Which Sugar Ray is greater?

Well he was deffo top 10 (top 5) after he beat Barkley and he stayed in the 10 for a bit.

 

Yup. Curry was emerging when Ray retired and still a ways from a shot.

Pryor was a division below. Unknown to many SRL - Pryor had actually been set for after SRL - Stafford but the eye injury ended everything. Leonard cleared was the last man standing from his era. It was a top quality reign while it lasted.

 

No, I also listed his advantages

 

It is more a question of what technical advantages he has.

He is a far superior technician.

 

Duran 1, Hagler and Hearns trump any of Robinson's victories.
Robinson has more 'great' victories.
Though still...Duran Hagler and Hearns.
Beating up the overrated LaMotta a few times is something all the fighters mentioned above could have achieved.

 

Kovalev is totally shot he nearly lost to Yarde for god sake and was beating Canelo before he landed that big punch even if the paid of judges thought otherwise.

 

Also Robinson over Leonard by a wide margin for the many reasons ppl have already stated.

 

When talking about Kovalev vs Maxim, and their physical differences, the obvious one is Joey's edge in durability. Maxim was one of Boxing's iron men. Plain and simple. Kovalev, is not.

Technically, Maxim is a better spoiler, and has much better stamina. He was also better at managing and controlling distance and pace. Whereas Kovalev has a better jab, more power, better speed and is bigger. Maxim, IMO, never showed an ATG body attack or anything, buy you don't need one to beat Kovalev. You need an above average one, I'm certain Joey could pull that out and beat Kovalev via that method. Especially over 15.

 

I actually like Maxim's jab quite a bit. Very educated left hand, whereas Kovalev just looked like a robot out there.

 

Gavilan is a greater welterweight than Duran or Hearns.
Leonard nicked a close/controversial decision against Hagler. Hagler is rated high among middleweights, true, but Robinson beat several ranked middleweights and championship level middleweights, clearly, with no controversy.

It's easy to say Duran or Hearns "could have" won a long series of fights with LaMotta, but in real world they have losses to lesser men on their records.

 

I don't see that Gavilan was better than Duran or Hearns.

Leonard beat Hagler clearly, no controversy. Hagler was better than any middleweight Robinson beat, though Hagler had slipped somewhat.

Robinson was old at middle and wins longevity by a mile of course, but he was basically a win-lose fighter against Fulllmer, Basilio and Turpin.

It's not a joke-worthy thread by any means, Robinsons untouchable status as no.1 welterweight particularly deserves examination.