Floyd Mayweather jr vs The Fab Three @ 147

[gilgamesh]

Way too credit for wins over top25 ish guys.
One win over Hearns or Hagler is a more important than 20 wins over guys like this. You are giving credit for beating guys that Leonard could not have possibly lost to. you can always find a guy that can't possibly lose to unless there some horrible officiating. Some great fighters fight a ton of these kinds of fights. Some don't bother.

You also should not give as much credit for beating a Hall of Famer like Arturo Gatti or Ricky Hatton as you do beating someone like Marvin Hagler. not all Hall of Famers are equal. Or often remotely equal.

Not all wins over someone in the top 10 are remotely equal.

You should get as much credit for a WBS title defense over a stiff as you do if against a great fighter.

Quality > Quantity.

All the points you are making Gil as well as his post directly above me has also spoken about in his original post and explained how he takes those wins into account.
His system does award quality but it also awards activity and consistency. It is an interesting system because it doesn't just take the biggest wins but it rewards fighters for being active and taking on good to very good fighters more often. I am sure I have seen you lament about fighters only fight once or twice a year. You are being presented with a system that goes someway to rewarding fighters for activity and essentially punishing them for lack of it.
His system gives 100 points for an ATG win and 50 points for a A Great win over a Great Fighter in a Championship Bout
A fringe contender in a standard action fight with a alphabet title on the line gets 10 points. That is a massive difference.

I appreciate that somebody took the time to take in all the subtleties of my points system, and that my explanation of it all wasn't completely in vain.

I think the proof is the pudding when it comes to the fact that I don't simply reward Quantity over Quality. If I did, then how would Evander Holyfield have come out with a higher score than Mike Tyson?

[Ambling Alp II]

A win over a fringe contender should probably be zero points, maybe 1. Beating 10 fringe contenders should not get you as many points as beating one ATG near his prime.

Having Holyfield over Tyson is certainly not proof is in the pudding. Tyson really does not have much of quantity edge over Holyfield. Holyfield had a huge quality edge.
Proof is in the pudding if you didn't have guys over Leonard who clearly were as good. You have seen Leonard. You know he was better than Mayweather. Yet your system has Mayweather higher. Ot Inouye over Leonard? That's a bad joke.

[gilgamesh]

A win over a fringe contender should probably be zero points, maybe 1. Beating 10 fringe contenders should not get you as many points as beating one ATG near his prime.

Having Holyfield over Tyson is certainly not proof is in the pudding. Tyson really does not have much of quantity edge over Holyfield. Holyfield had a huge quality edge.
Proof is in the pudding if you didn't have guys over Leonard who clearly were as good. You have seen Leonard. You know he was better than Mayweather. Yet your system has Mayweather higher. Ot Inouye over Leonard? That's a bad joke.

I don't think Leonard was better than Mayweather. At least not as far as consistency. Both at their absolute best he probably wins, but I could be wrong on that and you could be wrong on that too, and aside from that Leonard is the naturally bigger man. He should have a physical advantage over Mayweather head to head.

Tyson has a good bit more wins than Holyfield, and a good bit less losses, but he doesn't have the quality of Holyfield. Nowhere near it in fact.

Beating 10 fringe contenders would not in fact be worth beating 1 All Time Great. It would take something like 15 before it would be comparable to a win over an ATG.

Many great fighters fail to be consistent against the Fringe Contenders or the just Good fighters. I can point to many examples where a Fringe Contender or a Journeymen upset a more decorated fighter. So wins over guys of that level aren't completely useless, but obviously they're not the same as beating a truly great fighter.

Inoue is over Leonard for now, but his career is not through. He could wind up further ahead of Leonard or he could wind up falling behind. It'll be tough for him to retain his level of excellence for much longer I would think.

Mayweather could be about to take a tumble if he loses the rematch to Pacquiao or he could get a 2nd win over Pacquiao and pull further away from Leonard.

I know Mayweather wasn't taking losses and "past his prime" at 34 years old unlike Leonard.

