Can We Stop The Nonsense?

First topic message reminder :

I'm assuming we can stop this Floyd is a top ten all-time great nonsense now?

Gavilan is the one true great he beat who didn't beat him in return Haz, as great as Robinson was he's far from untouchable, personally have Charles very very close behind him.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Chavez, N'dou, Hatton, Guerrero, C. Hernandes aren't high volume pressure fighters are they Strongy, for the few times he's struggled he's still found a way to win.

It's like suggesting Duran doesn't like movers so we can dismiss him and the Laing loss is more damaging than any single win of Mayweathers.

No great fighters in that list, he even made Hatton come up to 147 to fight him.

Regardless of the "is Floyd a top 10 ATG" argument, this comment is utter folly. Mayweather was the champion, Hatton (already a 147lb champ) was the challenger. Since when has the champion moved down to the challengers weight to accommodate him? Hatton called Floyd out, he knew he'd have to go to 147 to get the fight. Did SRL drag Duran up from 135 to 147? If so does that make him a cherry picker? Plenty of reasons to dig Floyd out, this is not one of them.

In fairness to Leonard, Duran had been fighting at Welterweight for a good couple of years before they fought.

Floyds fought loads of peak fighters. Corrales,Chavez,canelo and also Hatton and Marquez (though he beat them at heavier weights)

Look what mosely did to Margarito before fighting Floyd. Oscar wasn't at his peak but he was still a formidable force and was also coming off a big win over Mayorga. Floyds record could certainly be better but it's plain wrong to discredit any of the above wins.

You're not answering my question, fella. You're obviously of the belief that last night alone is proof enough of Mayweather not being a potential top ten man. I'm asking you why that is, when similar things have happened to other men who'd make yours, mine and everyone else's top ten.

I'm not denying that Robinson's record is better than Mayweather's and that he was matched tougher / matched himself tougher overall. That's why Robinson is almost one of a kind, whereas Mayweather is one of a bunch (albeit it's a very select bunch). But I just want to know why Robinson's (or Duran's, for that matter) struggles against lesser fighters are airbrushed out of the picture completely, whereas Mayweather's are being magnified to a bit of an unreasonable extent.

kingraf wrote:To be fair to Robinson, he fought a helluva lot more regularly than Floyd, which makes off nights more palatable.

Exactly - you can imagine the result had he been given a 10 week camp and 30 mil to face those guys

88Chris05 wrote:You're not answering my question, fella. You're obviously of the belief that last night alone is proof enough of Mayweather not being a potential top ten man. I'm asking you why that is, when similar things have happened to other men who'd make yours, mine and everyone else's top ten.

I'm not denying that Robinson's record is better than Mayweather's and that he was matched tougher / matched himself tougher overall. That's why Robinson is almost one of a kind, whereas Mayweather is one of a bunch (albeit it's a very select bunch). But I just want to know why Robinson's (or Duran's, for that matter) struggles against lesser fighters are airbrushed out of the picture completely, whereas Mayweather's are being magnified to a bit of an unreasonable extent.

Because they have great wins against great opponents that mitigate those performances. Floyd doesn't.

hazharrison wrote:

kingraf wrote:To be fair to Robinson, he fought a helluva lot more regularly than Floyd, which makes off nights more palatable.

Exactly - you can imagine the result had he been given a 10 week camp and 30 mil to face those guys

I'm pretty sure his career would have gone down the toilet pretty damn quickly if he had that sort of money to spend, Duran was at one point the model professional until he started making big money.

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Chris, it isn't like it took Robinson three fights until he fully solved the LaMotta puzzle or a fight and a half until he came to grips with Turpin. I can't think of any other boxer in history who gets such a hard time for struggling twice in his career, fights that ultimately he won.

You're seriously comparing Floyd facing Marcos Maidana to Robinson facing Jake LaMotta?

Fair enough, Haz. Maidana is no La Motta. You've got us there.

