I was thinking that there was not much he couldnt do.

Obviously he had great speed and amazing footwork. Great chin, and very good power. He did get hit too much either.

Seeing as he fought and beat some of the greatest fighters of the modern era, why is he never mentioned as one of the best p4p fighters ever?

Duran seems to get more of a mention than Leonard. As does Armstrong and many others who although great, didnt have near the skills and overall talent as Sugar Ray Leonard.

I was thinking that there was not much he couldnt do.

Obviously he had great speed and amazing footwork. Great chin, and very good power. He did get hit too much either.

Seeing as he fought and beat some of the greatest fighters of the modern era, why is he never mentioned as one of the best p4p fighters ever?

Duran seems to get more of a mention than Leonard. As does Armstrong and many others who although great, didnt have near the skills and overall talent as Sugar Ray Leonard.
Leonards multiple retirements hurt his overall standing. He is the second best Welter ever at the least. Which should put him in the pound for pound top 5 or so.

Leonard is pretty damn close...chin, stamina, speed, footwork and power were all exceptional. Not to mention his level of competition is as good as it gets.

He was quite susceptible to right hands though. Thats about the only weakness in his game I can think of. But as Cletus said, his intermittent career may have affected his overall standing. Or you can say that his short career may have actually increased his legend.

Most people wont come forward and admit this but, sugar ray leonard has beat more elite fighters than willie pep and his own brother, benny leonard..

Leonard, at his absolute prime, was beaten by a smaller, slower, "less complete" and post-prime Duran (by the time they fought, Duran already had nearly twice the number of fights Leonard would complete over a long career).

Leonard's first victory over Hearns was pretty dicey and he wouldn't give a rematch until Hearns was cooked. His victory over Hagler was a horrible sham that ashamed and appalled most everyone who likes the sport.

So, was he a great, complete fighter? No doubt. Was he the best of a great era? Not in my book. And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

Leonard, at his absolute prime, was beaten by a smaller, slower, "less complete" and post-prime Duran (by the time they fought, Duran already had nearly twice the number of fights Leonard would complete over a long career).

Leonard's first victory over Hearns was pretty dicey and he wouldn't give a rematch until Hearns was cooked. His victory over Hagler was a horrible sham that ashamed and appalled most everyone who likes the sport.

So, was he a great, complete fighter? No doubt. Was he the best of a great era? Not in my book. And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

Duran may have been out of his best weight class, but he was still young. Leonard beat benitez fair and square and he also beat ayub kalule, a guy that is top 15-20 of all times at 154.

And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

Yea I heard that argument brought up alot. The fight stipulations were always his final saying...You could only fight him if you fought in the ring size he chose, for how many rounds he chose, on the date he chose etc

Duran may have been out of his best weight class, but he was still young. Leonard beat benitez fair and square and he also beat ayub kalule, a guy that is top 15-20 of all times at 154.

30 isn't young if you've had seventy odd pro fights.

But I agree about Benitez - he beat him very well.

I'm not saying Leonard wasn't great - just that he was great with an asterisk ;^>

He was definitely the complete fighter, but at times, his defense wasn't the best, and if he did certain things right in the first Hearns fight, Hearns would've been out by the eighth round.

Leonard, at his absolute prime, was beaten by a smaller, slower, "less complete" and post-prime Duran (by the time they fought, Duran already had nearly twice the number of fights Leonard would complete over a long career).

Leonard's first victory over Hearns was pretty dicey and he wouldn't give a rematch until Hearns was cooked. His victory over Hagler was a horrible sham that ashamed and appalled most everyone who likes the sport.

So, was he a great, complete fighter? No doubt. Was he the best of a great era? Not in my book. And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

With Duran he fought the wrong fight. Not that thats an excuse, but Duran was never as good again. IMO that was Duran at his best post lightweight. And who else could of fought with Duran for 15 rounds non-stop like Leonard did?
Not too many.

I dont see how the Hearns victory was 'dicey'. He was outboxed but hurt him more than once and finished him off when he had to. Hearns was at his best and unbeaten. He is an all time great welter, and Leonard stopped him. Credit where credits due.

