- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 133,526
- Reaction score
- 32,306
Hearns wasn't great when Ray beat him. If Canelo isn't a great win for Floyd, then why is Hearns a great win for Leonard? Beating the best is what Floyd did.There are a multiple number of flaws that I personally perceive based on the way I understand boxing:
1. 'Bonus points for name notoriety'- beating the very best ever, in their primes/near their primes is an unbelievable feat. Sugar Ray Leonard beat boxing's absolute best, in the many different styles. 'Name notoriety' is not the accurate way to perceive them.
2. Bernard Hopkins was around 49 years old, beating 'super world champion' Beibut Shumenov. Is Bernard Hopkins the greatest ever because he has gone a full 10 years fighting beyond Mayweather, with 17 more fights, too! Appealing to age as the biggest factor is not how analysing boxing history works because there's more to longevity than your actual age. Ring age is what is most important.
Longevity is a huuuuuuge part of Hopkins' legacy. It'll be a major factor when historians are trying to figure out where to rank him.
Hagler was "past his best" or "not in his prime"- whatever it is that makes Pacquiao not a great win for Floyd. Ray himself admits he waited for Hagler to get old. See, this is how it works. You apply a standard to one, then you have to apply it to the other.3. Beating Hagler was a brilliant feat because, although past prime, Ray Leonard himself was also past prime coming up in weight. Ray Leonard got the W (an ultimately even fight) with Hagler.
Right. Marquez. Wrong weight. Well, Duran had to poop so that win doesn't count for Leonard either. Can't be at your best when you have to poop. Duran doesn't count for Hagler either. Wrong weight.4. 'Floyd's win over Marquez is bogus because he came up in weight?' - Marquez put on the weight wrong, he even admitted to this. There's a massive difference between his abilities as the one who turned up against Mayweather (who outweighed him by 6lbs at the weigh in incidentally which is an even bigger diabolical shambles against someone who is already 2 weight classes below you as it is).
He is coming up in weight to fight Lomachenko. Some people are calling it a great fight.Can you imagine Rigondeaux coming up to 130 to fight Lomachenko, where Lomachenko weighs in at Lightweight because he simply can't be bothered making weight, all whilst Rigondeaux putting on bulk ineffectively? Rigo is a bigger talent than Marquez anyway so maybe that wasn't even the right example.
I agree Hagler is great, except when you apply stupid, unreasonable standards to the guy like people do with Floyd.5. Hagler proved that he is one of the best ever. I'm not completely sure though if Hagler is a Top 50 ATG, he definitely isn't Top 40 in my ranking in terms of overall greatness (which isn't solely ability remember), so the point your making has no significance.
lol at that description. Duran the swashbuckler. You just admitted that people rate him for reasons other than accomplishment.6. Duran had nothing to lose, everything to gain going into that fight. He lost 16 times but he's someone who's unanimously seen as greater than Mayweather can ever dream of being - guess why? It's not because of nostalgia, it's because true boxing heads don't analyse greatness in a simplistic way that you do, running to semantics when it suits you.
Beating a 147lb version of Duran in that manner, is astonishing. Yes, to me Duran wasn't in prime condition, but this isn't Marquez.
I don't agree that it is. Floyd dominated when Leonard was getting wrecked by Camacho. He beat more ranked fighters. Held more titles. etc. Pretty much every way to gauge greatness aside from the Duranomometer, Floyd has him beat.7. You favour stats but cite 'quality of opposition' - lol are you not getting it?
Beating one of the best ever is greater than beating two 'good' names because multiple fighters can beat 'good names' if they're very good, but virtually none of these 'multiple' fighters can beat one of the very best ever. That's a logic you need to understand in these discussions.