BoxRec

I think Jack Dempsey is the most overrated.

Mayweather and Ali are also overrated.

KBB wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:But his opponents aren't. That's where it counts. My stats would be better than Floyd's if I fought 10 year olds. So what?

So what? Floyd isn't fighting bums, he has 24 champions on his resume, many of them younger than him and most of them are far bigger or young enough to be considered in their prime or near it.

You guys look to nitpick too much but this is boxing and only because it's Floyd you downplay the stats, if Manny had these stats with his 8 different weight classes then you'd be here stating how he is the best ever and so will the rest of the fans of his.

Give credit where credit is due, I get it, you don't like the man but don't allow a simple thing like your emotional girlie feelings cloud your judgment.

When you're talking about great fighters you have to nitpick to separate them.
That applies to other sports as well.
Eras also have to be taken into account. What was a great stat in X era may not mean much in a different era due to changes in the rules, technology of the equipment they use or simply how a given sport is managed and played.

How greatness is measured in other sports doesn't mean a damn thing for boxing.
Saying the competitors in the other sports must face the best to reach the top is absolutely true AND they have no say at all WHEN they face the best.
Saying boxers can simply steer clear of the best opponents, facing them when they so choose and ONLY when they choose is also true.
Plus boxers could have simply come along when there are no great fighters in their weight range for them to fight, that's not their fault but it still has to be taken into account when measuring them against other great fighters.
You have to nitpick the great ones.

Also I don't think anybody is even beginning to suggest that Floyd is NOT a great boxer....................just not the GREATEST boxer.
Wow, what an insult
This Mayweather guy is having his name mentioned in the same sentence as Robinson, Leonard, Ali, Duran, Chavez and so forth.
He might not be as good as those guys?
What a bum

Chepppaaa wrote:i have to say that even so i dont like floyd, but floyd is correct in one thing, althought muhammad ali was a terrific boxer, but losing round by round getting punched as heavybag for so many rounds agaisnt foreman and than foreman gasing out, not so super impressiv. also, lets not forget, norton won against ali, but got robbed, so many people that rewatched the fight say that. also losing to a robotic small, powerless but speedless frazier isnt that great either. i mean frazier was miles away of being as sound as a prime tyson, in any terms, technicly, powerwise, speedwise even chin.

now lets get to floyd, who many call, like also himself TBE, the best ever. lets put one thing clear, the perfect boxer does not exist and wont never exist, but if there is someone to call as close as perfect as it gets, than it is a PRIME ROY JONES JR!!!!! and if you dont get by skill & athletic abiltiy and you prefer to go by record, than it is more a record of what robinson has, than what floyds got.
the loss against castillo and draw against maidana also doesnt help much. but i have to say a prime mayweather (corrales version) is a top 5 ever boxer period, to athletic, to technicly sound, to accurate, but not TBE.

for me the most obvious choice, lost every big fight he has been in. one robbery and strange refferey descision after the other. taylor, pernell, de la hoya, tszyu all beat him. i mean, you dont fight 100 cab drivers just to build a great record and that be put in a sentence with real atg top 10 material, simply does not work this way.

same for duran, he fought chump after chump, build a record with lots of fights and lots of chumbs and when it was time facing quality lost every single fight except one, where leonard was so stupid to try to brawl with a brawler.

now dont get it twisted. every 4 boxers mentioned are great, but they are not who so called experts think they are. ali is by no way p4p #1 like a lot of lists have him, shouting a thousand times "i am the greatest" doesnt make you the greatest, like i said, gift desicsion like against norton and not so stellar performances where he was behind on scorecards and basicly won because one big guy didnt train enough condition. mayweather called by a lot #1 ever, will never be close as great as a prime jones or prime robinson, hell, not even prime leonard. chavez and duran are in a lot of peoples p4p top 10 atg and dont belong there. 11-20 is enough for them, but with people like hearns, pacquiao, hagler, rigondeaux, lopez, pernell around they simply do not belong in a top 10, since they lost to top 10 guys way to much!

I thoroughly enjoyed this post. I love it when someone holds the fighters of the past to the same standards we hold fighters to today. Every once in a while I scrutinize a fighter we all "know" is great and the responses are hilarious. It's like people never come down from the legend of someone.