So let's look at some of the opponents who Maidana is, at the very least, the equal of who also caused a prime, bang in form Robinson problems.

Artie Levine, according to some of those in attendance, more or less sparked Robinson in the fourth round and the only reason Ray survived was because the referee either a) ballsed up the count as he initially took Levine to the wrong neutral corner, not starting the count until he'd returned to Robinson who'd already been on the deck for a good six or seven seconds, or b) spent a relative eternity wiping down Robinson's gloves and inspecting his state after he'd got up from the knockdown, by which point reportedly 21 seconds or so had passed since he hit the deck.

Reports vary, but either way the fact is that Robinson, 25 years old and on the verge of his first world title, came dangerously close to disaster against a fighter who clearly wasn't on his level.

Luc Van Dam wasn't any great shakes either, but gave Robinson a torrid time of it before Ray got out of jail by ending the fight with some errant punches to Van Dam's groin (luckily, film of this one is available!). Most thought that Robinson had had a shocker on the night and got lucky - he left the ring to mostly boos. This was a Robinson who was still very much in his peak (not yet won the Middleweight title).

I guess Robinson struggling so badly against guys like Levine and Van Dam, good and respected contenders but definitely not world beaters or greats, means he's not a top ten man either?

How many times did Robinson fight in the years of those fights?


I'd wager its a multiple of twice a year against hand picked fighters.

AdamT wrote:Floyds fought loads of peak fighters. Corrales,Chavez,canelo and also Hatton and Marquez (though he beat them at heavier weights)

Look what mosely did to Margarito before fighting Floyd. Oscar wasn't at his peak but he was still a formidable force and was also coming off a big win over Mayorga. Floyds record could certainly be better but it's plain wrong to discredit any of the above wins.

The guys at their peak weren't great. The guys that were great weren't at their peak. That's why the Pacquiao fight was such a golden opportunity.

To be fair I see were Haz is coming from. He obviously rates Floyd as a fighter, he obviously just thinks his record is not matching his talent believes floyd has chosen recent fights. I don't fully agree with him but I do understand what he is saying.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

kingraf wrote:To be fair to Robinson, he fought a helluva lot more regularly than Floyd, which makes off nights more palatable.

Exactly - you can imagine the result had he been given a 10 week camp and 30 mil to face those guys

I'm pretty sure his career would have gone down the toilet pretty damn quickly if he had that sort of money to spend, Duran was at one point the model professional until he started making big money.

Irrelevant.

To be fair I see were Haz is coming from. He obviously rates Floyd as a fighter, he obviously just thinks his record is not matching his talent believes floyd has chosen recent fights. I don't fully agree with him but I do understand what he is saying.

AdamT wrote:Floyds fought loads of peak fighters. Corrales,Chavez,canelo and also Hatton and Marquez (though he beat them at heavier weights)

Look what mosely did to Margarito before fighting Floyd. Oscar wasn't at his peak but he was still a formidable force and was also coming off a big win over Mayorga. Floyds record could certainly be better but it's plain wrong to discredit any of the above wins.

Canelo was not at his peak he was/is green and also canelo struggles to make 154 yet floyd fought him at a catchweight of 152. Hatton had to move uop in weight and looked tiny.

It's not irrelevant, Robinson fought over 200 times because he had to and that's because he couldn't keep hold of his money, give him $30mil a fight taking into account his character he'd destroy his career.

88Chris05 wrote:You're not answering my question, fella. You're obviously of the belief that last night alone is proof enough of Mayweather not being a potential top ten man. I'm asking you why that is, when similar things have happened to other men who'd make yours, mine and everyone else's top ten.

I'm not denying that Robinson's record is better than Mayweather's and that he was matched tougher / matched himself tougher overall. That's why Robinson is almost one of a kind, whereas Mayweather is one of a bunch (albeit it's a very select bunch). But I just want to know why Robinson's (or Duran's, for that matter) struggles against lesser fighters are airbrushed out of the picture completely, whereas Mayweather's are being magnified to a bit of an unreasonable extent.

