BoxRec

Jpreisser wrote:

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.

And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

NateJR wrote:
And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

The question isn't if Floyd is an ATG. That's already a lock for him. The question (title of the thread) is if Floyd is the GOAT or as he says TBE

IKSRTFO wrote:

NateJR wrote:
And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

The question isn't if Floyd is an ATG. That's already a lock for him. The question (title of the thread) is if Floyd is the GOAT or as he says TBE

Exactly. I would never say Mayweather wasn't great and wouldn't fuss too much about someone placing him between 20-60 on a list of all-time greats, but there isn't even a kernel of truth to him being #1.

FMG = ATG = TBE

NateJR wrote: And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

I hardly did anything you mentioned. I merely pointed out that his most notable wins were against no prime great fighters.

IKSRTFO wrote:

NateJR wrote:
And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

The question isn't if Floyd is an ATG. That's already a lock for him. The question (title of the thread) is if Floyd is the GOAT or as he says TBE

He's in the argument. I don't rate him as such, but it's not as far fetched as people like you make it out to be. I'd personally put him somewhere in the top 15-20 ATGs, which is higher than most but you're right with who he's fought and beat I just can't rate him any higher than the top 15. But then again non of these other dudes came up from Superfeatherweight and were still undefeated 18 years later after fighting in 5 different weight divisions and still at the top at 37 years old. I highly doubt Duran, Hearns or SRL would have beaten Alvarez at the age of 36, there's always different ways of looking at it and Floyds longevity and defense are his best arguments when it comes to calling him TBE and to be fair it's amazing what he's done. Plus if you take into consideration who he has fought, he's fought a long list of who's who of opponents and some of the very best of his time. Not all of the very best of his time, but he's fought enough to prove he's a GREAT fighter and belongs in the conversation when discussing the ATGs. Being the best of your era is about as good as you can ask from anyone from any era.

Jpreisser wrote:

NateJR wrote: And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

I hardly did anything you mentioned. I merely pointed out that his most notable wins were against no prime great fighters.

Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, Alvarez (Alvarez might have been a bit green) were all in their prime. Cotto was very alive and well and probably closer to his prime than Hagler was when SRL fought him.

Mosley was coming off of one of the biggest wins of his career against the "claimed" most avoided guy in the sport Margarito.

Marquez went on to beat and KO Pacquiao after Floyd fought him.

Alvarez just got done beating the "claimed" most avoided guys in boxing Lara. It was a close fight but it proved that Alvarez was much more than just hype and will probably make a good case to making the HOF in the future.


Just because Floyd made it look easy shouldn't take away the fact he beat the breaks off these bad motherfuckers. Simple as that.

You're clearly a glass half empty type of person when it comes to discussing Floyd on who he beat, when he beat them and how he beat them.

NateJR wrote:

Jpreisser wrote:

NateJR wrote: And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

I hardly did anything you mentioned. I merely pointed out that his most notable wins were against no prime great fighters.

Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, Alvarez (Alvarez might have been a bit green) were all in their prime. Cotto was very alive and well and probably closer to his prime than Hagler was when SRL fought him.

I agree that all of those are good fighters, but none are/were great and that is my focal point. Also, virtually all the greats beat guys of similar caliber to all the guys Mayweather did, sometimes many times over. I think Hagler was still a better fighter than was Cotto, regardless of how far they were from their primes.

NateJR wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:

NateJR wrote:
And Floyd is still beating very good fighters while he's no where near his best as well. I would never call Floyd TBE, but I think you can make a better case that he belongs among all the other ATGs more so than saying he's not a ATG.

Cotto, Delahoya, Mosley, Gatti, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, Hernandez, Alvarez, Marquez, Hatton.. Sure some of them might not have been in their prime or even in their natural weight division, but you simply don't beat those types of fighters without being GREAT!! Much less beat all of them and still be undefeated at 37 years old' 18 years later in 5 different weight divsions. You might not like Floyd and want to find every reason to discredit him, but don't act like a ignorant d-bag and act like he hasn't taken any risks or fought any very good or great fighters because he clearly has.

The question isn't if Floyd is an ATG. That's already a lock for him. The question (title of the thread) is if Floyd is the GOAT or as he says TBE

He's in the argument. I don't rate him as such, but it's not as far fetched as people like you make it out to be. I'd personally put him somewhere in the top 15-20 ATGs, which is higher than most but you're right with who he's fought and beat I just can't rate him any higher than the top 15. But then again non of these other dudes came up from Superfeatherweight and were still undefeated 18 years later after fighting in 5 different weight divisions and still at the top at 37 years old. I highly doubt Duran, Hearns or SRL would have beaten Alvarez at the age of 36, there's always different ways of looking at it and Floyds longevity and defense are his best arguments when it comes to calling him TBE and to be fair it's amazing what he's done. Plus if you take into consideration who he has fought, he's fought a long list of who's who of opponents and some of the very best of his time. Not all of the very best of his time, but he's fought enough to prove he's a GREAT fighter and belongs in the conversation when discussing the ATGs. Being the best of your era is about as good as you can ask from anyone from any era.

To be fair, those guys fought each other, which probably contributed to their shortened longevity.

If Floyd would've fought the combination of the 3 out of 4, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and Hagler, I'm sure he wouldn't be boasting about a 18 year career still beating those on top. Not necessarily his fault but facts are fact, he doesn't have guys like that around in their prime. The closest challenges he has a few levels below the four kings, he won't take.

Jpreisser wrote: I agree that all of those are good fighters, but none are/were great and that is my focal point. Also, virtually all the greats beat guys of similar caliber to all the guys Mayweather did, sometimes many times over. I think Hagler was still a better fighter than was Cotto, regardless of how far they were from their primes.

Cotto shouldn't even be mentioned against even past prime Hagler....and I think Cotto is underrated as a boxer, BUT I can't see Cotto even beating Trinidad who isn't top 50 in my book.

IKSRTFO wrote:

Jpreisser wrote: I agree that all of those are good fighters, but none are/were great and that is my focal point. Also, virtually all the greats beat guys of similar caliber to all the guys Mayweather did, sometimes many times over. I think Hagler was still a better fighter than was Cotto, regardless of how far they were from their primes.

Cotto shouldn't even be mentioned against even past prime Hagler....and I think Cotto is underrated as a boxer, BUT I can't see Cotto even beating Trinidad who isn't top 50 in my book.

Agreed. Cotto wouldn't have been able to handle Trinidad's length and power. It would have been swifter than whatever Margarito mustered up in the first bout. Cotto is a fine fighter, one of the better guys of this era, but he won't rate highly in any class or in many people's all-time lists.

I think if Floyd was in the era of Duran, Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler he would have probably fought Duran, but that is about it. I think Floyd would have stayed at 140. Leonard was a big welter, Hearns a huge welter, and Hagler a middleweight. I don't count Leonard's win over Hagler really legit, meaning it happened too late, and was very contraversial. His win over Hearns in today's fights (12 rounds) would have had Hearns winning by UD.

Floyd is a small welter. He has been successful at 154 because of more skill. He may have fought Duran, and it would have been a good fight. Floyd skill wise was at least equal to those four, but comparing guys in different eras is fun, but stupid if you really think about it. Duran in my eyes was much better than Pac, but it would have been fun to watch too.