Some math ... Floyd's career is about 222 months. Subtract all of his fights, that leaves 175 months Floyd was inactive. Let's just say half of 175 is 87.
If Floyd had to fight in those 87 months against guys whose skills ranged from Jerry Cooper to Bryan Vera (with most right in the middle), his record would be 134-0. And you could say this about almost all of the great fighters of recent times.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:i have to say that even so i dont like floyd, but floyd is correct in one thing, althought muhammad ali was a terrific boxer, but losing round by round getting punched as heavybag for so many rounds agaisnt foreman and than foreman gasing out, not so super impressiv. also, lets not forget, norton won against ali, but got robbed, so many people that rewatched the fight say that. also losing to a robotic small, powerless but speedless frazier isnt that great either. i mean frazier was miles away of being as sound as a prime tyson, in any terms, technicly, powerwise, speedwise even chin.

now lets get to floyd, who many call, like also himself TBE, the best ever. lets put one thing clear, the perfect boxer does not exist and wont never exist, but if there is someone to call as close as perfect as it gets, than it is a PRIME ROY JONES JR!!!!! and if you dont get by skill & athletic abiltiy and you prefer to go by record, than it is more a record of what robinson has, than what floyds got.
the loss against castillo and draw against maidana also doesnt help much. but i have to say a prime mayweather (corrales version) is a top 5 ever boxer period, to athletic, to technicly sound, to accurate, but not TBE.

for me the most obvious choice, lost every big fight he has been in. one robbery and strange refferey descision after the other. taylor, pernell, de la hoya, tszyu all beat him. i mean, you dont fight 100 cab drivers just to build a great record and that be put in a sentence with real atg top 10 material, simply does not work this way.

same for duran, he fought chump after chump, build a record with lots of fights and lots of chumbs and when it was time facing quality lost every single fight except one, where leonard was so stupid to try to brawl with a brawler.

now dont get it twisted. every 4 boxers mentioned are great, but they are not who so called experts think they are. ali is by no way p4p #1 like a lot of lists have him, shouting a thousand times "i am the greatest" doesnt make you the greatest, like i said, gift desicsion like against norton and not so stellar performances where he was behind on scorecards and basicly won because one big guy didnt train enough condition. mayweather called by a lot #1 ever, will never be close as great as a prime jones or prime robinson, hell, not even prime leonard. chavez and duran are in a lot of peoples p4p top 10 atg and dont belong there. 11-20 is enough for them, but with people like hearns, pacquiao, hagler, rigondeaux, lopez, pernell around they simply do not belong in a top 10, since they lost to top 10 guys way to much!

I thoroughly enjoyed this post. I love it when someone holds the fighters of the past to the same standards we hold fighters to today. Every once in a while I scrutinize a fighter we all "know" is great and the responses are hilarious. It's like people never come down from the legend of someone.

Some math ... Floyd's career is about 222 months. Subtract all of his fights, that leaves 175 months Floyd was inactive. Let's just say half of 175 is 87.
If Floyd had to fight in those 87 months against guys whose skills ranged from Jerry Cooper to Bryan Vera (with most right in the middle), his record would be 134-0. And you could say this about almost all of the great fighters of recent times.

you right in some points and sure did boxers from the past fight a lot of sparring partner in so called pro fights.

but even with a 134 record of floyd he still would not be tbe. tbe has not so much to do with record, but what you are able to do in the ring and simply HOW GOOD YOU ARE IN YOUR PRIME

NateJR wrote:Out of the guys on this list... Chavez takes the cake by a mile.

X2

this entire thread is basically like an equation, 'moron to the power of infinity'

KBB wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:But his opponents aren't. That's where it counts. My stats would be better than Floyd's if I fought 10 year olds. So what?

So what? Floyd isn't fighting bums, he has 24 champions on his resume, many of them younger than him and most of them are far bigger or young enough to be considered in their prime or near it.

You guys look to nitpick too much but this is boxing and only because it's Floyd you downplay the stats, if Manny had these stats with his 8 different weight classes then you'd be here stating how he is the best ever and so will the rest of the fans of his.

Give credit where credit is due, I get it, you don't like the man but don't allow a simple thing like your emotional girlie feelings cloud your judgment.

Why you keep comparing him to Manny and not Leonard and Ali, who Floyd HIMSELF says he's better then. No one has ever said Manny is even top 10. Floyd argues that he's TBE. If he is, who has he beaten who is better than Armstrong, Hearns, Hager, Duran, or even Lamotta?

