Floyd Mayweather jr vs The Fab Three @ 147

[gilgamesh]

Mayweather has an objectively superior career to Leonard. Alp just won’t rate more current fighters so a waste of time going over and over this.

It's true. Alp sees fighting Professionally after the year 2000 as somehow less of an accomplishment than fighting in the 20th century. Or at least it certainly reads that way.

[keithmoonhangover]

Mayweather has an objectively superior career to Leonard. Alp just won’t rate more current fighters so a waste of time going over and over this.

Leonard beat Hearns, Duran and Benitez. All three were in their prime. Who did FMJ beat in their prime?

[gilgamesh]

Mayweather has an objectively superior career to Leonard. Alp just won’t rate more current fighters so a waste of time going over and over this.

Leonard beat Hearns, Duran and Benitez. All three were in their prime. Who did FMJ beat in their prime?

Corrales, Hatton, Canelo, Castillo (2nd fight) and Maidana.

He also beat a Miguel Cotto who still had his biggest win left in him, and a Juan Manuel Marquez who still had his biggest win left in him. How about giving some credit to those guys huh? Getting their biggest win while being past their primes. That's gotta be a rarity huh?

[keithmoonhangover]

Mayweather has an objectively superior career to Leonard. Alp just won’t rate more current fighters so a waste of time going over and over this.

Leonard beat Hearns, Duran and Benitez. All three were in their prime. Who did FMJ beat in their prime?

Corrales, Hatton, Canelo, Castillo (2nd fight) and Maidana.

He also beat a Miguel Cotto who still had his biggest win left in him, and a Juan Manuel Marquez who still had his biggest win left in him. How about giving some credit to those guys huh? Getting their biggest win while being past their primes. That's gotta be a rarity huh?

None of them are in the same league as Duran and Hearns. Leonard's win over Hearns is among the best wins ever IMO.

[gilgamesh]

Leonard beat Hearns, Duran and Benitez. All three were in their prime. Who did FMJ beat in their prime?

Corrales, Hatton, Canelo, Castillo (2nd fight) and Maidana.

He also beat a Miguel Cotto who still had his biggest win left in him, and a Juan Manuel Marquez who still had his biggest win left in him. How about giving some credit to those guys huh? Getting their biggest win while being past their primes. That's gotta be a rarity huh?

None of them are in the same league as Duran and Hearns. Leonard's win over Hearns is among the best wins ever IMO.

Canelo can't be far behind. I haven't crunched the numbers for those 3 guys yet, but he's pretty goddamn accomplished let's not kid ourselves.

Corrales, Hatton, Castillo, Maidana and Cotto I'll grant you are all well below them. Cotto not as far as the rest I mention there.

Leonard had a moment in his career to achieve something like what Mayweather did in beating Canelo when he fought Terry Norris. Leonard failed. Mayweather didn't. Terry Norris was 11 years younger than Leonard. Canelo was 13 years younger than Mayweather, and I'm 100% sure Canelo is the more decorated and accomplished fighter than Terry Norris.

Now of course. Styles make fights, and Norris with his quickness has a tougher style for an aging fighter to deal with, but nevertheless everything I've said is true.

I do whole heartedly agree though for the record that Leonard's wins over Duran and Hearns are bigger than anything Mayweather has on his ledger. I'd give him Hagler as well. Hagler being "past his prime" is all hindsight, retroactive, after the fact thinking. He was supposed to kill Leonard, and he couldn't.

[keithmoonhangover]

Corrales, Hatton, Canelo, Castillo (2nd fight) and Maidana.

He also beat a Miguel Cotto who still had his biggest win left in him, and a Juan Manuel Marquez who still had his biggest win left in him. How about giving some credit to those guys huh? Getting their biggest win while being past their primes. That's gotta be a rarity huh?

None of them are in the same league as Duran and Hearns. Leonard's win over Hearns is among the best wins ever IMO.

Canelo can't be far behind.

He's a county mile behind for my money.

[gilgamesh]

None of them are in the same league as Duran and Hearns. Leonard's win over Hearns is among the best wins ever IMO.

Canelo can't be far behind.

He's a county mile behind for my money.

