i've read that sugar ray leonard was asked what he thinks of floyd mayweather's decision to retire after the dela hoya fight and how many people dont believe PBF would keep his word to retire for good, leonard said his ego keeps him from coming back in the ring and how he felt to looked back and should have never fought Norris and Camacho where he absorbed the worst beatings in his entire career, now my point is, if Leonard after the forgettable trilogy with Duran, continued to fight on and took on the top middleweight in the early 90s, IBF champ Michael Nunn, I think he would answer those critics who after all these years referred to him as a phoney and protected fighter, by taking on a young, respected title holder at the peak of his career, I see Nunn boxed his way to a one sided decision victory over Leonard, but sugar ray would gained more respect from his harsh critics in losing to Nunn than Norris and Camacho, keep in mind Norris became a star because of his win over Leonard and he feasted on smaller welterweights instead of taking the bigger challenge at middleweight, also, when trinidad got embarassingly beaten ny winky wright, his legacy isnt tarnish a bit coz he lost to a man long hungry for recognition, that same applies to Leonard if he fought and lost to Nunn instead.

He'd of lost every round to Nunn, and I don't really see what respect he'd of gained - would of been seen as just a waste of time. I was looking forward to him fighting Benn, as that was the talk, but Benn would of taken his head off and been hated 100 times more than he was for hitting Barkley when he was on his knees.

He should of retired after the Hagler fight, for sure ;)

i've read that sugar ray leonard was asked what he thinks of floyd mayweather's decision to retire after the dela hoya fight and how many people dont believe PBF would keep his word to retire for good, leonard said his ego keeps him from coming back in the ring and how he felt to looked back and should have never fought Norris and Camacho where he absorbed the worst beatings in his entire career, now my point is, if Leonard after the forgettable trilogy with Duran, continued to fight on and took on the top middleweight in the early 90s, IBF champ Michael Nunn, I think he would answer those critics who after all these years referred to him as a phoney and protected fighter, by taking on a young, respected title holder at the peak of his career, I see Nunn boxed his way to a one sided decision victory over Leonard, but sugar ray would gained more respect from his harsh critics in losing to Nunn than Norris and Camacho, keep in mind Norris became a star because of his win over Leonard and he feasted on smaller welterweights instead of taking the bigger challenge at middleweight, also, when trinidad got embarassingly beaten ny winky wright, his legacy isnt tarnish a bit coz he lost to a man long hungry for recognition, that same applies to Leonard if he fought and lost to Nunn instead.

I can't see how you think a 'past his best' Ray Leonard would have gained respect from critics by losing to Nunn. It would have had an adverse effect. Ray Leonard should have retired after the Marvin Hagler fight.
On the ridiculous subject of critics referring to Leonard as a phoney and protected fighter, well let's have a look at some facts...
Leonard fought Wilfred Benitez when Benitez was 39-0-1 and stopped him in the fifteenth round. He fought Thomas Hearns when Hearns was 32-0 at TKO'd him in fourteen rounds. He fought Ayub Kalule when Kalule was 36-0 and KO'd him in nine rounds. He fought Roberto Duran when Duran was 73-1 and forced Duran to plead 'no mas' which was certainly not 'forgettable!' And he came back and fought Marvin Hagler when Hagler was 62-2-2 and won a 12 round decision.
That's five wins against five opponents with a combined record of 242-3-3, and that's Greatness!

Ray Leonard did not win the Hagler fight. He put on a nice flamboyant show and fought respectably considering his layoff. No way should the middleweight champ Hagler should have been dethroned, especially after that last round. Decisions like that are part of boxing's permanent stain.

Ray Leonard did not win the Hagler fight. He put on a nice flamboyant show and fought respectably considering his layoff. No way should the middleweight champ Hagler should have been dethroned, especially after that last round. Decisions like that are part of boxing's permanent stain.


You're right, and i'm not disputing the fact that the decision over Hagler was debatable (and you can see this on my other posts on other threads). However, the history books will always show that he has a decision win over Marvin Hagler.

