Floyd Mayweather Vs Sugar Ray Leonard who wins prime for prime

It matters. He was 5-6 years older in 64-65, that's a lot.
Also, he did not train properly and he got injured. That also matters bigtime.

 

Do you think modern fighters could fight the way they do in the 1900s?

 

What's stopping them not to, except for gloves ?!

 

"Except gloves" shows alone that there are significant differences between the eras. There are much more though:

- refs allowed far more grappling, you can say all you want that it's boring or unskilled, but it's very hard to box when your opponent can clinch you half of the fight with smaller gloves that allowed for more freedom inside,
- smaller gloves makes high guard less effective, you needed different defensive techniques,
- smaller gloves force fighters to use different punching techniques,
- fighters had to pace themselves for 20+rounds fights, using unnecessary movement was a big mistake back then,
- there were less padding on hands, which caused to more injuries.

These are only a few differences that would definitely force fighters to adapt and change their styles.

Seriously, Bob Fitzsimmons fought more years than you probably live and he studied fighting techniques (he even wrote a book about boxing), do you really think he never thought that high guard is better? I mean, high guard is nothing revolutionary, even young boys usually try to protect themselves by high guard. Do you really think that Fitzsimmons didn't have good punching technique, even though he could stop full time heavyweights with body shots? Do you really think that he leaned back because he was clueless?

Fighters like Fitzsimmons know their work much better than some random boxing fans. I'm sure you'd call a lot of amateurs more skilled than Fitzsimmons and these amateurs wouldn't last 5 minutes with him in the ring. Fighting experience can't be overcome by what you think is "proper technique".

 

You make some valid points, but I think that given how any good boxer nowadays can throw a 3-4 punch combo, all one would need is to throw one and they'll KO Fitzsimmons, who has never seen anything like that in his life.

 

There are plenty of sources describing Fitzsimmons using combinations.

 

And what about how skilled they were and who they beat?

 

Do you know who George Gardner was? Here is his LHW title fight vs Jack Root, it starts at 7:08

This content is protected

He definitely uses combos in this clip. 40 years old Fitzsimmons with bad hands outboxed him convincingly for 20 rounds.

 

Oscar won 6.

Where do you rank him?


Tell us what your full criteria is for ranking people, so that we can all understand.

Longevity and titles are very relevant, but they’re only 2 factors out of many others which also need to be considered.


For an example, let me give you my take regarding Ray and Manny:


Manny:

He has a much, much deeper resume.

He was more professional.

He won more titles.

He had more fights.

He had more wins.

He had greater longevity.


Ray:

IMHO, he was just a better fighter prime for prime.

He had a higher skill set.

Although he doesn’t have as many wins as Manny, his best wins were by far superior.


There’s traditional criteria, and of course, everyone has their own criteria.

For me, I like to compare fighters, prime for prime.

Although past prime losses can’t be completely ignored, I don’t put too much thought into them. They’re not really that important to me when the relevant context has been applied.


When I analyse both fighters when they were in their prime and fighting to their full capabilities, my brain tells me that Ray Leonard was just the better fighter.

Therefore, irrespective of Manny’s statistics and how many titles he won etc, I would always rank Ray higher than him.

 

Which fighters? And why?

 

Have you applied the relevant context when looking at their losses?

 

I usually disregard losses that came when they got older/past their prime.

 

In a GOAT ranking, I mostly look at the achievements of a boxer relative to his era.
In TBE debate, I look at H2H ability.

Some guys that I rank in my top 5 GOAT list (like Langford for example) are not even top 100 in a TBE list (I think Langford will even get beat by amateurs nowadays).

 

But why?

When you compare fighters from vastly different eras, it seems like you're having them fight in today's fight game, with different gloves and different rulesets from those of their era - correct me if wrong.

I have never ever taken this approach. In a true H2H sense, you have to extrapolate their record, their in-ring ability and the ruleset, equipment and training methodology of the time and then transport them to the era of the fighter that they're being compared against. This means that Langford gets the benefit of better nutrition, increased sports science and equipment whilst retaining the same fighting instincts and genetic potential.

The reality is fighters like Langford and Fitz who dominated excellent fighters well above their weight knew how to hit men with concussive accurate punches to the body and head, with techniques, traps, feints and raw hitting power that would stand them well if they were born in any era. These qualities don't magically disappear because modern fighters have adapted to the changes of environment, equipment, rounds and ruleset.

Think of Jesse Owens running on cinders, propelling himself from holes that he dug for his own feet. Comparative to Usain Bolt, he would have likely been within a stride or two, according to biomechanical analysis from David Epstein. The difference isn't that humans have got so much better, moreso that equipment and technology has pushed the performance of humans so much higher. You see it in Motorsport where records are broken by faster times in faster cars with much more mechanical assistance afforded to the driver - doesn't mean that a Schumacher is a wholly better driver than a Senna, for example. Similarly, whilst modern boxers might look better on film that is inarguably better than the film and technology available in Langford's time, there are levels of fighting ability that Langford had that very few fighters around his best weight class could see, let alone intangiable qualities that you very rarely see in an amateur that is asked to go 15 - 25 rounds with a primed elite prize fighter.

 

Okay. I understand. But although they can’t be ignored, they still have to be put into context, due to how many fights they had and how often they fought etc.