Seriously, how can people consider him the best of the fab 4? Duran can be considered better on longevity alone, let alone the fact that Duran had some huge wins, and beat peak Leonard pretty easily (despite Duran being 12 pounds above his best weight).

Hearns outboxed Leonard for 10 of 14 rounds in their first fight. Too bad Tommy took a punch like a spider's web. The first time Leonard tapped him, Hearns was staggering all over the place. Hearns was a far better boxer, and was robbed in the rematch.

The Hagler decision is still debated today. We know what would have happened if a peak Hagler faced Leonard.

The Hagler decision is still debated today. We know what would have happened if a peak Hagler faced Leonard.
peak hagler vs peak leonard?
wouldnt happen man,middle vs welter here
leonard beat hagler
he did it how h was suppose to
land more shots and avoid more shots
Hearns outboxed Leonard for 10 of 14 rounds in their first fight. Too bad Tommy took a punch like a spider's web. The first time Leonard tapped him, Hearns was staggering all over the place. Hearns was a far better boxer, and was robbed in the rematch.
now i agree tommy was better
but yea his chin was tested too much,and he couldnt pass all the tests
but tommy is the best boxer wit a combination of power,speed and skill
but still
leonard is a ferocious puncher
i think he's actually underrated for that
Seriously, how can people consider him the best of the fab 4? Duran can be considered better on longevity alone, let alone the fact that Duran had some huge wins, and beat peak Leonard pretty easily (despite Duran being 12 pounds above his best weight).
leonards way better
only reason he lossed the 1st fight is becuz of his ****iness
he was undefeated at the time n was too confident n ****y
he said he'd fight Duran at his own game,flatfooted
didnt work
but later that year he fought like sugar ray leonard...hisself
and made duran quit
now dont gimme no arguements bout prime,cuz both they 1st fights was in 80'
no excuses
leonard made a mistak at 1st

ohhhhhhhhh shanusssssssssssssssssss where art thou?

All fighters are overrated.Get over it.

of the three fights ive seen of leonard, i just have to say he is an amazing fighter.
dont know if he is the best of the fabulous 4, but he was damn good.

If you think of it, Leonard's career is similar to Ali's. Hearns was Ray's Sonny Liston, a huge test of which Leonard passed with flying colors. Duran was Leonard's Frazier, who engaged him in a great three-fight rivalry. Finally Marvin Hagler was Leonard's Foreman, a seemingly invincible fighter when Leonard was past his prime and Leonard defied the odds and did the impossible. Now that I think about it, Leonard could arguably be the number one welterweight of all-time. Hearns, Hagler, and Duran wee better than anybody Ray Robinson ever faced. I have Leonard as the #2 welterweight under Robby, and #8 pound for pound.

1. Ali
2. Robinson
3. Armstrong
4. Gans
5. Pep
6. Duran
7. Charles
8. Leonard
:fing02:

No one thinks Leonard is better than Duran.

Of course Leonard is overrated, he was the media-darling cross-over star who everyone liked.

He never rematched Hearns, Duran, Hagler (not in their primes anyways). And he beat them all under very specific circumstances.

He is still a great, though

If you think of it, Leonard's career is similar to Ali's. Hearns was Ray's Sonny Liston, a huge test of which Leonard passed with flying colors. Duran was Leonard's Frazier, who engaged him in a great three-fight rivalry. Finally Marvin Hagler was Leonard's Foreman, a seemingly invincible fighter when Leonard was past his prime and Leonard defied the odds and did the impossible. Now that I think about it, Leonard could arguably be the number one welterweight of all-time. Hearns, Hagler, and Duran wee better than anybody Ray Robinson ever faced. I have Leonard as the #2 welterweight under Robby, and #8 pound for pound.

1. Ali
2. Robinson
3. Armstrong
4. Gans
5. Pep
6. Duran
7. Charles
8. Leonard
:fing02:


OMG! nice comparison! True to that

Why does it seem that posters are obsessed with fighters being "overrated"?

Poet

To say I'm not a Leonard fan is a huge understatement, but the argument could me made that Leonard was the best of the fab four if only because he's the only one (of the foursome) to have defeated the other three.

It's also a huge understatement to say that of the four, Duran is the only one whose blip on boxing's radar screen has taken on legendary proportions, helped in no small measure by his defeat of Leonard.

To say I'm not a Leonard fan is a huge understatement, but the argument could me made that Leonard was the best of the fab four if only because he's the only one (of the foursome) to have defeated the other three.

It's also a huge understatement to say that of the four, Duran is the only one whose blip on boxing's radar screen has taken on legendary proportions, helped in no small measure by his defeat of Leonard.

But it's important to remember Duran's legacy is separate and apart from Leonard. Leonard's prime was at Welterweight and Duran's was at Lightweight. Duran was past his prime when he decisioned Leonard which, of course, adds to Duran's achievment. Leonard was ONE of the greatest Welterweights ever. Duran was THE greatest Lightweight ever. In terms of overall p4p rankings I think Duran HAS to rank higher than Leonard based on his achievements at Lightweight. At Welterweight and higher though, Leonard has to rank higher. No sleight to Duran, just an acknowledgement that he was past his prime when he fought at Welterweight.

Poet

Seriously, how can people consider him the best of the fab 4? Duran can be considered better on longevity alone, let alone the fact that Duran had some huge wins, and beat peak Leonard pretty easily (despite Duran being 12 pounds above his best weight).

Hearns outboxed Leonard for 10 of 14 rounds in their first fight. Too bad Tommy took a punch like a spider's web. The first time Leonard tapped him, Hearns was staggering all over the place. Hearns was a far better boxer, and was robbed in the rematch.

The Hagler decision is still debated today. We know what would have happened if a peak Hagler faced Leonard.

Probably can't say Leonard was overrated. That'd be like saying Hagler was overrated.

Leonard's olympic achievements started his legacy, his pro career just cemented his greatness. Never overrated.

Probably can't say Leonard was overrated. That'd be like saying Hagler was overrated.

Leonard's olympic achievements started his legacy, his pro career just cemented his greatness. Never overrated.

His greatest wins (Duran, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler) came under specific circumstances which were most likely not going to happen again, and he never granted timely rematches to any of the fighters he beat.

This puts an ocean between him and the greats like Duran, Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Pep...

I used to hate Leonard, back in the day.
Hind sight being 20/20. He was a great fighter.
The combination of speed and power he had was unmatched.
Heart, Determination, he had it all. He stood toe to toe with
Hands Of Stone. His epic battle with The Hitman showed True Grit.

Overrated? I think not. Under-appreciated? Yes.

All fighters are overrated.Get over it.

Versi, I'm personally sick of the term overrated. It's been so badly abused the ref waved it off years ago. Generally speaking, fighter X is overrated = The poster, for whatever reason, can't stand that fighter; fighter X is underrated = The poster, for whatever reason, really likes that fighter. Simple as that. Apparently it's not enough to simply be a fan of boxing: The trend seems to be to boost up the fighters you like and try to rip down the ones you don't.

Poet

His greatest wins (Duran, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler) came under specific circumstances which were most likely not going to happen again, and he never granted timely rematches to any of the fighters he beat.

This puts an ocean between him and the greats like Duran, Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Pep...

Im not sure if i put as much importance over a fighter granting another fighter a rematch after they have beat them.

Duran never gave Buchanan a rematch or Bizzaro, or Barkley etc...
U could say the same about many great fighters.

For me its what happened on the night.
People say Hagler was over the hill, but dont mention Leonard had only fought once in 5 years! And had never fought at middleweight, and beat possibly the greatest middleweight champion EVER!

Hearns in his prime was an ATG welterweight and Leonard KO'd him.
He CHOSE to try and outfight one of the greatest in-fighters ever in Duran. And did better than most fighters could of dreamed of doing.

Leonard deserves credit. He was ****in great and made an incredible comeback against ATG opposition.

Im not sure if i put as much importance over a fighter granting another fighter a rematch after they have beat them.


Leonard victories against those four came under very specific cicrumstances that's why he should have gave them the rematches they were (mostly) screaming for.

the specific circumstances being

Benitez... this is the one where the rematch was needed the least but Benitez was cut and fighting more offensive than usual for him most likely because of that bad cut.

Duran... look at beyond glory and hear it in the words of Leonard himself.

Hearns... great spectacular victory (one of the best I can think of by any fighter, dont get me wrong), but Hearns was leading on the cards and gassed out, what about a rematch at 54 where Hearns was not weight drained, or a rematch at 12 rounds.

Hagler... SRL wins by a nothing in a fight where he bought himself everything he could, and retires without giving Hagler a rematch... to come back after Hagler was retired... ridiculous.

(BTW note how he would have lost to Hearns in a 12 round fight and to Hagler in a 15 round fight)

My position about Leonard is that he is a great fighter, but on the level of Pea, RJJ, PBF not on the level of the other greats I mentioned (Duran, Robinson, Armstrong). (Note also how PBF rematched Castilo and RJJ rematched Tarver, Leonard never did anything like that but it's those two who are insulted and called ******* and *****es)

Note that I am not blaming Leonard for all of those fights not happening, because he had his eye problem and whatnot. However his exploiting his power at the negotiating table against Duran, Hagler, Lalonde is a strong clue of how he and his team made their choices.

Im not sure if i put as much importance over a fighter granting another fighter a rematch after they have beat them.

Duran never gave Buchanan a rematch or Bizzaro, or Barkley etc...
U could say the same about many great fighters.

For me its what happened on the night.
People say Hagler was over the hill, but dont mention Leonard had only fought once in 5 years! And had never fought at middleweight, and beat possibly the greatest middleweight champion EVER!

Hearns in his prime was an ATG welterweight and Leonard KO'd him.
He CHOSE to try and outfight one of the greatest in-fighters ever in Duran. And did better than most fighters could of dreamed of doing.

Leonard deserves credit. He was ****in great and made an incredible comeback against ATG opposition.

Couldn't have said it better myself. To suggest that Leonard was overrated is simply retarded...

Leonard victories against those four came under very specific cicrumstances that's why he should have gave them the rematches they were (mostly) screaming for.

the specific circumstances being

Benitez... this is the one where the rematch was needed the least but Benitez was cut and fighting more offensive than usual for him most likely because of that bad cut.

Duran... look at beyond glory and hear it in the words of Leonard himself.

Hearns... great spectacular victory (one of the best I can think of by any fighter, dont get me wrong), but Hearns was leading on the cards and gassed out, what about a rematch at 54 where Hearns was not weight drained, or a rematch at 12 rounds.

Hagler... SRL wins by a nothing in a fight where he bought himself everything he could, and retires without giving Hagler a rematch... to come back after Hagler was retired... ridiculous.

(BTW note how he would have lost to Hearns in a 12 round fight and to Hagler in a 15 round fight)

My position about Leonard is that he is a great fighter, but on the level of Pea, RJJ, PBF not on the level of the other greats I mentioned (Duran, Robinson, Armstrong). (Note also how PBF rematched Castilo and RJJ rematched Tarver, Leonard never did anything like that but it's those two who are insulted and called ******* and *****es)

Note that I am not blaming Leonard for all of those fights not happening, because he had his eye problem and whatnot. However his exploiting his power at the negotiating table against Duran, Hagler, Lalonde is a strong clue of how he and his team made their choices.

Imho, you give Duran too much credit. Yes he was the greatest lightweight ever. But when he moved up he quit against Leonard in the second fight. Sorry but quitters are never all time greats in my eyes, and then he stuck around so long it was pathetic. Fighting bums in highschool gymnasiums for a six pack of beer. I know I'm exaggerating, but just barely. The guy finished his career a slow, fat joke. A shadow of his former glory and I think it has to put a dent in his legacy...

Leonard victories against those four came under very specific cicrumstances that's why he should have gave them the rematches they were (mostly) screaming for.

the specific circumstances being

Benitez... this is the one where the rematch was needed the least but Benitez was cut and fighting more offensive than usual for him most likely because of that bad cut.

Duran... look at beyond glory and hear it in the words of Leonard himself.

Hearns... great spectacular victory (one of the best I can think of by any fighter, dont get me wrong), but Hearns was leading on the cards and gassed out, what about a rematch at 54 where Hearns was not weight drained, or a rematch at 12 rounds.

Hagler... SRL wins by a nothing in a fight where he bought himself everything he could, and retires without giving Hagler a rematch... to come back after Hagler was retired... ridiculous.

(BTW note how he would have lost to Hearns in a 12 round fight and to Hagler in a 15 round fight)

My position about Leonard is that he is a great fighter, but on the level of Pea, RJJ, PBF not on the level of the other greats I mentioned (Duran, Robinson, Armstrong). (Note also how PBF rematched Castilo and RJJ rematched Tarver, Leonard never did anything like that but it's those two who are insulted and called ******* and *****es)

Note that I am not blaming Leonard for all of those fights not happening, because he had his eye problem and whatnot. However his exploiting his power at the negotiating table against Duran, Hagler, Lalonde is a strong clue of how he and his team made their choices.

RJJ, and PBF never beat anyone nearly as great as the fighters Leonard beat. RJJ gave Tarver a rematch and got KTFO. Giving fighters rematches doesnt carry much weight with me.

If the Hearns fight was 12 who knows what would have happened, maybe both fighters would have fought differntly, but the result the same?? (Leonard hurt Hearns long before he became tired, and could have stopped him earlier).
The Hagler fight was a ****in miracle and i always have Leonard winning clearly.

