Rank Ray Leonard Thomas Hearns Floyd Mayweather Terence Crawford

Cheating is not meant literally. It's using dubious rules to your advantage to fight at weights that you wouldn't have done so 40/50 years ago. It applies to everyone and anyone that's done it, in my book.

I respect same day weigh in and think fighters should fight at the weight that suits them the best, rather than deliberately drain down to unnatural weights to be an in-ring size bully.

Now, a fighter able to move up and down between weight limits, without weight draining and being relatively healthy - fair play - do it for long enough though, long-term damage is a serious risk.

 

Crawford is the goat
Leonard was the goat
Mayweather has a better resume than Hearns
Better p4p

 

Hearns fought at several weights pretty much at the same time. He was at 160 then 154, 175 the back at 160. These can't all have been the ones that fit him the best, of course, so this must then apply to him as well?

And it's not like Crawford had the benefit of the day before weigh-in and his opponents didn't. For some he beat Spence because he was drained, in the next breath Bud is the weight bully. Doesn't make sense tbh.

We do know one who didn't drain even in the day before era -- Floyd. So if it's such a big deal, then this should converesely elavate him.

 

I also apply the same logic to Hearns but he was a freak truth be told. His dimensions, weighing in at 145 lbs isn't normal but he did it and did it well.

I suppose the bias that I apply with Hearns is how he went about his business. He ducked nobody and took them on when they were at their absolute best, for the most part. He also clean clocked what is likely the chin of the greatest fighter of the last 50 years.

Hearns' climb through the weights felt like a more natural growing into his body. I feel like Bud would've started at 154 lbs in a different era.

I certainly don't rate Bud above Floyd and even then, when I look at Money Mayweather as opposed to Pretty Boy, that Floyd didn't have the warrior, face any man, anywhere, anytime, no extra stipulations required mentality that the likes of Tommy or Mickey Walker brought to the table.

Yeah, I accept that my reasoning may not always be consistently applied, but I just like the way Tommy went about daring to be great and thus, he earned his résumé. I like the way Bud honed his craft and I don't rate his résumé as belonging to the upper echelons. It's a shame, his skillset deserves a deeper list of talented opposition.

 

Really?

Is that cos of his ability to switch?

Floyd at 130 lbs was special and up to 140 lbs, when his hands held up, was a sharp sniper puncher who let his hands go and stayed in the pocket whilst demonstrating great defence.

What Floyd did to Corrales and Gatti were special, special performances - caveat being that both fighters on fight night had nothing for him tbh.

 

It’s always the same with you.

You always put more emphasis on the losses than what you should, and you’ll always rank an unbeaten fighter higher.

That’s because you have limited knowledge and can never apply context.

Statistics with a zero, greatly impress you.

They always have done.


Now Terence looks to be a great fighter. He certainly passes the eye test. However, he has simply never seen the fighters who Hearns saw.

So what if Hearns lost his biggest fights?

He lost his biggest fights to 2 of the greatest fighters in the sport’s history.

There is nothing bad about losing to Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler, and outside of his prime weight classes.

Terence has never seen a Ray Leonard or a Marvin Hagler in his life.

He has nothing even comparable to them.

Also, by Ray’s own admission, Tommy beat him in the rematch.


Yes, he lost to Barkley. Barkley wasn’t great, but he was very powerful and it was a tough stylistic match up for him. And they were above his prime weights, in his 3rd and 5th weight class. And Barkley was no mug. He even gave a prime Michael Nunn a great workout.

There’s nothing wrong with losing to fighters when you go out of your comfort zone and you put it all on the line.

That’s why Terence deserves credit for fighting Canelo and Madramov. And he struggled with Madramov.


Yes, Hearns had size advantages in Benitez and Duran. But they were both better than anybody who Terence fought. And Duran went on to beat Barkley 5 years later.

No, Terence wasn’t up against any size disadvantages against Porter, Spence and Madramov.


His win over Canelo was a great win, Tommy also had a great win over Hill too.


At the end of the day, Terence is unbeaten, but simply doesn’t have the resume or the quality of wins that Tommy has.

They were both very skilled, they both accomplished a lot and they both had great longevity.

But Tommy trod the harder path.

So you cannot focus specifically on the losses and the zero, when Terence didn’t face the same challenges.

 

You’re the guy who compared a retroactive TUE to a speeding ticket.

 

Leonard is probably the best WW I’ve ever seen.

SRL
FLOYD
HEARNS
CRAWFORD

 

You can rank them however you want of course.

You can rank them based upon who you like more.

You can rank them based upon your favourite style etc.


However, if you’re going to rank them objectively, then you simply have to rank based upon different criteria.

Objective criteria.


It shouldn’t matter if Hearns lost and Terence hasn’t.

It doesn’t mean anything without the relevant context being applied.


Terence is a great fighter. Yes, he never lost. But then he hasn’t faced the same level of competition.

His resume isn’t anywhere near Tommy’s.

His group of best wins aren’t as impressive.


Floyd is very unlikable.

However, he too has a much better overall resume and better wins than what Terence has.

 

Okay.

But that’s just one factor.

 

With a retroactive active TUE, you need to be approved by two governing bodies. To challenge a speeding ticket, you only need the approval of one governing body.

 

Floyd would’ve beaten Madrimov more easily than Crawford and Crawford is the naturally bigger man. He also beat a better version of Canelo with more room to spare.

Pacquiao would’ve given Crawford a lot of problems.

 

He didn’t win titles over a much bigger range. It’s a one weight difference and he did it by skipping 160 for a single 168 fight, whereas Floyd beat Cotto, Oscar, and Canelo at 154.

 

I’ve seen Porter and Bud fight in person. Porter is a lot bigger. He basically beat Broner and Berto because he was bigger than them.

 

There’s a lot to look at, and a lot to consider.


The Spence win was a masterclass.

But how great was Spence, and what condition was he in when Terence fought him?


I can’t see how it’s better than a win over Benitez.


Duran blew hot and cold, but he’d just given a prime version of Marvin a great fight, and he went on to win the MW title 5 years later.


Here are Terence’ best wins:

Gamboa
Burns
Khan
Brook
Porter
Spence
Canelo


Here are Tommy’s:

Cuevas
Benitez
Duran
Shuler
DeWitt
Hill
Andries

He also should have Leonard on there, even by Ray’s own admission.


It’s interesting.

Again, the Spence win is vital to me.

If Spence wasn’t compromised by the crash, then Spence and Canelo are just two great wins.


You can claim that Khan and Brook were better than some of the guys I’ve listed for Hearns.

You could definitely make a case.

However, IMHO, they were both done.


It is an interesting debate.