How is ray Leonard beter than mayweather??

Both of their greatest win where they fought their rival at his prime were against a "hitman", and Leonard's hitman, Tommy Hearns is a thousand times better than Ricky Hatton.

Because all of the loses you mentioned are still greater than any of Floyd Mayweather's victories. Floyd Mayweather has a weak ass resume. Let's not just look at names, let's look at when he fought those names and at what weight. The best victory for Floyd was against Corales and I heard Corales only trained two weeks for that fight. Most of the other good dudes he fought were past it, beat up, old, fat, etc. Floyd Mayweather refuses to fight the best. He has mastered the art of ducking and dodging and knows when an opponent is ripe for the taking. If you can't see that he chooses to fight opponents when they are most vulnerable, then you are blind. He went to war against a beat up, past it, and old Miguel Cotto. That speaks volumes. If Floyd Mayweather ever fought a young in his prime fighter he would have gotten brutally knocked out.

what you aren't taking an account for is floyd's ability to counter. keeping floyd at the end of his jab isn't gonna to work because can adjust get inside of his chest similar to judah and outwork him on the inside.i never said hearns was a easy win for floyd but a possible one because of his abilities and things he does better than hearns. floyd is a def underdog in the fight and i wouldn't pick him but if i had to pick who i think he could beat out of the 4 it's hearns and duran. call me any name you want but that's my opinion. Whaaaaa.....I can't decide if you're actually comparing Mayweather getting inside on Judah, a 5'7", natural 140 pound southpaw that has no jab and likes to fight inside, to getting in on 6'1" righty ATG Hearns? Surely not. No one is that daft. You make it sound like Floyd would suddenly turn into Duran in there. You're giving him attributes he has never shown in his career. He doesn't get inside and outwork people. He never has and never will. He counters fighters inside, and throws economical counter shots but he never works his way inside and then outworks them there. Where the hell are you getting this from? Floyd isn't going to force his way inside and Hearns, as you're making out, is not unskilled enough that Floyd could just counter him and get inside in the blink of an eye. Beating a Judah that crumbles when faced with adversity or pressure is not really relevant to beating Hearns. Getting inside on Judah, which is not hard because Judah let him do it, is not remotely relevant and most important, Judah is so far removed from how Hearns fights as to be opposites. Bringing up any old theory to validate your points, despite everything pointing the opposite way, doesn't really hold water. What next? Floyd beats Pacquiao because of how he handled Gatti? Of everything that's been said, turning Floyd into a volume punching pressure fighter thats going to outwork guys on the inside and using Judah, a small southpaw that doesn't work off his jab and allows fighters inside of his own volition, to compare to Hearns, one of the best jabbers in history and one of the tallest welterweights ever that sticks behind his jab and fights at range just takes the cake.