I also know that Mayweather has 14 more wins than Leonard, 17 more Championship wins than Leonard, and beat twice as many Hall of Famers. But you know that too, you just ignore it.

[gilgamesh]

In the case of a fighter like Chavez who padded his record with a bunch of guys who were either making their debut or had a losing record or at least a novice record of very few fights. All of those fights are only worth 1 point because as you suggest the competition is so woefully mismatched that it's essentially just a public sparring session.

Chavez probably has more of those mismatches than anyone else. The most of anyone I've come across anyhow, but he also has a sh*t load of serious fights with serious fighters which people don't give him proper credit for. He simply fought ALL THE TIME. He didn't care against who. If he was gonna stay in shape, and spar a guy he might as well spar a guy for pay. I wish more fighters did it like that to be honest.

[p4p1]

A win over a fringe contender should probably be zero points, maybe 1. Beating 10 fringe contenders should not get you as many points as beating one ATG near his prime.

Having Holyfield over Tyson is certainly not proof is in the pudding. Tyson really does not have much of quantity edge over Holyfield. Holyfield had a huge quality edge.
Proof is in the pudding if you didn't have guys over Leonard who clearly were as good. You have seen Leonard. You know he was better than Mayweather. Yet your system has Mayweather higher. Ot Inouye over Leonard? That's a bad joke.

I don't think Leonard was better than Mayweather. At least not as far as consistency. Both at their absolute best he probably wins, but I could be wrong on that and you could be wrong on that too, and aside from that Leonard is the naturally bigger man. He should have a physical advantage over Mayweather head to head.

Tyson has a good bit more wins than Holyfield, and a good bit less losses, but he doesn't have the quality of Holyfield. Nowhere near it in fact.

Beating 10 fringe contenders would not in fact be worth beating 1 All Time Great. It would take something like 15 before it would be comparable to a win over an ATG.

Many great fighters fail to be consistent against the Fringe Contenders or the just Good fighters. I can point to many examples where a Fringe Contender or a Journeymen upset a more decorated fighter. So wins over guys of that level aren't completely useless, but obviously they're not the same as beating a truly great fighter.

Inoue is over Leonard for now, but his career is not through. He could wind up further ahead of Leonard or he could wind up falling behind. It'll be tough for him to retain his level of excellence for much longer I would think.

Mayweather could be about to take a tumble if he loses the rematch to Pacquiao or he could get a 2nd win over Pacquiao and pull further away from Leonard.

I know Mayweather wasn't taking losses and "past his prime" at 34 years old unlike Leonard.

I also know that Mayweather has 14 more wins than Leonard, 17 more Championship wins than Leonard, and beat twice as many Hall of Famers. But you know that too, you just ignore it.

FWIW I don't think you have suggested using or are using your rating system to say who was the better. It looks to me, to be a way to try and make sense of the overall career and rank their activity, quality of opponents, losses, consistency and fan entertainment value. Consistency against fringe contenders, contenders, champions and HoFers is very hard.

Zab who we were talking about the other day had massive issues with being consistent through his career.

[gilgamesh]

A win over a fringe contender should probably be zero points, maybe 1. Beating 10 fringe contenders should not get you as many points as beating one ATG near his prime.

Having Holyfield over Tyson is certainly not proof is in the pudding. Tyson really does not have much of quantity edge over Holyfield. Holyfield had a huge quality edge.
Proof is in the pudding if you didn't have guys over Leonard who clearly were as good. You have seen Leonard. You know he was better than Mayweather. Yet your system has Mayweather higher. Ot Inouye over Leonard? That's a bad joke.

I don't think Leonard was better than Mayweather. At least not as far as consistency. Both at their absolute best he probably wins, but I could be wrong on that and you could be wrong on that too, and aside from that Leonard is the naturally bigger man. He should have a physical advantage over Mayweather head to head.

Tyson has a good bit more wins than Holyfield, and a good bit less losses, but he doesn't have the quality of Holyfield. Nowhere near it in fact.