I'll tell you how far behind he is for my money when I gather all the information. As of now, my instinct tells me he'll be behind Duran, ahead of Hearns, but I could be wrong. I still got a lot of fights to watch on Hearns and Duran especially. Still quite a few on Canelo as well, plus he's still going.

[Ambling Alp II]

One of the problems with these points systems are the WBS titles.
They obviously favor eras where there 3-4 "champions" than when there is 1 or 2.

We also need to look at the "governing "bodies". These are corrupt organizations. They only care about making $ for themselves.
Their rankings are often a joke. A guy who is nowhere near the best contender is somehow the ranked in the top 10 to make it a title fight. Maybe even #1.
Or a title becomes vacant and two guys who clearly are the best fight for the vacant title.
some guys get their tile stripped if they don't defend in a year and some don't.
etc. etc.

Just because a fight is for a title fight doesn't mean it really means anything. At all. The sheer # of title defenses don't mean anything. At all. Quality trumps quantity.
# of wins doesn't mean much either. You can always find a stiff to beat. Primo Carnera had more wins than any other hw champion. Was he the best? Of course not.
You can't use stats in boxing like you sometimes can in other sports.

[gilgamesh]

One of the problems with these points systems are the WBS titles.
They obviously favor eras where there 3-4 "champions" than when there is 1 or 2.

We also need to look at the "governing "bodies". These are corrupt organizations. They only care about making $ for themselves.
Their rankings are often a joke. A guy who is nowhere near the best contender is somehow the ranked in the top 10 to make it a title fight. Maybe even #1.
Or a title becomes vacant and two guys who clearly are the best fight for the vacant title.
some guys get their tile stripped if they don't defend in a year and some don't.
etc. etc.

Just because a fight is for a title fight doesn't mean it really means anything. At all. The sheer # of title defenses don't mean anything. At all. Quality trumps quantity.
# of wins doesn't mean much either. You can always find a stiff to beat. Primo Carnera had more wins than any other hw champion. Was he the best? Of course not.
You can't use stats in boxing like you sometimes can in other sports.

For the most part the WBS Titles like the WBA and WBC have existed for about 50 years plus (I believe the WBA was at one point the NBA = National Boxing Assocation, but at some point expanded Globally). The IBF first came along by automatically awarding it's titles to people who are already considered to be Lineal Champions. Smart move on their part.

The WBO is definitely the weakest of the 4. Especially in the early years, but for whatever reason people decided it was a Major Title. So I must respect the World's opinion.

[Ambling Alp II]

The National Boxing Association started in the early 1920s and went to the early 1960s. It wasn't so corrupt, but was not that imortant. There was usually a lineal champion. It was when a fighter moved up in weight or retired and the lineal title was vacant that the NBA would often have a fight whcih they decreed was for the title.

It became the WBA in the 1960s. WBC came a little later. They used to have the same champion more often. However, when a title becomes vacant, they often would have different fighters fight t for their title and it would be split.

The IBF didn't come up about the 1980s. They gave Holmes the title after the WBC stripped him.

All three have been corrupt as is the WBO which came later.
For a while nobody cared about the WBO. HBO would even had a policy of not using saying WBO on the air. Francisco Damiani was the WBO champion when Tyson had all of the other titles. Nobody, and I mean nobody considered Damiani, Mercer, Morrison, Bentt , Hid e etc to be champion.

Then Kltischko got the WBO title and suddenly HBO considered it more important.

The networks become $ wise over the years with the WBS organizations. They know they can hype a fight easier if there is a title at stake. The networks (and PPV ) want there to be multiple champions.

[gilgamesh]

The National Boxing Association started in the early 1920s and went to the early 1960s. It wasn't so corrupt, but was not that imortant. There was usually a lineal champion. It was when a fighter moved up in weight or retired and the lineal title was vacant that the NBA would often have a fight whcih they decreed was for the title.

It became the WBA in the 1960s. WBC came a little later. They used to have the same champion more often. However, when a title becomes vacant, they often would have different fighters fight t for their title and it would be split.

The IBF didn't come up about the 1980s. They gave Holmes the title after the WBC stripped him.

