Comparing Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard :What's more impressive:

[Ambling Alp II]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

[Ambling Alp II]

Plenty of highly rated guys never beat anyone great themselves. Hopkins never beat a prime great and neither did Hagler or Monzon

Yes. And they did enough to be deserved to be rated highly rate highly but not as highly as Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Charles, Robinson and Leonard, who all beat multiple great fighters including fighters above their weight class.
Are you now getting this? This isn't rocket science.

You can overcome better wins with greater depth and longevity. Leonard has two wins arguably better than anything Robinson has in Duran and Hearns but isn't ranked ahead of him.

Robinson beat lots of very good fighters but Gavilan is the only prime great that I would rate over anyone Mayweather beat

You are convoluting the careers of Robinson, Leonard, and Mayweather to make your guy look better.

You obviously have to weigh quality and quantity. The best win means the most. The 2nd best win the second most and so on. i think Robinson and Leonard are very close. Some people underrate Leonard.
Robinson also beat LaMotta 4 times when he had huge weight disadvantages. That is more impressive than any of Mayweather's wins.
Robinson had better huge wins and more depth than Mayweather.
Leonard beat slightly better fighters at his top, but Robinson had more depth.
Leonard easily beat better fighters at his top. If you want to argue that the 10th best fighter that Mayweather beat was better than the 10 best that Leonard beat, go ahead.

Comparing fighters to Leonard, Armstrong, Robinson, Langford, Greb, Charles, and Ali, you are going to get criticized for things that you won't be criticized for normally.

Again I;m not ripping Maweather. when you are

[gilgamesh]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

Leonard is definitely what we'd want in a star fighter in terms of fighting the biggest fights when they mattered most. No doubt about that.

I doubt Mayweather would've beaten Terry either as I think it's a bad style matchup for him, but i have a hard time envisioning Terry beating Canelo.

Fact is though. Leonard lost to Norris and it was excused by most as him being past his prime at 34.

Mayweather beats Canelo at 36 and rather than praise Mayweather they make excuses for Canelo.

There's definitely a double standard.

People LIKED Leonard. They wanted to cheer for him.

Floyd for all his success never enjoyed that same kinda admiration from Boxing fans.

I think Mayweather or Leonard are just about in the same league in terms of accomplishment, but like you, I'd rather see the second coming of Leonard than Mayweather.

[Cojimar 1946]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

Sure he does. Better resume depth, much better longevity, and no defeats. He has everything over Leonard aside from best wins.

There weren't any guys around his size in his era who are rate as high as Duran but there's nothing he could do about that. Fighting Pacquiao earlier wouldn't have solved that at least at welterweight.

[gilgamesh]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

Sure he does. Better resume depth, much better longevity, and no defeats. He has everything over Leonard aside from best wins.

There weren't any guys around his size in his era who are rate as high as Duran but there's nothing he could do about that. Fighting Pacquiao earlier wouldn't have solved that at least at welterweight.

Yeah if he had beaten Pacquiao when it mattered most it would've boosted his legacy big time. Or Pacquiao's for that matter depending on how it would've went.

[Ambling Alp II]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

Sure he does. Better resume depth, much better longevity, and no defeats. He has everything over Leonard aside from best wins.

There weren't any guys around his size in his era who are rate as high as Duran but there's nothing he could do about that. Fighting Pacquiao earlier wouldn't have solved that at least at welterweight.

Resume depth? so what, Mayweather's 6th best win is better than Leonard's? Big deal.
Longevity doesn't mean anything. It's what you do that counts, not how long it took you to do whatever you did.
Let's not forget that Mayweather was only undefeated because of ridiculous scoring in his favor. No way he really won the first Castillo fight.
Which brings us to best wins. Leonard's 4th best win is better than Mayweather's best. That is a huge difference.
I know Leonard was before your time so you can't wrap your head around this, but Leonard was a better fighter than Mayweather. A great fighter , just not as great as Leonard.
Whcih brings

[Ambling Alp II]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

Yes a win over Pacquaio when it mattered would have meant a lot. A win for Pacquiao and you could make argument for him being with the elite that we have been talking about. Unbelievable that this fight did not happened when it would have meant something.

Sure he does. Better resume depth, much better longevity, and no defeats. He has everything over Leonard aside from best wins.

There weren't any guys around his size in his era who are rate as high as Duran but there's nothing he could do about that. Fighting Pacquiao earlier wouldn't have solved that at least at welterweight.

Yeah if he had beaten Pacquiao when it mattered most it would've boosted his legacy big time. Or Pacquiao's for that matter depending on how it would've went.