Last night and against Castillo, Oscar, Judah and Cotto we saw Floyd struggle against fighters that were in some instances beyond their prime or were never all that great. Floyd doesn't have enough meat in his resume to make him Top 10 and last night added to that belief.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not irrelevant, Robinson fought over 200 times because he had to and that's because he couldn't keep hold of his money, give him $30mil a fight taking into account his character he'd destroy his career.

Impossible to know. And we really shouldn't be debating Floyd and SRR. It's blasphemous

It's impossible to know how Mayweather would have done fighting 200 times just like it's impossible to know how Robinson would have fared fighting so infrequently.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's impossible to know how Mayweather would have done fighting 200 times just like it's impossible to know how Robinson would have fared fighting so infrequently.

Great debate.

Hatton was at least same weight ad floyd on fight night so was hardly tiny. Saying canelo is green is like saying tyson was green vs Douglas. Canelo is young but he has had loads of fights and I believe peaked earlier than most, something similar to Naz and Tyson.

Anyway boxing is great and I respect all your opinions gentlemen. Unfortunately I have a pregnant wife to attend to so must debate another day. You all have a good night and take care!

Yeah, I'm out. Trying to get into this Fargo but it's not happening!

Haz, Strongback.

No doubt that Robinson had mitigating factors which contributed to his woes against Levine, Van Dam etc, certainly to the point where you can take 'em with a pinch of salt, which is what I do. But you can't completely wipe them from the board, at least for me anyway. They only cast a shadow over Robinson's record, or serve as a black mark on it, to a very, very small (maybe even microscopic!) extent, but if you're going to obsess over Mayweather having the same kind of problems now and then, it's only natural that people are going to draw comparisons.

Comparing across eras is tricky, so I'm not berating you fine gents, but let's try to keep it fair. Robinson didn't have a wealth of footage of his opponents to study the majority of the time like Floyd does, and nor does he have the luxury of only fighting twice a year with plenty of R&R time in between. So of course it's only fair he gets cut more slack than Mayweather would for those kind of aforementioned poor shows.

But it goes both ways. The same people who (rightly) point out that Robinson, due to those circumstances and as a result of the era he fought in, should be given more leniency than Floyd for the odd anomaly of a result are often the same ones who bemoan Mayweather for not fighting a dozen times a year or for picking up titles in weight classes outside the original eight, ignoring that likewise the climate of the modern era of boxing has a role in these things.

Just forget records for a bit, who fought who and the like. Just ask yourselves - regardless of the above, is it normal or fair that fighters from a bygone era are effectively immune to criticism while fighters of today have absolutely no excuses to protect them from it, no matter what?

Because (and call me thick if I'm wrong here!) that seems to be pretty much what the pair of you are saying between yourselves.

God help Canelo if he's peaked... Career wins against Josesito and Matthew Hatton.

AdamT wrote:Hatton was at least same weight ad floyd on fight night so was hardly tiny. Saying canelo is green is like saying tyson was green vs Douglas. Canelo is young but he has had loads of fights and I believe peaked earlier than most, something similar to Naz and Tyson.

Anyway boxing is great and I respect all your opinions gentlemen. Unfortunately I have a pregnant wife to attend to so must debate another day. You all have a good night and take care!

Hatton was a bully at 140lbs but wasn't strong enough at 147lbs to implement the same tactics.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Chavez, N'dou, Hatton, Guerrero, C. Hernandes aren't high volume pressure fighters are they Strongy, for the few times he's struggled he's still found a way to win.

It's like suggesting Duran doesn't like movers so we can dismiss him and the Laing loss is more damaging than any single win of Mayweathers.

No great fighters in that list, he even made Hatton come up to 147 to fight him.