But it's important to remember Duran's legacy is separate and apart from Leonard. Leonard's prime was at Welterweight and Duran's was at Lightweight. Duran was past his prime when he decisioned Leonard which, of course, adds to Duran's achievment. Leonard was ONE of the greatest Welterweights ever. Duran was THE greatest Lightweight ever. In terms of overall p4p rankings I think Duran HAS to rank higher than Leonard based on his achievements at Lightweight. At Welterweight and higher though, Leonard has to rank higher. No sleight to Duran, just an acknowledgement that he was past his prime when he fought at Welterweight.

PoetYour flawless analysis is a rare achievement on this forum... :fing02:

Imho, you give Duran too much credit. Yes he was the greatest lightweight ever. But when he moved up he quit against Leonard in the second fight. Sorry but quitters are never all time greats in my eyes, and then he stuck around so long it was pathetic. Fighting bums in highschool gymnasiums for a six pack of beer. I know I'm exaggerating, but just barely. The guy finished his career a slow, fat joke. A shadow of his former glory and I think it has to put a dent in his legacy...

Sugar Ray Robinson fought while he was well past it, looking like ****. Does that put a dent in his legacy, too?

Sugar Ray Robinson fought while he was well past it, looking like ****. Does that put a dent in his legacy, too?


In my opinion, YES...

RJJ, and PBF never beat anyone nearly as great as the fighters Leonard beat. RJJ gave Tarver a rematch and got KTFO. Giving fighters rematches doesnt carry much weight with me.


Exactly what might have happened to a fighter rematching an opponent, Leonard carefully avoided being in that position

As I said, giving rematches matters a lot when you beat the fighter under circumstances which might not repeat themselves. You seem to have missed that point.
Jones beat Hopkins and Toney which is not bad and Floyd is actually beating serious competition in his 4th weight class unlike Leonard ridiculous venture at 168.
Note that I didnt say that Jones or Mayweather are better than Leonard. Only that
1) they gave due rematches which Leonard did not, and THEY are called *****es, dodgers. Leonard a warrior (dont know if you personally did that.
2) Leonard is on a level of Jones and Mayweather, a few carefully selected fights not 100 victories fighting many times their toughest opponents.


If the Hearns fight was 12 who knows what would have happened, maybe both fighters would have fought differntly, but the result the same?? (Leonard hurt Hearns long before he became tired, and could have stopped him earlier).


When exactly did Leonard hurt Hearns BEFORE he was tired?

LOL, What could have Leonard done different? He got thouroughly outboxed, His stamina and chin kept him in and he took out his guts to KO Tommy, if he could have KOed Hearns in 12, he would have. We will never known because the two rematched only as old men. (And Leonard got a gift)


The Hagler fight was a ****in miracle and i always have Leonard winning clearly.

I score the fight for Leonard, too. But there is nothing clear in a win in which you land slaps, you look dead at the end, after you have rigged everything possible to your advantage (Hagler's fault) and your fighting an opponent who is giving away rounds sure to knock your head off (Hagler's fault again).

Leonard's fault was the "retire-until-Hagler-retires" move.

The fans fault is calling Mayweather a businessman and Leonard a warrior and bull**** like that.

In my opinion, YES...

ok then.

In my opinion NO, because a fighter should be judged on is prime or close to prime fights, not on his career management (and savings, and how much money he made and so on...).

Leonard should have a dent for his comebacks against Norris and in particular against Camacho, the only difference from Duran and Robinson is that he got payed a lot to look like ****.

When exactly did Leonard hurt Hearns BEFORE he was tired?

I believe it was the fifth round when Leonard landed a monster body shot. It was after that that Hearns stopped attacking and started boxing. He built up a big lead in rounds 6 - 12 only because Leonard failed to adjust to the new dynamic the fight had taken on. Don Dunphy calling the fight scored that round 10-8 for Leonard.

Poet

I believe it was the fifth round when Leonard landed a monster body shot. It was after that that Hearns stopped attacking and started boxing. He built up a big lead in rounds 6 - 12 only because Leonard failed to adjust to the new dynamic the fight had taken on. Don Dunphy calling the fight scored that round 10-8 for Leonard.

Poet

Ok, when did Hearns start to look like he was going to lose the fight?

"only because"? How biased can one get? do you read what you type? "only because"? nothing to do with Hearns never being outboxed thru his career, just Leonard taking 6 rounds to "adjust to the new dynamic"... We are talking Leonard here, one of the smartest fighter ever, Leonard doesnt take 6 rounds to adjust.

wmute;2602407]Exactly what might have happened to a fighter rematching an opponent, Leonard carefully avoided being in that position

As I said, giving rematches matters a lot when you beat the fighter under circumstances which might not repeat themselves. You seem to have missed that point.
Ur right. But i think 50% of most fights would be different second time around. Maybe every fight should be a best out of 5 series, to know exactly who is better. I think the great thing about the first match up is that pyschological battle. As in Leonard trying to outfight Duran or Chavez amazing comeback against Taylor.Its the unpredictable element that creates so much excitment.



When exactly did Leonard hurt Hearns BEFORE he was tired?

LOL, What could have Leonard done different? He got thouroughly outboxed, His stamina and chin kept him in and he took out his guts to KO Tommy, if he could have KOed Hearns in 12, he would have. We will never known because the two rematched only as old men. (And Leonard got a gift)


Watch the fight. SRL has Hearns in real trouble at the end of the 6th and 7th where Hearns has trouble wlaking back to his corner. If he had hurt him earlier in the round he could have finished him.
I also had the rematch extremely close. I dont beleive it was a gift.


I score the fight for Leonard, too. But there is nothing clear in a win in which you land slaps, you look dead at the end, after you have rigged everything possible to your advantage (Hagler's fault) and your fighting an opponent who is giving away rounds sure to knock your head off (Hagler's fault again).

All i know is both fighters agreed to the conditions before the fight, and whether or not the fighters look dead at the end Leonard out scored, out moved and out boxed a slow plodding Hagler. Thats clear to me.

Leonard's fault was the "retire-until-Hagler-retires" move.

The fans fault is calling Mayweather a businessman and Leonard a warrior and bull**** like that.
Hagler had nothing left. He was fighting once a year and Leonard came out of retirement a year after fighting Hagler. But yea, Leonard ducked him. And rightly so.

Mayweather and his critics is a whole other topic.

Ok, when did Hearns start to look like he was going to lose the fight?

"only because"? How biased can one get? do you read what you type? "only because"? nothing to do with Hearns never being outboxed thru his career, just Leonard taking 6 rounds to "adjust to the new dynamic"... We are talking Leonard here, one of the smartest fighter ever, Leonard doesnt take 6 rounds to adjust.

How biased can you get? Your entire argument seems to be: If it hadn't been for that insignificant little incident of Hearns being TKOed he would have won the fight. Come on man, this is ridiculous. We're talking about a fight in which Hearns was STOPPED! Hello! What it really boils down to is that if it hadn't been for Leonard beating the **** out Hearns in the 13th and 14th round he would Hearns would have won. Well guess what? Leonard DID beat the **** of Hearns in those to rounds and he won the fight. *****ing about it 26 years later isn't going to change the fact that glass-jawed Hearns got TKOed.

Poet

How biased can you get? Your entire argument seems to be: If it hadn't been for that insignificant little incident of Hearns being TKOed he would have won the fight. Come on man, this is ridiculous. We're talking about a fight in which Hearns was STOPPED! Hello! What it really boils down to is that if it hadn't been for Leonard beating the **** out Hearns in the 13th and 14th round he would Hearns would have won. Well guess what? Leonard DID beat the **** of Hearns in those to rounds and he won the fight. *****ing about it 26 years later isn't going to change the fact that glass-jawed Hearns got TKOed.

Poet

I never made the argument that you put in my mouth.

My complaint is that Leonard never gave the rematches he should have given, and I pointed out how a rematch with Hearns at 154 in a 12 rounds fight, would have been VERY different, since Hearns was winning on all cards by round 12 and he would not have been as dehydrated at 154.

YOU on the other hand stated that Hearns built a lead ONLY because Leonard took 7 rounds to adapt to the new pace of the fight, which is simply RIDICULOUS since Leonard is one of the smartest fighters to set foot in a ring and since no one ever outboxed Hearns.

Ur right. But i think 50% of most fights would be different second time around. Maybe every fight should be a best out of 5 series, to know exactly who is better. I think the great thing about the first match up is that pyschological battle. As in Leonard trying to outfight Duran or Chavez amazing comeback against Taylor.Its the unpredictable element that creates so much excitment.


That's exectly my point Robinson (and others like Greb or Armstrong) had 2,3 or more fights with most of his tough opponents, and that what puts him on a different level: we KNOW by facts that no matter what was going in that single fight, he was the better man.

Because of the reasons I mentioned in the other posts about Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Leonard is more susceptible than others to that critique.



Watch the fight. SRL has Hearns in real trouble at the end of the 6th and 7th where Hearns has trouble wlaking back to his corner. If he had hurt him earlier in the round he could have finished him.
I also had the rematch extremely close. I dont beleive it was a gift.


Look, maybe I misspelled my argument: I am not taking away anything from Leonard's victory, I was just pointing out how there were PLENTY of reasons to think a rematch could have been very different... 12 rounds... higherweight class...

As for the rematch, I think you are bordering on nuthugging here considering Leonard himself said he thought Hearns was robbed...

All i know is both fighters agreed to the conditions before the fight, and whether or not the fighters look dead at the end Leonard out scored, out moved and out boxed a slow plodding Hagler. Thats clear to me.


I dont know how you scored it, but I have it 7-5 Leonard with close rounds, that's hardly clear.
Throw in the fact that in a rematch there might not have been in that ring, with those gloves and Hagler might have got sensible advice from the corner instead of throwing away the first four rounds chasing Leonard from an orthodox stance (LMAO at the idea). Again Leonard fought a great fight that night, still there were plenty of things that would have been most likely different in a rematch.

Hagler had nothing left. He was fighting once a year and Leonard came out of retirement a year after fighting Hagler. But yea, Leonard ducked him. And rightly so.


What do you mean by "rightly so"?

Mayweather and his critics is a whole other topic.

I agree up to a point, when Leonard is pointed out as the measuring stick for a warrior who took on all challenges, I feel like dispelling the myth.

Leonard should have a dent for his comebacks against Norris and in particular against Camacho, the only difference from Duran and Robinson is that he got payed a lot to look like ****.


Agreed. Leonard had 2 ill advised fights. 3 if you count the second hearns fight that he clearly lost and even admitted to, despite being given the draw. I wish he would have retired after the Lelonde fight, but I understand that it is sometimes hard for boxers to accept that it's time to hang up the gloves. Heck I wish Ali would have retired after the Shavers fight or at least after the second Spinks fight. But Duran and Robinson didn't hang around a couple fights too long like most. In Durans case you could argue that he hung around 19 full years too long. Between 1968 and November 1980 Duran only lost 1 fight. At that point he was already a first ballot hof'er and the greatest lightweight ever. Then he lost the rematch to Leonard and went on to loss 15 fights in the next 20 years. And in that time he only had 2 bright points - a close loss to Hagler and a stunning defeat of Barkley. Meanwhile he was lossing to the likes of Kirkland Laing, Robbie Simms, Pat Lawler, Vinnie Paz twice, Over the hill Camacho twice, Castro, William Joppy, and Omar Eduardo Gonzalez. Same deal with Robinson. The 1 loss to LaMotta between 1940 and 1951, then 18 losses between 51 and 1965.

So yeah when you stick around a year or two too long and suffer an embarressing loss or 2 it is kind of a sad sight to see. But when you hang around for 15-20 years past your prime it is just pathetic and you definitely put a dent in your legacy.

And it's not just boxing. I remember watching the Great Willie Mays stumbling around in the Mets outfield near the close of his carreer. It was a sad sight. Likewise watching Michael Jordan with the Wizards. He wasn't terrible, but he was but a shadow of his former Airness.

I never made the argument that you put in my mouth.

My complaint is that Leonard never gave the rematches he should have given, and I pointed out how a rematch with Hearns at 154 in a 12 rounds fight, would have been VERY different, since Hearns was winning on all cards by round 12 and he would not have been as dehydrated at 154.

YOU on the other hand stated that Hearns built a lead ONLY because Leonard took 7 rounds to adapt to the new pace of the fight, which is simply RIDICULOUS since Leonard is one of the smartest fighters to set foot in a ring and since no one ever outboxed Hearns.

Well, considering that at the time championship fights were 15 rounds it's more than a little silly to ***** about the fact that it wasn't 12. That's like complaining that "if only Hagler - Hearns was schedualed for 1 Hearns woulda won dammit". You're always going to want the fight to end one or two rounds before the fighter you're nuthugging gets knocked the f*** out.

You seem to be hung up on rematches. Hagler never gave Hearns a re-match either. Hearns never gave one to Duran. Money determines rematches in the modern era and NOTHING else. There's no money in rematches where the loser of the first fight gets knocked out; and that's exactly what happened in ALL the previously mentioned fights. This isn't the old days when fighters fought each other 5 or 6 times.

Basically what it comes down to with you is you're a rabid Hearns fan trying to justify your hero's losses. If only this, if only that. Yeah, and wishes were horses beggers would ride. The only "what if" scenario you should be wishing for is for your HERO to have had something OTHER than a glass jaw.

