This is a loaded question. Floyd's record is more impressive looking, but Leonard beat the murderer's row of his era plus Ayub Kalule, and Donnie Lalonde. I was undecided but having, again, met both of them, Mayweather was a really cool dude when I met him in 1999, Leonard was an all time class act when i met him in 1997. So using my heart purely, but also considering that he did beat all those guys, i voted SRL.
Mayweather (and modern boxers in general) can get underrated by some posters in the classic section, and fans of boxing history in general. Completing Rummy's top 25 boxers in each decade from 1890's to 2010's was an eye opener for me, in the sense that after weeks of detailed research, to ensure I was only factoring in fights that were contested in the decade in question, I rated only two fighters @ #1 in more than one decade. One was the great Harry Greb (1910's & 1920's), who imo has the deepest win resume in boxing history. The other was Floyd Mayweather (2000's and 2010's). I was & am no fan of his, but being objective, I can't see him as anything other than an ATG. Now, I won't go too far - 1) The elite fighters of today simply don't fight often enough to have the depth of quality wins that boxers from previous eras do; 2) Whilst Floyd's ratio of fights contested to fights contested against world class/rated boxers, is up there with just about any ATG, as the "A side" he practically chose his opponents for the last decade of his career. Mayweather, unsurprisingly, consistently "selected" opponents he knew he'd beat. Given how great he was, he still selected some excellent, world class boxers, but it was like each new fight was reinforcing the level of greatness he'd already hinted at, rather than enhancing it. SRL beat Hearns at 147lbs & fair enough, Mayweather didn't have a Hearns level boxer to fight at 147lbs, but SRL took a fight he had no right to win, in Hagler, and enhanced the greatness he'd already hinted at. To do similar, Mayweather would have need to fight against Martinez or GGG somewhere between 154-160lbs. His defenders at the time asked why Floyd should fight someone so much bigger when he'd already moved through a few weight divisions, and I agree, he was under no obligation to. But to close the gap from someone who just scrapes into my top 20 P4P all time, to a contender for the top 10, it would have taken those kind of risks. As I said in an earlier post, Mayweather stacks up well against SRL in terms of quantity of very good boxers beaten, and even better in terms of longevity. However, he doesn't have a single win that is close to as great SRL's 2nd best win. All that said, I can't agree you need to "wonder if anyone would beat him". Not if we're going up to 147lbs. To begin with, it's extremely difficult for me to imagine him beating Hearns, who, admittedly, would be an absolute nightmare style match up for Mayweather.
Hagler-Leonard is another one of those fights where i see no real separation. 2 close to call for me.
Nonsense. Floyd started at 130 and ended his career beating Canelo, unified champ who enters the ring >165 pounds and Pac who was pfp 1 other than himself. Leonard was persistently tilting things in his favor such as the enormous ring in the Hagler fight in a fight that came too late for Hagler. Corrales is a very good correlate @130 in 99/2000 to what Hearns was at 147 in the early 80s. In hindsight, Hearns looks better but if Floyd hadn’t trashed Diego it would be viewed differently. If Leonard could’ve stuck around like Floyd and legitimately moved up several weight classes successfully, he would’ve.
The 4th paragraph. You’re writing as if Mayweather didn’t start at 130 and Leonard didn’t use A side negotiating tactics like Floyd stands accused of.
Where did I say in my 4th paragraph that SRL didnt harness his higher profile when negotiating fights? I referenced a fight at the end of his career that enhanced his greatness, by beating a top 3 ATG MW world champion who hadn't lost in several years. I also said SRL's 2nd best win (Hearns) is better than Floyd's best. Do you disagree?
SRL however if they actually boxed Floyd could cause him headaches but after the 6th SRL would catch him with those rapid flurries. Mayweather ain't stopping Ray and won't keep him at bay for 12 let alone 15 rounds. Leonard was fast as hell to match with a better attack that would find a way through. No shame for Mayweather losing this one, probably getting stopped before it is over.
Yes. Leonard spent the end of his career getting flogged by Norris and Camacho. Mayweather was beating Canelo and and Pacquiao (36,38) while years older than Leonard was when losing to Norris (34) despite being favored . Leonard couldn’t hold it together at an advanced age because he liked alcohol and cocaine and didn’t have as advanced a skill set as Floyd. Floyd’s win over Canelo (5th weightclass for lineage against unified and undefeated champion, future pfp 1) is more unique than Leonard’s win over Hearns, who matured at 154.
I specifically said Floyd had better longevity in the very post you quoted as nonsense, did I not? You've inferred something I didnt say was nonsense, but are yet to say what it is i actually posted that was nonsense. More unique? I could say of the 2 guys we are talking about, SRL beating a 6ft 1ins WW with an 78ins reach was unique. That would be as correct as it is irrelevant to the title of this thread.
Leonard retired in the mid 90s. He didn’t beat Hagler at the end of his career. He was barely over 30. Neither Mayweather’s win over Canelo nor Leonard’s win over Hearns is irrelevant. But Mayweather’s career isn’t about a short series of fights in the first place.