Regardless of the "is Floyd a top 10 ATG" argument, this comment is utter folly. Mayweather was the champion, Hatton (already a 147lb champ) was the challenger. Since when has the champion moved down to the challengers weight to accommodate him? Hatton called Floyd out, he knew he'd have to go to 147 to get the fight. Did SRL drag Duran up from 135 to 147? If so does that make him a cherry picker? Plenty of reasons to dig Floyd out, this is not one of them.

In fairness to Leonard, Duran had been fighting at Welterweight for a good couple of years before they fought.

Hmm, he'd fought twice at ww prior to meeting SRL. Hatton had fought once at ww prior to meeting Mayweather, virtually nothing in it and Duran was moving up 12lb as opposed to Hattons 7lb. And the main point remains, that traditionally the challenger moves up to the champs weight - except when someone moves up to fight Floyd, in which case it's cherry picking. Total double standards.

Duran had fought at Welterweight 8 times SBS if i'm being pedantic and had moved up in weight before Leonard had even won the title. I understand your point though, the challenger 99% of the time moves up and despite the revisionist thought there was a big clamour for the Hatton fight at the time.

88Chris05 wrote:Haz, Strongback.

No doubt that Robinson had mitigating factors which contributed to his woes against Levine, Van Dam etc, certainly to the point where you can take 'em with a pinch of salt, which is what I do. But you can't completely wipe them from the board, at least for me anyway. They only cast a shadow over Robinson's record, or serve as a black mark on it, to a very, very small (maybe even microscopic!) extent, but if you're going to obsess over Mayweather having the same kind of problems now and then, it's only natural that people are going to draw comparisons.

Comparing across eras is tricky, so I'm not berating you fine gents, but let's try to keep it fair. Robinson didn't have a wealth of footage of his opponents to study the majority of the time like Floyd does, and nor does he have the luxury of only fighting twice a year with plenty of R&R time in between. So of course it's only fair he gets cut more slack than Mayweather would for those kind of aforementioned poor shows.

But it goes both ways. The same people who (rightly) point out that Robinson, due to those circumstances and as a result of the era he fought in, should be given more leniency than Floyd for the odd anomaly of a result are often the same ones who bemoan Mayweather for not fighting a dozen times a year or for picking up titles in weight classes outside the original eight, ignoring that likewise the climate of the modern era of boxing has a role in these things.

Just forget records for a bit, who fought who and the like. Just ask yourselves - regardless of the above, is it normal or fair that fighters from a bygone era are effectively immune to criticism while fighters of today have absolutely no excuses to protect them from it, no matter what?

Because (and call me thick if I'm wrong here!) that seems to be pretty much what the pair of you are saying between yourselves.

I wasn't really getting into a debate measuring SRR v Floyd in terms of poor performances I just chipped in on the point of the number of fights SRR undertook.  My point is really that Floyd has weaknesses against a certain style of fighter.  Armstrong, Duran and even SRL could apply the type of pressure that I think Floyd would struggle to handle.  Added to this Floyd's opposition is a bit thin against great fighters which means I personally cannot rate him as a Top 10 ATG.  My analysis of it is that there are ATG welters that would beat Floyd because they could exact the kind of pressure that hampers his style.  

Given time and space (like most great footballers) Floyd is majestic.  Countering this the fact he hand picks opponents, didn't fight Pacquiao and waited until some of the greats had aged significantly informs my opinion.  I don't think Floyd has intentionally taken a risk since Oscar.  What last night reaffirmed was the body of opinion that believes Mayweather struggles with pressure. It's only one fight but for many years there has been a view out there that Castillo's methods were the way to unlock the May-vinci code. Makes me think why Floyd didn't fight that Asian pressure fighter.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Duran had fought at Welterweight 8 times SBS if i'm being pedantic and had moved up in weight before Leonard had even won the title. I understand your point though, the challenger 99% of the time moves up and despite the revisionist thought there was a big clamour for the Hatton fight at the time.

