This ones really stumped me tbh to the point I actually changed my vote from Rex to Leon. I think both are underrated. Rex's being underrated is more his actual resume while Leon being underrated is more how good he was because he doesn't really have one. Rex fought in the toughest era to get a title shot at HW but it was a small era that wasn't as good as Leons just harder to acheive things for administrative and politcal reasons(Walcott getting all the title shots). Leon just had horrible timing with his career. Got early title shot because of the Olympics and fought Ali at a time he would get no credit for it but where he'd be boosted to a level he wasn't ready for. And because of this he got removed from contention before he was probably at his best. Mercado while an impressive win was not a title contender in an era where everyone was a title contender. I'm going to give Spinks this one narrowly based on having 2 big wins against 70s HWs in Ali and Evangelista. Ali wasn't his best but this was almost 4 years before Ali fought Berbick. The Ali win meant.......something even if its unclear what that something is. Leons bad losses were against Holmes and Coetzee and old Ali was bigger too. While the size difference isn't big Rex was fighting in the smallest era of the past century and I don't think beind a hard hitter at that time would translate in later eras at least not the same. Its true of Marciano and its true of Rex Layne. Layne is more underrated within the confines of his era. Not that Rex doesn't have a chance him drawing or outpointing Leon wouldn't shock me in the slightest especially at 10 or 12. But Leon won a 15 round fight with Ali Rex couldn't go the 12 round distance with Ezzard in one of the only fights that went over 10. Its easier to lose with shorter fights and some fighters would benefit from going to 10 to 15. I don't get that impression with Layne looking at his record. In my head all these historical hypotheticals default settings are 15.