Against Hagler he came out of retirement to face the larger stronger fighter, who although slower and past his best was still a big favourite to win. Again, he deserves credit.
He was beaten by Duran who was smaller, but beat both Hagler and Hearns who were not only much bigger but were prolific KO fighters.

With Duran he fought the wrong fight. Not that thats an excuse, but Duran was never as good again. IMO that was Duran at his best post lightweight. And who else could of fought with Duran for 15 rounds non-stop like Leonard did?
Not too many.

I dont see how the Hearns victory was 'dicey'. He was outboxed but hurt him more than once and finished him off when he had to. Hearns was at his best and unbeaten. He is an all time great welter, and Leonard stopped him. Credit where credits due.

Against Hagler he came out of retirement to face the larger stronger fighter, who although slower and past his best was still a big favourite to win. Again, he deserves credit.
He was beaten by Duran who was smaller, but beat both Hagler and Hearns who were not only much bigger but were prolific KO fighters.

That was Roberto Duran at his pinnacle, his absolute best regardless of division.

duran beat leanord on leanord best day while giving up every physical advantage in the book it was so remarkable, in the rematch he took the money and ran, but duran is a far more skilled boxer then leanord all you got to do is watch the brawl in montreal, he took leanord to school, i went to school where the words out of leanords mouth, leanord was so great but the way he handled his carreer ****ed him

duran beat leanord on leanord best day while giving up every physical advantage in the book it was so remarkable, in the rematch he took the money and ran, but duran is a far more skilled boxer then leanord all you got to do is watch the brawl in montreal, he took leanord to school, i went to school where the words out of leanords mouth, leanord was so great but the way he handled his carreer ****ed him

But Leonard was a boxer, with Duran in the first fight he chose not to box but outfight Duran which very few men ever could.
In the rematch he boxed and frustrated the **** outa Duran. Its true im sure Duran was not in great shape, but Leonard still made him quit.
He beat Duran 2/3. Yet people use their very close first fight to discredit Leonard wen hardly anyone could have fought for 15 rounds with Duran.

And as i said before, Leonard beat the much bigger Hearns who also had all the advantages

Leonard one of the all time greats, no doubt. Beating Benetiz, Hearns, Duran and Hagler. Great resume. I can't see how knocking someone out can be deemed a 'dicey' victory. Leonard displayed great repertoire in that fight with Hearns. First boxer, then puncher. How many other guys stood in front of Hearns and forced him to be the counter-puncher?

He lost the first fight against the great Duran fighting Duran's style of fight, yet it was a narrow loss. He avenged this dramatically in their second fight. If you had said before that second fight that Leonard would completely dominate Duran and that Duran would quit i.e. technical KO, you would have been locked up.

Leonard could fight inside or outside. He had great power, great foot and body movement and very fast hands. Was he conniving, a tough negotiator, round stealer, media darling - yes. But he was also a superb fighter with a magnificent body of work.

But Leonard was a boxer, with Duran in the first fight he chose not to box but outfight Duran which very few men ever could.
In the rematch he boxed and frustrated the **** outa Duran. Its true im sure Duran was not in great shape, but Leonard still made him quit.
He beat Duran 2/3. Yet people use their very close first fight to discredit Leonard wen hardly anyone could have fought for 15 rounds with Duran.

And as i said before, Leonard beat the much bigger Hearns who also had all the advantages

2 out of three duran didnt prepare phyically of mentally for the second fight and the result speaks for itself, listen to how stupid its sounds duran beats leanord then in the rematch duran quits in the 8th duran threw the fight he just gave everything he has phyically and mentally to beat leanord, he let himself loose got involved in cocaine and took the money and ran, max kellerman had duran leanord 1 as his most suggnificent fight of the past 30 years, dont beleive what i say check the leanord bio on coxs corner about a great a boxing site youll find
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rleonard.html

duran leanord 2 eas an embarrsment cause duran was heavily involed in cocaine duran beat leanrd on his best night, leanord knew this and forced an immediate rematch, and duran threw the fight

the third fight was meanigless, duran jsut had his last great fight with barkley, neihter duran nor leanord won a a important fight after duran leanord three it tells you how important it was, the next fight leanord got crushed by terry norris

Was he conniving, a tough negotiator, round stealer, media darling - yes. But he was also a superb fighter with a magnificent body of work.