I have it in my head that he vacated his LW titles in '79, had a couple of WW fights then met SRL in '80. Must be remembering it wrong, can't be bothered to dust off Hands of Stone to investigate I'll take your word for it.

But regardless, it seems that when Floyd is involved some see a situation where arguably the best fighter at 140lb moves up to challenge the best fighter at 147lb as a bad thing. It was a legit fight between 2 undefeated champions at the time; Floyd was rightly the favourite but because he handled Hatton so well it was suddenly cherry picking, dragging someone up from his best weight etc. Utter nonsense.

He should never have been ranked up there with the true greats irrespective of the Maidana fight or result. Nobody could deny he is a good fighter but his career has been monumentally overrated in comparison to who he has beaten and more importantly, who he hasnt. Risk averse inside and outside the ring.

Mayweather won. Just thought I'd mention it.

Scottrf wrote:Mayweather won. Just thought I'd mention it.

Who was he fighting?

Marcos Maidana. I know what you're thinking, no Memo Ayon.

What an ignorant thread..

Louis - Schmelling
Louis - Conn
Robinson - Lamotta/Turpin

Mayweather is 37 FFS..

Pathetic...

catchweight wrote:He should never have been ranked up there with the true greats irrespective of the Maidana fight or result. Nobody could deny he is a good fighter but his career has been monumentally overrated in comparison to who he has beaten and more importantly, who he hasnt. Risk averse inside and outside the ring.

Over 16 year at the top.

Unbeaten

Beaten over 20 champions/ex champions

Better then Leonard, Hearns and Duran.............FACT

Mayweather top 5 for me.

MORNING TRUSS

You know what the funny thing is Haz loves Hagler and has him above FMJ and around the Top ten..

Hagler drew with the awful Vito in his prime..Not at 37!!!!

But that's ok ...

Oh dear someone has an agenda.

That is remarkable Truss, you've had him top ten for quite a while, he scrapes past Maidana, and shoots to top five, could get all the way to one by September if he limps past Josesito.

Good god some of the narrow minded fans make me laugh.

Floyd Mayweather won against a tough power puncher, end of. He landed more shots at a higher connect rate. Maidens threw 800 or so punches compared to Floyd's 400 or so, yet Floyd landed more shots. He lost the first three or four rounds, then came on late like he did with de la Hoya. I had Floyd winning by 116-112. A good competitive fight.

But because of this, he won't sit in the all time top ten, even though his resume is brilliant.

Corrales
Castillo x2
Judah
Mosley
Hatton
Alvarez
De la Hoya
Hernandez
Ortiz
Maidana
Guerrero
Gatti


Etc etc etc. he has had a tough night with a couple of them, but their class names at the end of the day.

Lewis got sparked by Rahman and McCall and struggled with Vitali, but let's not have him in top 20 top heavyweights of all time.

Ali got beaten, let's not include him.
Pacifist got knocked the feck out by a guy Mayweather dominated....so let's throw him out the picture.

I think the fact is, and always will be , jealousy. The guy beats up Saul (who was being paraded as the coming of messiah, toughest test, young, fresh, big)...and it gets dismissed as Saul is too green or inexperienced.

The constant berating of a top quality fighter is ridiculous. Same with Pacquiao haters. Pathetic,

Their both world class operators and have fought top quality over their careers. Floyd and manny are top 20 ATG for me.

Floyd in top 5 and manny around 12.

You must have had the beer googles on or maybe the Floyd specs if you had that fight 116-112. Even though Paulie Malinaggi was on Showtime where he has to toe the Mayweather line he couldn't hold back berating the judges scores.

If you had Floyd by one or two rounds you might have been credible.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

catchweight wrote:He should never have been ranked up there with the true greats irrespective of the Maidana fight or result. Nobody could deny he is a good fighter but his career has been monumentally overrated in comparison to who he has beaten and more importantly, who he hasnt. Risk averse inside and outside the ring.

