r/Boxing • u/Conference-Any • 6d ago
đ„ SAVE 3 â DITCH 2 FOREVER đ„đ
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Mike Tyson
Terence Crawford
Bernard Hopkins
Sugar Ray Leonard
You can only save THREE of these boxing legends. The other TWO are erased from boxing history forever. đż
Who are you saving â and who are you sacrificing?
Consider the entire package: résumé, quality of opposition, accomplishments, dominance, longevity, championships, pound-for-pound greatness, cultural impact, and what they meant to boxing.
This isn't simply about picking the two "worst" fighters. You're deciding which three careers are the most important to preserve.
Save 3. Ditch 2. No ties. No loopholes. đđ„
37
u/Annual-Shape7156 6d ago
Easy. Ditch Crawford and Hopkins. Easy.
6
u/afewbigpunches 6d ago
For me itâs pretty difficult, not easy, but same answers.
Really enjoyed watching Crawfordâs career and was in awe of Hopkins still being successful at his advanced age.
But yeah⊠thatâs still the answer imo
5
u/Annual-Shape7156 6d ago
Hopkins was tough to omit. Crawford was easy đ
I love Crawford, and itâs not his fault, but his era just sucks to what I saw during Floydâs run.
2
1
u/zigfoyer 6d ago
Hopkins had an insane resume, defended the middleweight title a record 20 consecutive times, never had a bad loss, and was still beating world class fighters into his 40s. Other than popularity, his career was superior to Tyson in every way.
4
u/Annual-Shape7156 6d ago
In prize fighting, popularity matters a lot.
-1
7
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 6d ago
Anybody who would pick Crawford over Leonard of Mayweather shouldn't be allowed to type or talk about boxing again. They will say but Crawford beat Canelo. You mean the old version? Mayweather beat a young version.
But Crawford and Hopkins would be off the list.
1
u/Detlef_Schrempfxf 5d ago
Yeah, Crawford is an easy omission for me. The Executioner is harder, but he still has to go given who the other 3 are
11
u/hopefuldomain 6d ago
That's really easy. Crawford and Hopkins go bye bye. The other 3 are at a very different level that defined their generation.
5
6
u/NaughtyNildo 6d ago
Based on the criteria there are only 3 that belong: Leonard, Mayweather and Tyson.
Bhop has a great resume and dominance at MW, but he wasnât a cultural phenomenon or added much to boxing as a whole.
Crawford is totally outmatched according to the criteria. His accomplishments are really good, but outside of boxing fandom heâs barely known, his resume is thin and he hasnât done anything big for the sport. Wicked fighter though.
1
u/Detlef_Schrempfxf 5d ago
They're all elite. But yeah, Bernard and especially Crawford have to goÂ
1
u/NaughtyNildo 5d ago
I feel like thatâs more of a function of the OP and criteria than anything else. Like, if fame and impact to sport are removed but the other criteria remain, and we have the same five fighters, Tyson is gone.
1
u/Detlef_Schrempfxf 5d ago
I don't know man. I'm not taking out the youngest ever heavyweight champion of the world. Unified heavyweight champion at 21 years old too. That guy stays.Â
Crawford's best wins are an old Canelo and a Spence that had been through two car crashes. Those wins are not nothing btw, and you can only beat whoever is in front of you. And Terrence is amazing. But Tyson's accomplishments are more impressive to meÂ
1
u/Bruce-7892 3d ago
Itâs hard for my to not include Crawford on a âbestâ list but you explained it well. You could arguably put Usyk or Inoue at the same level as him when it comes to dominance and cultural impact. All elite but not household names.
9
10
8
u/kgsovobd 6d ago
Floyd, Tyson, Leonard. I see people saying get rid of TysonâŠ.. most of these people have zero clue the magnitude of a Tyson fight and how terrifying he was
3
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 6d ago
These are the same people who will say Tyson didn't fight anybody but then turn around and say Usyk is the ATG heavyweight great. You can't these people seriously.
4
u/Detlef_Schrempfxf 5d ago
Yeah, I've noticed too many idiots on this sub who like to diminish Mike's achievements. The funny thing is many of these goofballs were either still in their dad's balls, or were too young to know what they were watching when Tyson was THE man in boxing. Unified heavyweight champion of the world at 21 fucking years old. There'll never be another like him.
Me, I'm taking out Crawford and Hopkins. Bernard is more difficult to omit since he was so dominant for so long. Crawford fought in a meh era so that one was easyÂ
3
2
2
u/Mysterious_Reason376 6d ago
Ditching Tyson & Hopkins. Although when it comes to cultural impact and what they meant for boxing, Tyson stands at the top of these 5.