All three have been corrupt as is the WBO which came later.
For a while nobody cared about the WBO. HBO would even had a policy of not using saying WBO on the air. Francisco Damiani was the WBO champion when Tyson had all of the other titles. Nobody, and I mean nobody considered Damiani, Mercer, Morrison, Bentt , Hid e etc to be champion.

Then Kltischko got the WBO title and suddenly HBO considered it more important.

The networks become $ wise over the years with the WBS organizations. They know they can hype a fight easier if there is a title at stake. The networks (and PPV ) want there to be multiple champions.

I remember when the WBO wasn't considered important. I remember pretty much the exact moment it became "important", but since the Boxing World decided it was important. It was always important.

Either it was never important or always important. Since it became one of the Big 4. It was always is the way I've chosen to come down on it.

In the case of Mayweather, I'm not sure he ever owned a WBO Title. I know he mostly held WBC Championships.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Nobody cared about it for a decade or so. It eventually became as important as the other 3 fraud organizations.

[gilgamesh]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Nobody cared about it for a decade or so. It eventually became as important as the other 3 fraud organizations.

What I'm trying to say is. It always mattered. If it ever mattered, it always mattered.

If it mattered in 2010. It mattered in 1990.

[gilgamesh]

My other point is that for the most part the titles Floyd held were the same titles that Leonard and Hearns held. He primarily held WBC and WBA Championships.

Saying they weren't important when Floyd held 'em just shows your bias again. It's literally the same Championship by the same organization.

[elmersalsa]

Floyd Mayweather, Jr was better than Sugar Ray Leonard.

Pound per pound? Yes. He is top 10.

Leonard? Doesn't make the top 10. Even though he had great wins on paper. He should have fought more. He had plenty of fights that he missed in the 80s decade. Like fights with Aaron Pryor, Donald Curry, Mike McCallum and Michael Nunn.

Seven fights in 15 years? Not good I'm my eyes. Definitely, not good. Let's not overrated one of the greatest in history in Sugar Ray Leonard.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the 7 fights in 15 years. That doesn't have sh*t to do with anything.

George Foreman had 0 fights between 1978 and 1986...so what? What difference does it make?

You rate guys off of what they DID not what they didn't do.

Leonard is certainly one of the Top 10 of the last 50 years I'm almost certainly, and in all likelihood one of the Top 15 or 20 of all time. He's in extremely rare company in the annals of Boxing history.

Yes, it got a lot to do with anything. It got a lot to do with EVERYTHING.

I brought up 7 fights in 15 years because in a time span of that magnitude, a fighter at least have 20 to 40 fights. Sugar Ray Leonard did great in only 5 years (1977-82). The rest of those years were a three-ring circus. It would be very unfair to rank him above guys that were constantly fighting like Tony Canzoneri, Archie Moore, Carlos Monzon, Bob Fitzsimmons, and Jack Johnson.

These guys were fighting consistently. Leonard wasn't. He retires, then comes back. Retires and comes back for the last 15 years of his boxing career. That's not good. That's annoying to a lot of people. Are you going to fight? Or are you going to stay retired? Which one of the two?

Greatness is not only about prime years. What about the years when a boxer wasn't dominant is also into consideration.

George Foreman had 0 fights between 1978 and '86. He was retired. Not even he thought that he was going to come back and fight. Nobody knew that he was going to come back and do marvelous things. That's not the same parameters with Leonard. And even at that, Big George became an all-time great because of his comeback career and later recapturing the Heavyweight Crown. And when he came back, he was fighting constantly. Leonard wasn't fighting constantly. That is the difference.

[gilgamesh]

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Nobody cared about it for a decade or so. It eventually became as important as the other 3 fraud organizations.

What I'm trying to say is. It always mattered. If it ever mattered, it always mattered.

If it mattered in 2010. It mattered in 1990.

Well no. Nobody cared about it the WBO 1990. It didn't matter. Everyone knew that Tyson was the real champion. For whatever reason, some people cared about the WBO title later on. Why people care about these phony titles is the real question.

[gilgamesh]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Nobody cared about it for a decade or so. It eventually became as important as the other 3 fraud organizations.

What I'm trying to say is. It always mattered. If it ever mattered, it always mattered.

If it mattered in 2010. It mattered in 1990.