IKSRTFO wrote:Why you keep comparing him to Manny and not Leonard and Ali, who Floyd HIMSELF says he's better then. No one has ever said Manny is even top 10. Floyd argues that he's TBE. If he is, who has he beaten who is better than Armstrong, Hearns, Hager, Duran, or even Lamotta?

So I guess you missed the part about the stats, it's funny how stats mean nothing in boxing when it pertains to Floyd but in every sport stats mean everything, I wonder why is that?

Is Floyd supposed to say that they're better than him? I haven't heard any fighter yet claim that another fighter is better than them, do we know with sure certainty that any of those guys could beat Floyd? No, no more than we know if Floyd can beat any of them.

If I was a fighter I'd say that no one was better than me also. I'll await the day that we have a fighter saying "I'm TWE" (The Worst Ever).

Perseus wrote:When you're talking about great fighters you have to nitpick to separate them.
That applies to other sports as well.
Eras also have to be taken into account. What was a great stat in X era may not mean much in a different era due to changes in the rules, technology of the equipment they use or simply how a given sport is managed and played.

How greatness is measured in other sports doesn't mean a damn thing for boxing.
Saying the competitors in the other sports must face the best to reach the top is absolutely true AND they have no say at all WHEN they face the best.
Saying boxers can simply steer clear of the best opponents, facing them when they so choose and ONLY when they choose is also true.
Plus boxers could have simply come along when there are no great fighters in their weight range for them to fight, that's not their fault but it still has to be taken into account when measuring them against other great fighters.
You have to nitpick the great ones.

Also I don't think anybody is even beginning to suggest that Floyd is NOT a great boxer....................just not the GREATEST boxer.
Wow, what an insult
This Mayweather guy is having his name mentioned in the same sentence as Robinson, Leonard, Ali, Duran, Chavez and so forth.
He might not be as good as those guys?
What a bum

You sure you want to nitpick? If so, let me know and then we will commence because believe me that if we do, Floyd will come out on top of that nitpicking war.

I disagree with you about stats not meaning anything in this era as opposed to other eras, boxers still use the same gloves, the same rules for the most part still stand today that stood back then and as far as technology---there is none in the ring.

Greatness is measured in other sports the same as it is in boxing, it's based on how well you play the game and how often you win Championships. Just look at any stats in any sport and you'll find that their measure of greatness is based on those things. In boxing it's about who you fought and how well you did against them, what's the difference??

Floyd is making a statement that is equivalent to what Jordan has done in the game, Kobe and Michael played the same game in almost the same way but when you look at their stat comparison there is a huge gap in how far ahead Jordan is over Bryant; the same can be said in Floyd vs the field of ALL other fighters in CompuBox stats.

So whenever he is saying he is better because he has never lost, never been knocked down officially, never been beaten up, dominated or KO'd then it is as fair to say that he was better than the rest at playing the game just as it is to safely say that Jordan was better than the rest.

I see nothing wrong with that argument, the problem people who claim they are "boxing fans" are having is one that is highly emotional, they don't like Floyd, they HATE him so they are unwilling to concede to this logic and these facts.

most of you guys dont get the point it is not about who you beat (because there is luck to it, not in every division in every era are world class boxers, that simlpe), but just how good you actualy are as a boxer. so it has not much to do with "who has floyd faught?", it is not about that, he did not have the luck be in a era with a prime trinidad or prime leonard at welterweight, he only could face those guys he could face, sure he did duck some guys like tszyu, margarito and prime pacquiao, but it is not about that, greatness, great quality is about one boxer steps int he ring against another in a p4p sense or natural same division, both prime, who wins? the corrales version of floyd would give hell to 99 % of boxers ever, same as the oscar de la hoya version of pacquiao or the fernando vargas version of trinidad. all i am saying is, its not who you fight, but how good are you?

and i think that....

ali stating he is the goat, which means #1 ever
floyd stating he is tbe, which means #1 ever
duran being around 7 in a lot of atg p4p top 10 lists
chavez around 10

is overrated and thats why I said who is the most overrated atg p4p boxer ever.

ali in his prime was fast and had a lot of things, but he wasnt nowhere as fast and fluid in his movemant like guys who you realy could call goat or tbe, like prime jones or prime robinson come to my mind.

duran got beat by every top level boxer, same as chavez goes, duran and chavez should always be out of a p4p top 10. simply because they got beat by so many quality guys. instead of them guys like hearns, leonard, pernell etc. should be in a p4p top 10.

i mean not even talking old timers like jack johnson, dempsey or grebb, they have absolutly 0 business in a p4p atg top 10, to slow, no power, to robotic, technicly limited. nothing in comparison to prime tyson, prime hopkins. hello its the year 2015, boxing got better from century to century, it became faster, more athletic, like every sport, no exception!!!

