Floyd Mayweather Vs Sugar Ray Leonard who wins prime for prime

I value wins over titles.

 

Those wins kinda pale when a said boxer also has many losses (I'm not talking about those that occurred when he was past his best)

 

Different eras, different demands.

Mayweather would have struggled in previous era where boxers were required to box more often. His fists were too brittle, he wouldn't have had as much protection from the refs in clinches, and he would have faced stronger competition.

 

There are more titles now, but nobody has won 8 except for Pac.
Also, some of the ATGs Ali beat were not in their prime when he beat them.

 

Foreman and Frazier were definitely in their primes. Liston and Patterson are debatable, but neither was shot either.

 

No I don't. If for example a boxer's prime started in 1916 and ended in 1923, I'm also gonna look at his exploits before 1920, I'm not counting those out.
I chose the 1920s as a cutoff point cause that's when boxing started to evolve IMO. And it kept evolving.

There is footage of Fitzsimmons. He stands no chance whatsoever against top modern HW. Even amateurs beat him.

They are more modern boxers.

That is the exception, not the rule when it comes to guys pre 1920.
It's not unusual for an ATG from an era to beat guys from other eras, but that doesn't really apply to ATGs from the beginnings of the sport, when boxing was more primitive. IMO the improvement started around the 1920s, that's why I chose that time date.

 

Evolution isn't a progression. The sport started to look different because they changed rules, officiating and equipment. It's not true that before 1920 people were clueless and didn't know how to fight, but somehow they magically started to do it correctly after 1920.

Who's talking about him vs modern HW? He was just a MW, we're talking about P4P here.
Your opinion about Fitzsimmons is just an opinion, it doesn't change the fact that he beat and dominated more "modern" fighters while being way past his prime.

So what?

Because it suits your agenda?

But we literally have examples of that actually existing in boxing history. Seriously, you just deny all facts because they don't look good next to your opinions.

 

This content is protected

definitely in his prime.

This content is protected

, his prime ended around 1973.

This content is protected

not necessarily due to aging, but

This content is protected

. As you know, in the late 60s, he got shards of metal in his eyes while he was training with a faulty speed bag in Philadelphia. His trainers kept it a secret so he could continue to fight. He was having serious vision problems by 1973-1974 and he lost almost all of his vision in his left eye by 1975.
He would go on to develop cataracts from the scar tissue of where the metal hit/entered his eye.

This content is protected

This content is protected

. Did not train properly and was older than stated. Plus he had that shoulder injury.

This content is protected

had an injured back in 65.

This content is protected

 

Nobody said they were clueless, I just think the sport improved significantly from that point on.
Most look too damn primitive on the footage we have of them.

 

See Leonard-Benitez, minus the KD's. So, Leonard by clear UD.

 

Do you have any proofs of Liston being older than he was? Even if it's true, why does it matter? Liston didn't become world class fighter before 1959 anyway, age doesn't change anything.

 

You still didn't explain me what makes McFarland, Gans, Langford, Driscoll primitive. You just state it like it's a known fact, but it isn't.

 

Very rarely in the history of the sport have ATG fighters beaten prime ATGs in their own weight class, especially at HW.

To be an ATG at HW, one generally has to dominate and beat the best of the available contenders of your time. Whilst you're dominating your competition and/or ruling your division, how does another fighter become an ATG as opposed to just a HoF fighter if they aren't winning the recognised title by beating the man?

There's a reason why long reigning ATGs usually end up losing to younger ATGs - old lion, new lion.

I get what you're trying to argue but I struggle to marry it up with historical record.

 

George Crowcroft
There are at least 10-15 boxers in your list that I don't see as greater than Canelo. They are either too ancient/primitive and/or have way too many losses for me to say they are greater.
But I will admit that I haven't seen/don't know as much as you about guys that fight below lightweight. I don't care too much about featherweight, bantamweight and flyweight boxing and don't really rate these type of boxers. They look like mosquitos and give me a good laugh.

 

Their stance, their movement, the way they punch, too much clinching etc.
They get pulverized by modern ATGS