Who has a better resume, Sugar Ray Leonard or Floyd Mayweather?

[BM dnobagaV]

Danny Garcia probably goes 22-0...

[IronDanHamza]

If you want to play the "BUT FLOYD WAS OLD AND TINY" card, then you have to talk about Roberto Duran...

Duran was old and tiny when he beat Leonard. Duran was old and tiny when he almost beat Hagler... etc...

Oh... and he didn't wait for the other guys to get old either...

How was Duran old when he beat Leonard?

And he didn't "almost beat Hagler" either.

[Reloaded]

many ATGs never fought that many people in a single year.
1) compare all hofers by that standard.
2) i wonder if those 22 guys were clowns or LEGIT contenderS

Go and have a good hard look at Ray Robinson's resume it has well over a 120 cans on it , thats a 120 complete duds and he is regarded as the best ever.

The trouble with history is human romantics and emotion mixed with the mentality that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Old time greats never die they just get bigger and bigger along with the storys about them.

Fighters of the modern era are greatly depreciated because of the above, most fans today have no real clue what they are actually witnessing, in todays climate of plastic and fast food its extremely hard to be truly great even when you are.

[Thraxox]

How was Duran old when he beat Leonard?

And he didn't "almost beat Hagler" either.

"How old is Duran when he beat Leonard?" Then don't say Erik Morales and MAB is shot when they were 28 years old at the time Pac fought them.

[IronDanHamza]

"How old is Duran when he beat Leonard?" Then don't say Erik Morales and MAB is shot when they were 28 years old at the time Pac fought them.

Well firstly I didn't bring age into it.

Secondly, I said "how was Duran old?" Not "how old was Duran?"

Thirdly, I never said Barrera or Morales were shot against Pacquaio.

But Morales was well passed his best days though.

[Elroy The Great]

Go and have a good hard look at Ray Robinson's resume it has well over a 120 cans on it , thats a 120 complete duds and he is regarded as the best ever.

The trouble with history is human romantics and emotion mixed with the mentality that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Old time greats never die they just get bigger and bigger along with the storys about them.

Fighters of the modern era are greatly depreciated because of the above, most fans today have no real clue what they are actually witnessing, in todays climate of plastic and fast food its extremely hard to be truly great even when you are.

i hear ya. some people are victims of storytelling. the blue collar era . where everyone was an ATG and bums are a modern invention. those people HATE to actually investigate a guys resume. the rude awakening would be too much to bare.

we cant hide our heroes behind a story. we are able to watch and dissect. lord have mercy if those guys from the good ol days had their ENTIRE careers on display.

people who have never seen a guy fight, yet sucks their ****s

[djtmal]

You use a list of the greatest welterweights (not sure when that list was created since you didn't cite that) but I'm talking about who's greater pound for pound. The boxrec list has Floyd greater pound for pound than Leonard.

Floyd was able to win every major title at welterweight without losing once (in his fourth weight class) while Leonard could not go without a single loss at welterweight. And though Duran was a great lightweight,welterweight was not his greatest class and he still beat Leonard.

Roberto Duran, was a great fighter. Period. Roberto Duran, is not only a great lightweight, but considered arguably the greatest lightweight all-time, and a high ranking all-time great at any weight. Maybe top ten. No shame in Sugar Ray taking an L to Duran at any weight, and doesn't necessarily make Floyd a better fighter either.

Like I said, that was a list that I randomly googled, just to show you backup, and how consistently ranked Sugar Ray is above Floyd. Just like you cite Boxrec for Floyd and I am cool with that, so be cool with the list I submitted. Furthermore, I have seen several lists that consistently have Sugar higher whether its all-time, or at 147, their common division, and I think I have broken down, with solid backup from every conceivable angle, why Sugar Ray is superior to Floyd, p4p wise, resume wise, and head to head. I don't really have time to do a thesis on this. You don't believe it, cool, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

Your point is, Floyd was able to beat fighters @ welterweight, without a loss, and Sugar Ray has the loss to Duran, which he more than avenged by the way, but my point, again, is who or what prime, atg welterweight did Floyd beat @ welterweight that would rank higher on any list than Thomas Hearns, who on the list I provided, is ranked #4 all time @ welterweight. For which Sugar Ray, not only beat but stopped. I never get a straight answer to this question, because the truth is Floyd falls short here, and above that, if any fighter is going to lay claim to being greater in any category to Sugar Ray Leonard, @ ww, or p4p, they better have EVERY conceivable base covered, and leave no doubt, because Sugar Ray Leanord, has consistently been in top ten all-time lists for years, and Floyd is a recent retiree.

My analysis is so thorough, that even if you looked at it from a lineage standpoint @ ww, Sugar Ray, beat HOF Lineal WW and Multi-Champ Wilfredo Benitez, while Floyd beat Carlos Baldomir for the Lineal WW Title, but Carlos Baldomir, legacy wise, holds no weight to Wilfredo Benitez. The thing is, one guy has noteworthy wins on all-time greats his resume, another guy has a large amount of names but nobody special, or noteworthy. There is no comparison.