Greetings people, I'll make this as short as possible. I've watched a lot of boxing. I box my self, as im sure a lot of you here do the same. I have never seen a fighter like Floyd Mayweather Jr. His father and his uncle(s) must have really gone to work on him when developing him as a fighter when he was growing up. I am not a Floyd-stan or nut hugger. I love boxing. BOXING. Floyd Mayweather Jr does things in the ring which are absolutley amazing, yet so simple. If you cannot see it, i wont tell you. When you do, stuff that Roger Mayweather says like "my nephew, he got speed, he knows how to use speed" will make very apparent sense. Good god they taught him how to use his speed! If you want to investigate your self ( and i implore you to ) ask your selves why he has such a high connect percentage compared to other fighters. There are so many other fighters out there who also have great speed but why are they not sharp shooters with good connect averages? This is something to do with BOXING. Its always brains over brawn. Watch what Floyd does in the ring and you will know why his connect ratio is so damn high. Its simplicity yet highly sophisticated. His father and uncle(s) have told him exactly what to do to take FULL advantage of his speed and keep his opponent thinking ( NOTE: OK I GAVE IT AWAY THERE ...you should be able to work it out ...if not....keep watching and hopefully you will ) Also, Floyds offence is highly underrated. He is not just a counter-puncher like people say. He is not a pure counter puncher. Thats one aspect of his game. One of the main aspects of his offense is rooted deep in boxing fundamentals, POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE. He may even use dirty boxing tricks to achieve this. His fast feet are used to perfection, again i believe his Father and uncle(s) really took time and effort into training Floyd. I wont say anymore. Watch him your self. There is so much more. He is THAT GOOD. The argument of the thread: Yes Ray Leonards resume is amazing. The scalps on his record show it. Ray Leonard was a gifted fighter also with an amazing boxing brain, yet he showed it subtley. He had speed, a good chin and could stand and trade if needed to. Alot of people here give Ray Leonard the edge due to his size and power advantage.I feel this wont be a factor if Floyd and Ray Leonard ever fought. I believe it will be a battle of wits and who is able to manipulate the laws and forces of boxing more efficiently inside the ring. Floyds style is deeply rooted in boxing fundamentals, deeply. Another fighter i saw who had the same boxing swagger albeit a little different to Floyds was the great Charley Burley. Theres only one/two videos of him on Youtube. Now he was smart. Good god he was smart! Benny Leonard was another. I LOVE BOXING! The end of this supposed short post lol. EDIT: Sugar Ray Robinson was also another one. If you watch some of his fights that had brutal KO's you will see exactly what he does to coax out the KO because he has spotted something. He was extremley quick minded and blessed by god with tremendous, vicious power, speed ,extremley good balance and CO-ORDINATION. Sugar Ray Robinson, amazing boxing mind, amazing boxing skills, a very crafty fighter ( which was well hidden ) , tremendous power, great speed and ferocity in the ring. THE BEST!!!!!!!!

what you aren't taking an account for is floyd's ability to counter. keeping floyd at the end of his jab isn't gonna to work because can adjust get inside of his chest similar to judah and outwork him on the inside.i never said hearns was a easy win for floyd but a possible one because of his abilities and things he does better than hearns. floyd is a def underdog in the fight and i wouldn't pick him but if i had to pick who i think he could beat out of the 4 it's hearns and duran. call me any name you want but that's my opinion. Judah is no Hearns.....

PEDs = Performance Enhancing Drugs In the old days, some athletes were using things ranging from steroids to hormones to cocaine to caffeine to Strychnine to amphetamines to methamphetamines. I'm aware of Adolf Butenandt and his development of steroids, but that was hardly the first time that a fighter or athlete doped up to gain an edge. I know what is generally regarded as a PED; I wanted to clarify what you meant, so we understand each other. The term is wide-ranging. We agree: As I stated in my previous post, "Athletes have sought a competitive edge by ingesting various things for many years." My belief is that a great number of athletes have used PEDs at one time or another. Sometimes those substances were legal, sometimes they weren't. Some were allowed at one time but are no longer permitted. Some athletes have been caught in violation of certain restrictions, others have avoided detection. My view is that no one should be accused of doing something they haven't been caught doing. I'll agree that no modern athlete should be beyond suspicion, but we have to be careful about making assumptions without just cause. Simply because PED use is widespread, one cannot make a blanket statement about everyone. The irony is, if everyone is using PEDs, the field is indeed level. :lol1:

do you realize the same floyd that fought oscar then won't be the same floyd in the ring with a 1999 oscar? Yes of course, my point was that PBF won a close fight againts a past his prime DLH. PBF still has plenty of fight in him and when he fought DLH he was still prime..unlike DLH who was soft and way past his prime.

how do you figure he would be a 1999 DLH?..if he barely beat a past his prime DLH?.. do you realize the same floyd that fought oscar then won't be the same floyd in the ring with a 1999 oscar?

