Rank Ray Leonard Thomas Hearns Floyd Mayweather Terence Crawford

Andre Berto was never a world champion. He just had belts

Crawford was a 5x champion and 3x undisputed

 

I dont agree with this at all, considering the weight difference between Canelo and Crawford.

Besides that fight was a lot closer than Canelo vs Crawford

 

Are you confusing Andre Berto with Adrian Broner, DP? Berto didn't win world titles in 4 divisions and Broner shares his initials, so I'm assuming so.

 

Yeah I am thanks for the correction i'll edit my post.

 

Crawford walks around at 180 and had a height and a significant reach advantage over Canelo.

I told you prior to the fight happening the size difference was being blown out of proportion.

Canelo is higher ranked than Hill in all time rankings and he had a better career.

But Canelo was past his prime and hadn't had an impressive performance in years.

Hill was in his prime.

Lastly the scorecards for Hearns/Hill were pretty much identical to Crawford/Canelo.

2 judges had Crawford beating Canelo 115-113 x2 with the final judge having it 116-112.

Likewise 2 judges had Hearns beating Hill 115-113 x2 with the final judge having it 116-112.

 

Crawford successfully putting on weight doesn’t take away from his greatness. He still started at 135 and isn’t a natural 168.

Go ask Vinny Paz and his stack of his PEDs how hard it is to beat guys at 168.

 

I'm not saying it takes away from his greatness but I do think size advantage Canelo had was overblown.

My main point is that whilst Canelo had a better career than someone like Hill.

But Hill was at his peak where as Canelo had looked shopworn for the past few years.

 

Canelo is just so much better than Hill ever was. If it were easy to to move up to 168 and beat Canelo, Jermell Charlo, who loves a dog fight, wouldn’t have totally packed it in against Canelo. Same guy lost to Crawford.

 

Canelo still beat everyone easily. With Benavidez gone he was clearly the best at 168.

Who had Hill beat by 1991 to say he was a better LHW than 2025 Canelo was a SMW?

And Hearns was in all likelihood more a grown in LHW than Crawford was a SMW. He had after all already won a title.there four years earlier..

And if we're going to talk reach and height... The advantage Hearns had against, Cuevas and Benitez were almost comical.

So we can't just have an interest in that when Crawford had an advantage. I am a bit annoyed about how reach and height entered the conversation once Loma started to lose (as did "weight bullying", which in Floyd's day reversly was that the other guy was drained), but at the very least it should be consistently applied.

 

Look at Canelo's opponents in the last 3 years it's clear he was cherrypicking.

And it's also very clear Canelo ducked Benavidez.

There was also no notable opponents at 168 once Benavidez left the division its a wasteland of a division right now.

Hill was in his prime Canelo wasn't in his prime he was shopworn that's the point.

Yes Hearns had reach advantages over fighters I'm not saying he didn't.

But Hearns has more notable wins against upper echelon fighters in their prime.

 

I'm not saying it's an easy achievement but it's clear Canelo hadn't looked that impressive in the last 3 years or so.

He was heavily criticised for ducking Benavidez and his fights in recent times had been dull 12 round fights with low output.

I think Crawford definitely see this aswell and thought it was the best timing to get big defining win over Canelo.

154 is too hot of a division with alot of dangerous opponents and Crawford already had a scare vs Madrimov.

160 is a wasteland with no real notable names.

So it made sense to go after Canelo right now.

 

No one is denying that Canelo ducked Benavidez or that he was past his prime, but that doesn't automatically make Hill better. So once more: What opponents had Hill beat by 1991 to show he was better than 2025 Canelo?

 

They're all so great.

Hearns, Mayweather, Crawford, Leonard.

 

Hill was a young champion 26 years old and would still be winning title fights for another 9 years.

Canelo was 35 years old at the end of his career and will probably retire now.

Canelo had a better career overall but Hill was in his prime where as Canelo wasn't.

Canelo had been fighting as a professional for 20 years that's alot of wear and tear.

 

So, it wasn't a rhetorical question when I asked you what wins he had that made you think he was better, because I can't say I know Hill very well. But at a glance I couldn't find anything much before his win over Tiozzo in 1993, and you seem to confirm it wasn't much? Since you don't name any.

Because you only repeat what no one is questioning. Yes, Hill was closer to his physical prime (and quite likely overall prime, but I don't know his career very well, as I said) and less shopworn. But, I repeat, that doesn't by itself mean that he was better.