BoxRec

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 21:53 Heanns is also great enough offensively to catch Floyd just like Shane did, except Hearns hits much harder and would finish him if hurt.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 23:19 He can lash out, but the list ain't wrong. Leonard was a better Welterweight, and he had the better career in a pound for pound sense.

Leonard's biggest wins are bigger than Floyd's biggest wins, and they're over better fighters.

Floyd does have MORE wins so he's got that going for him in the argument at least.

He has more name wins on his record than Leonard does, but Leonard has the bigger individual wins of the two.

Bujia wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 20:39

oogiebe wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 19:37
Floyd could lose to Hearns or SRR ,but he won't get "slaughtered," which is what I've been saying in response. All three are an elite level that makes it too hard to predict. to say 'stylewise' is a bit foolish. Floyd is an amazing fighter. What in his career shows you that Hearns would be able to outbox him in the first place?

Hearns was about the toughest fighter ever to outbox. That height, reach, speed, and elite jab/straight right were pretty much impossible to get the better of. The guy out-jabbed and out-boxed Virgil Hill at Lt. Heavyweight, for God's sake.

In order to beat him, you had to absorb the damage necessary (which is far easier said than done) to take him inside and turn it into a fire fight. Floyd didn't have the size, power, or combination punching Leonard possessed to make that route work for him.

Best case scenario is he loses a wide UD a la Benitez. Worst case is he goes for broke and gets KO'd.

Syntax Error wrote: ↑01 Jul 2020, 11:33 It's hilarious how Mayweather refers to Duran as a 'lightweight', as if Duran is a nothing fighter.

Duran was the best fighter of the 70s and he belongs in the conversation about who is the greatest lightweight of all-time.

He was also still very much in his prime and was comfortable at 147 despite being the 135 kingpin.

Evander wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 02:41 Wouldn't say Hearns was in his prime.
Leonards win was massive, and 15 scheduled.

banjo wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 05:15

Syntax Error wrote: ↑01 Jul 2020, 11:33 It's hilarious how Mayweather refers to Duran as a 'lightweight', as if Duran is a nothing fighter.

Duran was the best fighter of the 70s and he belongs in the conversation about who is the greatest lightweight of all-time.

He was also still very much in his prime and was comfortable at 147 despite being the 135 kingpin.

I know, Mayweather never fought anyone as good as Duran or Hearns or Hagler.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 02:38

gilgamesh wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 23:19 He can lash out, but the list ain't wrong. Leonard was a better Welterweight, and he had the better career in a pound for pound sense.

Leonard's biggest wins are bigger than Floyd's biggest wins, and they're over better fighters.

Floyd does have MORE wins so he's got that going for him in the argument at least.

He has more name wins on his record than Leonard does, but Leonard has the bigger individual wins of the two.

Leonards win over Hearns trumps anything Floyd did.

His best win at Welter is probably over a young Canelo. The other big names were quite a way past their peaks, Mosley and DLH were not the fighters they were when they met in their respective primes. Marquez, totally outgunned, Pacquaio, still a good fighter, but not a natural WW, and definitely not the animal he was a few years prior.

Hearns was absolutely in his prime, and on a terrific run of form.

Evander wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 02:41 Wouldn't say Hearns was in his prime.
Leonards win was massive, and 15 scheduled.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 09:53

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 02:38

Leonards win over Hearns trumps anything Floyd did.

His best win at Welter is probably over a young Canelo. The other big names were quite a way past their peaks, Mosley and DLH were not the fighters they were when they met in their respective primes. Marquez, totally outgunned, Pacquaio, still a good fighter, but not a natural WW, and definitely not the animal he was a few years prior.

Hearns was absolutely in his prime, and on a terrific run of form.

His best win at Welterweight is Pacquiao. The Canelo fight was a Jr. Middleweight catchweight bout.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 10:05

gilgamesh wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 09:53

His best win at Welterweight is Pacquiao. The Canelo fight was a Jr. Middleweight catchweight bout.

Yeah, unfortunately pacquiao wasn't really the same guy he'd been 5 years before. He seemed to lose something once he became a megastar. You're possibly right though.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 10:13

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 10:05

Yeah, unfortunately pacquiao wasn't really the same guy he'd been 5 years before. He seemed to lose something once he became a megastar. You're possibly right though.

I'll give it to you that it wasn't the very best Pacquiao we'd ever seen.

But it also wasn't the very best Floyd we'd ever seen.

Nevertheless they are the 2 best fighters of their era, and easily the 2 biggest megastars in the sport up to this point in 21st century Boxing, and therefore the fight between the two has to be the biggest thing in Floyd's career pretty much.

People can say all they want "Oh Pac was past his prime"...yeah, well it's 5 years later, and he has a World Title right f*cking now. He is 2 years younger than Floyd.

So yeah, it meant a lot to beat him.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 13:27 Floyd always would've beat son of jinky and it rates as a very good win for sure still, but his skillful style aged better than Pac's super intense fast paced style based on overwhelming. Doesn't matter that he's older than Pac, don't be a newb who doesn't know that fighters age differently. Bit of a Hop-RJ thing.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 09:54

Evander wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 02:41 Wouldn't say Hearns was in his prime.
Leonards win was massive, and 15 scheduled.

Wouldn't say Hearns was in his prime? Based on what?

He was undefeated, he was beating the sh*t out of everybody except Leonard, and he was at least even money to beat Leonard if not the slight favorite.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 07:40

Evander wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 02:41 Wouldn't say Hearns was in his prime.
Leonards win was massive, and 15 scheduled.

Well, he was neither green, not on the slide, and was spanking everyone put in front of him at WW at the time.

He was giving Leonard a boxing lesson, and it took Leonard to abandon his usual style to win, something that truly great fighters do.

Evander wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 18:41 Ray Leonard was a great fighter but Floyd Mayweather can sometimes be harshly criticized.
It should be remembered that Ray Leonard spent a lot of time out of the ring during his career, he was out of action from February 82 to May 84, from May 84 to April 87 and from February 91 to March 97.
Apart from the Kevin Howard fight Ray Leonard spent just over 11 years out of the sport, that stuff should be taken into account.
Floyd Mayweather never had layoffs that long.
Sure you could argue the toss on who was a better Welterweight all day long, I just think it should be remembered and put into context just who was a more active fighter during their careers.
People love to hate on Floyd, most I'm sure just don't like his personality, but you'd be very hard pushed to make a case on him not being one of the greatest fighters of the modern era, sorry but it's just not luck that gets you to 50-0.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 13:27 Floyd always would've beat son of jinky and it rates as a very good win for sure still, but his skillful style aged better than Pac's super intense fast paced style based on overwhelming. Doesn't matter that he's older than Pac, don't be a newb who doesn't know that fighters age differently. Bit of a Hop-RJ thing.