BoxRec

ReggieDiggs wrote:
Grass is green. Sky is blue. Roses are red. I'm not arguing with you.

You're arguing that it doesn't matter that they didn't fight. It always matters, that's why fighters fight, to see who is better.

Not saying Floyd isn't amongst the greats, I would say he is top 20, maybe 15. Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Muhammad Ali, one of my absolute all time favorites Roberto Duran, I would consider Manny Pacquiao an all time great above Floyd as well. But he is for sure amongst them

IKSRTFO wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:
Grass is green. Sky is blue. Roses are red. I'm not arguing with you.

You're arguing that it doesn't matter that they didn't fight. It always matters, that's why fighters fight, to see who is better.

It doesn't really though. Lennox didn't fight alot of guys. Riddick didn't fight alot of guys. Floyd & Manny didn't fight alot of guys. There are always guys you don't fight. We can compare them even if they didnt fight everyone or each other. We are comparing them right now even though they didnt fight or havent fought yet w/e the case maybe. Does it matter in regard to how things could have worked out? Well sure, but so does fighting or not fighting anyone else. If Floyd had fought Emanuel Clottey & Manny had fought Genaro Hernandez & the fights with Emanuel & Genaro with the other guy never took place things would need to be reaccessed somewhat just due to that if we are dick measuring Floyd & Manny. So obviously things would get reaccessed if Floyd & Manny fought, but if they don't fight people forget & eventually no one gives a sh!t. Jack Johnson didn't fight certain guys cuz of their race & he's still considered one of the best HW fighters of all time & if you think he's the only one who didnt fight other guys for this reason or that reason in the history of the sport til Floyd & Manny or Riddick & Lennox I got some ocean front property in Iowa I'd like to sell you for cheap.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:
Grass is green. Sky is blue. Roses are red. I'm not arguing with you.

You're arguing that it doesn't matter that they didn't fight. It always matters, that's why fighters fight, to see who is better.

It doesn't really though. Lennox didn't fight alot of guys. Riddick didn't fight alot of guys. Floyd & Manny didn't fight alot of guys. There are always guys you don't fight. We can compare them even if they didnt fight everyone or each other. We are comparing them right now even though they didnt fight or havent fought yet w/e the case maybe. Does it matter in regard to how things could have worked out? Well sure, but so does fighting or not fighting anyone else. If Floyd had fought Emanuel Clottey & Manny had fought Genaro Hernandez & the fights with Emanuel & Genaro with the other guy never took place things would need to be reaccessed somewhat just due to that if we are dick measuring Floyd & Manny. So obviously things would get reaccessed if Floyd & Manny fought, but if they don't fight people forget & eventually no one gives a sh!t. Jack Johnson didn't fight certain guys cuz of their race & he's still considered one of the best HW fighters of all time & if you think he's the only one who didnt fight other guys for this reason or that reason in the history of the sport til Floyd & Manny or Riddick & Lennox I got some ocean front property in Iowa I'd like to sell you for cheap.

If Riddick Bowe would've beaten Lennox Lewis, you're saying it would not have mattered being he would've probably been elevated to being the best of his era?

IKSRTFO wrote: If Riddick Bowe would've beaten Lennox Lewis, you're saying it would not have mattered being he would've probably been elevated to being the best of his era?

You're assuming a result not just a fight. If Butterbean had KO'd Tyson in 95 he'd had gotten quite the bump up in this eras ranking too. What I'm saying is fight or no fight you're gonna get ranked. OF COURSE beating or losing to this guy or that guy can raise or lower you in "atg" silly ass discussions, but you don't fight everyone any way so whats it really matter. Maybe Lionel Butler would have KO'd Lennox. The possibilities of could have beens are endless.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote: If Riddick Bowe would've beaten Lennox Lewis, you're saying it would not have mattered being he would've probably been elevated to being the best of his era?

You're assuming a result not just a fight. If Butterbean had KO'd Tyson in 95 he'd had gotten quite the bump up in this eras ranking too. What I'm saying is fight or no fight you're gonna get ranked. OF COURSE beating or losing to this guy or that guy can raise or lower you in "atg" silly ass discussions, but you don't fight everyone any way so whats it really matter. Maybe Lionel Butler would have KO'd Lennox. The possibilities of could have beens are endless.

But you'll never be the best without doubt unless you beat the best.

IKSRTFO wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote: If Riddick Bowe would've beaten Lennox Lewis, you're saying it would not have mattered being he would've probably been elevated to being the best of his era?

