Is lightweight floyd TBE?

It's all relevant to era, and Gan's was well ahead of his time and Leonard was a beautifully skilled boxer, who could have given anyone in any era a run for their money. Even Ray Arcel who was around the sport for ages sang his praises till his death. Hank,Tony, Duran were all far superior offensive fighters, Tony could go to war with anybody, but unlike guys like Gatti etc. he did it with world class skill. Timmers already gave you the rundown on Gans' greatness, Duran would apply pressure, move in and out, slip punched throw with blinding speed and power all at the same time. The first thing i noticed while watching his lightweight fights was how fast he was, and I even quested as to weather or not the fight was sped up. Ike was another complete fighter, all around amazing, and all of these guys have one thing floyd does not. they are proven against the very best of the division at their time. The guys are tested and proved themselves great against other ATGs of there era. The fact that you question why these guys are great, and think they "don't really do anything significantly better than floyd" really shows your lack of knowledge on these guys. Nobody thinks they're great because of black and white, that's a cop out in an attempt to invalidate an opposing argument when your own lacks substance.

 

Floyd never fought great fighters like these men fought so who's to say he would look as skillful against that type of competition? I'm not denying Floyd's skills but his calibre of competition doesn't stack up to the above mentioned fighters.

 

Now I KNOW YDKSAB

 

I was thinking of Henry as a welter and overlooked his time at lightweight, my miss. Tony though, as tough and good as he was seems a notch below the top lightweights in history to me. I have some struggle knowing just where to place him history wise.