Beating 10 fringe contenders would not in fact be worth beating 1 All Time Great. It would take something like 15 before it would be comparable to a win over an ATG.

Many great fighters fail to be consistent against the Fringe Contenders or the just Good fighters. I can point to many examples where a Fringe Contender or a Journeymen upset a more decorated fighter. So wins over guys of that level aren't completely useless, but obviously they're not the same as beating a truly great fighter.

Inoue is over Leonard for now, but his career is not through. He could wind up further ahead of Leonard or he could wind up falling behind. It'll be tough for him to retain his level of excellence for much longer I would think.

Mayweather could be about to take a tumble if he loses the rematch to Pacquiao or he could get a 2nd win over Pacquiao and pull further away from Leonard.

I know Mayweather wasn't taking losses and "past his prime" at 34 years old unlike Leonard.

I also know that Mayweather has 14 more wins than Leonard, 17 more Championship wins than Leonard, and beat twice as many Hall of Famers. But you know that too, you just ignore it.

FWIW I don't think you have suggested using or are using your rating system to say who was the better. It looks to me, to be a way to try and make sense of the overall career and rank their activity, quality of opponents, losses, consistency and fan entertainment value. Consistency against fringe contenders, contenders, champions and HoFers is very hard.

Zab who we were talking about the other day had massive issues with being consistent through his career.

Indeed. My system is meant to be keeping track of who had the biggest achievements. Biggest fights, biggest names fought, most entertainment given to the Boxing fans throughout their career. That kinda thing. It's impossible to quantify something of that sort, but I've tried my best.

If I rate somebody on my list higher than someone else that is not me suggesting that they'd kick their ass in a head to head matchup, but it is me having calculated that they achieved a little more in their career either due to greater Championship success, higher standard of competition beaten, less losses or a combination of one and all of those things.

Even my own previously held opinions are not always reflected in the system I've come up with, but I stand by the system's results because when I watch everything that all of these fighters did, the score I wind up with always makes sense based on what I've seen.

[gilgamesh]

I gotta add also Alp. You really aren't giving Inoue proper credit for what he's doing at the lower weight classes. Try to name me somebody that has matched what he's done down there.

For instance. Roman "Chocolatito" Gonzalez. He was one of the P4P top guys of his time which was quite recent, He dominated at 105,108,112 and was still pretty good at 115, and then a mere mortal at 118.

Ricardo Lopez. He dominated at 105 for damn near a decade, then dominated at 108. Was one of the P4P top fighters of his time, and one of the most dominant era at those weights. Never ventured beyond 108 though.

Naoya Inoue began as a Champion at 108. Skipped over 112 to claim a title at 115. Entered the World Boxing Super Series at Bantamweight, and eventually became Undisputed Champion of that weight class. With nothing left to conquer there, he moved up to 122 and won every Championship, and has defended them all multiple times now.

He's a generational talent. Easily the best Japanese boxer of all time already without question, and arguably the most dominant ever at 118 and 122 simultaneously.

[Jaywheel]

The talent pool has always been shallow in the lower classes, that's why. I haven't commented on your system yet, you seem to take pride in it, and it's a lot of work I guess. But seeing the results, it's about as good, albeit a little better than the boxrec ranking system. If Inoue and Mayweather are above SRL (which I've said numerous times I dislike), there is something off with the system. Just my 2 cents.

[gilgamesh]

The talent pool has always been shallow in the lower classes, that's why. I haven't commented on your system yet, you seem to take pride in it, and it's a lot of work I guess. But seeing the results, it's about as good, albeit a little better than the boxrec ranking system. If Inoue and Mayweather are above SRL (which I've said numerous times I dislike), there is something off with the system. Just my 2 cents.

There's not though. Mayweather, Inoue and Leonard are all rated within 50 points or so of each other so the gap between them is minimal.

Mayweather and Inoue both have more than double the amounts of Championship wins than Leonard has. Leonard remains close to them in the overall score due to the extremely high quality of the wins that he does have.