[Cojimar 1946]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

Sure he does. Better resume depth, much better longevity, and no defeats. He has everything over Leonard aside from best wins.

There weren't any guys around his size in his era who are rate as high as Duran but there's nothing he could do about that. Fighting Pacquiao earlier wouldn't have solved that at least at welterweight.

Resume depth? so what, Mayweather's 6th best win is better than Leonard's? Big deal.
Longevity doesn't mean anything. It's what you do that counts, not how long it took you to do whatever you did.
Let's not forget that Mayweather was only undefeated because of ridiculous scoring in his favor. No way he really won the first Castillo fight.
Which brings us to best wins. Leonard's 4th best win is better than Mayweather's best. That is a huge difference.
I know Leonard was before your time so you can't wrap your head around this, but Leonard was a better fighter than Mayweather. A great fighter , just not as great as Leonard.
Whcih brings

Mayweather accomplished more in his era than Leonard did in his. That's the argument for him being ahead.

[gilgamesh]

I was just pointing out that Mayweather clearly does not deserve to be rated as high Leonard's. Obviously Mayweather was a great fighter. Just not as great as Leonard.

Drugs were not what hurt Leonard's carer from being even greater. The eye situation changed everything. He had already beaten Benitez, Duran, and Hearns by then. There really weren't any challenges left. After that the Hagler, fight he was just looking for challenges.
you can't go by the age of a fighter, although that is factor. Mayweather would not have beaten Terry Norris at 34 after being off for a year, and the eye problems.
Leonard was every bit as "professional as Mayweather. Ever look at who Leonard beat before winning the title? He beat 8 Top 10 contenders. also beat a fringe middleweight contender.
Beat a truly great fighter in Benitez to win the title.
Defended it against Duran less than a year later.
The next year beat Hearns.
After 1 fight in 5 years, moves up in weight and fights beats Marvin Hagler.

The guy always went out of his way to fight the best. That is a real professional.

Sure he does. Better resume depth, much better longevity, and no defeats. He has everything over Leonard aside from best wins.

There weren't any guys around his size in his era who are rate as high as Duran but there's nothing he could do about that. Fighting Pacquiao earlier wouldn't have solved that at least at welterweight.

Resume depth? so what, Mayweather's 6th best win is better than Leonard's? Big deal.
Longevity doesn't mean anything. It's what you do that counts, not how long it took you to do whatever you did.
Let's not forget that Mayweather was only undefeated because of ridiculous scoring in his favor. No way he really won the first Castillo fight.
Which brings us to best wins. Leonard's 4th best win is better than Mayweather's best. That is a huge difference.
I know Leonard was before your time so you can't wrap your head around this, but Leonard was a better fighter than Mayweather. A great fighter , just not as great as Leonard.
Whcih brings

Let's take this point by point.

Leonard has 3 wins better than Mayweather's best. I don't know about 4. Hearns, Hagler and Duran are all above anyone Mayweather beat.

Benitez I would say is on a similar level to De La Hoya, Mosley. He's below Canelo or Pacquiao.

I do agree whole heartedly that Mayweather didn't deserve the decision in the 1st Castillo bout.

You talked about "How much longer it took to do things for Mayweather".

No...not really. He was the Fighter of the Year and a World Champion in 1998. His 2nd year as a Pro.

Leonard has a 20 year Pro career. Mayweather had a 21 year Pro career, and he has 14 more victories than Leonard and 11 more total fights.

There are more Champions, Contenders, Hall of Famers. Any which way you'd want to measure successful fighters on Mayweather's list. Probably twice as many more honestly. I know he's one off from doubling Leonard in terms of Hall of Famers he fought.

And finally. While I agree that Mayweather did not deserve the decision over Castillo in their 1st bout. I also feel Leonard did not deserve the decision over Hearns in their 2nd bout. So if you add a loss on each of their ledgers for a decision they didn't deserve. That's one for each man.

[Cojimar 1946]

Duran for sure is better at least on paper. I think Hagler is arguable as he doesn't have a great resume and was past prime

[Ambling Alp II]

Benitez is better than anyone beat Mayweather beat at the time that he fought them. The win over Pacquaio means nothing. Mosley and De LA Hoya were well past their time as well. When the fight happens counts.
Benitez was in his prime when Leonard beat him. I don't think you realize how good Benitez was. Top 50 All time.
Hearns and Duran were in their primes as well. Hagler was closer to his best than Leonard was to his and Leonard still beat him.

