Rank Ray Leonard Thomas Hearns Floyd Mayweather Terence Crawford

That’s true.

But look at Benitez’ fights against Leonard and Hearns.

 

In his own era.

I’m asking you how he would have fared better had they have swapped eras.

Again, in the 70’s and 80’s, with a same day weigh-in and no SMW division, Canelo would have fought at MW and LHW.

So go and look at who his possible competition would have been.

 

Benitez lost to lower opposition several times

Canelo never has

 

Would be interesting to see

I think Canelo would probably be a MW in that era for most of his career

Would be interesting to see how he'd do

He probably loses to Hagler

I'd favor him vs all the other middleweights of the time besides Sugar Ray Leonard vs Hagler

 

Benitez looked flashier, but Trinidad was more complete and had intangibles like workrate, heart and stamina that Benitez lacked. Trinidad's technique was also elite. He was levels above Benitez as a puncher but he also made sure through his pressure, feints and workrate that he set up and landed those killed punches.

As for Delahoya, I used to think DLH won that fight. But for DLH to win he has to win 7 of the first 9 rounds because we know he ran for the last 3. On rewatching DLH was landing more in pretty much every round and the commentators were biased because he was the ticket seller. But Trinidad was coming forward and landing the bigger punches. Delahoya landed flashier flurries that did little damage. It's a bit like Hagler Leonard in that respect except

I have Trinidad as having a decent case for winning 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12 - he didn't win them all, but all those rounds mentioned pre 10, 11, 12 were close many with Tito landing the heavier punches, I think the worst you can give him is a draw because DLH was taking solid shots while running throughout the fight.

As for Tito's resume, he arguably is the first man to beat Whitaker. And he took the undefeated record of Carr, Vargas, Reid, Campas and then you have Blocker, Camacho and Joppy

Tito was a champion for 8 years, Benitez for 3 years

 

But then Canelo hasn’t got a win over an ATG like Duran, and Canelo wasn’t even competitive with Floyd, whereas Benitez certainly was with Leonard and Hearns.

 

It would have been very interesting.

There’d have been more than just Marvin to have worried about though.

But we really need to look at the same day weigh-ins here, with Canelo’s rehydration weights in the modern era.

It’s hugely significant.

Because without a SMW division, anything over 160 was LHW back then.

So I don’t think that a mid to late 20’s Canelo, would have weighed in at 160 and then fought the same day.

I honestly think he’d have been a LHW.

And that would have been shark infested waters for him back then.

 

Of course he was levels above as a puncher.

Benitez was a defensive counterpuncher.

He had similarities to Floyd.


Oscar clearly won the fight. And his flurries didn’t have to do any damage at all. That’s irrelevant.


Arguably the first man to beat Whittaker?

An end of career Whittaker, who retired 1 fight after.


Yeah, I don’t care that Tito held the title for 8 years, compared to Benitez’ 3.

Because IMHO, Tito wouldn’t have held a belt for 8 years in Benitez’s era.

Not at WW, JMW or MW.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree my friend. I believe Tito breaks Benitez down and I do think he won the DLH fight, after initally believing DLH won when I was much younger.

It's late here, so I wish you a great night, evening, afternoon, or morning depending where you are in the world.

1 question I'd ask you though, is which fighter Benitez beat that you don't think Tito could beat? I'm sure he beats all of Benitez's wins but maybe you disagree with that?

 

Okay, Tito vs Benitez is a different debate altogether.

I’ve not really thought about that.


I’ve never known anyone who believes that Tito beat Oscar.


Thank you. I’ve enjoyed the debate. We can carry it on tomorrow or whenever.


I think that Tito could have beaten anybody who Benitez beat.

But a Duran fight would have been very interesting.

Duran was obviously a better P4P fighter than Tito.

But a H2H fight could have played out differently.

Tito would have had significant advantages in size and power.

I’ll have to give it some proper thought.

 

This thread is mad

 

I find it helps if you have a drink whilst you’re typing.

Ha!

Especially when No Neck and Bomber are around.

 

I thought it'd be over in 1 or 2 pages

 

On with the subject, I'd go with:

Crawford - best combination of defense, timing, outboxing and infighting, ability in both stances is unparrelled. Literally took on all comers for about a decade or more and dominated, typically scoring KOs none stop.
Leonard - best athlete of all the men, I think Mayweather is greater but probably not at WW, although it'd be close
Mayweather - best defense, maybe best conditioning, best at adapting
Hearns - unbelievable reach and height, best jab, raptor like speed, issues with stamina down the straight.

Neither Leonard or Hearns were as dominant in their own eras. Neither Leonard or Hearns took on all comers either.

I didn't use to myself, as an amateur boxer I used to believe the guy who outlanded the opponent should win. But that's not how pro boxing works. If you watched the rounds I mentioned, 1 fighter is coming forward, the other is on the back foot and scores more punches while flurtying. But the man coming forward lands bigger heavier punches that makes the other man back off.

Now your viewpoint might be 'yes but Delahoya landed more crisper punches' and that viewpoint is no less valid than my own. It's kind of like how you view Leonard v Hagler, Leonard landed more, Hagler landed the meatier punches.

For the record I believe Delahoya got a gift against Quartey and the same judge gifting him against Quartey voted for Tito.

Most Importantly, during the HBO broadcast, the judges scores were shown inbetween rounds. If Oscar's corner saw these scores and Oscar still gave up the last 3 rounds he fully deserved to lose.

 

That’s not good criteria to use though.

And again, where’s the context?

Those older guys weren’t as dominant, because they regularly came up against fellow ATG’s.

It’s why they all beat each other.

They fought better fighters in a tougher era.

Terence dominated more, but he had a much easier road to travel down.

You have to apply context and look at the huge difference in circumstances.

Regarding Oscar, I don’t agree, but I’ll go back and watch the fight again.