Poet

Leonard fought the best of his era. he may not have given them all timely rematches, but I guess it is a matter of opinion how big of a deal that is. Still he fought all the greats of his era and beat them all. What else does a guy have to do to earn a little respect?

Well, considering that at the time championship fights were 15 rounds it's more than a little silly to ***** about the fact that it wasn't 12. That's like complaining that "if only Hagler - Hearns was schedualed for 1 Hearns woulda won dammit". You're always going to want the fight to end one or two rounds before the fighter you're nuthugging gets knocked the f*** out.


Can you even read what I typed? I said a rematch would have been due, not that Leonard should have won. (Leonard btw made sure he was fighting a 12 rounder with Hagler, when 15 rounds was still an option) A rematch could habe been at 12 rounds as both options were available in the mid 80s.


You seem to be hung up on rematches. Hagler never gave Hearns a re-match either. Hearns never gave one to Duran. Money determines rematches in the modern era and NOTHING else. There's no money in rematches where the loser of the first fight gets knocked out; and that's exactly what happened in ALL the previously mentioned fights. This isn't the old days when fighters fought each other 5 or 6 times.


LOOOOOL
Hearns KO2 Duran , Duran never wanted no rematch.
Hagler KO3, Hearns fights TWO more fights and retires.

compare to Leonard's "KOs" and his career going on for years, laugh at yourself....

you are like one of the Mayweather fanboys, only the Sugar Ray Leonard version


Basically what it comes down to with you is you're a rabid Hearns fan trying to justify your hero's losses. If only this, if only that. Yeah, and wishes were horses beggers would ride. The only "what if" scenario you should be wishing for is for your HERO to have had something OTHER than a glass jaw.

Poet

HAHAHA....

coming from you, the Leonard fanboy...

I am not a Hearns fan, I am a Hagler or Duran fan, if anything.
Hearns is chinny and that's a fact. Last week I had to spend pages explaining to people how he would have his ass kicked by Roy Jones Jr., today you call me a "rabid hearns fan"

Again beyond being a fanboy, you still did not catch my point which I wrote in clear terms THREE times. Leonard won fair and square the fight, he should have given the rematch, he did not, that's my beef.

Considering Hearns was KOing everyone he met except Hagler there was plenty of money for a rematch, moreso than for any fight Leonard took between Hearns and Hagler.

Leonard wanted no rematch with Hagler at all.

Benitez and Duran would have made Leonard less money than Finch, Howard, Bonds? yeah right... one more proof that you are a fanboy...

Leonard fought the best of his era. he may not have given them all timely rematches, but I guess it is a matter of opinion how big of a deal that is. Still he fought all the greats of his era and beat them all. What else does a guy have to do to earn a little respect?

He has the same respect Pea, RJJ and PBF get from me, which is a lot.

Like them, he is a GREAT athlete, a smart businessman, very occasionally a warrior.

Not to be mistaken with those greats, who I hold on a different level, which I already mentioned ealier.

Can you even read what I typed? I said a rematch would have been due, not that Leonard should have won. (Leonard btw made sure he was fighting a 12 rounder with Hagler, when 15 rounds was still an option) A rematch could habe been at 12 rounds as both options were available in the mid 80s

This shows your lack of boxing knowledge. In 1981 when the first fight was fought all sanctioning bodies had 15 round championship fights, not an option, automatic. At the time of the Hagler fight, the WBC and the WBA had done away with 15 round championship fights and had gone to 12 rounders. The IBF, however, still used the traditional 15 rounds. Which ever belt was at stake determined which format was fought under.

LOOOOOL
Hearns KO2 Duran , Duran never wanted no rematch.
Hagler KO3, Hearns fights TWO more fights and retires.

compare to Leonard's "KOs" and his career going on for years, laugh at yourself....

you are like one of the Mayweather fanboys, only the Sugar Ray Leonard version

HAHAHA....

coming from you, the Leonard fanboy...

I am not a Hearns fan, I am a Hagler or Duran fan, if anything.
Hearns is chinny and that's a fact. Last week I had to spend pages explaining to people how he would have his ass kicked by Roy Jones Jr., today you call me a "rabid hearns fan"

Again beyond being a fanboy, you still did not catch my point which I wrote in clear terms THREE times. Leonard won fair and square the fight, he should have given the rematch, he did not, that's my beef.

Benitez and Duran would have made Leonard less money than Finch, Howard, Bonds? yeah right... one more proof that you are a fanboy...

Actually I'm a Duran fan NOT a Leonard fan; but even in Duran's case I'm far from being a nuthugger. I don't particularly care for Leonard. Your claims not to be a rabid Hearns fans is even more condemning: Because if you're NOT a Hearns fan then what you are is a Leonard hater. Those are the only two explanations for your vitriol towards Leonard. No amount of waaa waaaing for mommy is going to change the fact that Leonard won and Hearns lost: BY STOPPAGE!!! Hearns wasn't entitled to a rematch! He got stopped. Period. What you've managed to do is store up bile for 26 years because the fighter you despise got all the attention and glory and your guys didn't. Deal. Tough ****. You can hate all you want but it isn't going to change a damn thing so be impotent in your rage.

Poet

This shows your lack of boxing knowledge. In 1981 when the first fight was fought all sanctioning bodies had 15 round championship fights, not an option, automatic. At the time of the Hagler fight, the WBC and the WBA had done away with 15 round championship fights and had gone to 12 rounders. The IBF, however, still used the traditional 15 rounds. Which ever belt was at stake determined which format was fought under.


I knw my boxing dont worry, on the other hand you are unable to read english. This is what I typed:

"A rematch could have been at 12 rounds as both options were available in the mid 80s"

Before typing BS, learn to read


Actually I'm a Duran fan NOT a Leonard fan; but even in Duran's case I'm far from being a nuthugger. I don't particularly care for Leonard. Your claims not to be a rabid Hearns fans is even more condemning: Because if you're NOT a Hearns fan then what you are is a Leonard hater. Those are the only two explanations for your vitriol towards Leonard. No amount of waaa waaaing for mommy is going to change the fact that Leonard won and Hearns lost: BY STOPPAGE!!! Hearns wasn't entitled to a rematch! He got stopped. Period. What you've managed to do is store up bile for 26 years because the fighter you despise got all the attention and glory and your guys didn't. Deal. Tough ****. You can hate all you want but it isn't going to change a damn thing so be impotent in your rage.

Poet

Hearns was definitely leading on the card at the time of stoppage. He was stopping everyone and their mothers after the fight. He was damn well entitlted to a rematch.

As I said, it was not Hagler-Hearns or Hearns-Duran.

Oh wait... after claiming it is money that make rematches and having been proven wrong (Hearns was a big money option for Leonard) now you are back to "being entitled" to a rematch where you are also wrong.

If you are not a fan boy, you are just stupid. That's got to be really tough to deal with.

I knw my boxing dont worry, on the other hand you are unable to read english. This is what I typed:

"A rematch could have been at 12 rounds as both options were available in the mid 80s"

Before typing BS, learn to read.

Oh I read allright! Just because you said it doesn't make it correct. Indeed, since you are clearly a retarded moron It's safe to disregard any statement you utter. I told you what the situation with the number of rounds was, but, since you have such a limited intellect it's clear you didn't comprehend.


Hearns was definitely leading on the card at the time of stoppage. He was stopping everyone and their mothers after the fight. He was damn well entitlted to a rematch.

Wrong! It doesn't matter one damn bit that Hearns was leading on the cards. He got KTFO. Just like he did against Hagler. Sorry, no rematch little man. That's the salient point you keep ignoring like the little nimrod you are. Your hatred of Leonard has clearly left you unhinged and tainted what little intellect you possess. As I said before, your posts are such that they had to come from someone who A: Is a Hearns nuthugger, or B: Is a Leonard hater. You have rejected option A which leaves us with B. I noticed you didn't deny being a Leonard hater in your last post. Are you taking the fifth on that one? Shocker! You try to cover up your shameless ignorance with bluster, but guess what? It doesn't fly! I've been around the block far to many times to buy into your moronic bull****. So, when the intellect fairy finally waves her magic wand over your empty cranium we can talk. Untill then, get a life you spastic dip****.

Poet

wmute;2602930]That's exectly my point Robinson (and others like Greb or Armstrong) had 2,3 or more fights with most of his tough opponents, and that what puts him on a different level: we KNOW by facts that no matter what was going in that single fight, he was the better man.
True.
Yet to know without doubt who was better with every match up would take away the drama and endless debates that make boxing and its history so rich. It would be a little black and white.
Thats not to say i believe in no rematches.

In the case of Hagler - Leonard, a rematch with Hagler winning. I wonder whether it would diminish Leonards 'miracle' victory. As it stands, Haglers legacy was virtually untouched even if he didnt break Monzons record. Most believe he is a top 3 middleweight of all time.


As for the rematch, I think you are bordering on nuthugging here considering Leonard himself said he thought Hearns was robbed...
Last time i watched in years ago i thought it was actually very close. But since i never hear anyone else agree, i must watch it again.

what do you mean by "rightly so"?
Well, as a Hagler fan i STILL want Hagler to kick Leonards ass, but from Leonards point of view, he'd be stupid to try and repeat his 'miracle'. He did what he came back to do. As the final bell rung i believe Leonard knew he won, and Hagler knew he lost.


I agree up to a point, when Leonard is pointed out as the measuring stick for a warrior who took on all challenges, I feel like dispelling the myth.
I think the major difference between SRL and PBF is how people talk about the satisfying style of victory.
SRR did the impossible with Hagler and came from behind with Hearns. I dont think PBF has ever been in those positions and shown how deep he can dig...yet.

Okay, ***s. I just rewatched Duran-Leonard 1. I thought Duran won about 10 or 11 rounds. Duran has to be rated higher than Leonard p4p.

As far as Duran fighting until he was a "fat, slow bum", Duran simply loved the sport. He loved to fight. Unlike Leonard who was so picky and had to have everything his way.

If you think of it, Leonard's career is similar to Ali's. Hearns was Ray's Sonny Liston, a huge test of which Leonard passed with flying colors.

With flying colors? Hearns won ten of fourteen rounds in the first fight and won the rematch.

Duran was Leonard's Frazier, who engaged him in a great three-fight rivalry.

Frazier and Ali only had two great fights, Duran and Leonard had one.

Finally Marvin Hagler was Leonard's Foreman, a seemingly invincible fighter when Leonard was past his prime and Leonard defied the odds and did the impossible.

This is a somewhat decent comparison, although Hagler was way past it and more ringworn.

Now that I think about it, Leonard could arguably be the number one welterweight of all-time. Hearns, Hagler, and Duran wee better than anybody Ray Robinson ever faced. I have Leonard as the #2 welterweight under Robby, and #8 pound for pound.

Robinson is miles ahead of Leonard. I think you've been listening to that queer Achillesthegreat on East Side Boxing too much, Butterfly.

Oh I read allright! Just because you said it doesn't make it correct. Indeed, since you are clearly a retarded moron It's safe to disregard any statement you utter. I told you what the situation with the number of rounds was, but, since you have such a limited intellect it's clear you didn't comprehend.


Either you cannot read or you dont know **** about boxing, it seems both. In the mid 80s both 12 rounders and 15 rounders were going on. It's a fact. Your childish insults won't change that



Wrong! It doesn't matter one damn bit that Hearns was leading on the cards. He got KTFO. Just like he did against Hagler. Sorry, no rematch little man. That's the salient point you keep ignoring like the little nimrod you are. Your hatred of Leonard has clearly left you unhinged and tainted what little intellect you possess. As I said before, your posts are such that they had to come from someone who A: Is a Hearns nuthugger, or B: Is a Leonard hater. You have rejected option A which leaves us with B. I noticed you didn't deny being a Leonard hater in your last post. Are you taking the fifth on that one? Shocker! You try to cover up your shameless ignorance with bluster, but guess what? It doesn't fly! I've been around the block far to many times to buy into your moronic bull****. So, when the intellect fairy finally waves her magic wand over your empty cranium we can talk. Untill then, get a life you spastic dip****.

Poet

Good Luck trying to convince anyone that Hearns KO loss to Leonard is the same as his KO loss to Hagler. Who do tou think will buy that bull****?

I am not a Leonard hater, I merely point out facts on why I dont place Leonard alongside Robinson or Duran.

YOU on the other hands get all emotional about Leonard and your ovaries start screaming illogical arguments in his defense.

Considering you cannot even read what i type and you answer single part of a post at your choice, you should consider not wasting ppl time heere and go on Non Stop Boxing, where the general level of posting is closer to your IQ. Maybe you can have a feud with a few Mayweather fanboys there. You guys would be perfect for each other... ignorant, blind, screaming like little *****es when put in front of facts. (I dont think you could get a life even if you wanted).

Frazier's 15th ain't to bright.

Ignorant, nuthugger and hater all apply to him.

Congrats...

Mayweather, Bowe, SR Leonard, theyre all in the same mold. Underachievers.

SR Leonard's career was tragicallly short, however, at least he had the balls to mess with the best and I love him for that.

Well, wmute is now on my ignore list for being a willfully ignorant nimrod who wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him between the eyes. He obviously has a grossly overrated sense of his own intellect and infallibilty. He emotionally pursues a vendetta against Leonard, for reasons only he knows (maybe Leonard banged his mother or something). In anycase he's not the sort of person you can have a reasoned debate with, if for no other reason then he can't go two sentences without calling someone stupid. He will NEVER accept the validity of any argument contravening his own opinions. Judging by the list of names he proudly displays of his own ignore list. It's clear he believes the intellect of others are so far beneath his own they may as well be worms.