You're assuming a result not just a fight. If Butterbean had KO'd Tyson in 95 he'd had gotten quite the bump up in this eras ranking too. What I'm saying is fight or no fight you're gonna get ranked. OF COURSE beating or losing to this guy or that guy can raise or lower you in "atg" silly ass discussions, but you don't fight everyone any way so whats it really matter. Maybe Lionel Butler would have KO'd Lennox. The possibilities of could have beens are endless.

But you'll never be the best without doubt unless you beat the best.

Actually thats incorrect. Thats not how rankings work. Someone gots to be #1 regardless if he "beat the best" he may just have beaten better guys than the rest. And lets be real, rankings are always subjective & never without doubt.

ReggieDiggs wrote:
Actually thats incorrect. Thats not how rankings work. Someone gots to be #1 regardless if he "beat the best" he may just have beaten better guys than the rest. And lets be real, rankings are always subjective & never without doubt.

But to the original point the mainstream fans didn't even notice at the time that Bowe or Lewis never fought. You say Mayweather or Pacquiao to anyone and that question is always asked.

Trust me, 20 years from now they'll still ask why those Pacquiao and Floyd never fought. I can imagine an ESPN 30 for 30/HBO/Showtime documentary being made about it.

I think it's ridiculous that two days after Mayweather beats Marcos Maidana, someone makes a thread calling him the greatest of all time. I don't remember anyone Devon Alexander getting that kind of hype after beating Maidana.

IKSRTFO wrote: But to the original point the mainstream fans didn't even notice at the time that Bowe or Lewis never fought. You say Mayweather or Pacquiao to anyone and that question is always asked.

Trust me, 20 years from now they'll still ask why those Pacquiao and Floyd never fought. I can imagine an ESPN 30 for 30/HBO/Showtime documentary being made about it.

Those 30 for 30 guys are f#cking champs, they could make a 30 for 30 about that time Andrew Six Heads sh!t his trunks or almost did or whatever. I don't give a damn about anything cept for boxing & MMA & they can get me watching sh!t about golf or Olympic fake sports bs.

And I mean yea people who are 15-50yrs old right now will be like "I wish that fight would(a) happened" in the future just like now & in 2010, but in 20 years some of us will be dead or not following the sport & there will be a lot of new fans like the ones we have around here right now today who know f#ck all about Riddick vs Lennox or Julio Cesar Chavez or how thick in the air Tyson's destructiveness & seemingly unbeatableness was. Some cats here today don't hardly even know sh!t about Ricardo Lopez or Pernell Whitaker. That trend will continue & 20 years from now there will be plenty of guys who know f#ck all about Floyd vs Manny, Andre Ward or how thick in the air Adrien Broner's awkwardness & obnixiousness was.

I imagine the facts of why it didnt happen will be much more clear 20 years from now when Manny & Floyd come out with their biographies & tell all books on the dynamics of the time get brought forth more clearly so it'll likely be more understood & more forgivable (w/e side you may take now with incomplete information) by boxing fans the realities of why it didnt get done.

Lackeos wrote:I think it's ridiculous that two days after Mayweather beats Marcos Maidana, someone makes a thread calling him the greatest of all time. I don't remember anyone Devon Alexander getting that kind of hype after beating Maidana.

Devon doesn't have quite the same resume first off. Having said that ALL Atg threads are kinda to complete bs whenever they go up.

Floyd is the most naturally gifted fighter I have seen, maybe ever, but when examining historical placement I have to ask myself how does Floyd's quality of opposition stack up to other greats? His longevity and time near the top is certainly impressive, but with the amount of hall-of-famers or future hall-of-famers he has taken on, he doesn't do that well. Simply put: the quality leaves some to be desired. For instance, when I view his resume at 147 and see the names, Mitchell, Judah, Baldomir, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, Ortiz, Guerrero, and Maidana twice, I can't say I am overly impressed.

Not even close. But IMO he's the p4p greatest of his generation. A couple guys close though.

Lackeos wrote:I think it's ridiculous that two days after Mayweather beats Marcos Maidana, someone makes a thread calling him the greatest of all time. I don't remember anyone Devon Alexander getting that kind of hype after beating Maidana.

You didn't get the memo? Garcia apparently turned Maidana into the greatest brawler fighting today. He beat the mighty Adrien Broner who was the next Floyd Mayweather so Floyd had to step up and be better than he already was making him TBE.

