BoxRec

KBB wrote:

davie wrote:Come on, admit it, you were the one guy that voted for a floyd KO victory, weren't you?

Maybe it was you, I'm not delusional though I'm a fan. I did pick Floyd by decision, I'm not like some of you who only go with Hearns out of emotion. (your hate/dislike for Mayweather).

Who is going with Emotion - stylistically Hearns represents a combination of factors (height, reach, boxing ability and numbing punchpower) that Mayweather never faced at WW.

The closest he came was Corrales, but Corralles wasn't even close to Hearns level of talent, and at WW mayweather was already past his peak weight.

There's no emotion in this, it's a practical assessment based on their abilities. The style that Mayweather has employed at WW would see him widely outpointed against Hearns, as Mayweather isn't aggressive enough to win rounds, and couldn't potshot hearns due to Hearns jab, footwork, and reach.

KBB wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Fair enough. Mayweather has certainly been more consistent in his career than Benitez, but he never fought the level of competition that Benitez did. At their welterweight peaks, I think it's hard to pick the better fighter, I think Mayweather was better defensively but Benitez was better offensively.

So I guess Pacquiao isn't on the level of SRL?? Boxing fans sure do rank fighters differently these days, oh well.

Umm, no, a well past his best Pacquiao isn't on the same level as a prime Sugar Ray Leonard.

KBB wrote:

davie wrote:Come on, admit it, you were the one guy that voted for a floyd KO victory, weren't you?

Maybe it was you, I'm not delusional though I'm a fan. I did pick Floyd by decision, I'm not like some of you who only go with Hearns out of emotion. (your hate/dislike for Mayweather).

How could you possibly know this?

We all could say that you've only picked Mayweather because of emotion or because you hate/dislike Hearns, but that would be stupid & inaccurate, because we wouldn't have any way of truly knowing why you've chosen Floyd.

jezzamundo wrote:

KBB wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Fair enough. Mayweather has certainly been more consistent in his career than Benitez, but he never fought the level of competition that Benitez did. At their welterweight peaks, I think it's hard to pick the better fighter, I think Mayweather was better defensively but Benitez was better offensively.

So I guess Pacquiao isn't on the level of SRL?? Boxing fans sure do rank fighters differently these days, oh well.

Umm, no, a well past his best Pacquiao isn't on the same level as a prime Sugar Ray Leonard.

At WW he's not on the same level as SRL at ANY STAGE of his career.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

KBB wrote:

davie wrote:Come on, admit it, you were the one guy that voted for a floyd KO victory, weren't you?

Maybe it was you, I'm not delusional though I'm a fan. I did pick Floyd by decision, I'm not like some of you who only go with Hearns out of emotion. (your hate/dislike for Mayweather).

Who is going with Emotion - stylistically Hearns represents a combination of factors (height, reach, boxing ability and numbing punchpower) that Mayweather never faced at WW.

The closest he came was Corrales, but Corralles wasn't even close to Hearns level of talent, and at WW mayweather was already past his peak weight.

There's no emotion in this, it's a practical assessment based on their abilities. The style that Mayweather has employed at WW would see him widely outpointed against Hearns, as Mayweather isn't aggressive enough to win rounds, and couldn't potshot hearns due to Hearns jab, footwork, and reach.

That's YOUR practical assessment, if a smallish Pryor could beat him then I have just as much confidence that Floyd would've been able to do the same. Your BS argument of height, reach and blah blah blah has been negated by that very fact that a smaller man got to him, as I recall he had those same advantages over a shorter Hagler as well.

The height and reach difference are significant, but far from the only factors that make Hearns a nightmare matchup for Floyd.

Pryor beat Hearns in the amateurs, with heavy gloves, headegear and well before Emmanuel Steward turned Tommy into the monster puncher he later became. Pryor's swarming, high volume style which gave Hearns trouble, is also something Floyd could never emulate.

While short, Hagler was a natural middleweight, far more powerful and willing to take punishment than Floyd.

[/quote]


That's YOUR practical assessment, if a smallish Pryor could beat him then I have just as much confidence that Floyd would've been able to do the same. Your BS argument of height, reach and blah blah blah has been negated by that very fact that a smaller man got to him, as I recall he had those same advantages over a shorter Hagler as well.[/quote]

Jesus - it was in the amateurs, can you actually read?

You're aware that Floyd lost as an amateur right? So that means that they would have beaten him as professionals does it - like Noureddine Medjihoud for instance?

As already mentioned by another poster, Hearns as an amateur was not a puncher - it wasn't until Manny worked with him he became a monster puncher. So that's not relevant either.

As also mentioned, Hagler, whilst shorter was a natural middleweight, strong as a bull, relentlessly aggressive incredibly durable, and absolutely titanium chinned. Hagler is NOT Mayweather. How do you think Mayweather would have fared against Hagler? No doubt you think he would have won.

You're clearly either mentally deficient, or too stubborn to move from your position, or both. Citing a loss to Aaron Pryor in the ams as a reason why Mayweather would have won, is completely devoid of reason - Pryor's style was about as dissimilar as you can get to Mayweathers, so it's just not relevant and just to reiterate IT WAS IN THE AMATEURS. Should I translate it into another language - ?