Since this little garden party has clearly gotten of hand I think it best to terminate things here and now. It's no longer appropriate for one of the boxing forums: It now belongs in the Thunderdome, where, I might add, wmute clearly belongs. He can argue all day long there without his accute lack of boxing knowledge being an impediment.

Poet

___________________________________________

On Ignore For Being A Nimrod:

Brass*******
LondonRingReeks

and our newest member.....

wmoron

Well, wmute is now on my ignore list for being a willfully ignorant nimrod who wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him between the eyes. He obviously has a grossly overrated sense of his own intellect and infallibilty. He emotionally pursues a vendetta against Leonard, for reasons only he knows (maybe Leonard banged his mother or something). In anycase he's not the sort of person you can have a reasoned debate with, if for no other reason then he can't go two sentences without calling someone stupid. He will NEVER accept the validity of any argument contravening his own opinions. Judging by the list of names he proudly displays of his own ignore list. It's clear he believes the intellect of others are so far beneath his own they may as well be worms.

Since this little garden party has clearly gotten of hand I think it best to terminate things here and now. It's no longer appropriate for one of the boxing forums: It now belongs in the Thunderdome, where, I might add, wmute clearly belongs. He can argue all day long there without his accute lack of boxing knowledge being an impediment.

Poet

___________________________________________

On Ignore For Being A Nimrod:

Brass*******
LondonRingReeks

and our newest member.....

wmoron

Everyone read the argument.

Everyone read you making a clown out of yourself stating that Hearns did not deserve a rematch, because he got KTFOed, just like against Hagler, just like Duran against Hearns.

Everyone read me repeating the same correct fact three times, and everyone could easily conclude by your answers that you:

1) cannot read
and/or
2) dont know facts

Everyone could also read you calling me a hater, because I consider Leonard closer to Jones Jr., Mayweather, or Whitaker than to Robinson, Armstrong or Duran.

You are a clown, but I am not going to put you on ignore, I will rather continue on occasionally dismantle your bull**** followed by your ridiculous pretentious signature, so that everyone can see how full of it you are.

I dont konw what the hell the Thunderdome (except the thing in the Mad Max movie), is it where menopause people like you go?

No one thinks Leonard is better than Duran.

Of course Leonard is overrated, he was the media-darling cross-over star who everyone liked.

He never rematched Hearns, Duran, Hagler (not in their primes anyways). And he beat them all under very specific circumstances.

He is still a great, though
leonard is way better than duran
look at the movement,quickness,speed,combos and look at durans bully fighting
if they fought 10 fights,leonard would win 9 of em
no controversy
only controversy bout their rematch was that duran quit like a ***
he was gettin made stupid
leonard clowned em cuz he fought like hisself
and he beat em in both they primes
now hagler leonard was close
but i felt sugar edged it
he stole it by landing combinations to haglers 1 or 2 punches
he knows how to win
like larry merchant said 'he'd dig down n do anything to win'
If you think of it, Leonard's career is similar to Ali's. Hearns was Ray's Sonny Liston, a huge test of which Leonard passed with flying colors.
did Ali get his ass wooped for 12-13 rounds and then stop em?
no
ali controlled liston until liston blinded em,but then liston got stopped
n i dont recall liston winning the rematch like hearns did(hearns got ****ed like whitaker did against chavez,not the same deal tho)

He was a great fighter but just watch "5 Reasons Why You Can't Blame Marvin Hagler [for not beating him].." on ESPN Classic and you'll see why he shouldn't even be ranked above Hearns on the list of welter-middle guys.. He basically got everything tilted to his favor, and this goes throughout his whole career. He got Duran to just quit, he got Hagler to sign a one-sided contract, he got a pretty bad (pretty damn bad) points-win against Hearns in their re-match (even after Hearns floored his ass).

Great fighter, but the "sugar" hype that surrounded him gave him some unfair advantages..

Basically the same as ODLH, almost identical.

Amazing isn't it? Slap that "Golden Boy" lable on a fighter and the hate just comes pouring down on him. Leonard, De La Hoya, ect. Both "Golden Boys", both hated profoundly; with people like ForemanCrossArm lusting after their downfall. One would think they would have lives to pour their energies into rather than pointless hate but I guess not. The term "get a life" comes to mind.

Poet

De La Hoya and Leonard hated? wtf? theyre two of the most loved boxers ever by the media!

you aint really getting the point though...Rays record is pretty astounding, but it isnt as impressive as it is on paper...

Hearns was clearly way ahead in the 1st fight, and could have gotten knocked down multiple times and still won the fight if he made it to the bell. If that would have happened, wouldnt Leonard be entitled to a rematch? I think so
Most the knockdown problems were from weight drain issues too, I remember he came in at 145?, which is a horrible amount of weight to lose, and it showed up in the later stages of the fight. Such a huge fight, which also happened to be considered FOTY, why not have a rematch? Leonard gets credit for the win, no doubt, but its not like he kicked Hearns' ass for 14 rounds...

Leonard lost that fight against Hagler. and Hearns at Middle, no doubt.
His tko win over Duran should hardly be considered a real tko. dont tell me theres no controversy there.
His 'tko' win over Benitez is misleading.

its not a big deal, Leonard is still a top ATG of course, but theres more than a few stories to consider when you look at his record. plus it kind of loses a lot when you take out his getting the Middleweight and Super Middleweight titles, seeing as his only real victories out of Welterweight is LaLonde and a superfat Duran.
________
OREGON MEDICAL MARIJUANA (http://oregon.dispensaries.org/)

De La Hoya and Leonard hated? wtf? theyre two of the most loved boxers ever by the media!

you aint really getting the point though...Rays record is pretty astounding, but it isnt as impressive as it is on paper...

Hearns was clearly way ahead in the 1st fight, and could have gotten knocked down multiple times and still won the fight if he made it to the bell. If that would have happened, wouldnt Leonard be entitled to a rematch? I think so
Most the knockdown problems were from weight drain issues too, I remember he came in at 145?, which is a horrible amount of weight to lose, and it showed up in the later stages of the fight. Such a huge fight, which also happened to be considered FOTY, why not have a rematch? Leonard gets credit for the win, no doubt, but its not like he kicked Hearns' ass for 14 rounds...

Leonard lost that fight against Hagler. and Hearns at Middle, no doubt.
His tko win over Duran should hardly be considered a real tko. dont tell me theres no controversy there.
His 'tko' win over Benitez is misleading.

its not a big deal, Leonard is still a top ATG of course, but theres more than a few stories to consider when you look at his record. plus it kind of loses a lot when you take out his getting the Middleweight and Super Middleweight titles, seeing as his only real victories out of Welterweight is LaLonde and a superfat Duran.

You're missing the point: I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about people like ForemansCrossArms. I don't give a rat's ass what the media thinks about ANYTHING. What was misleading about the Benitez stoppage? I wasn't aware of any controversy and I've watched that fight many times. I'm a huge Benitez fan and I consider that fight one of the greatest ever. It sounds to me like looking for excuses for Leonard's biggest wins and THAT is something that can be done with ANY fighter. Hearns would have won if he hadn't been stopped? That's like saying Tyson would have won if Douglas hadn't stopped him: Tyson was only trailing by a point on one card and a second card had it even. The Hagler fight can be debated. From my persepective Hagler didn't do diddly squat for 12 rounds and shouldn't complain about losing the fight. If you want to win DO something.

All in all this kind of debate puts me in the uncomfortable position of defending Leonard's record when I don't particularly care for Leonard. But here's the thing: I may not like Leonard but my personal feelings aside he's still an ATG and I'll give an ATG his due and defend his record even if I dislike him if he's being unfairly ripped. I destest Julio Cesar Chavez but there's no denying the man's an ATG. You should rewatch the first Leonard - Duran fight. Despite the fact that Duran was a beast that night Leonard fought a great fight. That fight was close and Leonard stood toe to toe with Duran and nearly beat Roberto at his own game. (PS. You'll have a hard time finding a bigger Duran fan in this forum than me, check my signature: Duran's photo is there, Leonard's is not.) It's one thing to be a fan, but all to often I see people here being "anti-fans": They aren't boosting fighters they like, they're tearing down fighters they dislike.

Poet

I think he was a good fighter, but he wouldn't give a re-match to Hagler. 'nuff said.

I think he was a good fighter, but he wouldn't give a re-match to Hagler. 'nuff said.

Oh wah wah :bottle: I've spent 20 years listening to Hagler nuthuggers ***** about that. Give it a rest for God's sake! Hagler did NOTHING in the first fight so why anybody thinks he would do anything in a second fight when he would be at least a year older is beyond me. Two old dudes mixing it up a second time: Why would anyone want to watch? Only the biggest Hagler KoolAid drinkers would tune in.

Poet

Uh.. Hagler was, what, 33.. 34.. Some fighters don't hit their prime 'till then, was Ray even 30 at the time of the first fight?

http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/821/revisiting-hagler-leonard

And some fighters are done before they hit 30. It was eminently clear watching both fighters that they were washed up.

Poet

Come on, you have got to be joking calling Ray Leonard "overrated"! The man had some legendary battle's in the ring! He is by far one of the best US boxers to ever step into the ring!

Sugar Ray Leonard was the original Golden Boy!

leonard is way better than duran
look at the movement,quickness,speed,combos and look at durans bully fighting
if they fought 10 fights,leonard would win 9 of em
no controversy
only controversy bout their rematch was that duran quit like a ***
he was gettin made stupid
leonard clowned em cuz he fought like hisself
and he beat em in both they primes
now hagler leonard was close
but i felt sugar edged it
he stole it by landing combinations to haglers 1 or 2 punches
he knows how to win
like larry merchant said 'he'd dig down n do anything to win'

did Ali get his ass wooped for 12-13 rounds and then stop em?
no
ali controlled liston until liston blinded em,but then liston got stopped
n i dont recall liston winning the rematch like hearns did(hearns got ****ed like whitaker did against chavez,not the same deal tho)

This must be why every boxing writer and historian rakns Duran ahead of Leonard, right?

You are comparing Duran and Leonard as if they were of the same size and age, which is not the case.

No!

....................

Oh wah wah :bottle: I've spent 20 years listening to Hagler nuthuggers ***** about that. Give it a rest for God's sake! Hagler did NOTHING in the first fight so why anybody thinks he would do anything in a second fight when he would be at least a year older is beyond me. Two old dudes mixing it up a second time: Why would anyone want to watch? Only the biggest Hagler KoolAid drinkers would tune in.

Poet

More bull**** from fart682006.

Hagler gave away many things in negotiationing the fight. Why on earth he would do the same mistake when older is clear only in your simple mind.

At the end of the fight Hagler was not hurt or particularly tired, Leonard was barely able to walk. Yet, according to you one year later Hagler could do nothing better.

Most important, Hagler threw away rounds by chasing Leonard from an orthodox stance trying to beat him at his own game. Since when do you need to be younger to have a better fight plan?

Finally, "Two old dudes mixing it up a second time: Why would anyone want to watch?" Considering there was plenty of people watching Leonard-Duran 3 and Leonard-Hearns 2, taking place 2 years later and Hagler-Leonard was a very close fights among two superstars, I think the answer is clear to everyone: "A lot of people".

This post shows again your inability of thinking logically, and your ridiculous position on many facts.

Someone told me wmoron was talking smack about me again. Not a shock, he's determined to spread his ignorance far and wide. Apparently the little nimrod hasn't figured out yet he's on ignore: That's i.g.n.o.r.e; you see, I realize the idiotic little dip**** is practically illiterate and needs help with the BIG words. Another concept he hasn't yet comprehended is slagging off on people is NOT appropriate on the boxing threads and needs to be taken over to the Thunderdome. That's the forum at the bottom of the main forum screen. You don't have to look hard. Before I ignored his stuck up, elitest ass wmoron claimed he never heard of the Thunderdome. He's been on this site for multiple years and he's never heard of the Thunderdome? Excuse me? Are you really admitting you're THAT stupid? Suffice it to say I'm done playing games with this brainless worm. Either he takes these slagging posts of his over to the Thunderdome where he can be dealt with properly or I WILL start reporting such posts as inappropriate for the boxing forums until he gets banned :owned2: Have a nice day! :D

Poet

Someone told me wmoron was talking smack about me again. Not a shock, he's determined to spread his ignorance far and wide. Apparently the little nimrod hasn't figured out yet he's on ignore: That's i.g.n.o.r.e; you see, I realize the idiotic little dip**** is practically illiterate and needs help with the BIG words. Another concept he hasn't yet comprehended is slagging off on people is NOT appropriate on the boxing threads and needs to be taken over to the Thunderdome. That's the forum at the bottom of the main forum screen. You don't have to look hard. Before I ignored his stuck up, elitest ass wmoron claimed he never heard of the Thunderdome. He's been on this site for multiple years and he's never heard of the Thunderdome? Excuse me? Are you really admitting you're THAT stupid? Suffice it to say I'm done playing games with this brainless worm. Either he takes these slagging posts of his over to the Thunderdome where he can be dealt with properly or I WILL start reporting such posts as inappropriate for the boxing forums until he gets banned :owned: Have a nice day! :D

Poet

"someone" like the "view post" button?

