puncher.

Comparing Martinez and Katsidis is ludicrous!

Must be some pretty big fookin stamps knocking around your ends.[/quote]

oh, it seems i was mixing you up with some other idiot!! i apologize for wrongly stating you favoured katsidis.

but i stand by the rest.

jimcook wrote: you never said rip off his head and shit down his neck, but thats not important ... go and look at your posts you were adamant that katsidis would destroy burns...
dont worry about my calibre, i dont come on here bragging about being a hard man ( wrath of finn production etc etc)

getting back to the point....mayweather would have beaten hager....explain yourself. and try to make it short as im gonna watch the italy spain match.... oh wait a minute , i suppose mayweather would beat them aswell

I've posted my pre fight prediction above.

Heres the whole burns v katsidis thread -
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... t=katsidis

Looking at it there seems to be alot of people saying i was talking crap when i said burns would beat katsidis on points - hmm seems familiar

jimcook wrote:
oh, it seems i was mixing you up with some other idiot!! i apologize for wrongly stating you favoured katsidis.

but i stand by the rest.

I would also say my tongue in cheek wrath of finn comment and the mentioning of me doing mma was relevant to the thread i was posting on; where i was stating people who cant fight are always to quickest to criticise people for fighting instead of fleeing when intimidated. which i still stand by!



Do i come across as some thugish fight crazed chav?

you are clearly pictured trying to beat up a child. what more can say!
now im going to watch italy rip spains head off and.....

Chris W 1982 wrote:

StevenB wrote:Thing with Mayweather is when you consider the list of names he's faced over a long period, it would have been physically impossible to have fought them all at their peak! Because of the relatively long time between fights in the very modern era, it's just not possible to consistently fight the best over a long period when they're at their peak I don't believe.

Based on pure skill, I've not seen a better fighter in my lifetime than Floyd. Others have been far more exciting to watch and far more devastating, but in the art of hitting and not getting hit, Floyd is the best I've seen. Others may have been more elusive, but Floyd can whack a bit too.

Dyu consider Mayweather to better than a prime Roy Jones?

Mayweather's best attribute has been his matchmaking. How a man goes to 140lb to face Bruseles and Gatti whilst Hatton, Cotto and Tszyu occupy the top spots is beyond me.

Hugely skilled and equally negative, Mayweather has proven to be a defensive genius in a vast majority of his contests but the DLH and Castillo performances are fresh in my mind and I often wonder what a younger, fresher DLH would have done to him.

Mayweather v Forrest at 147 would also have been intriguing but I'd be absolutely astonished if Floyd would have wanted any part of one of boxing's golden jabs.

Mayweather's record, certain performances and character make him an all-time great but there's so many questions that remain unanswered about him and the solutions to them problems could easily have been found.

Walks prime Roy Jones was absolutely incredible but ironically I think his list of opponents in his prime isn't what it should have been. His record can be picked apart just as easily as Floyd's.

Let's not forget, Floyd is 35 and his best days are well behind him. And yet he still makes it look easy most of the time against the likes of Marquez and to a lesser extent Cotto. Jones at 35 was getting brutally knocked out by Tarver and Johnson.

For the record, I think Hearns beats Floyd but Floyd and Leonard would have been very close imo

StevenB wrote:

Chris W 1982 wrote:

StevenB wrote:Thing with Mayweather is when you consider the list of names he's faced over a long period, it would have been physically impossible to have fought them all at their peak! Because of the relatively long time between fights in the very modern era, it's just not possible to consistently fight the best over a long period when they're at their peak I don't believe.

Based on pure skill, I've not seen a better fighter in my lifetime than Floyd. Others have been far more exciting to watch and far more devastating, but in the art of hitting and not getting hit, Floyd is the best I've seen. Others may have been more elusive, but Floyd can whack a bit too.

Dyu consider Mayweather to better than a prime Roy Jones?

Mayweather's best attribute has been his matchmaking. How a man goes to 140lb to face Bruseles and Gatti whilst Hatton, Cotto and Tszyu occupy the top spots is beyond me.

Hugely skilled and equally negative, Mayweather has proven to be a defensive genius in a vast majority of his contests but the DLH and Castillo performances are fresh in my mind and I often wonder what a younger, fresher DLH would have done to him.

Mayweather v Forrest at 147 would also have been intriguing but I'd be absolutely astonished if Floyd would have wanted any part of one of boxing's golden jabs.

Mayweather's record, certain performances and character make him an all-time great but there's so many questions that remain unanswered about him and the solutions to them problems could easily have been found.

Walks prime Roy Jones was absolutely incredible but ironically I think his list of opponents in his prime isn't what it should have been. His record can be picked apart just as easily as Floyd's.

Let's not forget, Floyd is 35 and his best days are well behind him. And yet he still makes it look easy most of the time against the likes of Marquez and to a lesser extent Cotto. Jones at 35 was getting brutally knocked out by Tarver and Johnson.

For the record, I think Hearns beats Floyd but Floyd and Leonard would have been very close imo

That's where I credit Floyd for making correct career decisions at the right time. RJJ returning from heavyweight was one of boxing's worst mistakes. Something happened to RJJ on his voyage back to 175 and it meant he was never the same boxer again.

Jones in the 90s was absolutely unbelievable. His fight with Toney is one for the ages.

FM best win for me was Corrales but still think the late Chico went about it all the wrong way. As I've said Floyd is a great but I think theres a lot of credit given to him without properly comparing him to fighters gone by.

Hope all is well by the way.

It's true re proper comparison and there certainly are some questions to be answered about the timing of some of PBFs fights. But regardless of that and just judging on pure boxing ability I put PBF right up there.

I am well thanks mate. How's the writing going?

Some posts on this thread give horrendous new meaning to horrendous ignorance. Fighters have never been as flawed as they are today.

Have to agree with Chris re. Mayweather not having enough to overcome either Leonard or Hearns. I just really can't make a case for it even if I try. He's the best fighter of our time, but no way is he the best of all-time. That's the difference for me and ties in to a degree with Bennie's post.

Macho, I'm just saying that today's fighters have mastered one or two aspects of the game but not every aspect. Mayweather is not busy enough, Amir Khan can't fight inside, Carl Froch walks in with his chin up in the air...