I can't see how you think a 'past his best' Ray Leonard would have gained respect from critics by losing to Nunn. It would have had an adverse effect. Ray Leonard should have retired after the Marvin Hagler fight.
On the ridiculous subject of critics referring to Leonard as a phoney and protected fighter, well let's have a look at some facts...
Leonard fought Wilfred Benitez when Benitez was 39-0-1 and stopped him in the fifteenth round. He fought Thomas Hearns when Hearns was 32-0 at TKO'd him in fourteen rounds. He fought Ayub Kalule when Kalule was 36-0 and KO'd him in nine rounds. He fought Roberto Duran when Duran was 73-1 and forced Duran to plead 'no mas' which was certainly not 'forgettable!' And he came back and fought Marvin Hagler when Hagler was 62-2-2 and won a 12 round decision.
That's five wins against five opponents with a combined record of 242-3-3, and as Thomas Hauser would say, 'That's greatness!'


Good reply - SRL fought arguably the toughest middleweights ever in Duran, Hearns and Hagler. Whatever anyone has to say about who SHOULD have won, the fact is he went toe to toe with them. Even the best middleweights of the 90's and now would have been given a tough fight by a prime Duran.

Duran was not even close to being one of the best or even toughest middleweights ever.

Does Duran going the distance w/ Hagler diminish the Marvelous One's greatness? Did Hagler's immediate retirement after the Leonard fight tarnish his legacy? Seriously; I'm really wondering!

I can't see how you think a 'past his best' Ray Leonard would have gained respect from critics by losing to Nunn. It would have had an adverse effect. Ray Leonard should have retired after the Marvin Hagler fight.
On the ridiculous subject of critics referring to Leonard as a phoney and protected fighter, well let's have a look at some facts...
Leonard fought Wilfred Benitez when Benitez was 39-0-1 and stopped him in the fifteenth round. He fought Thomas Hearns when Hearns was 32-0 at TKO'd him in fourteen rounds. He fought Ayub Kalule when Kalule was 36-0 and KO'd him in nine rounds. He fought Roberto Duran when Duran was 73-1 and forced Duran to plead 'no mas' which was certainly not 'forgettable!' And he came back and fought Marvin Hagler when Hagler was 62-2-2 and won a 12 round decision.
That's five wins against five opponents with a combined record of 242-3-3, and as Thomas Hauser would say, 'That's greatness!'

Exactly. Its ridiculous to call Leonard a phoney. Just plain stupid.
He shouldnt have to fight ANYONE after the Hagler fight.

Ray Leonard did not win the Hagler fight. He put on a nice flamboyant show and fought respectably considering his layoff. No way should the middleweight champ Hagler should have been dethroned, especially after that last round. Decisions like that are part of boxing's permanent stain.

Hagler was a middleweight destroyer, Leonard comes out of retirement and fights at middleweight for the first time and puts on one of the greatest displays of boxing ever. Whether u thought he won or lost, it was an incredibly close fight. Give Leonard credit instead of talking about 'permenant stains'. :rolleyes:
Look at the threads here, at the polls. Most people thought Leonard won. Including me, and the judges.

Does Duran going the distance w/ Hagler diminish the Marvelous One's greatness? Did Hagler's immediate retirement after the Leonard fight tarnish his legacy? Seriously; I'm really wondering!

No, because 1. Duran was a very tough fighter. Yes Hagler showed too much respect for some reason, but Hagler did enough throughout his career to not let one fight be a real factor in his overall legacy.
And 2. Hagler was talking about retiring for years before the Leonard fight. Even before he fought Hearns. He believed other fighters were taking too long to fight him. After Hearns he was only after Monzon's middleweight record of 12 successful defenses, and by the time he fought and lost to Leonard he knew he had nothing left to fight for, he was essentially way over the hill. Leonard was never going to give him a rematch. There was no point in him carrying on.