You still cannot come up with answers, you still post contradicttory pieces of "thought". Unfortunately (for you), I like truth and logic to prevail so I will keep on pointing out bull**** when I see it, even if I am on your ignore list. Reason being, Boxing History is not the home for illogical biased posts like yours. Report me as much as you like, I doubt it's going to do you any good (beyond that warm fuzzy feeling that you seem to need)

wmute has his own poll now! :owned2:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135469

Poet

wmute has his own poll now! :owned2:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135469

Poet

and so...?

I have my own poll, and you still post logically inconsistent bull****... life still sucks, eh?

Let's just put it like this. As far as fighting goes I'd put Hearns and Hagler both over SRL and put him about even with Duran. As far as boxing goes I'd put him over Hearns, under Duran, and about even with Hagler. Fair?

i'd say the list of the fab 4 is...
1.ray leonard
2.marvin hagler
3.tommy hearns
4.roberto duran

best boxers...
1 SSR
2 Hearns
3 Duran
4 MMH

Sugar Ray Leonard was a fantastic fighter and with-out doubt an all time Great. Superb technical boxer. Sugar Ray really did have everything.

Hmmm is Ray Leonard over rated. thomas hearns bettr than him...Hagler beats ray in his prime. It appears that some on here dont know anything about boxing and are just hating on Ray.

Ray willingly went toe to toe with Duran and lost by 4 points between all the 3 cards and the 1st round a round in which Duran did not land 1 head punch the judges gave duran that round. Had Leonard been given that round,we have draw. Get your facts right.

Duran leonard two.....Leonard frusterated Duran, humiliated duran. and was starting to land good solid shots on duran and duran quit...

Hearns.. In every single meaning ful exchange in thier 1st fight, leonard hurt hearns, and backed him up..rounds 6 , 7 13, 14..then stopped him. Hearns had a extremly long reach advantage over leonard, and heigh, had great speed, power and a great trainer. He had never been backed up or hurt before that fight. Also Hearns was in the olympics a master boxer, who did not learn power punching til he became a professional. Get your facts str8. I took Ray to dig into a area most fighers cant dream of, to beat hearns. No other welterweight that night except for a prime Robinson could have beaten him. Oh yes having a chin is part of the package....so how can we say hearns is better than ray. when in their peak leonard stopped him and beat the other man that stopped him in his peak...Wow.

Hagler...what great fighter who was a solid middleweight had hagler ever beaten. Styles makes fights and if you want to go toe to toe with him he is a beast. However as Duran exposed in 83 (during Hagler prime) when you box him, and/or make him lead he become somewhat ordinary. Remember this was in 83 versus duran who was at the end of his prime and 42 pounds past his starting boxing weight.hmmmm. Duran was no where near the boxer Ray was, speed, boxing ability whatever and he fought a very very close battle with Hagler. Lets put a prime Leonard in that fight in 1983...OMG, you think hagler had issues boxing duran...What do you think would have happened had that been Ray. Finally we continoulsy hear Ray fought a past his prime hagler. What shape do you all think Ray was in, not having but 1 fight in 5 years and never having fought at Middle before. He was sooo slow that night compared to him in 1981, and was no where near the shape he was ..say when he went 15 rounds toe to toe with Duran...Hagler only won rounds in that fight, when ray came down and had to fight him with out using his foot speed, because he was winded starting round 6, getting his 2nd wind in the 10th round.

Wow this is a funny thread.

Hagler...what great fighter who was a solid middleweight had hagler ever beaten. Styles makes fights and if you want to go toe to toe with him he is a beast. However as Duran exposed in 83 (during Hagler prime) when you box him, and/or make him lead he become somewhat ordinary. Remember this was in 83 versus duran who was at the end of his prime and 42 pounds past his starting boxing weight.hmmmm. Duran was no where near the boxer Ray was, speed, boxing ability whatever and he fought a very very close battle with Hagler. Lets put a prime Leonard in that fight in 1983...OMG, you think hagler had issues boxing duran...What do you think would have happened had that been Ray. Finally we continoulsy hear Ray fought a past his prime hagler. What shape do you all think Ray was in, not having but 1 fight in 5 years and never having fought at Middle before. He was sooo slow that night compared to him in 1981, and was no where near the shape he was ..say when he went 15 rounds toe to toe with Duran...Hagler only won rounds in that fight, when ray came down and had to fight him with out using his foot speed, because he was winded starting round 6, getting his 2nd wind in the 10th round.

Wow this is a funny thread.

** Well, it does attract funny types making amusing claims with lines sounding like they were written by cartoon characters.

Funny that you didn't mention that Ray retired the first of a half dozen times starting in 1982-83 after a toe to toe battle against all time great Bruce Finch. He then came out of retirement in 1984 and was a bit embarrassed being knocked down and scared against all time great Kevin Howard, but pulled out a big KO punch and retired the 2nd time with just 34 fights to his record.

I guess some cartoon characters with funny lines might think Leonard could easily dismantle a Marvin in full swing of dominance over the middle division in 1983, but it appears to this grounded on earth boxing enthusiast that Leonard was busy ducking his own shadow from 82-86. Just can see how he's going to beat Marvin then, but hey, maybe he finally caught up to his shadow during this time, those were unsanctioned fights after all.

Now, being the fair type I think we have to acknowledge his health problems with a detached retina and all that. But being the fair type, I can't help but also conclude that last great fight Leonard ever fought was against Hearns in 1981, a truly great fight for him that he had to dig way deep to pull out over another great fighter.

Everything that followed is just Leonard using his golden boy clout to jerk other fighters around to accomodate his ego and health problems as he manipulated the circumstances of his chosen fighters like some Roman emperor from his throne.

One of the greatest natural talents in history, but not near the career or legacy of a Duran, just too short of a career, only 33 or so prime fights with a 7-1 title record against some great competition. A great career, but nothing next to the real Sugar Ray. Leonard was more of a media creation and marketing promotion, very similar to Oscar today, though I would rate Leonard a little higher on the fight scale than Oscar, "the only 6 division" champion in history," cough, cough! :angel:

Hmmm is Ray Leonard over rated. thomas hearns bettr than him...Hagler beats ray in his prime. It appears that some on here dont know anything about boxing and are just hating on Ray.

Ray willingly went toe to toe with Duran and lost by 4 points between all the 3 cards and the 1st round a round in which Duran did not land 1 head punch the judges gave duran that round. Had Leonard been given that round,we have draw. Get your facts right.

Duran leonard two.....Leonard frusterated Duran, humiliated duran. and was starting to land good solid shots on duran and duran quit...

Hearns.. In every single meaning ful exchange in thier 1st fight, leonard hurt hearns, and backed him up..rounds 6 , 7 13, 14..then stopped him. Hearns had a extremly long reach advantage over leonard, and heigh, had great speed, power and a great trainer. He had never been backed up or hurt before that fight. Also Hearns was in the olympics a master boxer, who did not learn power punching til he became a professional. Get your facts str8. I took Ray to dig into a area most fighers cant dream of, to beat hearns. No other welterweight that night except for a prime Robinson could have beaten him. Oh yes having a chin is part of the package....so how can we say hearns is better than ray. when in their peak leonard stopped him and beat the other man that stopped him in his peak...Wow.

Hagler...what great fighter who was a solid middleweight had hagler ever beaten. Styles makes fights and if you want to go toe to toe with him he is a beast. However as Duran exposed in 83 (during Hagler prime) when you box him, and/or make him lead he become somewhat ordinary. Remember this was in 83 versus duran who was at the end of his prime and 42 pounds past his starting boxing weight.hmmmm. Duran was no where near the boxer Ray was, speed, boxing ability whatever and he fought a very very close battle with Hagler. Lets put a prime Leonard in that fight in 1983...OMG, you think hagler had issues boxing duran...What do you think would have happened had that been Ray. Finally we continoulsy hear Ray fought a past his prime hagler. What shape do you all think Ray was in, not having but 1 fight in 5 years and never having fought at Middle before. He was sooo slow that night compared to him in 1981, and was no where near the shape he was ..say when he went 15 rounds toe to toe with Duran...Hagler only won rounds in that fight, when ray came down and had to fight him with out using his foot speed, because he was winded starting round 6, getting his 2nd wind in the 10th round.

Wow this is a funny thread.

the hagler -leonard fights was the source of much controvercy i persona;;y think hagler edged it but when leonards talents failed to secure avictory his luck did!

i cannot see hearns above leonard at all. hearns may have been winning most of the first fight but at the end leonard had his hand raised!
the second fight should have gone to hearns it was a robbery i believe to try and force a third fight.
hearns chin means he cannot be at the top.

of these 4 my list goes:

hagler
leonard
hearns
duran

the hagler -leonard fights was the source of much controvercy i persona;;y think hagler edged it but when leonards talents failed to secure avictory his luck did!

i cannot see hearns above leonard at all. hearns may have been winning most of the first fight but at the end leonard had his hand raised!
the second fight should have gone to hearns it was a robbery i believe to try and force a third fight.
hearns chin means he cannot be at the top.

of these 4 my list goes:

hagler
leonard
hearns
duran


Well as much as I love those guys Hagler has no one but himself to blame for the debacle that was the Leonard fight. He should have forced the issue instead of trying to fight Leonard's fight. It was a close fight but Hagler's flawed strategy , not Leonards greatness, is what cost him the fight.

Well as much as I love thos guys Hagler has no one but himself to blame for the debacle that was the Leonard fight. He should have forced the issued instead of trying to fighter Leonard's fight. It was a close fight but Hagler's flawed strategy , not Leonards greatness, is what cost him the fight.

i can definately agree with that!

Seriously, how can people consider him the best of the fab 4? Duran can be considered better on longevity alone, let alone the fact that Duran had some huge wins, and beat peak Leonard pretty easily (despite Duran being 12 pounds above his best weight).

Hearns outboxed Leonard for 10 of 14 rounds in their first fight. Too bad Tommy took a punch like a spider's web. The first time Leonard tapped him, Hearns was staggering all over the place. Hearns was a far better boxer, and was robbed in the rematch.

The Hagler decision is still debated today. We know what would have happened if a peak Hagler faced Leonard.

Because he was the only one to beat all three of the others?

Ray Leonard was one of the most successful boxers of all time. Winning a gold medal in the 1976 Olympics he went on to become a financially secure professional champion. Winning titles at welterweight, junior middleweight and middleweight as well as a winning a version of the light-heavyweight crown Leonard demonstrated his greatness as a boxer. Leonard possessed speed of hand and foot, tremendous vision and coordination, a great jab, a powerful left hook and a blistering combinational array of punches. Leonard beat 4 Hall of Fame quality fighters; Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler. Although Ray did not have as many fights as the greats of the past not many can claim to have beaten better competition in their prime years. Ray demonstrated the intangibles such as will and heart in his fight against Tommy Hearns, toughness and durability in his first bout with Roberto Duran, and he demonstrated ring intelligence in his bout against Marvin Hagler.

Ray Leonard......demonstrated ring intelligence in his bout against Marvin Hagler.

** Don't know how much intelligence it takes to flee for your life and then throw out a brief flurry before covering up when trapped on the ropes and wait for the ref. He did show some good durablity until the judges got the fight in their hands.

It was pretty sharp of Leonard to stand on the sidelines and carefully study Marv at work all those years and pick the the older, more battle weary version of Hagler. It then takes some major clout negotiate all the ring condition advantages before the bout could take place.

The fight itself was a poor one because because of what I noted above, which pretty much set the stage for Ray's main goal, which was to stage a comeback for big publicity and money and pick off all low laying fruit(belts) and golden oldie legacy type fights.

Worked well until he grew bored and tried to go against more prime versions in the division. I'm surprised nobody tries to tell us we never saw the prime of Leonard. He basically retired at age 25 with a record of 32-1, barely lasting 2 yrs at the championship level. We never did see how he might advance or fail against Pryor, a rematch with Hearns at 154, McCallum, all the coming young talents, ect.

Ray did give us a very exciting 2 yrs, but me thinks it more than a bit overblown.

** Don't know how much intelligence it takes to flee for your life and then throw out a brief flurry before covering up when trapped on the ropes and wait for the ref. He did show some good durablity until the judges got the fight in their hands.

It was pretty sharp of Leonard to stand on the sidelines and carefully study Marv at work all those years and pick the the older, more battle weary version of Hagler. It then takes some major clout negotiate all the ring condition advantages before the bout could take place.

The fight itself was a poor one because because of what I noted above, which pretty much set the stage for Ray's main goal, which was to stage a comeback for big publicity and money and pick off all low laying fruit(belts) and golden oldie legacy type fights.

Worked well until he grew bored and tried to go against more prime versions in the division. I'm surprised nobody tries to tell us we never saw the prime of Leonard. He basically retired at age 25 with a record of 32-1, barely lasting 2 yrs at the championship level. We never did see how he might advance or fail against Pryor, a rematch with Hearns at 154, McCallum, all the coming young talents, ect.

Ray did give us a very exciting 2 yrs, but me thinks it more than a bit overblown.


I agree. Aside from that, if Hagler hadn't have used the strategy he did and took the fight to Leonard he would have won IMO.

Yep,,,but Ray also beat 4 fighters that to this day I can not find another fighter since the 70's who has beaten these quality of fighters...

Yep,,,but Ray also beat 4 fighters that to this day I can not find another fighter since the 70's who has beaten these quality of fighters...

and only very few who have faced that kind of competition

Yep,,,but Ray also beat 4 fighters that to this day I can not find another fighter since the 70's who has beaten these quality of fighters...