Hearns kept Duran on the outside untill he seen the opening for the right for the first knockdown then he brawled a little to try and finish, 2nd round Hearns keeps him on the outside again untill he found the chance to hurt Duran, he didn't brawl with Duran the whole fight, only when it seemed necessery if you watched the fight instead of just the KO you would see that, he absolutely used his advantages in that fight, Hagler took the fight too Hearns and chased him around, not the other way around, Hagler forced Hearns too fight it wasn't just something that Hearns' decided to do. this guy i never said hearns brawled with duran but even you admitted he did at times. he took the fight to him he stalked walked him down from what i remember duran was the one going back the whole fight and hearns pursing even hurting him a bit in the first round eventually leading to a ko. hearns got took out of his game by hagler and decided to goto war with him at times. also when hearns hurt hagler did he box or take it to him? if your answer is yes then why even reply to my post?

I don't think great fighters need necessarily be KO artists, especially against someone with a solid jaw (at the time) like DLH and in their very first fight at that weight. Plus Floyd should've won by UD in that fight, along the lines of about 116-112. I agree, but at the same time the fight should not have been as close as it was. This thread is about comparing PBF to SRL, and DLH just happens to be the biggest name on PBF resume.

Pacquiao has the record!! 7 divisions! Pac will be at least top 5 P4P of all time!! This is a joke right?

Of course Hearns would go at him, but he wouldn't be reaching, overextending and leaving himself to be pot shotted. Of course fights can go different, but Floyd pot shotting Hearns is a one in a million for me. Hearns would jab with Floyd, like he did with everyone. It's his biggest weapon. If ever there was an awful style match up for him, it's Hearns. Floyd doesn't have fast enough feet to slip, get inside, counter and get away, just like Benitez couldn't counter Hearns because of the distance and reach or get inside because Hearns keeps his balance, distance and doesn't reach in. That's not to say he wouldn't go for the KO, but they are two different things entirely. Benitez spent all his time on defense and it was him that ended up reaching all the time because by the time he slipped a combination and tried to counter Hearns was already back at his own distance. Pot shotting a guy who throws one or two punches, is a bit slow and plodding is fine, but doing it against a guy who stays at range with a long, fast jab, throws quick combinations and has a massive height and reach advantage is next to impossible. Hearns is fast enough, skilled enough and his feet quick enough that Floyd couldn't pot shot. Floyd would have enough trouble reaching Hearns with anything significant and would probably end up fighting with his back against the ropes most of the fight, where he is very comfortable, but not in a good place to be against Hearns. It's possible he (mayweather) gets taken out at some point early, but I see it more likely ending up a clear, albeit close, UD for Hearns with Mayweather simply not able to generate enough momentum and offence to win the exchanges. Hearns keeps it outside and then wins the rounds with his jab and boxing when he realises he can't get Floyd out of there after four rounds or so. Now me saying winning it with his boxing doesn't mean Hearns is a better boxer. He just has the height, reach, comparable speed at 147 and more than enough skill to keep Floyd, who is just too small, at the end of his punches and if Floyds at the end of his punches and Hearns is getting off first, he wins. At 147 Hearns was too big, too fast, too skilled to outbox for someone of Floyds size, as we saw with Leonard and Benitez, and Floyd just doesn't have the necessary fire power and aggression to outfight him as Leonard could. It's one of the few matches in history that Floyd is a true underdog in. what you aren't taking an account for is floyd's ability to counter. keeping floyd at the end of his jab isn't gonna to work because can adjust get inside of his chest similar to judah and outwork him on the inside.i never said hearns was a easy win for floyd but a possible one because of his abilities and things he does better than hearns. floyd is a def underdog in the fight and i wouldn't pick him but if i had to pick who i think he could beat out of the 4 it's hearns and duran. call me any name you want but that's my opinion.

No when did i say that?..what I said was that DLH was way past his prime. And if Floyd is as great as people say he is, he should of made quick work of DLH, or win by unanimous dec. I don't think great fighters need necessarily be KO artists, especially against someone with a solid jaw (at the time) like DLH and in their very first fight at that weight. Plus Floyd should've won by UD in that fight, along the lines of about 116-112.