Over 16 year at the top.

Unbeaten

Beaten over 20 champions/ex champions

Better then Leonard, Hearns and Duran.............FACT

Mayweather top 5 for me.

Jeez you do chat some amount of crap when it comes to Mayweather.

If Maidana does that to Floyd what would the crime de la creme of pressure fighters Duran have inflicted on him.

Some fights it just boils down to what you prefer/give credence to strongy.

I thought there were a fair few close rounds where maidana was pushing the fight, possibly landing more but not that cleanly, where the eyecatching stuff came from floyd. Easy to see a wide range in cards. Personally, I struggled to make a case for maidana winning it and I can see where a 116-112 card for floyd comes from, and I could just about make a case for a draw. I didn't keep a card, but felt floyd by 2-3, was about right.

I think the guys  who have maidana winning it are giving him the benefit of the doubt at every turn. But that's boxing, competitive fights are open to wide interpretation.

Interested to know how many Top 10ers were number 1 at 37 ??

Maybe the OP can tell us...

Leonard wasn't 37 when an old Chavez trashed Camacho played with him..

Could of swore Mayweather won the other night..

Laughable...and illuminating as to the dislike rose tinters have for modern fighters....

milkyboy wrote:Some fights it just boils down to what you prefer/give credence to strongy.

I thought there were a fair few close rounds where maidana was pushing the fight, possibly landing more but not that cleanly, where the eyecatching stuff came from floyd. Easy to see a wide range in cards. Personally, I struggled to make a case for maidana winning it and I can see where a 116-112 card for floyd comes from, and I could just about make a case for a draw. I didn't keep a card, but felt floyd by 2-3, was about right.

I think the guys  who have maidana winning it are giving him the benefit of the doubt at every turn. But that's boxing, competitive fights are open to wide interpretation.

I give no benefit of the doubt to the high volume puncher at all, if he's throwing a lot and missing a lot that to me is ineffective aggression if the other guy is throwing half the amount but landing the cleaner more eye catching stuff.

milkyboy wrote:Some fights it just boils down to what you prefer/give credence to strongy.

I thought there were a fair few close rounds where maidana was pushing the fight, possibly landing more but not that cleanly, where the eyecatching stuff came from floyd. Easy to see a wide range in cards. Personally, I struggled to make a case for maidana winning it and I can see where a 116-112 card for floyd comes from, and I could just about make a case for a draw. I didn't keep a card, but felt floyd by 2-3, was about right.

I think the guys  who have maidana winning it are giving him the benefit of the doubt at every turn. But that's boxing, competitive fights are open to wide interpretation.

You mean when Floyd lands a punch and jumps around as if to say 'Did you see that, did you see that'.  He does a lot of subtle showboating.  Maidana goes more for the poker face of a Marco Antonio Barrera.

I have now watched the fight three times and scored it with the sound off.  There were 5 rounds where Maidana controlled the fight and then about four close rounds the majority of which Mayweather won. Floyd clearly won the 3 other rounds.  

I have also read opinions across the boxing community and the consensus seems to be a draw or a point or two either way is all that was in it.  Paulie Malinaggi was very vocal about the poor standard of the two judges who scored it wide to Floyd in Showtimes post fight analysis.   Al Bernstein and Pauly Malignaggi both had it 114-113 to Mayweather and they were both working for Showtime.

Its a closer fight than the one with Oscar. I still reckon Floyd edged it with clean work, but I can see why some have Marcos as the victor

    

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Interested to know how many Top 10ers were number 1 at 37 ??

Maybe the OP can tell us...

Leonard wasn't 37 when an old Chavez trashed Camacho played with him..

Could of swore Mayweather won the other night..

Laughable...and illuminating as to the dislike rose tinters have for modern fighters....