Mayweather and Inoue while they may not have names as big as Duran and Hearns on their record, have the biggest name available from their era.

You guys basically can't make an argument for Leonard being better except for those 3 wins. You'll say "Inoue and Mayweather don't have wins that big" to which I'll say "Yeah I know, but they have lots of other big wins" to which you'll say "Pffffft....not as big as Leonard's" to which I'll say "Yeah I know, but there's more of 'em. A lot more" to which you'll say "Pffffft....so"

Leonard was a great fighter. He has more All Time Great wins than any fighter I've measured outside of Muhammad Ali, however unlike Muhammad Ali, he would get a big win, and then rest on his laurels and run off into the sunset a while before getting another big win, and resting on his laurels again.

Some fighters aren't so quick to rest on their laurels as Ray Leonard. That's the difference.

[gilgamesh]

Also the main thing that should be noted. When I started doing my list I didn't even have the thought that Naoya Inoue was gonna crack my all time Top 30.

The fact that he wound up with as high of a score as he did was a revelation to me because I had heard of the guy, but I didn't realize he was doing things like that. I don't rate him highly because I was a fan of his scrambling to find a way to rate him high, up until I I made the list I had never watched him fight at all.

He winds up rating highly simply because the evidence is all there that he should. I would wager that like me at this time last year all of you guys that think he shouldn't even be in this conversation haven't really watched his career.

[Ambling Alp II]

you clearly don't understand Leoanrd's career a t all. He went out of his way to fight the best avaiable. Before he ever got a title shot, he beat 8 ranked contenders. No they weren't great fighters. But he didn't start off his career win all those automatic wins that has been the norm for a long time. Nobody has done that since. He also beat a fringe middleweight contender while he was a young welterweight.

In less than a 2 year span, he fought Benitez, Duran 2x, and Hearns. shortly after, he got the detached retna. You don't understand how big of a deal that was. That was an automatic career ending injury at the time. That is why he quit. Not because he was rest on his laurels. The guy absolutely thrived on challenges. He never comes back, and he is still one of the top 10 of all time.

He had one fight in the next 5 years. He came back unexpectedly to fight Hagler. Nowadays, there are experts who claimed that they had picked him to beat Hagler. But in reality, anybody around at the time remembers that virtually every expert picked Hagler. And to destroy Leonard. How is a welterweight who has been off for what seemed like forever going to beat a great middleweight?

How significant was the win over Hagler? What other fighter was off for almost three years and beat a great fighter? He moved up two weight classes to do it. I have this to people before. I don't think anyone else has ever done this in well over 100 years of boxing.

At this time, he had made a ton of money, and any more wins would really not do much for him. Yes he could have beat a ton of guys who had no chance against him and had more "championship wins". So what?

Have beat the Mayweather thing to death.
Inoue won so-called "title fights" in weight classes that shouldn't even exist against people nobody has heard of. So what?

[gilgamesh]

I understand the career of Leonard quite well actually, I just watched all of his fights. I also watched all the fights of all of his top rivals. He fought his share of soft touches, but granted he rose to the top quicker than a lot of fighters do.

Inoue won his first World Title in his 6th pro contest. Mayweather was at the tail end of his 2nd year as a Pro when he won his first World Title.

Leonard definitely has the single biggest wins of any of these 3 gentlemen. I don't know how I could understand any of these guys any better honestly. You certainly could brush up on em some though it seems.

[Jaywheel]

So how are Inoue, Mayweather and JCC higher then SRL then? The system might need some more refining. For one, I think you penalize a lot for meaningless post-prime/washed up defeats. I agree that quantity can become a factor, but quality has to be the primary criteria. It looks as if Valuev or Ottke could rank over Lomachenko for instance.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

So under my revised ranking system after having watched all available footage of all of these guys, and trust me it took quite a while.

This is how they rank amongst each other in terms of career achievement.