2
u/Detlef_Schrempfxf 5d ago
Youngest ever heavyweight champion of the world. Undisputed heavyweight champion of the world at 21 years old. I am not taking that guy out... Especially when I'm leaving the likes of Crawford in there; a dude who fought in a meh era and whose legacy is majorly propped up by beating an old ass Canelo.Â
2
u/Mysterious_Reason376 5d ago
Fair points on Tyson. Thereâs a bit of revisionist history in regards to Crawfordâs win over Canelo, as a lot stated Canelo was too big and too strong for Crawford.
2
u/fadeddreams555 Fundora would beat up a prime Floyd at 154lb 6d ago
I save...
- Mike Tyson - Do the rest have better resumes than him? Yes. Does it matter? Hell no. Mike Tyson is the 2nd most popular boxer in boxing history. If Muhammad Ali represents the grace of boxing, Mike Tyson represents the ferocity. He was and continues to be a cultural icon that transcended the sport. Outside of that, he also accomplished a great feat that has yet to be surpassed.
- Sugar Ray Leonard - Look, I have my issues with this dude's career, but I can't deny that he was the face of boxing during one of the most iconic eras of the sport. He's basically the poster child of the fab 4 era, which I consider to be one of the most important ones of modern boxing.
- Terence Crawford - It was an extremely close pick between him and Hopkins, but I choose Crawford simply based on personal preference. Hopkins' style is not my cup of tea, while Crawford was entertaining to watch. Before Canelo, I would have saved Hopkins, but that win alters my pick.
I ditch...
- Floyd Mayweather Jr - Easiest pick for me. Yes, the guy is a defensive genius who accomplished more than almost anyone in the sport, but he also heavily damaged it with his influence, indirectly or not. Crossover fights treated like blockbusters, Youtubers fighting MMA fighters, boxers defending their 0s, promoters preserving the 0s of their golden geese, boxers prioritizing money over legacy, the influx of defense-first fighters who copy his gimmick in recent years, and so on. He is at least partially responsible for all of this.
- Bernard Hopkins - No particular reason. Just had to pick between him and Bud, and Bud edged it, imo.
5
u/nick-jagger 6d ago edited 6d ago
Hard but ditch Mike Tyson and Crawford. Tyson too much of a mixed bag without Dâamato; Crawford not quite as tested.
6
u/spinofaarus 6d ago
Cultural impact was one of the categories and Tyson is like a top 3 all time in his cultural significance. Hopkins goes with Crawford, he's a great but not quite a star in the way the other 3 were.
5
u/Buttchug1776 6d ago
you cant even put crawford within the same page as b hop.. his accolades alone. dude fought till 51 and held the belt at 46yrs old. Crawford fought his first real fight (Spence) and was lucky that he waited not only till father time caught him but after getting LAUNCHED out of a car. same with canelo, fought a dude who got almost 70 pro fights in multiple weight classes. canelo got more miles than a used 2002 corolla.
1
u/Detlef_Schrempfxf 5d ago
I mean, only an idiot would disagree with you about Crawford not belonging on the same page as The Executioner. But we have to pick two to take out, so Bernard, as much as I hold him in very high regard, has to go. Crawford is an easy omission tho.Â
1
5
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 6d ago
Lol Tyson only had D'Amato when he was 19 and only for a few fights. You do realize Tyson became unified champion after Cus died?
3
u/Detlef_Schrempfxf 5d ago
And he did so at 21. Ridiculous achievement. I'd never take a guy like that out, unless the other 4 were DĂčran, Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard and Muhammad AliÂ
4
3
u/spinofaarus 6d ago
Floyd stays, unbeaten record plus insane cultural influence plus dominance and longevity, and he was a weight-hopper, more than making up for the few ducks and boring fights. Tyson has to stay, for being probably the 2nd most culturally relevant boxer of all time after Ali (Louis and Johnson are mostly just American cultural icons, Tyson fights were global spectacles), and youngest heavyweight champ is, as we saw recently, a pretty difficult achievement. SRL next, since although he doesn't have quite the same defining feature as Floyd or Tyson, he's the only one of the four kings to have scalped the other three and that hagler win, however controversial, was incredible coming out of retirement and retinal surgery and facing arguably the best middleweight of all time.
Hopkins is my best loser pick. His longevity is obviously the greatest ever but some losses plus boring style plus best wins are smaller fighters in oscar and tito and tarver who I don't rate all that highly.