Chepppaaa wrote:most of you guys dont get the point it is not about who you beat (because there is luck to it, not in every division in every era are world class boxers, that simlpe), but just how good you actualy are as a boxer. so it has not much to do with "who has floyd faught?", it is not about that, he did not have the luck be in a era with a prime trinidad or prime leonard at welterweight, he only could face those guys he could face, sure he did duck some guys like tszyu, margarito and prime pacquiao, but it is not about that, greatness, great quality is about one boxer steps int he ring against another in a p4p sense or natural same division, both prime, who wins? the corrales version of floyd would give hell to 99 % of boxers ever, same as the oscar de la hoya version of pacquiao or the fernando vargas version of trinidad. all i am saying is, its not who you fight, but how good are you?

and i think that....

ali stating he is the goat, which means #1 ever
floyd stating he is tbe, which means #1 ever
duran being around 7 in a lot of atg p4p top 10 lists
chavez around 10

is overrated and thats why I said who is the most overrated atg p4p boxer ever.

ali in his prime was fast and had a lot of things, but he wasnt nowhere as fast and fluid in his movemant like guys who you realy could call goat or tbe, like prime jones or prime robinson come to my mind.

duran got beat by every top level boxer, same as chavez goes, duran and chavez should always be out of a p4p top 10. simply because they got beat by so many quality guys. instead of them guys like hearns, leonard, pernell etc. should be in a p4p top 10.

i mean not even talking old timers like jack johnson, dempsey or grebb, they have absolutly 0 business in a p4p atg top 10, to slow, no power, to robotic, technicly limited. nothing in comparison to prime tyson, prime hopkins. hello its the year 2015, boxing got better from century to century, it became faster, more athletic, like every sport, no exception!!!

I disagree with you saying he ducked Kostya, a prime Pacquiao (who never agreed to the testing back in 2010 when Mayweather tried to make the fight and agreed to all of Manny's demands):

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2015/02/fig ... ly-ducked/

KBB wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:Why you keep comparing him to Manny and not Leonard and Ali, who Floyd HIMSELF says he's better then. No one has ever said Manny is even top 10. Floyd argues that he's TBE. If he is, who has he beaten who is better than Armstrong, Hearns, Hager, Duran, or even Lamotta?

So I guess you missed the part about the stats, it's funny how stats mean nothing in boxing when it pertains to Floyd but in every sport stats mean everything, I wonder why is that?

Is Floyd supposed to say that they're better than him? I haven't heard any fighter yet claim that another fighter is better than them, do we know with sure certainty that any of those guys could beat Floyd? No, no more than we know if Floyd can beat any of them.

If I was a fighter I'd say that no one was better than me also. I'll await the day that we have a fighter saying "I'm TWE" (The Worst Ever).

It's easy to say stats when Robinson's stats outside of his win loss record doesn't exist.


For all we know, I bet Henry Armstrong's or Willie Pep's actual stats makes Floyd look like poo.

IKSRTFO wrote:It's easy to say stats when Robinson's stats outside of his win loss record doesn't exist.


For all we know, I bet Henry Armstrong's or Willie Pep's actual stats makes Floyd look like poo.

Prove it!!

KBB wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:It's easy to say stats when Robinson's stats outside of his win loss record doesn't exist.


For all we know, I bet Henry Armstrong's or Willie Pep's actual stats makes Floyd look like poo.

Prove it!!

Prove that Floyd's stats are better. You can't because no one knows it. So it make your stats theory shit. What we can see is who these guys fought.

IKSRTFO wrote:Prove that Floyd's stats are better. You can't because no one knows it. So it make your stats theory poo. What we can see is who these guys fought.

DONE: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1135 ... x-at-least

Now you prove what you stated!!

For all we know, I bet Henry Armstrong's or Willie Pep's actual stats makes Floyd look like poo.

KBB wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:Prove that Floyd's stats are better. You can't because no one knows it. So it make your stats theory poo. What we can see is who these guys fought.

DONE: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1135 ... x-at-least

Now you prove what you stated!!