I agree 110%. this sums up my thoughts

2 out of three duran didnt prepare phyically of mentally for the second fight and the result speaks for itself, listen to how stupid its sounds duran beats leanord then in the rematch duran quits in the 8th duran threw the fight he just gave everything he has phyically and mentally to beat leanord, he let himself loose got involved in cocaine and took the money and ran, max kellerman had duran leanord 1 as his most suggnificent fight of the past 30 years, dont beleive what i say check the leanord bio on coxs corner about a great a boxing site youll find
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rleonard.html

duran leanord 2 eas an embarrsment cause duran was heavily involed in cocaine duran beat leanrd on his best night, leanord knew this and forced an immediate rematch, and duran threw the fight

the third fight was meanigless, duran jsut had his last great fight with barkley, neihter duran nor leanord won a a important fight after duran leanord three it tells you how important it was, the next fight leanord got crushed by terry norris


Duran quit because he was being beaten, and humiliated by Leonards showboating. But Leonard obviously fought very well in that fight and he deserves credit for making Duran quit.

If Duran didnt prepare then thats his problem, it has no baring on Leonards acheivement.

My favourite fighter of all time, he was the closest thing to a complete fighter outside of Ray Robinson.

He could box, he could brawl, he could make you look stupid, there wasn't much that he couldn't do, he was also a terrific athlete, anybody who doesn't have him in their top 10 all time P4P list is crazy.

Duran quit because he was being beaten, and humiliated by Leonards showboating. But Leonard obviously fought very well in that fight and he deserves credit for making Duran quit.

If Duran didnt prepare then thats his problem, it has no baring on Leonards acheivement.

yes it does take away if somebody walks away from a competive bout the scorecards where 4 rounds to 2 and 4 rounds to 3 it was almost a draw, duran took the money and ran it was a fixed fight period duran took the money and ran look at this does this look like some great achevmant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPoWrWwwi8M

Let's see. Two fisted power, blinding handspeed, excellent mobility, tight defence, solid chin, technically proficient, mixed attack to head and body, adaptable to the highest levels of swarmers (Duran), southpaws (Hagler, Kalule) punchers (Hearns) and boxers (Benitez). Leonard won going forward (Hearns), on the backfoot (Hagler) and the chess match (Benitez). Leonard also showed the ability to come from behind to win, get off the deck to win, win rematches and holds stoppage victories over 3 different triple weight champions. He also holds KO victories over two men who held the light-heavyweight title. I'd say he's pretty complete.

Let's see. Two fisted power, blinding handspeed, excellent mobility, tight defence, solid chin, technically proficient, mixed attack to head and body, adaptable to the highest levels of swarmers (Duran), southpaws (Hagler, Kalule) punchers (Hearns) and boxers (Benitez). Leonard won going forward (Hearns), on the backfoot (Hagler) and the chess match (Benitez). Leonard also showed the ability to come from behind to win, get off the deck to win, win rematches and holds stoppage victories over 3 different triple weight champions. He also holds KO victories over two men who held the light-heavyweight title. I'd say he's pretty complete.

:fing02:...

My favourite fighter of all time, he was the closest thing to a complete fighter outside of Ray Robinson.

He could box, he could brawl, he could make you look stupid, there wasn't much that he couldn't do, he was also a terrific athlete, anybody who doesn't have him in their top 10 all time P4P list is crazy.

I would say he was more complete than robinson (mind: more complete, not better), because robinson's defense was not up to par with the rest of his characteristics. on the other hand robinson was knocking out middleweights with one punch...

Leonard's best attribute was his brain.

He was smart, he finished rounds with his bull**** shoeshine and stole god knows how many rounds.

He dictated terms (Hagler) to suit his strengths.

He in my mind above all esle was the ultimate thinking mans fighter. He knew who to stay away from and who to challenge, he knew who he needed to wait it out on and who to go after.

All that talent was fine and dandy but Ray Leonard was smart and that above all else is what I will remember.

yes it does take away if somebody walks away from a competive bout the scorecards where 4 rounds to 2 and 4 rounds to 3 it was almost a draw, duran took the money and ran it was a fixed fight period duran took the money and ran look at this does this look like some great achevmant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPoWrWwwi8M

My argument that Duran quitting takes absolutly nothing away from Leonard.
He boxed brilliantly and was ahead on all 3 scorecards, u cant logically take anything away from Leonard because his opponent quit.