** Benitez, Duran, Hearns and then Hagler, all first tier HOFers gives his career the gloss for a good historical photo, but let's sharpen the focus a bit.

Benitez stopped on his feet, cut slightly, but unhurt with ten sec left in the bout. No immediate rematch, Leonard instead chosing a hometown type bout against an overmatched Davey Green. I know the cards claim Ray was several points ahead, but I thought the fight very defensively waged and difficult to score. Only Ray's late KD of Benitez any kind of edge. Nor did Ray challenge at 154 where Benitez immediately grabbed a belt and beat Duran more comprehensively and without any controversy than did Leonard.

Duran. Ray lost the first comprehensively and only won the 2nd when Duran showed up overfed, disinterested and quit because he had to go take a dump. The immediate rubbermatch was sought desperately by Duran but dismissed by Leonard even though it would've generated substantially more money than Ray's next title defense against Larry Bonds. Again, the question arises how much more substantial Leonard really was over Duran who was obviously struggling with weight and discipline problems from that point forward.

Hearns, some may claim premature stoppage, I didn't and still don't. Tommy's body language says it all. Still, a fight Ray was losing comprehensively, and no rematch which would have generated considerably more funds than Ray's next defense against Bruce Finch.

So at this point Ray is 3-1 against three first tier HOFers with only one clear cut victory and no rematches of his wins, instead pursuing lower paying defenses against journeymen type contenders.

I won't bore the board with the Hagler analysis. Credit to Ray for showing up in shape and making it to the cards, but no rematch, again, very deliberately and with great fanfare avoiding Marvin.

An exciting two years, but upon reflection, really, just two years of championship viablity in a great era, but not particulary more distinguished than the four he beat. I consider the way Salvador Sanchez, Pryor, Hagler, Chavez, Arguello, guys like that who worked their way up the boxing chain the hard way without benefit of turning pro with a multimillion dollar contract more significant to boxing history. It seems that sense of wealth and entitlement allowed Leonard to pick and choose and turn down fabulously wealthy but dangerous bouts becuase Ray was already set for life and was just looking for some frilly borderwork for his historical glossy.

** Benitez, Duran, Hearns and then Hagler, all first tier HOFers gives his career the gloss for a good historical photo, but let's sharpen the focus a bit.

Benitez stopped on his feet, cut slightly, but unhurt with ten sec left in the bout. No immediate rematch, Leonard instead chosing a hometown type bout against an overmatched Davey Green. I know the cards claim Ray was several points ahead, but I thought the fight very defensively waged and difficult to score. Only Ray's late KD of Benitez any kind of edge. Nor did Ray challenge at 154 where Benitez immediately grabbed a belt and beat Duran more comprehensively and without any controversy than did Leonard.

Duran. Ray lost the first comprehensively and only won the 2nd when Duran showed up overfed, disinterested and quit because he had to go take a dump. The immediate rubbermatch was sought desperately by Duran but dismissed by Leonard even though it would've generated substantially more money than Ray's next title defense against Larry Bonds. Again, the question arises how much more substantial Leonard really was over Duran who was obviously struggling with weight and discipline problems from that point forward.

Hearns, some may claim premature stoppage, I didn't and still don't. Tommy's body language says it all. Still, a fight Ray was losing comprehensively, and no rematch which would have generated considerably more funds than Ray's next defense against Bruce Finch.

So at this point Ray is 3-1 against three first tier HOFers with only one clear cut victory and no rematches of his wins, instead pursuing lower paying defenses against journeymen type contenders.

I won't bore the board with the Hagler analysis. Credit to Ray for showing up in shape and making it to the cards, but no rematch, again, very deliberately and with great fanfare avoiding Marvin.

An exciting two years, but upon reflection, really, just two years of championship viablity in a great era, but not particulary more distinguished than the four he beat. I consider the way Salvador Sanchez, Pryor, Hagler, Chavez, Arguello, guys like that who worked their way up the boxing chain the hard way without benefit of turning pro with a multimillion dollar contract more significant to boxing history. It seems that sense of wealth and entitlement allowed Leonard to pick and choose and turn down fabulously wealthy but dangerous bouts becuase Ray was already set for life and was just looking for some frilly borderwork for his historical glossy.



Good points.

Only Ray's late KD of Benitez any kind of edge. Nor did Ray challenge at 154 where Benitez immediately grabbed a belt and beat Duran more comprehensively and without any controversy than did Leonard. Miss Roberta has gone senile.

Leonard floored Benitez twice and also picked up the 154lb belt from undefeated Ayub Kalule.

Of course little Miss Texas always gets her facts wrong when trying to wax poetic on something she knows nothing of.

Miss Roberta has gone senile.

Leonard floored Benitez twice and also picked up the 154lb belt from undefeated Ayub Kalule.

Of course little Miss Texas always gets her facts wrong when trying to wax poetic on something she knows nothing of.



He does have make a good point, though.

Miss Roberta has gone senile.


** I see Ozzie Sr. has finally allowed Junior back on his computer after doing his mandatory at the local JD detention facility.

Alas, your minders have been playing around with grownup stuff and not protecting your backside on the goofy Tyson thread you started. Many others came and ravaged your name and masculinity with impugnity, which was a good thing because I got to see where we first got tangled, which was quite amusing and explains why I had forgotten you, having laughed myself silly.

Now, here I was having nice civil informative historical sessions with Hawkins, Pink, Henry, and Hurricane over a variety of subjects, and you show up like a turd in a punchbowl to spoil the party.

Gonna have to find Oz Sr. email address and request that he put you in an electroshock collar when your minders give you your daily walk so you don't run amuck befouling the local landscape with your spontaneous discharges...:welcome: :dunce: :You_Rock_

Alas, your minders have been playing around with grownup stuff and not protecting your backside on the goofy Tyson thread you started. Many others came and ravaged your name and masculinity with impugnity, which was a good thing because I got to see where we first got tangled, which was quite amusing and explains why I had forgotten you, having laughed myself silly. Roberta,

There's a reason you got punted from CBZ. It's because you're an idiot whose distorted views on fighters are an embarrassment.

Feel free to knock Leonard for his 7-1 title record (1st career) and his 12 round negotiated fight with Hagler.

Seems to me you can't hike yer dress up quick enough and bend over for the Manassa Mauler who took several years to compile a 7-2 title fight record with the two Tunney fights mere 10 rounders. Even Lil' Arthur at 37 was willing to schedule a defence for 45 rounds in the Havana sun. Ten rounds for the heavyweight Championship is a joke. Not once but twice.

Guess ol' Dempsey didn't want Gene to mess up his new nose job.

london rules...Hawk...what a one sided twist of the fights...One sides and lacking all the facts. Duran beat Leonard by 4 points between 3 scorecards ina fight the ray leonard "elected" to not box..Ray never had the ring cut off on him, etc..Ray simply went toe to toe. Even in that 1st fight when he box Duran in rounds 5-7 duran became frusterated and started to mock ray because he hated Ray's movement and could not hit him when ray elected to box and keep the fight in the center of the ring. I am talking about the 1st fight. How about telling how in the hell durna was given round one in that fight, when he did not land one single head shot. Not ONe! Go to you tube and tell us where he landed a single head shot. Had that round went to Leonard,,,Hmm he wins that fight outright on 2 judges scorecards and a draw on the other...Hmmm that is how close that fight was.

Duran 2...Another joke and one sided story telling twist that you post. Duran is a professional fighter, one of the best of all times,,,so it is Ray leonard fault that duran did not live up to his part...I hear repeatedly these statments that Duran was fat...hmmm he was 147 for the fight..wasnt he. How about tell everyone how duran balloned generally after all his fights,,and had to struggle to make weight at 135....now he had to get down to 147...with is much easier,,and how is this any different between the other 70 fights that he fought. Another Duran excuse giver. Duran simply was getting beaten and humilated and instead of being given a gift strategy by Ray Leonard as he was in the 1st fight when ray elected to go toe to toe..this time he had to box with ray..and he was hit by combinations almost everytime he attempted to rush in. It was not a weak or fat duran..It simply was Ray leonard utilized his skills to out box Duran this time.....

Something that Duran fans seeminly refuse to admit is that after round 4 of the 1st fight even on the judges score card..Leonard owned Duran. Mathmatically speaking if durna was up 4-0 on every scorecard then only won by 1 pt on two judges card and 2 on the othr,,,then leonard was clearly ahead in the 2nd fight,,,then a white wash in the third...Hmmmmm help me understand how it is not difficult to understand who is the better boxer head to head..Also Duran lost ot benetiz, go stopped by hearns and lost to hagler..Ray beat all of these three.

Now before we hear from duran fans about the bogus issue of well duran was not at his peak, or he had to move up in weight and was not at his most effective weight ( I agree with that)...However Duran fans..do not expect others to review Mayweather's career Mosley Dlh etc...at weight classes north of their original wieght, and only given Duran the benefit of looking at what he did at weight classes south of 147....Duran moved up at 29...hmmm so did mayweather Mosley etc... so lets judge Duran the same way we judge others...and finally the 70 fighters that duran beat at lightweight...hmmm Buchanon, Dejesus, Ernesto Marcil (24--2-1),and Kobayashi (had 9 losses).hmmmm these are the best 4 victories of his lightweight career, then Sugar Ray leonard at 147 when Ray "elected to not use his boxign skills for 12 of the 15 rounds...Hmmmm.. Who is over rated.

As for Thomas Hearns..comprehensivly beating Leonard. Hearns was outpointing Ray. Did you bother to discuss that every singly meaningful exchange between the two of them, Hearns was hurt and backed up. Was this mentioned. Was it mentioned that Ray hurt and almost stopped hearns in rounds 6 -7 and 13 before ultimately stopping him in round 14. Was it mentioned that Tommy Hearns was 6'1 with 78 in reach, was a very fast welter and and had probably the best right hand ever in that division,,and Ray and Dundee said before the fight that boxing hearns would not be the best thing to do as ray and Tommy were very familiar with each other having sparred together before in the Kronk Gym ealrier on in their career, and the fact that tommy was a great great amateur Boxer not slugger...He learned power once he became professonal. Did you bother to mention that it is almost ludicrious to think that Ray would out box hearns,,based on the physical mismatch that hearns posed for most welters including Leonard. Did you mention that. It is funny reading post by fight fans that know nothing aobut the sport and get on these threads and say one sided garbage. Hearns was outpointing Leonard...did Ray get 10-8 rounds in round 6 and 7..hmmmm Rounds 13...Round 14 would have been a 10-8 round..and who knows what round 15 would have been...However you do the math had the judges scored the rounds 10-8 as the nevada state boxing commission and Dundee met after the fight and discussed this very issue.

Hmmm Benetiz...a two time champion was outclassed and outboxed dropped twice by a cautios and very green Sugar Ray Leonard. Yes it was stopped early, but Ray would have won easily anyway..So what is the point.

hagler...Ray out of boxing for 5 years except for 1 fight, Moved up two weight classes and beat a fighter who had not lost in 10 years, had stopped ever challenger (active challengers) except for one. Also the ray leonard that faced Hagler was a very slow version of himself if compared to 81.. He also had not of the great stamina that he had back when he fought the 15 round classic against Duran or dropped Benetiz in round 15 and brought it to the champion in the last round and it was stopped.

Hmmmm So Ray leonard being over rated. Yes I agree he had a short careeer. but in that short career he accomplished more that most of the all time greats that you talk about and beat better fighters thatn the almost any other fighter that ever lived. 4 all time top greats. You want to throw up *'s,,,,etc... Hmmmm it is funny that one could say this about the hagler fight and it was hagler who was the middlewieght champion and active and he should have stopped Ray. Now I will give hagler the same benefit of the doubt that I give ray..they both had stupid game plans in big fights..Hagler should have came into that fight southpaw from the jump..but this false accusation that he should have just tore after ray. When have you ever seen hagler do this or initiate that. Before you jump to the terminal and type Hearns..It was hearns that came right after hagler and hagler in his usual counterpunching style came right back.. Hearns could have tried to jab and box, but he didnnt. When hagler faced a fighter that tried to boxe him ,,, he barely beat him..that fighter was duran in 1983.

So again your point about rematches is true, but you cant knock the victories he had because there was not a rematch. or an immediate rematch..and oh yes to say he was scared to face Duran a 3rd time but then face hearns who was 32-0 with 30 kos hmmmm bigger puncher at welter..hmmmmm

Nuff said. Get your "facts" straight.

First off, I never distorted any facts. Just stated that he made a viable point. Second I never critically admonished any of Ray's fights so for you to include me in your little diatribe is unwarranted.

If you can't, for a second, see that he has made valid points then so be it.

After re reading you post again, it is even more 'weak'. Pryor..what did pryor do that as great. He beat an old champion, then beat Arguello when he moved up at the end of his career, and lets not discuss the mysterious bottle he had in the 1st fight, when all of a sudden he came out with all this energy ...hmmm. Name who else Pyror beat!


Sanchez was great by he had a shortened career due to death..Hmmm I guess you simply refuse to give ray the benefit of the doubt due to this retinal issues.

