Is Mayweather More Skilled Then Sugar Ray Leonard?

Leonard's first ten opponents' combined record: 147-62-11. His second opponent won the NABF 140-pound title less than two years later, knocking out Leroy Haley. 8 of the 10 had winning records; the worst was 7-12.

Mayweather's first ten opponents' combined record: 78-56-6. 4 of the 10 had winning records. Two were making their pro debuts against Mayweather; each of those two would go on to retire with the same lifetime record: 0-4, knocked out 3 times. Mayweather's NINTH opponent had a record of 1-13 with a draw. It's a joke to say that Mayweather's early competition was better than Leonard's. Actually, it's not a joke; it's just an admission that you completely made it up and hoped nobody would check.

 

Hearns was a slight favorite, though it was essentially a pick'em fight.

 

What? STFU, moron. Nobody was speaking to you.

"SRL did have a better record as a AM and that's what you made a point about FIRST for your AGENDA claiming it was untrue"

- uh, you're not even following along with the conversation so don't make the mistake of thinking you're even remotely qualified to join it.

The very "FIRST" point made, which set off the conversation, was by Smokin Bert, pushing his own "AGENDA", with this comment:

"They are reasonably close in boxing skill. I would give a slight edge to Leonard who was able to win the Olympic Gold Medal in a much tougher era. Floyd only came away with a bronze medal in a very weak olympic field."

...which a) is untrue, and b) has nothing to do with their overall amateur records but specifically their Olympic runs.

I have no agenda here. I have no dog in the race in the overall topic question and have not put forth the position that Mayweather is more skilled than Leonard. I addressed one particular fallacy of Smokin Bert's, referring to Leonard winning gold in a "much tougher era" and Mayweather only getting bronze in a "very weak Olympic field".

Whether or not he is more skilled, whether or not his overall amateur record is better, and whether or not there was more depth of international talent overall in his era up and down throughout all the weight divisions, there is no way you can say Leonard's welterweight field at the 76 Olympics was tougher (or hell, even as tough) as Mayweather's featherweight field in '96. It simply wasn't. You also can't say that latter field was "very weak", that's just ignorant.


You happen to share Bert's bias in that you are either a nostalgic SRL lover or a PBF hater; well, good for you. Don't go around accusing the voice of reason of manipulating facts for merely holding agenda-driven statements in check.

 

Spot on.

Leonard was also better athletically.

 

no way!

Leonard was the favorite. even I picked him to win

u want the truth people are better off asking me

I have no agenda & nothing to hide

 

I felt Mayweather is by far the better of the two

Leonard could never deal with speed whereas Floyd can

Leonard lost badly at 34 whereas Floyd at 38 is still unbeaten

Leonard's record was an average 36-3-1

while Floyd's is much better at 45-0 and will probably match Marciano's 49-0 before he retires

I forgot to mention: I thought Leonard lost to Hagler N Hearns, both of whom were in terrible shape at the time

 

Not more skilled. I think nearly as skilled and nearly as physically talented. But Ray was stronger, taller, had a longer reach, and accomplished more. Just to have a similar record, Floyd would have needed to knock out Paul Williams at welterweight, decision Pacquiao at welterweight, decision Martinez at middleweight, then capture a super middleweight title from Carl Froch. In an even match, I think that Leonard would take more chances and knock Floyd out. He looked to hurt his opponents while Floyd only looks to survive. He might not give Leonard a tougher night than Benitez did.

 

Lalonde = Froch?

Also, weight-climbing isn't a boxing skill in the sense we're really discussing here and you've effectively said that Floyd would need to have weight-climbed as successfully as Ray to be considered as having comparable skill. You also, FWIW, neglect their starting out weights being staggered. Floyd won bronze at feather; Ray won gold at welter. In his pro career Floyd climbed five divisions, from super feather to junior middle. Ray only climbed four; welter to super middle - the latter not even having existed when he started out.