                                                                                                                              

"Did I disappoint you, leave a bad taste in your mouth.....
You ask me to enter, but then you make me crawl....
One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
Onetruss
With each other
Sisters
Brothers
One life
But we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
Onetruss"

Mayweather better than Leonard reported as fact? I've heard it all now

Respect to Mayweather for having the uncanny ability to make good fighters seem very average in messy fights but I've never seen an offensive display from him comparable to vintage Leonard.

I dont know how anyone who witness Leonard first hand could think Mayweather was greater or even close. I find a lot of the Mayweather nutcases out there just dont have any other first hand era's to use as referance points. Its never the same going back to an era that you werent around in. You lose most of the magic, the context, the sense of anticipation, the uncertainy of the outcome and so on. Flicking open a boxrec page or even going back and watching an old fight doesnt do it justice. The copious amount of hyperbole and smoke blown up Mayweathers ass for so long has fooled a lot of people into thinking what he has done is greater than it is. Beating past its like de la Hoya and Mosley and just no comparison to classic contests against Hearns and Duran.

I find it slightly perplexing when suggestions are made that Leonard being better than Mayweather is a unequivocal fact, it isn't, it's an opinion based on personal preference.

When Leonard is mentioned a very small fraction of his fights are mentioned, the pair against Duran, Hearns and occasionally Benitez and Hagler. This is where he falls down massively in my opinion, there is no depth to his record and a career Welterweight losing to a career Lightweight does harm his standing. As great as Duran is, it's a fight that Leonard should not have been losing in the first place.

No issues with his struggles against Hearns, the fact he won at all is astounding considering the size and power difference between the two at 147lbs.

Then we have the issue of his often ignored comeback which aside from Hagler whom he fought years too late anyway was quite embarrassing. From dragging the one armed Lalonde down in weight, the one sided beating to Norris and the forgettable fights against Duran and Hearns.

His other struggles in fights are also ignored, whether it's Kalule, Lalonde or Howard but because he's Leonard these all get ignored and unlike Robinson can't blame a lack of motivation.

Can see both arguments when it comes to the Leonard / Mayweather comparison, but I'd always go with Ray as it stands.

Appreciate that Leonard's record is short (only in terms of quantity) at the highest level, but whichever way you slice it, the fact is that he proved himself a better fighter than Mayweather has ever proven himself to be, at least in my eyes. Mayweather perhaps the more consistent one, the more intelligent one, the more 'successful' one....But better? Mayweather just hasn't proven conclusively that he could beat someone in the class of the Four Kings mould or who wouldn't look out of place in that group. Sure, that's partly down to circumstances and who is / was around to fight at the time. But when he finally had an opponent comparable to one of those Four Kings fellas in the shape of Pacquiao, he didn't take advantage.

Leonard beat a peak, undefeated Benitez. He beat a peak, undefeated Hearns. Came back and upset Hagler. Beat a near-prime Duran, even if people aren't always too overjoyed with the way he did it.

Mayweather's numbers and longevity are to be admired but for me, Ray's wins over Hearns, Benitez etc on their own equate to at least half a dozen wins combined on Mayweather's record against the Corrales, Judah, Marquez and Ortiz types.

If it was about who proved they had it all under the most intense pressure, on the biggest stage and against the best fighters, then Mayweather's not even in Leonard's class, strictly speaking. Fair enough, that's not all there is to it, so Mayweather's consistency, own impressive list of victims (and yes, they are impressive compared to just about anyone else's outside of a very, very tight group) and all-round talent are enough to make it close.....But when push comes to shove, while Mayweather might be at that Leonard level, he hasn't proved it the way Ray did, over and over again.

Leonard didn't age as well as Mayweather has, that's for sure, although I thought both Lalonde and Hearns II were really good fights if you strip away the general negativity that surrounds them and just watch how it unfolded in the ring. But Leonard set the bar a lot higher than Mayweather has in or around his peak years, and that'll always give him the advantage for me.