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr. - 656 points
2. Roberto Duran - 636 points
3. Ray Leonard - 606 points
4. Thomas Hearns - 551 points

I'm in awe of your commitment and hard work in devising the system and scoring the boxers ..... but I don't agree with the rankings.

I don't mind Floyd Mayweather Jr above Roberto Duran. He was a magnificent boxer. The best fighter pound per pound since 2001.

- Now, Elmo, there you go again.

Manny shattered all the Ring P4P records. Everyone else ever in Ring P4P Ratings are dwarfed in comparison because there is no comparison...

[elmersalsa]

I'm in awe of your commitment and hard work in devising the system and scoring the boxers ..... but I don't agree with the rankings.

I don't mind Floyd Mayweather Jr above Roberto Duran. He was a magnificent boxer. The best fighter pound per pound since 2001.

- Now, Elmo, there you go again.

Manny shattered all the Ring P4P records. Everyone else ever in Ring P4P Ratings are dwarfed in comparison because there is no comparison...

Well, Manny was a true all-time pound per pound great. So was Floyd Mayweather Jr and Roberto Duran. Who was the best of the three in my view?
1. Duran
2. Mayweather Jr
3. Pacquiao.

How do you rank Sam Langford?

[gilgamesh]

So how are Inoue, Mayweather and JCC higher then SRL then? The system might need some more refining. For one, I think you penalize a lot for meaningless post-prime/washed up defeats. I agree that quantity can become a factor, but quality has to be the primary criteria. It looks as if Valuev or Ottke could rank over Lomachenko for instance.

Mayweather beat 9 Hall of Famers to Leonard's 4. He has 27 Championship wins to Leonard's 10.

In Inoue's case he's 27-0 with 23 KO's in Championship fights. 84% of his total bouts have been Championship fights. He's beaten Nonito Donaire in all likelihood a future Hall of Famer twice. He dominated Omar Narvaez in 2 rounds. Omar Narvaez made something like 27 successful title defenses in his career, so in spite of the fact that YOU might not have ever heard of him, he was quite a formidable to defeat. His other 3 defeats came by decision, against Inoue he was dominated and stopped in 2 rounds.

In 32 fights Inoue has never been particularly challenged. He's won every fight dominantly.

As for Julio Cesar Chavez. How is he ahead of Leonard. For him the answer is simple, volume along with a lot of quality opponents in his own right. He has 2 wins over Hall of Famers. 2 wins over Meldrick Taylor who was high near the top of the P4P list in their 1st meeting, and aside from those wins. He has 49 more KO wins than Leonard has wins period. He has 31 Championship wins which is the World Record by the way, and he was just more consistent and more dominant over a longer period of time than Leonard was.

There are many guys with almost twice as many fights as Leonard who did not finish with a higher score than him. So Quantity is obviously not the only criteria. If it were Hearns and Hagler would've rated over him, but they did not.

I reward all victories and penalize all defeats. "Past your prime" is an excuse, and if you got an excuse to make rather than a fight to fight you shouldn't have gotten in the ring.

To me it has to be done that way because when fans try to define that a guy was "past his prime" they always conveniently want to say he was past his prime whenever he loses. No credit to the guy that beat him. I personally don't think that's fair.

The way I look at it, if you stepped into the ring you've sold the public on the fact that you're still a fighter, and you still think you can beat your opponent. If it turns out you were wrong, a loss is a loss.

[Jaywheel]

Omar Narvaez made something like 27 successful title defenses in his career, so in spite of the fact that YOU might not have ever heard of him, he was quite a formidable to defeat.

lol ok buddy

[gilgamesh]

Given all that I just explained there. It's actually amazing that Leonard is able to keep his score close, and the reason why is because he has 3 All Time Great wins. Most people have 0 or 1 at best. So his achievement is certainly extraordinary in that regard, and that's why he's still going to wind up higher on the list than many fighters with more wins, and more Championships than him in a lot of cases, just not all of 'em.