 

Agree, he's definitely become more economical, as mentioned, which is no surprise when fighting bigger men, who he doesn't want to trade with. But his skill is so vast that even when his speed has decreased he can dominate through an incredible defence and great timing. Even 10 years ago, The Ring were saying he could be at the top today due to the fact that, while he was very fast, he didn't rely on speed like a Roy Jones did. They were spot on. This is why I regard him as the more skilled fighter over Leonard, who relied more on his speed of hand/foot and power, than Mayweather does. So the answer is a definite 'yes' from this corner.

 

:!:

 

Why do people think the 0 actually means anything. Its all about the resume. Leonard fought much tougher opposition so has a much better record than Floyd. Im not even a huge fan of Leonard but its as clear as day he's greater than Floyd, and is a better, tougher, more skilled pugilist.

The way some people talk about Floyd you would think he was Jose Napoles skill level. The thing with Floyd is he's ridiculously good at the skills he does possess and he has tremendous reflexes. He's not dynamic in terms of skill he's just outstanding at what he does. Great ability to avoid shots, good footwork, high IQ, great counter puncher and a highly accurate pot shooter. IMO he hasn't fought much fighters who can test his ability and there hasn't been much around in recent years that could do it accept maybe Pac a few years ago. Imo Floyd would have been beat in greater era's thats for sure.

Fans got all excited after Floyd schooled the very basic boxer/puncher Canelo Alvarez. Boxer punchers are tailor made for Floyd especially the more slow of foot ones. The fights where Floyd has been troubled its been pressure and shots set up by faints that have troubled him. Highly skilled, defensive minded pressure fighters with fleet of foot are the type of fighters who would have the best success against Floyd. You have to be able to get to him, you have to have good faint variety to open him up when you get to him, and the speed and punch variety/accuracy to land on him. It would take a very, very good fighter to beat Floyd and there's been more than a few in the history of the sport that would beat him. JCC beats Floyd at 135, Duran beats him at 140, Napoles, Hearns, Leonard beat him above that. This is just a few examples off the top of my head. Plenty greats beat Mayweather but only great fighters could do it.

 

absolutely not SRL had great offensive skills and was more of an aggressive fighter than Floyd, FM is more of a defensive fighter because he does not have the offensive talent that SRL has....Floyd is great but he comes in behind SRL IMO

 

Both are extremely skilled and talented...but in different ways. Leonard was better offensively, given to a more risk taking approach...Floyd (as mentioned)
has reduced his punch output as he has climbed the weight divisions. Leonard has a much different mindset than Floyd...Leonard is a finisher, if he can hurt you, he wants to take you out...Floyd is more strategic, he wants to diffuse the opponent...through control, and style.

 

no, he's not. leonard was more physically gifted

 

that's the first time I've ever ran across that kind of reasoning

the 0 says it all. it says u cant be beat

Norris easily solved Leonard's style while no one has yet figured out old man Floyd's.
\
so while Floyd is still unwhipped at 38, Leonard was harpooned with a devestating defeat (Norris) cuz he wasnt as good s Floyd

I cant even BEGIN to understand why u would say "its a cear s day hewas greater than Floyd" when Floyd is 45-0 to Leonard's puny 36-3-1

he couldnt deal with speed' Hector N Norris PROVED that!

Floyd is different cuz he can. Floyd is more versatile, smaerter, more capable, and 100% more professional

while Leonard was only a runner

when it comes to boxer vs boxer, the faster boxer will dominate (see Camacho v Davis 1987, Leonard v Benitez)

the win against Hagler was meaningless becuz he really only got sloppy leftovers, a tothless version on his last nite so while i may LOOK impressive to say hagler is on his resume, it's not like he ever met prime Hagler.

it's like saying Ali is on Holmes's resumre and Larry whipped the greatest so that makes him great for that reason

in fact, leonard's resume is so thin, its not fair to match it with Floyd's

and how do YOU know how JCC would fare against Floyd? JCC was out speed & outsclassed by Taylor, Pernell, AND DLH

and I STRONGLY suspect he would go down to defeat against another prime fighter from the US, Mayweather

so simply telling how YOu think Floyd would do in hypothetical matchups (in which Floyd is conveniently the loser every time) has no relevence