That's just like saying, Joe Calzaghe, would rank higher than Roy Jones, just because Joe Calzaghe has an unblemished record, but if you do a breakdown on who they beat and when they beat them, Roy Jones, would come out on top, without too much of an argument.

[djtmal]

I could tell, just by how dudes post, who actually watched these fights in the 70's and 80's, and who wasn't even born yet. Lol

[Johnwoo8686]

Roberto Duran, was a great fighter. Period. Roberto Duran, is not only a great lightweight, but considered arguably the greatest lightweight all-time, and a high ranking all-time great at any weight. Maybe top ten. No shame in Sugar Ray taking an L to Duran at any weight, and doesn't necessarily make Floyd a better fighter either.

Like I said, that was a list that I randomly googled, just to show you backup, and how consistently ranked Sugar Ray is above Floyd. Just like you cite Boxrec for Floyd and I am cool with that, so be cool with the list I submitted. Furthermore, I have seen several lists that consistently have Sugar higher whether its all-time, or at 147, their common division, and I think I have broken down, with solid backup from every conceivable angle, why Sugar Ray is superior to Floyd, p4p wise, resume wise, and head to head. I don't really have time to do a thesis on this. You don't believe it, cool, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

Your point is, Floyd was able to beat fighters @ welterweight, without a loss, and Sugar Ray has the loss to Duran, which he more than avenged by the way, but my point, again, is who or what prime, atg welterweight did Floyd beat @ welterweight that would rank higher on any list than Thomas Hearns, who on the list I provided, is ranked #4 all time @ welterweight. For which Sugar Ray, not only beat but stopped. I never get a straight answer to this question, because the truth is Floyd falls short here, and above that, if any fighter is going to lay claim to being greater in any category to Sugar Ray Leonard, @ ww, or p4p, they better have EVERY conceivable base covered, and leave no doubt, because Sugar Ray Leanord, has consistently been in top ten all-time lists for years, and Floyd is a recent retiree.

My analysis is so thorough, that even if you looked at it from a lineage standpoint @ ww, Sugar Ray, beat HOF Lineal WW and Multi-Champ Wilfredo Benitez, while Floyd beat Carlos Baldomir for the Lineal WW Title, but Carlos Baldomir, legacy wise, holds no weight to Wilfredo Benitez. The thing is, one guy has noteworthy wins on all-time greats his resume, another guy has a large amount of names but nobody special, or noteworthy. There is no comparison.

That's just like saying, Joe Calzaghe, would rank higher than Roy Jones, just because Joe Calzaghe has an unblemished record, but if you do a breakdown on who they beat and when they beat them, Roy Jones, would come out on top, without too much of an argument.

A lot of your post is using subjective opinions more than facts. A lot of the lists that have Leonard above Mayweather all time are old lists done long before Floyd fought Pacquiao. I've seen several lists that had Floyd above Leonard all time that have been done more recently. I used boxrec because it's probably the most used source on this site.

If you want to say Floyd didn't beat any all time great welterweights, fair enough, but you have to realize Floyd was slightly past prime by the time he reached welterweight and light middleweight while Leonard began his career there. So Leonard was in his absolute prime at welterweight while Floyd was not. Leonard has the better prime names at welterweight but Floyd had the better title run at that weight class and it's not even his best weight class.

Duran was a great fighter but he was not that great at the higher weight classes. We can't forget him saying 'no mas" or him getting knocked out stiff at the higher weight classes. Leonard lost to an all time great light weight not an all time great welterweight in Duran and for that he loses some points.

I get it, you likely grew up in the 80s so you hold that era dear to your heart. But don't overrate the fighters of the past just because of your nostalgic feelings.

[daggum]

A lot of your post is using subjective opinions more than facts. A lot of the lists that have Leonard above Mayweather all time are old lists done long before Floyd fought Pacquiao. I've seen several lists that had Floyd above Leonard all time that have been done more recently. I used boxrec because it's probably the most used source on this site.

If you want to say Floyd didn't beat any all time great welterweights, fair enough, but you have to realize Floyd was slightly past prime by the time he reached welterweight and light middleweight while Leonard began his career there. So Leonard was in his absolute prime at welterweight while Floyd was not. Leonard has the better prime names at welterweight but Floyd had the better title run at that weight class and it's not even his best weight class.

Duran was a great fighter but he was not that great at the higher weight classes. We can't forget him saying 'no mas" or him getting knocked out stiff at the higher weight classes. Leonard lost to an all time great light weight not an all time great welterweight in Duran and for that he loses some points.

I get it, you likely grew up in the 80s so you hold that era dear to your heart. But don't overrate the fighters of the past just because of your nostalgic feelings.

floyd had the longer title run but better? leonard fought 12 top 10 opponents(winning 11) to floyd's 8. i have leonard with the 3 best wins over hearns, duran, and benitez(all prime)