Shane Mosley: how highly do you rate him all-time p4p?

I understand what you're saying about beating greats to prove you're elite, I agree to an extent, but still, to reduce fighters' careers to one or two performances seems to me to be a very reductive way of rating them. By that logic, Buster Douglas is elite. Styles very often make fights, so your way of deciding greatness is misleading. The whole career and resume must be taken into account, as well as ability.

Again, your evaluation of Hopkins is very reductive. He drew with Mercado because he was knocked down twice due to fatigue because of high altitude. He stopped Mercado in a rematch. He lost to RJJ (who wouldn't have??), and lost to Taylor twice when he was 40 years old (and did he really deserve to drop both decision?).

If you are going to look at Hopkins' career in this way, then the same can be done to Morales. He was beaten by Barrera twice and Pacquiao twice - neither of these guys were as good as the RJJ that Hopkins lost to. Erik was 28 or 29 when he was well beaten by Raheem, he was 30 or 31 when he was UD'd by David Diaz. Neither of these guys are as good as Jermain Taylor, and Hopkins was 41 when he dropped two razor-thin, controversial decisions.

Now I do not think this is a fair way of looking at Morales's career, but that's how you are looking at Hopkins's. You see, that can be done to anyone's career. It is reductive, it does not tell the whole story at all.

As I said before, I think Erik was a great fighter and I don't think there is much between them, but I definitely think Hopkins was a marginally greater fighter p4p.