For all we know, I bet Henry Armstrong's or Willie Pep's actual stats makes Floyd look like poo.

None of their numbers are there so the article saying Floyd is the "Best of All time According to Compubox" is wrong. Compubox wasn't around back then. but opponents and records were and that's where they shit all over Floyd.

fergusg wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:None of their numbers are there so the article saying Floyd is the "Best of All time According to Compubox" is wrong. Compubox wasn't around back then.

CompuBox analysed the punch stats in historical bouts too.

How if all of the bouts aren't even accessible?

ik

First off, it's unfair to go just upon stats when Floyd is incredibly inactive compared to the likes of a Robinson. Also, as expressed earlier, Robinson fought all comers and didn't cherry pick opponents like Floyd has done.

Think of it this way. What if Robinson only fought 45 times in his career against hand picked opposition on his terms? Also, if he did that, no matter his stats, I'm willing to bet he would not be the legend that he is today.

Secondly, as illustrated numerous times already, it is unfair to judge upon stats when you cannot collect the full stats of all p4p guys. Would it be fair in baseball if you compare two of the greatest hitters in the sport if you have all the batting stats on one player but only half on the other?

Some of you need to take your head out of Floyd's backside and think rationally for a second.

Impractical Poster wrote:First off, it's unfair to go just upon stats when Floyd is incredibly inactive compared to the likes of a Robinson. Also, as expressed earlier, Robinson fought all comers and didn't cherry pick opponents like Floyd has done.

Think of it this way. What if Robinson only fought 45 times in his career against hand picked opposition on his terms? Also, if he did that, no matter his stats, I'm willing to bet he would not be the legend that he is today.

Secondly, as illustrated numerous times already, it is unfair to judge upon stats when you cannot collect the full stats of all p4p guys. Would it be fair in baseball if you compare two of the greatest hitters in the sport if you have all the batting stats on one player but only half on the other?

Some of you need to take your head out of Floyd's backside and think rationally for a second.

Get your head outta your own ass because the first problem is trying to compare fighters over eras. Times were different when SRR was fighting and they didn't make the kind of cheese they make today in fighting which is why he had to fight so often, there's no way in hell you can tell anyone here that SRR would be fighting even half as much today.

You say stats are unfair to go upon, well I have bad news for you; in every sport they use stats. Get over yourself and past your HATE for Floyd (Impossible Task, I know).

KBB wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:First off, it's unfair to go just upon stats when Floyd is incredibly inactive compared to the likes of a Robinson. Also, as expressed earlier, Robinson fought all comers and didn't cherry pick opponents like Floyd has done.

Think of it this way. What if Robinson only fought 45 times in his career against hand picked opposition on his terms? Also, if he did that, no matter his stats, I'm willing to bet he would not be the legend that he is today.

Secondly, as illustrated numerous times already, it is unfair to judge upon stats when you cannot collect the full stats of all p4p guys. Would it be fair in baseball if you compare two of the greatest hitters in the sport if you have all the batting stats on one player but only half on the other?

Some of you need to take your head out of Floyd's backside and think rationally for a second.

Get your head outta your own ass because the first problem is trying to compare fighters over eras. Times were different when SRR was fighting and they didn't make the kind of cheese they make today in fighting which is why he had to fight so often, there's no way in hell you can tell anyone here that SRR would be fighting even half as much today.

You say stats are unfair to go upon, well I have bad news for you; in every sport they use stats. Get over yourself and past your HATE for Floyd (Impossible Task, I know).

So, would you say it's unfair to compare him to the likes of SRR because of all the differences between then and now?

Impractical Poster wrote:So, would you say it's unfair to compare him to the likes of SRR because of all the differences between then and now?

Ok here's the deal, I saw it is unfair to compare boxers over any era but people do it and then they summarize who they think would win based on how much they like one fighter over the other.

Floyd is always favourite to win his fights and wins them all
Ali was numerous times underdog and lost fights

floyd is the greatest boxer but Ali will be the most remembered

mullenman wrote:Floyd is always favourite to win his fights and wins them all
Ali was numerous times underdog and lost fights

floyd is the greatest boxer but Ali will be the most remembered

Key: Ali was often the underdog and sometimes won/lost which mean he took more risks. Ali took risks with legends. Floyd being favored has more to do with his opponents than him. I bet if he accepted a fight with GGG, he wouldn't be the favorite.

I didn't even vote for Floyd and he is leading the poll. That should tell you something.