As for as the amount of fights? Come on. This is boxing. The sheer amount of wins means nothing. You can always find stiffs to beat. There are guys that won more fights than Leonard and Mayweather put together who weren't half as good.
And not Leonard did not have a 20-year career. He lost 5 years of prime due to the detached retina. Leonard had 33 fights at the age of 25. (Mayweather had 27 at that age. Against maybe two guys worth mentioning.) Just 7 for the next 15 years. That isn't really a 20-year career.

Btw-I thought Leonard did just enough to beat Hearns in their second fight. Which was a great fight. And this was again, after Leonard's comeback. And remember, Hearns got credit for knockdown that was clearly a rabbit punch. He got credit for a 10-8 round for that. Mayweather looked like crap against Casillo.

Fighters don't come off 5-year layoffs and fight like they used. Which is why it was so incredible when Leonard beat Halger. This was before your time, so you probably don't get it. It seemed like Leonard had been away from the sport forever when he fought Hagler. Hagler looked invincible to many people. People were not saying that Hagler was past it when the fight actually took place. A lot of so-called experts thought Hagler would destroy him in just a few rounds. Many people were shocked that Leonard beat Hagler. It wasn't Leonard's best fight, but he was far better than expected.

You a trainer and you have a 25-year-old welterweight who is the best fighter in the world and who already beat 3 greats. Would your advice then be to fight once in the next 5 years, then moved up to middleweight and fight an ATG middleweight? Of course not. Your two are not getting Leonard's phenomenal achievement in beat Hagler.

If your top 4 wins over are better than the other guy's best win, you have a gigantic advantage. Who you beat (talking into consideration stages of fighter's careers) is not everything. But it is the most important thing.
Not wins or the number of WBS title defenses etc.

Leonard should be rated higher than Mayweather. We really should not have to debase this.

[Cojimar 1946]

If you are rating on accomplishments hypothetical fight results are irrelvant. Mayweather accomplished more in his era than Leonard did in his. You seem to be claiming his era sucked but that's a different argument.

Plenty of people pick Ruddock over Marciano which is fine. That doesn't mean he was greater in his era.

[gilgamesh]

People weren't saying De La Hoya or Mosley were past it heading into their fights with Mayweather either. They only said it after the fact.

"You can always find stiffs to beat in Boxing"

27 of Mayweather's total bouts are title bouts, and usually at bare minimum a World title challenger is a decent fringe contender type of opponent. Not just complete pushovers.

Manny Pacquiao, Canelo Alvarez, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, Zab Judah, Ricky Hatton, Arturo Gatti, Jose Luis Castillo, Marcos Maidana, Genaro Hernandez, Diego Corrales, Jesus Chavez, Robert Guerrero.

That's 15 opponents who at one point in their career had held 1 or more World Championship. I'm pretty sure Berto and Victor Ortiz would make that list as well, but I don't remember if they had a title or not to be honest. If so, that's 17...or maybe 16.

Either way. This does not suggest that he's fighting weak competition. Even in an era when Champions are more abundant. Nobody else has numbers like that.

[Ambling Alp II]

What are you talking about.? De La Hoya was clearly past his best (even though he competitive with Mayweather in a terrible fight) and Mosley was way past his best. His speed was almost gone. I remember this vividly.
Yes you can be a pushover (at least compared to a great fighter) and get a title shot. Happens all the time. A challenger might have a pretty record. Doesn't mean that he can fight. Boxing is not like other sports. guys with the right connections start their careers 15-0 whatever against tomato cans. They then get ranked by one of the corrupt organizations. Sooner or later they get a title shot whether they are any good or not.

Wins over great fighters (if they are close to their prime) are accomplishments. Wins over guys that you can't possibly lose to in title fights aren't "accomplishments."

[gilgamesh]

What are you talking about.? De La Hoya was clearly past his best (even though he competitive with Mayweather in a terrible fight) and Mosley was way past his best. His speed was almost gone. I remember this vividly.
Yes you can be a pushover (at least compared to a great fighter) and get a title shot. Happens all the time. A challenger might have a pretty record. Doesn't mean that he can fight. Boxing is not like other sports. guys with the right connections start their careers 15-0 whatever against tomato cans. They then get ranked by one of the corrupt organizations. Sooner or later they get a title shot whether they are any good or not.

Wins over great fighters (if they are close to their prime) are accomplishments. Wins over guys that you can't possibly lose to in title fights aren't "accomplishments."

How many men have lost fights they were the heavy favorite in over the course of their career? How many people continue to have the discipline to be at the top of their game after they've reached the mountain top?