IMO its madness for some people to try and discredit Leonard for losing against Duran, who is without question an all time great fighter.
Leonard's style was obviously boxer/puncher, not brawler or slugger, which is the unfamiliar style he adopted for the first Duran fight, and he still fought a very close 15 round loss. Which is an achievement in itself.

Remember, Duran went on to fight and beat fully fledged middleweights.

With Duran he fought the wrong fight. Not that thats an excuse, but Duran was never as good again. IMO that was Duran at his best post lightweight. And who else could of fought with Duran for 15 rounds non-stop like Leonard did?
Not too many.

Agreed. But head to head at their best the smaller, less physically gifted man won. That's big to me.

I dont see how the Hearns victory was 'dicey'. He was outboxed but hurt him more than once and finished him off when he had to. Hearns was at his best and unbeaten. He is an all time great welter, and Leonard stopped him. Credit where credits due.
Maybe I overstate the case and I certainly don't take credit away from Leonard. It was only "dicey" in the sense that Hearns had pretty much beaten SRL in every way and only needed to stay away in the last few rounds. He failed to do so and lost. I tend to think that had they done it again, Hearns wouldn't have made the same mistake and submit that may be why the rematch never happened until Hearns was no longer a real danger.


Against Hagler he came out of retirement to face the larger stronger fighter, who although slower and past his best was still a big favourite to win. Again, he deserves credit.
He was beaten by Duran who was smaller, but beat both Hagler and Hearns who were not only much bigger but were prolific KO fighters.

Again, I don't take away credit from Leonard. He always did what he had to do to win. But compare how Leonard fought Hearns with how Hagler did. Smarter? Definitely. But subjectively I prefer Hagler.

Agreed. But head to head at their best the smaller, less physically gifted man won. That's big to me.
They were at their physical peaks, but that doesnt mean they fought their best fight. And Leonards best fight was to box and out manuver Duran, which he chose not to do in their first fight.

It was only "dicey" in the sense that Hearns had pretty much beaten SRL in every way and only needed to stay away in the last few rounds. He failed to do so and lost. I tend to think that had they done it again, Hearns wouldn't have made the same mistake and submit that may be why the rematch never happened until Hearns was no longer a real danger.
Im not sure if he had really beaten Leonard in every way. He started off as the aggressor, but was unable to hurt Leonard, and was hurt himself, so he had to survive by moving away from Leonard and using his great jab.
IMO its possible that if they had fought soon after Leonard would again be able to hurt Hearns. But im not sure Leonard would win.


Again, I don't take away credit from Leonard. He always did what he had to do to win. But compare how Leonard fought Hearns with how Hagler did. Smarter? Definitely. But subjectively I prefer Hagler.

Who doesnt love a explosive brawl. I agree with u.
But Leonards amazing comeback against an ATG at his peak in Hearns was one hell of an achievement.

Leonard's best attribute was his brain.

He was smart, he finished rounds with his bull**** shoeshine and stole god knows how many rounds.

He dictated terms (Hagler) to suit his strengths.

He in my mind above all esle was the ultimate thinking mans fighter. He knew who to stay away from and who to challenge, he knew who he needed to wait it out on and who to go after.

All that talent was fine and dandy but Ray Leonard was smart and that above all else is what I will remember.

the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth

leanord fought a whole lot better in the first fight then in the second fight, he gave the fight to duran on short notice and duran decided to take the money and run cause he didnt want to train and didnt have enough time to train, asking some one to beat leanord twice in 5 months is alot to ask i didnt see leanord fighting hearns twice in 5 months

The statement regarding Leonard`s smart`s makes a lot of sense. Blinding speed,good power and knowing when to dig to that body,snappy jab. But Ray,would always come out,wide-eyed studying his opponent,figuring him out. After a couple of rounds,he`d come back to his corner with a little smirk after figuring out his opponent. He would always have that edge on a guy,and he was great at making adjustments during a fight.After the first Duran fight(when he tried to prove his machismo),he stayed incredibly focused. And he was nail tough,when he had to go to the well,he could really bring it.