[gilgamesh]

Omar Narvaez made something like 27 successful title defenses in his career, so in spite of the fact that YOU might not have ever heard of him, he was quite a formidable to defeat.

lol ok buddy

The information is all there. If the facts upset you, that's on you. I had a great time watching the career of both fighters, and have the utmost respect for both of 'em.

Inoue can still ultimately dip below Leonard by the way should he suddenly start losing or something. Or he could make the gap even wider. Only time will tell.

[gilgamesh]

As for Valuev and Ottke. They fight a lot of stinkers so I don't expect a particularly high score for either man, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Admittedly I'm not in as much of a rush to get to guys like that as I am to cover consensus great fighters, but I will eventually get around to those kinda dudes. I'm not particularly looking forward to that.

I'm just about to wrap up Canelo's career, and add him to the list which I'm sure will inspire a whole new slew of arguments about how I don't know anything about a guy's career that I just watched in its entirety

It's been enlightening, and fun watching all I could find of all these guys. I'm sure there's many more gems to be uncovered.

[Casablanca]

What does the full list look like at this point?

[gilgamesh]

What does the full list look like at this point?

Heavyweight
1. Muhammad Ali - 1107 points
2. Joe Louis - 899 points
3. George Foreman - 694 points
4. Larry Holmes - 576 points
5. Rocky Marciano - 474 points
6. Lennox Lewis - 470 Points
7. Evander Holyfield - 461 Points
8. Riddick Bowe - 448 points
9. Wladimir Klitschko - 416 points
10. Mike Tyson - 377 points
11. Joe Frazier - 353 points
12. Tyson Fury - 342 points
13. Sonny Liston - 284 points
14. Vitali Klitschko - 265 points
15. Tommy Morrison - 241 points
16. Anthony Joshua - 223 Points
17. Deontay Wilder - 221 points
18. Oleksandr Usyk - 211 points
19. Ken Norton - 169 points
20. Frank Bruno - 130 points
21. Ingemar Johansson - 113 points
22. Fabio Wardley - 110 points
23. Tim Witherspoon - 94 points

P4P
1. Manny Pacquiao - 903 points
2. Evander Holyfield - 774 points
3. Julio Cesar Chavez - 733 points
4. Floyd Mayweather Jr. - 656 points
5. Roberto Duran - 636 points
6. Naoya Inoue - 626 points
7. Ray Leonard - 606 Points
8. Marvin Hagler - 587 Points
9. Saul "Canelo" Alvarez - 586 Points
10. Terence Crawford - 557 Points
11. Tommy Hearns - 551 Points
12. Oscar De La Hoya - 540 Points
13. Roy Jones Jr. - 524 Points
14. Oleksandr Usyk - 447 points
15. Michael Spinks - 418 points
16 (tied). Naseem Hamed - 385 points
16 (tied). Felix Trinidad - 385 points
18. Vasyl Lomachenko - 346 points
20. Erik Morales - 320 points
21. Wilfred Benitez - 294 points
22. Arturo Gatti - 137 points

Any big name that isn't currently on the list I just haven't gotten around to covering fully yet. Canelo is moments away from taking his place on the list after I watch 1 more of his bouts, and crunch all the numbers on him.

[Casablanca]

What does the full list look like at this point?

Heavyweight
1. Muhammad Ali - 1107 points
2. Joe Louis - 899 points
3. George Foreman - 694 points
4. Larry Holmes - 576 points
5. Rocky Marciano - 474 points
6. Lennox Lewis - 470 Points
7. Evander Holyfield - 461 Points
8. Riddick Bowe - 448 points
9. Wladimir Klitschko - 416 points
10. Mike Tyson - 377 points
11. Joe Frazier - 353 points
12. Tyson Fury - 342 points
13. Sonny Liston - 284 points
14. Vitali Klitschko - 265 points
15. Tommy Morrison - 241 points
16. Anthony Joshua - 223 Points
17. Deontay Wilder - 221 points
18. Oleksandr Usyk - 211 points
19. Ken Norton - 169 points
20. Frank Bruno - 130 points
21. Ingemar Johansson - 113 points
22. Fabio Wardley - 110 points
23. Tim Witherspoon - 94 points

