Floyd Mayweather Vs Sugar Ray Leonard who wins prime for prime

That’s a very bold statement regarding Langford. But I understand you better now.

Guys like Roy Jones and Vitali Klitschko would rank much higher on a purely H2H basis than what they would on a historical P4P ranking. So I hear you. But you still have to take into account their ability when ranking them. You can’t just rank guys higher based on what they achieved. Not in my opinion.

A few days ago, you wanted to wipe half of a posters list out due to Manny having won titles in 8 weight classes. But you can’t do that. That wouldn’t be fair at all. Also, you’re adamant that Canelo is currently ranked in the top 50. But if you’re not taking into account H2H ability as that’s more for your TBE list, and you’re currently just concentrating on your GOAT list, then how does Canelo qualify at the moment?

This is when things get confusing.

We know how many titles Canelo has won on paper etc. But when you apply the relevant context, he can’t be in anyone’s top 50 yet.

Go and look at George’s list again.

I’ve seen many similar top 50 lists throughout the years.

Again, guys like James Toney and Mike McCallum don’t make the cut.

I know it’s subjective, but even if you’re looking more towards achievements, I don’t see how you can place Canelo that high at the moment.

I know you’re looking more at what they did relative to their own era. But is that fair?

This is a great debate.

It’s nice to see everyone debating in a nice manner.

If you don’t mind, I just want to ask you a quick question. And I’m not being argumentative, it’s a genuine question so I can understand your thought process more.

Where you rank Oscar De La Hoya?

He was obviously a great fighter, he was desperately unlucky to lose some of the fights that he did (IMHO) and he won titles in 6 weight classes.

Your ranking of him will give me a better gauge.

Thanks.

 

My list was GOAT, so why do you have Canelo above them because they're 'too ancient/primitive', when it's about greatness?

 

I’ll just quickly tell you something that might be of interest to you. Maybe it won’t, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you anyway.

I don’t know if you know this, but respected boxing historian Bert Randolph Sugar, (may he RIP) used to host a show on ESPN (Ringside) looking at the greatest fighters of all time. He hosted shows looking at the greatest fighters ever, as well as looking at individual weight classes. He also wrote a number of books. He was very knowledgable and well respected, but some of his lists were controversial.

I once watched an episode of his where he was looking at the greatest HW of all time. And he chose Joe Louis as being the GOAT, with Ali as being the number 2.

His reasoning was that Louis was his number 1, as he dominated his era more than any other fighter dominated their era.

I was sat at home watching, thinking to myself “Okay, but his era was weaker than Ali’s, so he didn’t face the same level of opposition”

He used to have a guest in the studio with him too. Sometimes it was Brian Kenny, and sometimes an ex great or former fighter. And I’m sure on this occasion (someone on here will know) I think it was Larry Holmes. And he said to Bert “But IMHO, Ali would have beaten Louis” But Bert shut him down straight away and said “That’s a different argument altogether”

So I was sat at home agreeing with Holmes, thinking “Ali was better than Louis, Ali fought better competition, and I too believe that Ali would have beaten Louis had they have fought each other, prime for prime”

Bert wouldn’t back down though, and reiterated that Louis was more dominant in his era. But again, I was just baffled at the fact that he hadn’t made allowances for the strength of both of the eras etc.

So I just thought I’d share this with you, if you hadn’t seen it.

The point is: We all have different criteria for ranking these guys.

It’s very subjective and it always stirs up great debates and controversy.

Personally, I would analyse a fighter’s skills more than what you and Bert do/did when ranking fighters.

It’s great to have a TBE list and a GOAT list, but I think that you should still use more criteria for your GOAT list.

 

Even if we transport those guys in the modern era, and they benefit from all the advantages, their skillset won't change.
Unless we bring them as kids and let them develop/learn boxing in this era.

 

Canelo only has 1 loss, and he's dominating his era.

 

Why? Would the be too dumb?

 

1 loss, but at least 3 decision wins where the judges gave him the benefit of the doubt. The standard of the competition he's beaten isn't that great either.

