Rank Ray Leonard Thomas Hearns Floyd Mayweather Terence Crawford

You’d be singing a completely different tune if Terence had beaten Benitez and Duran.

 

He might have done better against Marvin.

But I doubt he’d have gone undefeated.


I don’t see how Terence can clearly be above Tommy.

Being undefeated isn’t enough.

 

Wins over Benitez and Duran, weren’t as great as a win over Canelo?

 

Great post.

 

Yeah, because Terence fought a guy comparable to a 26 year old Roy Jones, right?

 

1. Floyd Mayweather
2. Ray Leonard
3. Tommy Hearns
4. Terrence Crawford

 

No.

The version of Canelo who Terence fought, was not so much better than Hill at all.


That’s nonsense.

Canelo is just simply far more popular, in an era with less stars in it.


You rank a win, based on where the guys are/were in their careers at the time.

On their ability.

Not just on their name value/popularity.

 

Leonard 4th?

 

Virgil wasn’t part of a great LHW division with lots of big names.

However, you can see how good of a fighter he was.


Canelo was far more popular, with far more big names on his resume.

Therefore, most people will rank the win over Canelo much higher.

 

Better than a WW who moved up to beat a LHW, where that LHW claimed a CW belt from a good fighter, years later?

 

Of course that is not always correct.

 

How good was the relevant fighter on fight night not solely how good were they at the best point in their career, assuming that the best point in their career wasn't the relevant fight night?

Then if they weren't at the best point in their career, how far removed from that were they? Whom else would beat that version of the fighter?

 

Yeah it is, and Hearns never jumped up fourteen straight pounds in weight classes to do it.

 

Exactly.

I give Terence a lot of credit for having beaten Canelo.

He deserves it.

But it’s only fair to ask how good Canelo was at that point.


We get this with a lot of Floyd’s fans.

They heap praise on him for beating Oscar and Shane etc.

But they don’t apply context.

They don’t look specifically at the versions who he fought.


We know that Floyd was great.

But we know that Floyd didn’t beat the versions of Shane and Oscar, who’d fought each other.

And that’s hugely significant.

 

Why is it?

Because Canelo is more popular?


And why is a win over Canelo, better than wins over Benitez and Duran?


We can absolutely say that those versions of Benitez and Duran, were better than the version of Canelo who Terence has just fought.