P4P
1. Manny Pacquiao - 903 points
2. Evander Holyfield - 774 points
3. Julio Cesar Chavez - 733 points
4. Floyd Mayweather Jr. - 656 points
5. Roberto Duran - 636 points
6. Naoya Inoue - 626 points
7. Ray Leonard - 606 Points
8. Marvin Hagler - 587 Points
9. Saul "Canelo" Alvarez - 586 Points
10. Terence Crawford - 557 Points
11. Tommy Hearns - 551 Points
12. Oscar De La Hoya - 540 Points
13. Roy Jones Jr. - 524 Points
14. Oleksandr Usyk - 447 points
15. Michael Spinks - 418 points
16 (tied). Naseem Hamed - 385 points
16 (tied). Felix Trinidad - 385 points
18. Vasyl Lomachenko - 346 points
20. Erik Morales - 320 points
21. Wilfred Benitez - 294 points
22. Arturo Gatti - 137 points

Any big name that isn't currently on the list I just haven't gotten around to covering fully yet. Canelo is moments away from taking his place on the list after I watch 1 more of his bouts, and crunch all the numbers on him.

Very interesting.

[Ambling Alp II]

So how are Inoue, Mayweather and JCC higher then SRL then? The system might need some more refining. For one, I think you penalize a lot for meaningless post-prime/washed up defeats. I agree that quantity can become a factor, but quality has to be the primary criteria. It looks as if Valuev or Ottke could rank over Lomachenko for instance.

Mayweather beat 9 Hall of Famers to Leonard's 4. He has 27 Championship wins to Leonard's 10.

In Inoue's case he's 27-0 with 23 KO's in Championship fights. 84% of his total bouts have been Championship fights. He's beaten Nonito Donaire in all likelihood a future Hall of Famer twice. He dominated Omar Narvaez in 2 rounds. Omar Narvaez made something like 27 successful title defenses in his career, so in spite of the fact that YOU might not have ever heard of him, he was quite a formidable to defeat. His other 3 defeats came by decision, against Inoue he was dominated and stopped in 2 rounds.

In 32 fights Inoue has never been particularly challenged. He's won every fight dominantly.

As for Julio Cesar Chavez. How is he ahead of Leonard. For him the answer is simple, volume along with a lot of quality opponents in his own right. He has 2 wins over Hall of Famers. 2 wins over Meldrick Taylor who was high near the top of the P4P list in their 1st meeting, and aside from those wins. He has 49 more KO wins than Leonard has wins period. He has 31 Championship wins which is the World Record by the way, and he was just more consistent and more dominant over a longer period of time than Leonard was.

There are many guys with almost twice as many fights as Leonard who did not finish with a higher score than him. So Quantity is obviously not the only criteria. If it were Hearns and Hagler would've rated over him, but they did not.

I reward all victories and penalize all defeats. "Past your prime" is an excuse, and if you got an excuse to make rather than a fight to fight you shouldn't have gotten in the ring.

To me it has to be done that way because when fans try to define that a guy was "past his prime" they always conveniently want to say he was past his prime whenever he loses. No credit to the guy that beat him. I personally don't think that's fair.

The way I look at it, if you stepped into the ring you've sold the public on the fact that you're still a fighter, and you still think you can beat your opponent. If it turns out you were wrong, a loss is a loss.

And again, not all Hall of Famers are the same. Soe should not even be in there. Stop giving as much credit for beating Gatti as you do Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler.

It speaks volumes that Leonard's 4th biggest win is bigger than Mayweather's best. And of course Inoue's biggest win, whatever that was supposed to be.

Therefore, you need to stop saying this guy beat more Hall of Famers. Just stop. It's stupid.
And again, championship wins by itself doesn't mean anything. Leonard could have spent his career winning title fights against guys who could not have possibly beaten him.
What fight did Mayweather ever have in his entire career in which going in you thought that there was serious chance he would lose because his opponent (at the time of the fight) was that good? Be honest. The answer is never.