Well no. Nobody cared about it the WBO 1990. It didn't matter. Everyone knew that Tyson was the real champion. For whatever reason, some people cared about the WBO title later on. Why people care about these phony titles is the real question.

It is a good question. I'd assume all these various title organizations sprang up as a way to try to lighten the strangehold that the United States had on all the Championships, and make the sport more international. That, and TV networks wanting everything to be billed as for the So and So World Championship.

[Cojimar 1946]

Benítez lost his biggest fights? well, he beat Roberto Duran. Ever heard of him?
At the age of 17, he beat Cervantes, one of the best jr. Welterweights ever.
He beat Carlos Palomino for the welterweight title.

Well yes, he lost to Leonard and Hearns. Performed well on both.
He broke his ankle in the Moore fight. He had serious health problems at the end of his career.

Have you ever actually seen Benitez fight? Watch these fights. Watch his knockout of Maurice Hope.

Leonard and Hearns both beat him handily. Those did not appear to be competitive fights in either case. Duran was inconsistent above welterweight and losing to guys like Laing and Simms so that doesn't seem like a great argument.

If you break your ankle as a result of getting dropped that's just part of the sport. Doesn't make the win illegitimate any more than Lewis beating Vitali on cuts.

[gilgamesh]

Benítez lost his biggest fights? well, he beat Roberto Duran. Ever heard of him?
At the age of 17, he beat Cervantes, one of the best jr. Welterweights ever.
He beat Carlos Palomino for the welterweight title.

Well yes, he lost to Leonard and Hearns. Performed well on both.
He broke his ankle in the Moore fight. He had serious health problems at the end of his career.

Have you ever actually seen Benitez fight? Watch these fights. Watch his knockout of Maurice Hope.

Leonard and Hearns both beat him handily. Those did not appear to be competitive fights in either case. Duran was inconsistent above welterweight and losing to guys like Laing and Simms so that doesn't seem like a great argument.

If you break your ankle as a result of getting dropped that's just part of the sport. Doesn't make the win illegitimate any more than Lewis beating Vitali on cuts.

Benitez's fight with Leonard was most definitely competitive. His fight with Hearns was a lopsided win for Hearns.

[keithmoonhangover]

Benítez lost his biggest fights? well, he beat Roberto Duran. Ever heard of him?
At the age of 17, he beat Cervantes, one of the best jr. Welterweights ever.
He beat Carlos Palomino for the welterweight title.

Well yes, he lost to Leonard and Hearns. Performed well on both.
He broke his ankle in the Moore fight. He had serious health problems at the end of his career.

Have you ever actually seen Benitez fight? Watch these fights. Watch his knockout of Maurice Hope.

Leonard and Hearns both beat him handily. Those did not appear to be competitive fights in either case. Duran was inconsistent above welterweight and losing to guys like Laing and Simms so that doesn't seem like a great argument.

If you break your ankle as a result of getting dropped that's just part of the sport. Doesn't make the win illegitimate any more than Lewis beating Vitali on cuts.

I don't think you've watched the fights.

[Ambling Alp II]

He is not interested in guys before his time.
They were competitive fights. He won a few rounds in each and there were some close ones in each.
Duran had a record of 74-2 going into he Benítez fight. It was a big fight.
Also Cervantes was a very good Jr welterweight champion. Benitez beat him when he was 17 years old.

[keithmoonhangover]

He is not interested in guys before his time.
They were competitive fights. He won a few rounds in each and there were some close ones in each.
Duran had a record of 74-2 going into he Benítez fight. It was a big fight.
Also Cervantes was a very good Jr welterweight champion. Benitez beat him when he was 17 years old.

Unbelievable achievement.

[cfang]

Really was exceptional. Too much too soon for Benitez perhaps. He clearly had the talent of the rest of the atgs of his era but didn’t quite dominate like he perhaps should have. Then again, it’s a package isn’t it in sport. Really it’s down to who you beat and how often. Talent alone isn’t enough and many fighters can beat superior talents with a beater attitude.

[cfang]

I can’t stand Floyd btw. I’d love to think the fab 4/5 would trash him but it’s pains me to say he’d come on top of some for sure.