I think it's unfair to say that Floyd would get dominated by the great welterweights of the 80's. At his peak, Floyd was able to move for the entire twelve rounds while maintaining almost flawless defense.

He wouldn't have gotten battered around, because Floyd at his peak would make any fighter who ever lived miss a lot of punches. That being said, it's not hard to imagine Floyd being able to steal more than a few rounds with constant movement and cleaner punches.

There is a tendency now to imagine that Floyd (at his peak) is what we've been watching the last few years, but it's not. The crazy thing is that even though he has slowed down, he has still beaten every recent opponent at least 9-3.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote: But to the original point the mainstream fans didn't even notice at the time that Bowe or Lewis never fought. You say Mayweather or Pacquiao to anyone and that question is always asked.

Trust me, 20 years from now they'll still ask why those Pacquiao and Floyd never fought. I can imagine an ESPN 30 for 30/HBO/Showtime documentary being made about it.

Those 30 for 30 guys are f#cking champs, they could make a 30 for 30 about that time Andrew Six Heads sh!t his trunks or almost did or whatever. I don't give a damn about anything cept for boxing & MMA & they can get me watching sh!t about golf or Olympic fake sports bs.

And I mean yea people who are 15-50yrs old right now will be like "I wish that fight would(a) happened" in the future just like now & in 2010, but in 20 years some of us will be dead or not following the sport & there will be a lot of new fans like the ones we have around here right now today who know f#ck all about Riddick vs Lennox or Julio Cesar Chavez or how thick in the air Tyson's destructiveness & seemingly unbeatableness was. Some cats here today don't hardly even know sh!t about Ricardo Lopez or Pernell Whitaker. That trend will continue & 20 years from now there will be plenty of guys who know f#ck all about Floyd vs Manny, Andre Ward or how thick in the air Adrien Broner's awkwardness & obnixiousness was.

I imagine the facts of why it didnt happen will be much more clear 20 years from now when Manny & Floyd come out with their biographies & tell all books on the dynamics of the time get brought forth more clearly so it'll likely be more understood & more forgivable (w/e side you may take now with incomplete information) by boxing fans the realities of why it didnt get done.

Dude, if there was a documentary about Andrew Six Heads sh!tting his trunks, I would pay to watch it at the theater.

Lackeos wrote:I think it's ridiculous that two days after Mayweather beats Marcos Maidana, someone makes a thread calling him the greatest of all time. I don't remember anyone Devon Alexander getting that kind of hype after beating Maidana.

i hear what you're saying. it is not the quality
of the opponent, but the ability to adapt at this
age to a difficult opponent that made me start
the thread.

of course it is a controversial stance. yet i do
believe there is perfect room for different opinions,
since p4p the top guys are very close to each
other.

i for one decided to enjoy the very end of floyd's
ride. i don't think there was ever a champ who
at this age was so able to control fights. and
even if he is not no1, but five, or even ten, most
of the other guys have been gone for long time
and who knows when the next top p4p comes along?

FloydtheDuck wrote:dumbest thread ever-

like saying the Harlem Globetrotters are the best basketball team ever.

it's all about opposition


if you dont challenge yourself, and take on the best out there, nobody gives a crap

OK, other than Pac and Margarito, how has Floyd not fought the best out there? Look at who he's beaten:

Hatton
G. Hernandez
Manfredy
Marquez
Canelo
Guerrero
Corrales
Castillo
Cotto
Judah
Maidana

fergusg wrote:Over the course of 20 months (from 1979 to 1981), Sugar Ray Leonard competed in seven world title fights, winning titles in two weight divisions and becoming the undisputed welterweight champion. Some of the opponents he faced during this golden 20-month period include victories against all-time-greats like Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran (faced him twice) and Thomas Hearns.