I don't know what the odds were when he fought De La Hoya or Mosley, but I guarantee they weren't "This is a guy he couldn't possibly lose to" kinda odds.

Mosley had just come off of one of his career best victories over Antonio Margarito prior to fighting Mayweather. He's also one of the only people that ever noticeably rocked Mayweather, and had him in bad trouble early in their fight.

Ricky Hatton, Diego Corrales and Canelo were unbeaten when they fought Mayweather so I don't know how much more prime you want a guy.

[elmersalsa]

In my view, when it comes to achievements, Floyd Mayweather Jr was better than Sugar Ray Leonard.

Leonard was a fantastic fighter. But not top 10 all-time pound per pound material. That was due to his retirements and comebacks issues. Mayweather fought 21 years straight without a layoff. Best more world champions than Sugar Ray and had more longevity at the top of his game.

Mayweather is a top 10 pound per pound great. I can't say that about Leonard.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

In my view, when it comes to achievements, Floyd Mayweather Jr was better than Sugar Ray Leonard.

Leonard was a fantastic fighter. But not top 10 all-time pound per pound material. That was due to his retirements and comebacks issues. Mayweather fought 21 years straight without a layoff. Best more world champions than Sugar Ray and had more longevity at the top of his game.

Mayweather is a top 10 pound per pound great. I can't say that about Leonard.

- Now Elmo, there you go again for the umpteenth x.

Floydy retired several times, most notably a few weeks before Oscar's lucrative rematch, a squalling, bawling presser announcing his retirement while blowing his nose into a white hand towel before wiping his tearful mug with it as Ellerbee cuddled him

On short notice, Manny jumped 2 divisions to save Oscar's million dollar promotion to make any controversy mute by knocking him out.

Floydy returned by making Marquez jump 2 divisions with a welter catchweight that he couldn't make, so he paid a small fortune to Marquez to make the fight, and then all he did was run away popping popcorn shots.

I don't think much of Leonard who had a similar jerking good fighters around with multi retirements. It's safe to say as many x they might schedule to fight each other had they been in the same era, one or both would announce retirement to prevent their fight...yeah

Bigger pair of sissy jerks in boxing cannot be found.

[Cojimar 1946]

Floyd had no reason to rematch Oscar in the first place so good on him for not doing it. I don't see the issue.

[gilgamesh]

In my view, when it comes to achievements, Floyd Mayweather Jr was better than Sugar Ray Leonard.

Leonard was a fantastic fighter. But not top 10 all-time pound per pound material. That was due to his retirements and comebacks issues. Mayweather fought 21 years straight without a layoff. Best more world champions than Sugar Ray and had more longevity at the top of his game.

Mayweather is a top 10 pound per pound great. I can't say that about Leonard.

- Now Elmo, there you go again for the umpteenth x.

Floydy retired several times, most notably a few weeks before Oscar's lucrative rematch, a squalling, bawling presser announcing his retirement while blowing his nose into a white hand towel before wiping his tearful mug with it as Ellerbee cuddled him

On short notice, Manny jumped 2 divisions to save Oscar's million dollar promotion to make any controversy mute by knocking him out.

Floydy returned by making Marquez jump 2 divisions with a welter catchweight that he couldn't make, so he paid a small fortune to Marquez to make the fight, and then all he did was run away popping popcorn shots.

I don't think much of Leonard who had a similar jerking good fighters around with multi retirements. It's safe to say as many x they might schedule to fight each other had they been in the same era, one or both would announce retirement to prevent their fight...yeah

Bigger pair of sissy jerks in boxing cannot be found.

Can't agree with their multi retirements nonsense, but I definitely disagree about them being the biggest pair of sissy jerks in Boxing history. There's definitely guys that have tried to squeak out a long career while avoiding tough competition to a much larger degree than either Leonard or Mayweather.

[Ambling Alp II]

What are you talking about.? De La Hoya was clearly past his best (even though he competitive with Mayweather in a terrible fight) and Mosley was way past his best. His speed was almost gone. I remember this vividly.
Yes you can be a pushover (at least compared to a great fighter) and get a title shot. Happens all the time. A challenger might have a pretty record. Doesn't mean that he can fight. Boxing is not like other sports. guys with the right connections start their careers 15-0 whatever against tomato cans. They then get ranked by one of the corrupt organizations. Sooner or later they get a title shot whether they are any good or not.

Wins over great fighters (if they are close to their prime) are accomplishments. Wins over guys that you can't possibly lose to in title fights aren't "accomplishments."

