Fights between two "elite" fighters where both of them put on A+ performances?

Great list but have to disagree with Tyson's performance...Save for round 3 he was pretty ineffective

 

where are mayweather fans...
please give us some list...
he is the most elite right?:!:

 

the name de leon and elite don't belong in the same library much less the same sentence.

 

Yes, I am aware of your Golden Six, but I am still a bit unsure of what it is and why you have this.

You have elevated six men from the past 65 or so years, and yet there doesn't seem to be any sort of logic to this or any criteria for entry. It appears to be just six very famous boxers who (despite being very different in terms of style) share a certain 'slickness' at their peak.

Now I don't think there is anything wrong with having a small cadre of favourites or a small band of fighters you feel are superior to everyone else, I'm sure everyone does, but I do find your inclusion of Floyd Mayweather very puzzling.

Aside from the fact that Floyd is not nor ever was on the same level of skill as others in the G-S (Leonard & Whitaker are simply better, clearly, in terms of ability), I say aside because this is only natural, it would be impossible to select six boxers of exactly equal ability, I don't really see what justification there is for elevating Floyd as one of the absolute cream of the past 65 years when SRR was starting out.


I think your main criteria seems to be h2h/ability/skill.

Let's look at Floyd's credentials in this field.

On the "con" side, he had to go to war with Emmanuel Augustus, had a lot of trouble in the first half of his fights with Zab Judah (who had just been beaten by Baldomir - Floyd should've taken a count v Judah for his glove touching the canvas) and Oscar De La Hoya (well past-prime, still gave Floyd all he could handle with his jab & strength before the Olden Boy gassed and lost his grip on the contest), was buzzed by Chop Chop Corley, and arguably lost while at his peak to JL Castillo.

On the "pro" side, he looked superb in the clinic he put on Chico Corrales, outboxed Castillo convincingly in a rematch, dismantled and stopped undefeated Ricky Hatton, and was pretty much a sensation at 130 and 135.


Did Floyd prove enough regarding his abilities to be elevated up as one of the top 6 of the past 65 years?

Did he prove to be an all-round more skilled operator than guys like Jose Napoles or Salvador Sanchez or Miguel Canto or Willie Pep or Roberto Duran or many others?

Duran in particular is the omission I don't understand. You constantly downplay his skills by attributing his success to other factors. I have seen very very few examples of better boxing skills than Duran against DeJesus or Leonard, though in this discussion it is probably more pertinent to bring up the wins over Moore and most importantly Barkley. Against Moore and Barkley, Duran was completely outgunned physically - his opponents were younger, fresher, bigger, hit harder, etc - the only way he could win was by staggering performances of sustained applied boxing skills.

He was not flashy and flamboyant like peak RJJ, but taking flashy flamboyance as synonymous with skill is a misconception, a reductive and ultimately false surface impression of skill.

However, we have discussed Duran before so I will move on.


When has Floyd Mayweather ever proved his skills by defeating another elite fighter, like others have in your Golden Six have?
(Robinson-Gavilan, Leonard-take your pick, Whitaker-Chavez, Ali-Frazier/Liston/Foreman)

When has Floyd Mayweather ever proved his skills by even putting on a virtuoso performance of skill against a top 100 OAT/HOF lock/borderline ATG fighter, something achieved by many many men in the 65 year period in question??
(Kalambay-McCallum, Jones-Toney, Whitaker-Nelson, Hearns-Benitez, Hopkins-Trinidad, Chavez-Camacho, Morales-Pacquiao I, Sanchez-Gomez, Benitez-Cervantes, many more...)


I mean, is Corrales really as good as it got?

I think that was an excellent performance from Floyd and one of the top 10 or so wins of this decade, but for me Diego Corrales is certainly not a top 100 OAT/HOF lock/borderline ATG fighter, never mind an elite one. For me, someone in a 'Golden Six' of ability would to have at least had a couple of fights in that second category. Surely this is necessary to prove skill and ability? Or at least it MUST be necessary to prove the incredible level of skill and ability required to be rated as one of the six best fighters of the last half century or so??


The fight with Oscar is the one which troubles me most regarding Floyd's ability, more than Augustus or Judah, or even Castillo I.

In that fight, Oscar was clearly past-prime and lacked power and poise. However, he could still jab. And that jab proved to be highly problematic for Floyd. Now would one of the top 6 most skilled fighters in history really have had so much trouble with the jab of a past-prime fighter? Someone like Whitaker, or even Hopkins, would've took that jab from their opponent, stuck it in their pocket, and not worried about it for the rest of the evening. Floyd had to rely on Oscar gassing and/or stopping throwing it with any authority to come into the contest.


I have rambled on long enough, but my point is: you seem to have chosen Floyd because he is symbolically the next skilled slick p4p#1 in a sequence of such fighters, but did he actually prove to be one of the top 6 fighters of the past 60 or so years in his fights?

I don't think he did. A superbly skilled superfeatherweight, but he never proved he had the all-time elite skills of a Whitaker, a Leonard, or a Duran, that would see him included in something such as a 'Golden Six'.

JMHO :good Look forward to your response amigo.

 

If Jackson put on an A+ performance he wouldn't have been stopped in 2 rounds.atsch

 

At 122 Larios was the man of the division. How was he not elite??

 

You think this would have been obvious. Apparently not!

 

Kessler is the man at 168 and people have a cardiac if you call him elite:conf

 

Do YOU think that Mikkel Kessler right now deserves the title of "elite"?????

 

Marquez vs Vazquez was grade A high quality.

 

It won't be "clear" until he fights any of the other best fighters in the division - Bute, Froch, Taylor etc - and actually proves it. And even then, the term "elite" is so nebulous. When I saw this thread title, I thought Duran-Leonard and not mere unification fights from the past 10 years. Different understanding of the word "elite".

 

For me yes.

If you are the man in a division for a few years, at worst being No.2 to a P4P top 3 fighter, a former 2 time WBA champ and former WBC champ, what else could you be described as?


I suppose it would be determined by what you class as "Elite". Some people might restrict it to P4P Top 10(On the basis of a Magazine) or ATG. He doesnt fit those criteria.


Being a world champ in itself wouldnt give you that label(For me) but it makes you a world class level fighter.

And if on top of that you are recognised as the best out of all the world champs, and the man in your division,what can you call him to differentiate?


If you have a word for between a world class level fighter and a Elite one, let me know and i might adopt it. Until then to seperate the main man in a division from the beltholders i'd refer to them as Elite.


That doesnt mean i think he is P4P top 10 or an ATG, there are far more Elite fighters infront of him.



And on a sidenote if Ibeabuchi,De Leon,Diaz,Ward,Juanma and Tua(To name a few) are Elite, then ****in right he is, but I doubt you would class them as such.

 

Morales-Barrera I