So do you think a 2007 Floyd at 154 was at his best? DLH was past prime, but was Floyd at his best? No when did i say that?..what I said was that DLH was way past his prime. And if Floyd is as great as people say he is, he should of made quick work of DLH, or win by unanimous dec.

That caliber of fighter didn't exist for Floyd to fight. Really? I can say that I agree but... If not, there were fighters that were better than what he did that he didnt fight because of politics. After 135 floyd was never fighting to beat the best at their best. He was fighting for money and as a businessman. His resume could be way better.

Yes, because I am taking into account what happened when he fought DLH past his prime, the same DLH that went all the way up to 160..and back down, he looked soft and still gave Floyd all he could handle, now think about it, a solid 147 DLH of 1999..come on I cant see how Floyd would win. So do you think a 2007 Floyd at 154 was at his best? DLH was past prime, but was Floyd at his best?

So you think P4P, prime for prime, 2001-2005 Floyd vs 96-00 Oscar, gets beaten to a pulp??? Yes, because I am taking into account what happened when he fought DLH past his prime, the same DLH that went all the way up to 160..and back down, he looked soft and still gave Floyd all he could handle, now think about it, a solid 147 DLH of 1999..come on I cant see how Floyd would win.

I think you're underrating Floyd and overrating the 90s fighters. Quartey, Tito, Shane...they were very good in their prime, but aside from Shane they weren't exactly killers. Werent killers?..really?.. Im not underrating FLoyd, im going by what I saw, Floyd is the most skilled fighter out there right now hands down, his ring knowledge is unmatched. But he should have owned DLH, that fight was really close and really shouldnt of been. Its like when DLH fought Chavez..Chavez was past him prime it wasnt even close. The 90s 147-154 divison was packed, Oba Carr, James Page, Campas, Vargas, Jose L Lopez, these guys were all good fighters.

There's a difference between their resumes, but it's not exactly a bad difference. Difference is Floyd has several good future Hall Of Famers in there like Marquez, De La Hoya, Mosley, Hatton*, Cotto*. Add the borderline hall of famers like Castillo, Corrales, Hernandez. Then just the good wins like Judah, Chavez, Gatti, Ortiz, and he's not done yet, who knows who he'll end up adding in his resume OR who he'll lose to. Leonard has top ATG's on resume, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, one of the ATG Puerto Rican fighters Benitez. That is 4 ATG's, that's a lot. He beat other good fighters like Mayweather Sr himself. That's the difference, Hall of Famers vs ATG's. But it's nothing bad about that. Floyd worked with what was given to him, like the Klitschko's working with the terrible HW division, it's not their fault. Floyd has added the majority of guys he was supposed to add. Sure Pacquiao and Margarito make his resume slightly better, but the fights couldn't come of for obvious reasons. He did still added Miguel Cotto in there as soon as it was possible to do so. As much as people make fun of Baldomir on his resume, it was actually a fight Floyd was being accused of ducking, and he added Baldomir in there too. Only two fights weren't made? Not bad. Floyd gave us at least 18 interesting match ups, that if they didn't happen, people would have accused him of ducking the person. Floyd has no fellow top ATG to fight aside from Pacquiao. H2H, I mean come on, look at Leonard's style, height, and reach, other things like matching handspeed with Floyd, higher activity, moves around, great boxer. I love Floyd, but if I had to put money on it, I would have to pick Leonard. Kev, damn good post. I dont want to come across as hating terribly on floyds resume, i dont love it, but he will have some hof's on there (none prime). But srl has atg's galore. Plus srl has the activity, precision, defense, power, and heart to take floyd by ko.

how do you figure he would be a 1999 DLH?..if he barely beat a past his prime DLH?.. So you think P4P, prime for prime, 2001-2005 Floyd vs 96-00 Oscar, gets beaten to a pulp???