How many men have lost fights they were the heavy favorite in over the course of their career? How many people continue to have the discipline to be at the top of their game after they've reached the mountain top?

I don't know what the odds were when he fought De La Hoya or Mosley, but I guarantee they weren't "This is a guy he couldn't possibly lose to" kinda odds.

Mosley had just come off of one of his career best victories over Antonio Margarito prior to fighting Mayweather. He's also one of the only people that ever noticeably rocked Mayweather, and had him in bad trouble early in their fight.

Ricky Hatton, Diego Corrales and Canelo were unbeaten when they fought Mayweather so I don't know how much more prime you want a guy.

Odds on fights don't mean a lot. They are biased on public perception. Past their best fighters are often given much more of a chance they realistically deserve.
You really thought Mosley had any chance going into the Mayweather fight? He was there for the payday. He was an old 38 by then. Had been in a ton of tough fights by then and His best fight was against De La Hoya , which was 10 years earlier.

Ricky Hatton? Diego Corrales? wow. Wins over those legends when they were in their primes? Congratulations to Mayweather on those phenomenal achievements. When you are comparing that to Duran, Benitez, and Hearns, they don't mean much.

When go on for this forever. It still goes back to Mayweather's best wins are remotely close to Leonard's. That is what counts the most. Just because the guy fought in your era doesn't mean he was better than someone before him. Sometimes he was, sometimes not.

[gilgamesh]

You seem to keep accusing me of Bias toward Mayweather because he's from my era simply because you can't present a better argument.

Leonard is from your era. Is that why you favor him?

And why no acknowledgement about the Canelo win? Because that actually is a big one and it would mean you'd have to give Floyd credit?

[Ambling Alp II]

I wanted to touch on something else. Some people seem to think that boxing is a lot like the NFL, MLB, the NBA. etc. It's not. It is run by corrupt organizations who only care about making money.
The WBC, WBA, IBF have no integrity. None. They are in business to make money. Period. Thier rankings and champions are contingent on the connections that the fighter's managers and promoters have with the organizations.

A fighter might be #1 in one organization and much lower in another. A challenger will all of a sudden become ranked so that it looks like a legitimate title defense. Just because a fight is for a title, doesn't mean it's important. Even if a TV network hypes it up. They are in the $ game as well.

Some people are too young to remember this. But at one time, there weren't 4 major organization. there were four titleholders. Often just one. That was much better. A higher % of title fights actually meant something. Top contenders actually fought each other routinely. Those fights tell you more than WBS title fight where one guy has almost no chance.

A great win/loss records often don't mean anything. If you have been a fan long enough, you have seen a zillion undefeated guys who you are seeing for the first time and when you see them they lose because it's the first time they fought someone decent.

Quality trumps quantity. Harder to beat one great fighter than 20 mediocre ones in a row. And you can be 20-0 and be medicore.

[gilgamesh]

I will state for the record that I think Leonard would beat Mayweather head to head but to me that has no bearing on where they'd rate historically because that's simply a guess, and is worth very little.

Mayweather has twice as many Championship wins as Leonard has Championship fights. He has almost double the amount of Hall of Famers on his record that he defeated. More total wins. More total KO's. Made more money.

He was more successful in every way that you'd measure success in the Boxing business.

[gilgamesh]

I'm aware of the history of the title organizations, and yes it was infinitely better when there was only 1 Champion. Wasn't until about 1985 I think that the IBF existed. Wasn't until about 2004 that anyone gave a sh*t the WBO existed.

More often than not BS titles or not. If a guy is a Holder of one of those 4 belts. It usually means he's a legit Top 10 guy in the division. Top 15 at worst. So while it may be a stretch to think of them as Champions, it's perfectly accurate to think of them as tough opponents.

[Ambling Alp II]

You seem to keep accusing me of Bias toward Mayweather because he's from my era simply because you can't present a better argument. I argument is tha tLeoanrd beat far better fighters. How many times do I have to pint this out?

Leonard is from your era. Is that why you favor him?

And why no acknowledgement about the Canelo win? Because that actually is a big one and it would mean you'd have to give Floyd credit?

Yes he beat Canelo. Not saying Mayweather wasn't great. But Leonard has four wins better than that.
You seem to worship mayweather.. To the point of using his name and calling the other guy by his last name. Leonard was in my time. almost every other guy that I mentioned as the very best was well before my time. Why is that? The sport is well over 100 years old. The odds are that most of the best fighters are going to be well before my or your time.