Who are the best fighters that Inouye has beaten? it's pretty revealing that you never mention them.

Yes "Past Your Prime" means something if it is true.
It also not as big of a win if your opponent was past their prime. i.e. Trevor Berbick's win over Ali is not the same as Norton's.

These are basic things that boxing fans know. We should not have to argue them.

[gilgamesh]

So how are Inoue, Mayweather and JCC higher then SRL then? The system might need some more refining. For one, I think you penalize a lot for meaningless post-prime/washed up defeats. I agree that quantity can become a factor, but quality has to be the primary criteria. It looks as if Valuev or Ottke could rank over Lomachenko for instance.

Mayweather beat 9 Hall of Famers to Leonard's 4. He has 27 Championship wins to Leonard's 10.

In Inoue's case he's 27-0 with 23 KO's in Championship fights. 84% of his total bouts have been Championship fights. He's beaten Nonito Donaire in all likelihood a future Hall of Famer twice. He dominated Omar Narvaez in 2 rounds. Omar Narvaez made something like 27 successful title defenses in his career, so in spite of the fact that YOU might not have ever heard of him, he was quite a formidable to defeat. His other 3 defeats came by decision, against Inoue he was dominated and stopped in 2 rounds.

In 32 fights Inoue has never been particularly challenged. He's won every fight dominantly.

As for Julio Cesar Chavez. How is he ahead of Leonard. For him the answer is simple, volume along with a lot of quality opponents in his own right. He has 2 wins over Hall of Famers. 2 wins over Meldrick Taylor who was high near the top of the P4P list in their 1st meeting, and aside from those wins. He has 49 more KO wins than Leonard has wins period. He has 31 Championship wins which is the World Record by the way, and he was just more consistent and more dominant over a longer period of time than Leonard was.

There are many guys with almost twice as many fights as Leonard who did not finish with a higher score than him. So Quantity is obviously not the only criteria. If it were Hearns and Hagler would've rated over him, but they did not.

I reward all victories and penalize all defeats. "Past your prime" is an excuse, and if you got an excuse to make rather than a fight to fight you shouldn't have gotten in the ring.

To me it has to be done that way because when fans try to define that a guy was "past his prime" they always conveniently want to say he was past his prime whenever he loses. No credit to the guy that beat him. I personally don't think that's fair.

The way I look at it, if you stepped into the ring you've sold the public on the fact that you're still a fighter, and you still think you can beat your opponent. If it turns out you were wrong, a loss is a loss.

And again, not all Hall of Famers are the same. Soe should not even be in there. Stop giving as much credit for beating Gatti as you do Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler.

It speaks volumes that Leonard's 4th biggest win is bigger than Mayweather's best. And of course Inoue's biggest win, whatever that was supposed to be.

Therefore, you need to stop saying this guy beat more Hall of Famers. Just stop. It's stupid.
And again, championship wins by itself doesn't mean anything. Leonard could have spent his career winning title fights against guys who could not have possibly beaten him.
What fight did Mayweather ever have in his entire career in which going in you thought that there was serious chance he would lose because his opponent (at the time of the fight) was that good? Be honest. The answer is never.

Who are the best fighters that Inouye has beaten? it's pretty revealing that you never mention them.

Yes "Past Your Prime" means something if it is true.
It also not as big of a win if your opponent was past their prime. i.e. Trevor Berbick's win over Ali is not the same as Norton's.

These are basic things that boxing fans know. We should not have to argue them.

Mayweather has a few wins over guys that rate higher than Benitez

Nobody ever said beating Gatti was the same as beating Duran, Hearns and Hagler. Only you and your inability to grasp something that I've explained over and over can't get that.

Inoue's best wins are over Omar Narvaez and Nonito Donaire 2x

We're not arguing them. I do know that fighters wind up past their prime. My argument isn't that this doesn't happen. My argument is that it doesn't matter. Because it happens to every fighter.