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that Floyd Mayweather Jr. has never had such an aggressive schedule against such a high calibre of opposition!

there are good arguments against him being GOAT,
but i don't think this is one of them. a twenty month
run is just that a twenty month run. and i do not think
it was actually the best run ever.

i was surprised that benitez boxed the way he did, his
punches looked intentionally short all night. i felt he
didn't really put anything behind them from the get go.
first duran ray clearly lost, second he clowned himself
into a win. and tommy gave a away the fight by getting
cocky.

so on paper these were great wins, but in reality they
were not so great in my opinion. of course you might
argue that ray made benitez look like that. good point.
i just felt weird whenever i looked at it because of
benitez' lack of bad intentions.

good argument in ray's favor would be a direct matchup.
of course floyd struggles with him, as he would against
all four and SRR, pep and others. especially leonard
could outpoint him due to his gift to impress judges.

so, don't get me wrong. i'm making a case for floyd, but
it is by no means like he walks through roberto, marvin
and tommy. of course not. i could imagine "easiest" for
him would be duran, because, while being tough as nails,
he probably was relatively easy to read. i could imagine
floyd can frustrate marvin. i tend to think he would lose
to the version of tommy, after the leonard fight. but i
would say you can lose to someone fair and square and
still be above him in a p4p list.

i wholeheartedly admit that when it comes to the fabs, it
could be totally different and each of them walks over PBF
as if he was an amateur.

VG_Addict wrote:

FloydtheDuck wrote:dumbest thread ever-

like saying the Harlem Globetrotters are the best basketball team ever.

it's all about opposition


if you dont challenge yourself, and take on the best out there, nobody gives a crap

OK, other than Pac and Margarito, how has Floyd not fought the best out there? Look at who he's beaten:

Hatton
G. Hernandez
Manfredy
Marquez
Canelo
Guerrero
Corrales
Castillo
Cotto
Judah
Maidana

+shane + oscar

People don't typically remember events that didn't happen.
Especially in regards to small-niche things like boxing.
So few people care about boxing to begin with, coupled with the logical human nature part of forgetting things that didn't happen, I think it's safe to say that in 20 years, absolutely no one will be lamenting the fact that Floyd didn't fight Pac.
Already today, almost no one cares.
To hear people talk about how decades from now someone will mention that Floyd never fought Pac, is almost laughable. Neither fighter will be talked about much at that point. The world of sport and celebrity moves on to the next very quickly. There will be new fighters holding everyone's attention and headlines, and old heads will be talking about how today's fighters would whip the new breed yada yada sport is dying yada yada.
It's always been this way.

VG_Addict wrote:

FloydtheDuck wrote:dumbest thread ever-

like saying the Harlem Globetrotters are the best basketball team ever.

it's all about opposition


if you dont challenge yourself, and take on the best out there, nobody gives a crap

OK, other than Pac and Margarito, how has Floyd not fought the best out there? Look at who he's beaten:

Hatton
G. Hernandez
Manfredy
Marquez
Canelo
Guerrero
Corrales
Castillo
Cotto
Judah
Maidana

None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.

IKSRTFO wrote:None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.

great point and one can certainly see it like that.
but my case is more build on how he beats people.
i dare say never in the sport did the leading boxer
of his era even come close to be so dominating. the
way he caught the very hand that hurt him against
shane was just unheard of IMHO.

now does his opposition hold up to the fabs? no, it
doesn't. but when did we ever see one fighter who
had so little real trouble with opponents? truth is
it is a mild sensation if any real shot lands on him.

man wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.

great point and one can certainly see it like that.
but my case is more build on how he beats people.
i dare say never in the sport did the leading boxer
of his era even come close to be so dominating. the
way he caught the very hand that hurt him against
shane was just unheard of IMHO.

now does his opposition hold up to the fabs? no, it
doesn't. but when did we ever see one fighter who
had so little real trouble with opponents? truth is
it is a mild sensation if any real shot lands on him.

I'm sure if SRR had a 50 fight career averaging 2 times a year with rest in between, I'm sure he could dominate fighters the same way or better. I even think Roberto Duran could manage that.

man wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:None of those guys is better than Leonard beating Benetiz, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. And I don't even list Leonard as being the best of all time. The you have Ali beating Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson, Norton and Moore. But Floyd is the best of all time? Don't think so. Beating Pacquiao wouldn't do it neither but at least it helps his case better than hurt it.

great point and one can certainly see it like that.
but my case is more build on how he beats people.
i dare say never in the sport did the leading boxer
of his era even come close to be so dominating. the
way he caught the very hand that hurt him against
shane was just unheard of IMHO.

now does his opposition hold up to the fabs? no, it
doesn't. but when did we ever see one fighter who
had so little real trouble with opponents? truth is
it is a mild sensation if any real shot lands on him.

Who he is dominating is the problem. Had he taken on any great prime fighter his case would be stronger. He has taken on what, 5 sure fire hall-of-famers (Cotto, De La Hoya, Mosley, Gatti and Marquez), and none were at there best.