 

He's not dominating his era.

He's dominating Callum Smith and Billy Joe Saunders.

Going down to the wire with Daniel Jacobs, Erislandy Lara, Austin Trout and an old GGG isn't dominating an era. It's not even that impressive compared to the achievements of the guys I named. Btw, he could have easily lost all of those five fights with different judges.

To dominate the era, he'd need to fight every major player. He's yet to fight Charlo, Benavidez, Andrade, Beterbiev and Bivol. And he missed Gvozdyk.

Which fighters on my list do you think Canelo should be above?

 

That's exactly my supposition.

On a H2H basis, they are transported into a time where they have parity in terms of access to nutrition, sports science and development. Those that competed numerous times a year, getting a chance to hone their skillset and ring-generalship have an automatic advantage.

In your battle arena of H2H, why do the older fighters have to transport into the modern era? Fitz, Langford, Gans, Leonard, Dempsey, Tunney, Wilde, Driscoll would all transport well - how would the likes of a Floyd transport into earlier eras with his brittle hands and one title per weight class?

 

Hard to believe, maybe, but Floyd has the reach advantage here. By about 2 inches. Won't make any predictions other than that's a hard thing to overcome against someone as precise as Floyd. SRL has the speed and power, though. Would be a fascinating fight I think.

 

This reasoning is why Babe Ruth is the GOAT of baseball. Was Barry Bonds or Willie May's better (non PED) athletes? Sure, but Ruth not only dominated his era, but he changed the structure of the game from single/bunt/stolen base/sacrifice fly to Monster Home Run.

Louis dominated his era; Ali (post draft issue) did not.

 

It would be fascinating.

Floyd would have had a very slight reach advantage.

The main issue for him, would have been if Ray had fought him aggressively.

IMHO, he’d have had no answer to that.

 

I’m British.

I don’t know anything about baseball. But I understand your point.

Like I said previously, it’s all subjective and it always stirs up a good debate.

Regarding Louis, you can’t argue against what he did. He was a fine fighter and he undoubtedly dominated his era more than what Ali did. But again, it was a weaker era. Personally, I think that Bert was ignorant to not apply the relevant context needed.

Wladimir Klitschko also dominated his era more than what Ali did. But that too was a weak era. And considering that he got stopped 3 times in his 20’s, it’s unlikely that he’d have dominated a stronger era in the same way. I don’t think that he could have dominated Ali’s era. I can’t envisage him having gone 11 years undefeated in other eras.

I have no issue with anybody ranking Louis ahead of Ali, if they think that he was a better fighter, and if they think that he’d have beaten Ali. But to rank him ahead based on his dominance is nonsense to me. Especially if you think that Ali was the better fighter and that he’d have beaten Louis had they fought. That to me is illogical.

GGG dominated his MW era. But there were better MW’s than him who didn’t share the same level of dominance, as they fought better opposition. Mike McCallum would be a prime example.

Of course, there was also Rocky Marciano. Nobody dominated like he did with a 49-0 record. But realistically, he’d never have remained undefeated had he have fought in a stronger era. I can’t see how he’d have followed Ali’s exact timeline and still have retired undefeated.

IMHO, you have to analyse a lot of factors before you can rank someone. But for me, the main 2 factors are:

1. How good a fighter was. (his overall skill set)

2. Who he fought, and at what point.

Everything else comes afterwards.

 

I think he'd have an answer (try to stay behind that jab, get off first and then change angle), whether it would be good enough is another question.

 

I have no real problem with anyone having Louis ahead. Two points to add, though:

1. Those 3,5 years of lay-off stole Ali of his prime. In his prime he was undefeated. Louis arguably was not.
2. Ali's era was tougher, with Liston, Frazier and Foreman plus Norton who was a stylistic nightmare (as he would prove against Holmes).

If you don't accept those points, yes, Louis comes out slightly ahead. If you do, it's Ali. Most do and therefore they have Ali.