I will ask you this. Who Sanchez, Aguello, Duran, Hearns, hagler...who has beaten better fighters than Ray Leonard. Yes they had longer career, and i guess it frusterates you that Ray benefited from his charisma and opportunities afforded him from winning a gold at the olympics... However he beat great great great fighters 4 top tier hall of famers, not ken buchanons, or the beat mugabi's or fighters who had 9 losses when the faced him. He beat duran who had 1 loss and as 29 years old, he beat a undefeated Benitez 2 time champ stopped him, forced duran to quit, both during their peak years..He stopped Hearns in a great great fight...during both peak years,,he came back from retirment and beat hagler at middleweight after only 1 fight in 5 years...and hagler unbeaten in 10 years....beat a undefeated kalule dropped him when he never touched the canvas....at 154...

Get your facts straight.

Hawk we debate board to board, if you read I targets the points he made. I just mentioned your name because you agreed with him. His points are one sides and not valid, and you know this. We have debated this time and time again.

As one of the most intelligent debaters i have ever debated with (only we disagee about Duran greatness) I honestly believe that you know more about boxing than almost anyone I have ever debated with...I can not believe you would give credence to the points that he made. They were one sided and not valid if you dig deep into the fights he mentioned.

The only thing he has is the issue about rematches..but it is still onesided as we know what happened in 1982. To say that he choose Journey men instead of rematches, is to ignore that ...wow..get this. between 1979-1981 Ray leonard fought argueably the hardest 2 years ever. Benetix duran Hearns, kalule...then retire and then face hagler ...wow. So he is knocked facing a bonds or finch...Wow...Come on Hawk, You know your stuff dont just agree with some one sided garbage like that.

One solid point...Ray had a shortened Career. AGreed! How about the quality, the money, the titles, the respect, and people he beat. I think that more than offsets his shortened career.

You misappropriated the meaning of what I said in the original context. I wasn't agreeing per say, I was only saying he made a valid point. Especially regarding rematches and the like. I always liked Ray Leonard. But I guess I should have made it a little clearer regarding the point I was referring instead of lumping it all into one. My bad.

But some of the points LRR raised do ask some worthwhile questions. Well one in particular and thats the question of a Hagler rematch. Why didn't Ray grant one, especially considering it was such a close fight? Hagler was man enough to face Ray when he came roaring out of retirement wanting a fight, why couldn't Ray turn around and do the same?

Plus there was always questions about why he didn't fight certain guys - but realistically you can't hold that against him considering that same argument can be leveled against many fighters.

It's something thats always bugged me, do I think it takes away from the fighter he was? Not really. But then again I don't put him as highly in regards to P4P status as most

Didn't mean for my rebuttal to be as harsh as it sounded, just wanted to point out that despite what differences you may have with LRR he raises some valid points. Thats all.

Hawk I know your direct with your comments. No issue taken. Yes Leonard should have granted a Rematch with Hagler. I think Ray knew that he had nothing in that fight, and was surprised that even with what he did not have, he still could land against hagler.

Even though i think that Ray won the fight, and I believe had they had fought in 1982 ray would have had a much much easier time with Hagler,,I think had they rematched, hagler would have destroyed Ray simply because the 1987 Ray did not have the speed, stamina, nothing like he use to have, which he would need to beat a Hagler that would be seeking revenge.

um.................Id say Sugar Ray Lenoard is a living legend. He made more combacks than I dont know what.

Hawk I know your direct with your comments. No issue taken. Yes Leonard should have granted a Rematch with Hagler. I think Ray knew that he had nothing in that fight, and was surprised that even with what he did not have, he still could land against hagler.

Even though i think that Ray won the fight, and I believe had they had fought in 1982 ray would have had a much much easier time with Hagler,,I think had they rematched, hagler would have destroyed Ray simply because the 1987 Ray did not have the speed, stamina, nothing like he use to have, which he would need to beat a Hagler that would be seeking revenge.

Like I said in earlier post, I have always thought Hagler gave the fight away by trying to be something other than what he was. I was shocked when Hagler came out like he did. I figured we would see Hagler come out quick and agressively press Ray.

My grandpa and I traveled to another city to watch the fight on closed circuit and I remember just being astonished out how passive Marvin was in those early rounds. Shocked me.

Anyway, not to take anything away from Ray Leonard, I think Hagler's faultly strategy lost him the fight rather than putting it on the doorstep of Leonard's greatness.

Thats my take anyway :boxing:

I believe had they had fought in 1982 ray would have had a much much easier time with Hagler,,

** It might help if you actually studied your subject. In 1982 everyone and their mothers were standing in line trying to fight in the Leonard sweepstakes, including a certain Mr. Hagler.

Ray instead fought a minor journeyman type of contender and retired. Obviously not feeling exactly in "the pink" as a fighter at that point.

My facts are straight BTW. Thread is about Ray being overrated, but like is typical, no rating is provided. I happen to know he's IBRO's 2nd ranked welter. It doesn't take a crystal ball to understand that retired fighters tend to drop in status as their generation dies off and newer modern types replace them with their own favorites. It takes a true great to hold his status like Robinson and Louis have held theirs. Guys in the biz like Kellerman were ranking Roy and even Zab over greats like that for example.

Ray certainly had talent out the kazoo, but so did Benitez, Hagler, Hearns, and Duran. And with that talent, there was not much to separate Ray when he fought Benitez, he was unable to return the beating Duran gave him in the first fight, Hearns also ahead and punishing Ray before Leonard got creative, and only a disputed split decision over Hagler, so how much better can he said to have been given they all had full careers and Ray an abbreviated one?

Add in Benitez/Hagler beat Duran more comprehensively, Hearns more emphatically, Hearns beat Benitez more comprehensively, and Hagler beat Hearns more emphatically.

Seems to me that regardless of where you rank Ray, the other 4 would have to be right with him. That might be a little much for a fan to swallow, but you seem to have acknowleged that he should fought each of the four again, and that his career was very short overall.

I don't really care to rank fighters other than maybe the first 2 or so, and I really wouldn't object to Ray being ranked the 2nd welt ever. It's when he appears in those greatest p4p lists with true greats who had full careers that I object. He couldn't even match Pryor and Sanchez's perfect title records in their abbreviated careers.

If I'm around in 30-40 yrs from now, maybe we can hook up and discuss. I'd bet his ranking is down and you have different opinions. Still a great fighter, it's just how we dice up his career that is in question.

** It might help if you actually studied your subject. In 1982 everyone and their mothers were standing in line trying to fight in the Leonard sweepstakes, including a certain Mr. Hagler.*****


London Rules..one thing you may learn debating with me is that I KNOW my stuff regarding Leonard etc..... You bring up up very very very one sided versions of the truth, and leave out the facts..Which is funny.

Hmmm let me factually destroy your post, however I will say this, it is not by any means unintelligent. It is, but it is one sided and leaves out very very important information that, I have been led to believe needs to included when discussing an issue. Its like saying Ali beat Frazier twice, with out discussing that Frazier beat Ali the first time.

Here are the facts my friend.

1982.... Hmmmm

Ray in 1979 clearly beat and stopped Wilfred Benetiz. Anyone who argues that is smoking. Also Benetiz was a much more experiences and championship tested fighter, who was undefeated at the time had two belts and was in his prime. Ray was just coming up, and fought a very very cautios fight, very seldomly coming in to close the show on Benetiz earlier on when several times he had Benitez stuneed and hurt ( not severly) and up against the ropes.

1980....You say Duran gave Leonard a Beating. Hmmm Can you tell everyone on here the final score's..... Maybe I can help you...Duran won by 1 pt on 2 scorecards, and 2 on another. Duran won the fight, no debate, but beating..You have got to be smoking. He hurt Leonard in the 2nd round, and rocked him in the 4th. AFter the 4th rounds, according to the very scorecards that you are claiming shows a "beating" (Hmmm by a total of 4pts between 3 cards).. Leonard beat duran 7 rounds to 4 on 2 cards and pretty much even on the 3rd. What fight are you referring to that Duran put a beating on Leonard. Are you merely confusing Duran imposing his style on Leonard in fact leonard fighting Durans styles, which he did so willingly. It was a tough back and forth fight, that could have went either way. Had Leonard won the 1st round which it is clear if you look at the tapes..he did, he gets the decision. Now I will say that Duran gave away the last round, and thus could have some impact on the scores too, but my no means was this a beating. Many simply say this, because they never saw ray in a back and forth fight like that, different style.

Now Duran 2...No Ray did not return the beating, but he was clearly outboxing Duran, and frusterating duran. and hmmmm Duran quit. I will not dig into how Ray was starting to really plant his feet and land harder shots in round 8, you can see it for your self. However, what is evident is that Ray caught Duran almost everytime he tried to bumrush him into the ropes. Was it as great of a fight at the 1st fight, hell no. However did Ray outbox duran...hell yeh..and this is Boxing not UFC...So boxing counts just as much as the brawling tactics that were on display in the 1st fight.

Hearns.....Lets me see. If you know boxing..or boxed, you will know that for a short man to outbox a taller man with speed power and much longer reach, it will take him getting inside..meaning, almost always he will not outbox him. Roy jones met his fate with a taller man, Mosley with a taller man, you dont see Tyson outboxing taller men.he gets inside and blasts away,,someitimes take away the body...etc...many different strategies, but outboxing is very seldomly the route. So we come to Ray. Fans like you will say things about the fight, with out understanding the fight. Ray fought the strategy he was told, and the strategy that he had to..to win. Go purchase a copy of the sports illlistrated before the fight....It will shock you that Dundee say Ray would outslug Hearns, and Steward said Hearns would outbox Leonard. They both know....It is not rocket science. Also Ray wanted to stay on the outside for the first couple of rounds to "zap" tommys strenght. A strategy that he Dundee, and Randy Shields who had previously went the distance with Tommy decided upon, when realizing Tommy's strenght was not the same as the rounds progressed. So in analyzing the fight, you should realize Ray hurt Tommy each time they had meaning ful exchanges starting the 6th round. Yes Ray was behind on point, but had the scored the fight accuratly it would have been anyones fight going into the 15th, as the 6th and 7th and 13th should have been 2 pt rounds for ry...he clearly won the 8th.....and the 14th ws a 2pt round....Do your math.... 131-131....Do your research also...Immediately...Immediately after the fight Dundee and the Nevada state boxign commisssion agreed that the rounds should have been scored 2 pt rounds..Thus you have seen a lot more 2 pts rounds sinnce..in fact one of the worst two point rounds leonard got the benefit of in the 2nd hearns fight..round 12...that was clearly a 10-9 round.

1982...Ray had a detached retina..My friend..and if you know boxing hstory, you will realize that back then, it was a much worse prognosis than it is today. In fact, Pryor, Sugar Ray seals, Greb, etc..others have had serious permanent eye damage from continuing to fight. Ray was a mutli multi millioniar and it was public knowledge that had he continued ot fight with the gloves they had at that time, and the technology they had, he risked blindness. Now he was told later it was okay but at first he was told blindness was a risk. He then spoke about this on beyound the glory, when he mentioned he wanted to fight, but he was always being reminded by the community, family friends etc..that he should simply leave it alone..So he did, but..he came back and then fought hagler after 5 years with one fight, and to have some people on sights who know nothing about boxing sit a home and belitte the major accomplishment that is...To come back to fight Hagler a figher who has never lost in 10 years, stopped all contenders except one..at the highest level of the game,,,move up 2 weight classes and win...whether is was controversial or not,,WOW.....

So yes all these fithers are close, but Ray is the only on who beat all of them, and he did so in great fashion. Some were wars, some he stopped, some he boxed, some he slugged,,some he used his head, some he made quit...but he beat all of them.

** It might help if you actually studied your subject. In 1982 everyone and their mothers were standing in line trying to fight in the Leonard sweepstakes, including a certain Mr. Hagler.*****


London Rules..one thing you may learn debating with me is that I KNOW my stuff regarding Leonard etc..... You bring up up very very very one sided versions of the truth, and leave out the facts..Which is funny.

Hmmm let me factually destroy your post, however I will say this, it is not by any means unintelligent. It is, but it is one sided and leaves out very very important information that, I have been led to believe needs to included when discussing an issue. Its like saying Ali beat Frazier twice, with out discussing that Frazier beat Ali the first time.

Here are the facts my friend.

1982.... Hmmmm

Ray in 1979 clearly beat and stopped Wilfred Benetiz. Anyone who argues that is smoking. Also Benetiz was a much more experiences and championship tested fighter, who was undefeated at the time had two belts and was in his prime. Ray was just coming up, and fought a very very cautios fight, very seldomly coming in to close the show on Benetiz earlier on when several times he had Benitez stuneed and hurt ( not severly) and up against the ropes.

1980....You say Duran gave Leonard a Beating. Hmmm Can you tell everyone on here the final score's..... Maybe I can help you...Duran won by 1 pt on 2 scorecards, and 2 on another. Duran won the fight, no debate, but beating..You have got to be smoking. He hurt Leonard in the 2nd round, and rocked him in the 4th. AFter the 4th rounds, according to the very scorecards that you are claiming shows a "beating" (Hmmm by a total of 4pts between 3 cards).. Leonard beat duran 7 rounds to 4 on 2 cards and pretty much even on the 3rd. What fight are you referring to that Duran put a beating on Leonard. Are you merely confusing Duran imposing his style on Leonard in fact leonard fighting Durans styles, which he did so willingly. It was a tough back and forth fight, that could have went either way. Had Leonard won the 1st round which it is clear if you look at the tapes..he did, he gets the decision. Now I will say that Duran gave away the last round, and thus could have some impact on the scores too, but my no means was this a beating. Many simply say this, because they never saw ray in a back and forth fight like that, different style.