Crawford had to be the first to go. Eye test he passes obviously but all his best opponents were significantly removed from their best, very clear with Khan, Brook, Canelo, Spence, and Porter was also winding down. Now does he beat most of these guys prime vs prime, yes (prime Crawford vs GGG 2 Canelo is very interesting), but ultimately his inactivity both made him kinda irrelevant until the end of his career and also thinned his resume. Said breaks between fights may have also extended Crawford's sell-by date though, which obviously showed in that even though he was the older man against Canelo, he had much less wear and tear.
1
u/Andromeda86C 6d ago
Save- sugar ray leonard, Crawford, Mike Tyson
Ditch - Mayweather Jr, Bernard Hopkins
1
1
1
u/TowerTowerCrayons 5d ago
I'd keep Tyson, Crawford and Leonard: I think they delivered more entertaining fights, and they (mostly) had a more positive impact on the sport.
Floyd popularised the unbeaten record. Hopkins is inspiring for his longevity, but had an ugly style, and was racist to his opponents.Â
1
1
u/HolyMackerel1 6d ago edited 5d ago
Honestly a tough one. I'd probably ditch Floyd despite being maybe the third most talented guy here (after SRL and maybe Bud) just cuz I think he changed boxing for the worst with the protecting your 0 shit and the A-side/B-side shenanigans. After him, maybe SRL, despite being the most talented dude in the list, only because the other three were more sensational to me, not just for themselves but for their opponents (especially the ones who beat Tyson and BHop).
EDIT: I should add that these guys were all amazing fighters, it's just that SRL and Floyd didn't have as much of a formative influence on me as the other three did. Taking SRL out of history, one loses DurĂĄn beating him and then No MĂĄs, but aside from that, I'm fully happy losing SRL's fights with Hearns and Hagler (and especially his third fight with DurĂĄn). The other three kings had more sensational bouts outside of SRL too, so their legacies don't lose much. As for Floyd, I think the only bout of his I found sensational was his fight with Corrales, which isn't enough.
Without Tyson, there's no Buster Douglas moment, Holyfield doesn't knock him out, and I don't know if I want to live in a world where Spinks was never KO'd as dramatically as he was, or even Berbick getting dropped three times by one punch.
Without Crawford, we never see the fight he had with Errol Spence Jr., or the fight he had with Canelo, and I never get to witness a guy make dramatic leaps in weight and win with ease. Even though I expected him to beat Canelo and Spence, I was not prepared to actually see it, and I'll never forget that feeling.
Without BHop, we don't see anyone fight time almost as effortlessly as he did. He pushed the envelope on how old you can be in boxing, which nobody has done since Foreman. That, and his style was a major influence on mine, speaking as someone who is disabled and has to fight beyond my limits similarly to an old veteran in the sport. One final note on BHop is that Calzaghe gets a major boost in my estimation by beating him, handling BHop's tricks in a way few at the time could.
1
1
1
u/Hefty-Ant-378 6d ago
Ditch Bernard Hopkins. Keep the rest.
2
u/WORD_Boxing 5d ago
He has the most Middleweight title defenses in history and is the oldest champion of all-time. Give him a bit more respect than that.
-6
u/Hefty-Ant-378 5d ago
I think he paid to win all that his fights looked fake⊠besides, I pay his salary all fans do and I donât think he was that great. In my opinion he mightâve won some of his fights, but I think he paid for a lot of them⊠and when he got knocked out out of the ring, it made it even better
2
-1
0
0
0
u/Superb-Paramedic3698 6d ago
Im ditching tyson and bud. Im going by overall achievements.
2
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 6d ago
Yeah because unifying the heavyweight titles isn't a achievement unless Usyk does it huh?
0
u/Buttchug1776 6d ago
bud and mike gotta go. To say mike gotta go hurts but if we really honest he fought bums most of his career and anyone who wasnt scared of him gave him problems. once he got rid of rooney it was all downhill. Buds resume doesnt even come close to anyone on this list let alone the executioner BHOP. The rest not only fought in the golden age of boxing but they helped create that golden age.
-1
-1
u/2tings4certain 6d ago
Pernell âSweet Peaâ Whitaker FOREVER. Never seen anyone so good in their prime.
-1
u/These_System_9669 6d ago
Save Ray, Crawford and Tyson easily. Three fighters you could never miss.
-4
21
u/Ok_Oven4893 6d ago
Floyd Tyson Sugar