i've read that sugar ray leonard was asked what he thinks of floyd mayweather's decision to retire after the dela hoya fight and how many people dont believe PBF would keep his word to retire for good, leonard said his ego keeps him from coming back in the ring and how he felt to looked back and should have never fought Norris and Camacho where he absorbed the worst beatings in his entire career, now my point is, if Leonard after the forgettable trilogy with Duran, continued to fight on and took on the top middleweight in the early 90s, IBF champ Michael Nunn, I think he would answer those critics who after all these years referred to him as a phoney and protected fighter, by taking on a young, respected title holder at the peak of his career, I see Nunn boxed his way to a one sided decision victory over Leonard, but sugar ray would gained more respect from his harsh critics in losing to Nunn than Norris and Camacho, keep in mind Norris became a star because of his win over Leonard and he feasted on smaller welterweights instead of taking the bigger challenge at middleweight, also, when trinidad got embarassingly beaten ny winky wright, his legacy isnt tarnish a bit coz he lost to a man long hungry for recognition, that same applies to Leonard if he fought and lost to Nunn instead.


ehhh, not really. Not the way you draw it out, no. Taking on and losing to Nunn would have been no different than taking on and losing to Norris IMO.

If Ray really wanted respect in his second career, he wouldn't have retired after Hagler and defended the Championship. Probably first against Hagler in a rematch and if that fight couldn't have been made, then the rematch with Hearns, who ended up winning the WBC belt after Leonard gave it up anyway. Other opponents would have been the newly crowned WBA titlist, Kalambay or perhaps Mike McCallum, and yes a young Nunn etc.

But not the way you draw it up.

well, leonard, if i could recall, retired on 5 different occasions only to come comeback, and he did say he hasnt made 154 lbs limit for a long time when he fought norris which was a mistake on his part, thats why i guess Nunn would have been a logical choice on an opponent had he continued.

duran leonard trilogy = unforgettable? explain please

If Ray really wanted respect in his second career, he wouldn't have retired after Hagler and defended the Championship. Probably first against Hagler in a rematch and if that fight couldn't have been made, then the rematch with Hearns, who ended up winning the WBC belt after Leonard gave it up anyway. Other opponents would have been the newly crowned WBA titlist, Kalambay or perhaps Mike McCallum, and yes a young Nunn etc.



Do you mean the rematch with Hearns in which Leonard was beaten to a pulp for eleven rounds and knocked down twice throughout only for the judges to give him a draw based on a good last round? People get angry about the Hagler fight, which was too close to get angry about, and in which Leonard actually did enough to win it but forget that when Hearns and Leonard did have a rematch Hearns dominated the fight, winning nearly every round, only to get completely screwed with a draw.

Argh, anyway, thats not really the point of this thread is it? Leonard, despite some thinking the contrary, was a very tough, hard, competitive fighter who had a real fighters instinct. I'm not even exactly sure what this thread is about? Leonad fighting Nunn? Gaining respect from it? How? He would have been beaten probably worse by Nunn than he was by both Norris and Camacho!

Nonetheless, I don't see how any of this reflects on his standing as a brilliant fighter. His best days were as a welterweight and he came back and did amazing things after that weight as well. Sure, Hagler was old and tired but Leonard put on a show that was deserving of the win and although many people cry "Robbery!", it was not at all close to being a robbery of any type whatsoever! The fight should maybe have been called a draw, but, a point or two either way at most would be acceptable. Anything more than that is getting silly and a robbery is when someone wins most of the rounds of the whole fight and loses ie. Hearns/Leonard 2!

duran leonard trilogy = unforgettable? explain please

Ummm, don't you mean "Duran Leonard trilogy = forgettable? Explain please?"?

Obviously, the first fight was one of the greatest fights in the history of boxing and probably the best welterweight title fight ever! For an actual fight, it showcased skills of offense and defense, the likes of which, I don't believe will ever be seen in another fight by two fighters!

Sadly, that fight was basically the last of Durans truly motivated, hungry fights and nearly every fight after that he looked to be half the fighter he had been. The second fight with Leonard he looked bloated and like he didn't really want to be there and the third was after his last great effort and brutal war with Barkley at the very old of age of 38. So, in a way, it was a forgettable trilogy apart from the first fight. It was just the infamy of the second fight and that Leonard didn't give him a rematch for nine years after getting one himself after only five months which made it an unforgettable trilogy.