Now Duran 2...No Ray did not return the beating, but he was clearly outboxing Duran, and frusterating duran. and hmmmm Duran quit. I will not dig into how Ray was starting to really plant his feet and land harder shots in round 8, you can see it for your self. However, what is evident is that Ray caught Duran almost everytime he tried to bumrush him into the ropes. Was it as great of a fight at the 1st fight, hell no. However did Ray outbox duran...hell yeh..and this is Boxing not UFC...So boxing counts just as much as the brawling tactics that were on display in the 1st fight.

Hearns.....Lets me see. If you know boxing..or boxed, you will know that for a short man to outbox a taller man with speed power and much longer reach, it will take him getting inside..meaning, almost always he will not outbox him. Roy jones met his fate with a taller man, Mosley with a taller man, you dont see Tyson outboxing taller men.he gets inside and blasts away,,someitimes take away the body...etc...many different strategies, but outboxing is very seldomly the route. So we come to Ray. Fans like you will say things about the fight, with out understanding the fight. Ray fought the strategy he was told, and the strategy that he had to..to win. Go purchase a copy of the sports illlistrated before the fight....It will shock you that Dundee say Ray would outslug Hearns, and Steward said Hearns would outbox Leonard. They both know....It is not rocket science. Also Ray wanted to stay on the outside for the first couple of rounds to "zap" tommys strenght. A strategy that he Dundee, and Randy Shields who had previously went the distance with Tommy decided upon, when realizing Tommy's strenght was not the same as the rounds progressed. So in analyzing the fight, you should realize Ray hurt Tommy each time they had meaning ful exchanges starting the 6th round. Yes Ray was behind on point, but had the scored the fight accuratly it would have been anyones fight going into the 15th, as the 6th and 7th and 13th should have been 2 pt rounds for ry...he clearly won the 8th.....and the 14th ws a 2pt round....Do your math.... 131-131....Do your research also...Immediately...Immediately after the fight Dundee and the Nevada state boxign commisssion agreed that the rounds should have been scored 2 pt rounds..Thus you have seen a lot more 2 pts rounds sinnce..in fact one of the worst two point rounds leonard got the benefit of in the 2nd hearns fight..round 12...that was clearly a 10-9 round.

1982...Ray had a detached retina..My friend..and if you know boxing hstory, you will realize that back then, it was a much worse prognosis than it is today. In fact, Pryor, Sugar Ray seals, Greb, etc..others have had serious permanent eye damage from continuing to fight. Ray was a mutli multi millioniar and it was public knowledge that had he continued ot fight with the gloves they had at that time, and the technology they had, he risked blindness. Now he was told later it was okay but at first he was told blindness was a risk. He then spoke about this on beyound the glory, when he mentioned he wanted to fight, but he was always being reminded by the community, family friends etc..that he should simply leave it alone..So he did, but..he came back and then fought hagler after 5 years with one fight, and to have some people on sights who know nothing about boxing sit a home and belitte the major accomplishment that is...To come back to fight Hagler a figher who has never lost in 10 years, stopped all contenders except one..at the highest level of the game,,,move up 2 weight classes and win...whether is was controversial or not,,WOW.....

So yes all these fithers are close, but Ray is the only on who beat all of them, and he did so in great fashion. Some were wars, some he stopped, some he boxed, some he slugged,,some he used his head, some he made quit...but he beat all of them.

Good post. Only one to beat all three of the others. I would have liked to see a Hagler rematch where Hagler didn't get screwed so bad in the negotiations, this time smaller ring, lighter gloves, etc, but oh well.

thanks,,,,I am waiting on London Rules to post his researched response.

1982...Ray had a detached retina..My friend..and if you know boxing hstory, you will realize that back then, it was a much worse prognosis than it is today.

** Bingo.

The important thing is now that you realize it, and maybe will make the connection to your baseless assertion that Ray could've handled Hagler more easily in 82 to make the appropriate correction.

Facts are in mid 81 Ray held the jr mid WBA belt and could've fought Hagler at that time IF he felt up to it. He did not, instead going to Hearns who is the first one to have gotten to Ray's eyes.

It's obvious you big up Ray over the rest of the big four of this era, alternately touting the class of his competition using their names while ignoring that other than some disputed win advantage, there is almost no advantage in the total rounds contested and very little to separate him from them in their primes.

However, they had more productive career records with more title wins save Benitez who was one short of Ray thanks to Ray's last title win over a long past it Duran.

If you wish to artificially boost up Ray, fine, you do have a degree of support right now as he was a very popular fighter and still has a degree of clout in the business and connected enthusiasts. Just don't try to justify to me he's that much better than the others of his era. You can't by the records and we will just have to disagree.

london rules....I do see why some have said you got kicked off of Cyberboxingzone. You bring nothing but biased pretty much a waste of cyberspace post.

"It's obvious you big up Ray over the rest of the big four of this era, alternately touting the class of his competition using their names while ignoring that other than some disputed win advantage, there is almost no advantage in the total rounds contested and very little to separate him from them in their primes."

What is that supposed to mean.... No one has ever said Ray was "that" much better than anyone. Pound per pound you have a strong argument that Duran was the best of the bunch. However my statement was that at Ray leonard beat all four so IMO he is better. Whether by wins, rounds whatever you want to call it. I honestly have never heard such a weak arguement against an issue. If you want to debate. Please do much better than that!!

As far as boost Ray. I dont have too. What you fail to realize and probably have to go see a counselor to help you get over this very fact, is that the quality of Rays career is as good as almost anyone that ever boxed. Hmmm 5 or 6 Titles in 5 weight classes, the first to do so. Beating 4 Top-tier All time pound per pounders. # undefeated champions. Unifiying the belt at Welterweight, beating a top pound per pounder at middleweight after 5 years off with only 1 fight, and keep this in mind, Ray was a natural welterweight never having fought at middleweight before. So those are facts, so if you somehow think a fighter who also won a gold, and was th e1st to eclipse the 100million mark in earnings, brought back the attention to the lower weight divisions along with duran, hagler, hearns, pryor, then my friend you know very little about boxing. Leonard did it himself, so much that most of your fighters around that weight class today immulate him in boxing stye or business dealings. DlH, Jones, Mayweather, Meldrick Taylor....

I think your hate for Leoanrd consumes your thinking which follow through to your very weak and not well thought or researched post's. Maybe you can stay on this board with that garbage, but on CyberboxingZone you would and must have been eatin alive.

We will disagree...but live with this facts, duran 1-2 vs leonard, Benitez, 0-1 got ko'd by Leonard, Hearns 1-1 ( I will say 1 victory as we all know he beat Ray) 1 ko by Ray in their primes, Hagler 0-1 vs Ray, Kalule 0-1 vs ray got stopped, Lalond 0-1 vs ray got stopped...Took ray until he was 35 to solidly beaten soundly vs a much younger and very good fighter at jr middle hmmm.

We will disagree...but live with this facts, duran 1-2 vs leonard, Benitez, 0-1 got ko'd by Leonard, Hearns 1-1 ( I will say 1 victory as we all know he beat Ray) 1 ko by Ray in their primes, Hagler 0-1 vs Ray, Kalule 0-1 vs ray got stopped, Lalond 0-1 vs ray got stopped...Took ray until he was 35 to solidly beaten soundly vs a much younger and very good fighter at jr middle hmmm.

The fact is that a Duran, at 71-1, which is to say very old in boxing terms, and with most of those fights spent cementing his legacy as an ATG at lightweight, only a year after moving up to welterweight, fights a 24 year old, 27-0 Welterweight champ Ray Leonard, who had never even fought as low as lightweight and had the majority of his fights at welterweight and BEAT him. So the heads up between Duran and Leonard doesn't look good.

the quality of Rays career is as good as almost anyone that ever boxed.....We will disagree...but live with this facts, duran 1-2 vs leonard, Benitez, 0-1 got ko'd by Leonard, Hearns 1-1 ( I will say 1 victory as we all know he beat Ray) 1 ko by Ray in their primes, Hagler 0-1 vs Ray, Kalule 0-1 vs ray got stopped, Lalond 0-1 vs ray got stopped...Took ray until he was 35 to solidly beaten soundly vs a much younger and very good fighter at jr middle hmmm.

** Actually you keep contaminating your facts with some some baseless accusations or claims and are slow to incorporate other facts.

I personally like Leonard as a talent and skill base, however he was uniformly and comprehensively beat by Duran in Leonard's prime regardless of the often dodgy scoring boxing has a history of. Leonard should give Duran half his ring earnings because it was that bout that seasoned him and gave him the extra impetus to make it past a tricky Kalule and extremely dangerous Hearns.

Thus far I have just addressed the scoring in his prime bouts against Duran.Benitez, and Hearns and was very generous in not supporting the minor controversy of the Hearns stoppage because I'm not here to win debates, only to examine the truth of his career. The Hearns stoppage was legit and one of the greatest fights ever that Ray deserves all the credit in, IMO.

I feel like you have done somewhat the same by acknowledging Ray's failure to grant rematches to settle controversies and the brevity of his career.

As a modern fighter, Ray does OK in making HOF fights 9 total with a 6-3 record once Camacho is inducted 5 yrs from now if he stops today, but a Joe Louis and Ali had something like a dozen or more HOF fights. Jeffries was 7-1-1 at the turn of the century in comparison, almost half his total fights. The real Sugar had something close to 30 or so HOF fights or go to Sam Langford who had 58 HOF fights, so please, some perspective talking of great career quality as there are dozens of superbly quality records equal or better than Leonard.

You seem to have a strong need to be backed by some imaginary friends to bolster yourself, and a particular need to imagine that I hate Ray because I don't rate him as highly as you. There is nutcase around here that claims to ignore me but instead spends much his time claiming I'm a Tyson nuthugger and other tinfoil beanie type accusations, completely ignoring that I rate Tyson near what his IBRO ranking is, not that I hold that IBRO rankings as the final word.

I have no control over what some nutcases want to say, Lord knows I had a barrels' worth of fun with dear departed Boozo whom I greatly miss, but it's always a mystery to me how far out in left field some of these types come from, not to discuss boxing, but thinking that they are somehow going to savage me. How juvenile is that?

Maybe in the future I will toss out a Leonard post on another thread, but maybe I'll see you on another topic, so let we'll see what else you got then. Cheers now......:beerchug:

Gavin1970... your absolutely right. Duran won the fight and was never a welterwieght before that year, Hmmmmm What happened in the rematch. Also, if your gonna knock Ray for losing to a fighter that was never a welter..then help me understand why many (not saying you) dont credit ray for pulling the same feat vs Hagler. Hmmmm wow! & Ray had not fought but once in 5 years..vs a seasoned champ.

London Rules. I dont care to try to make you like Ray Leonard as much as I do. In fact I am a realist as much as I like ray, I look at facts, and it appears you and some others,,the minority but some others always try to find excuses for his wins. YOU brought up the points issue, not me, and the Duran fight was about as close as one could imagine. You falsly point out that Duran uniformly and comprenshivly beat Leonard. I had Leonard winning the fight, as does anyone that has ever sat down at my house and watched it and scored it, with out the sound. I challenge you to get a pen and paper out and score the actual fight...I can tell you this it hendged on how you score round 1 and 12....the others are somewhat close but tends to have clear cut winner. After rounds 4, Ray gave as good as he got, he simply and WILLIGNLY chose to fight with his back on the ropes. I also challenge you to find one point in that fight where Duran cut the ring off on a mobile Ray. You can't cuz Ray chose to go toe to toe, even waiving duran inside to war with him when his back was on the ropes. So my point in bringing this up, is many people often score the style of the fight, versus what actually was happening in the fight. I found myself originally doing this in the Leonard Hagler fight, when my original score card was 9-3 ray...however when going back and removing the volumen and looking at punches, ring genalship, etc..it was a clear 7-5 for Ray. Back to Duran. I am not knocking him as it is a great great great accomplishment to step up to Welterweight and do what he did and beat Leonard in any style of fight, because as we all know Ray has beaten legends going toe to toe also...hmmm Hearns, Benitez (leonard did very little moving in that fight too, only he was not on the ropes). Duran deserves every bit of credit for his win, but he did not comprehensivly beat Leonard, it was a close very close fight with Duran probalbly deserving the victory by round 13 but he gave away round 15 and ray won round 14... So I think you need to go revisit the fight, It was the best showing at welterwieng for two great fighters I have ever seen, and the action was intense both ways. It was however Durans night, and his type of fight.

One thing I will agree with you on. Duran did make Ray. Absolutley. You see a very skillful, and fast and elite BOXER in ray up to the Benetiz fight, even Davey Boy Green. However, after the 1st 4 rounds of fighting Duran, you saw another Leonard that never ever was there before and carried him through the hearns, hagler fights, and helped him impose himself on other fightrs that could have been a upset Kalule, and Lalond. Duran the 1st 4 rounds did beat the hell out of Ray (well rounds 2-4). I remember watching the fight a rerun, saying dammm ray is getting his ass whipped, no substance! I honestly thought that. Then came rounds 7 (5 and 6 ray easily outboxed Duran and frusterated him a bit at how it ws in the middle of the ring those 2 rounds). In rounds 7 until the end. he dug deep and got hit with shots, and immediately returned fire, and often hit duran with shots and duran returned the fire. It was a classic brawl. Ray before that fight, did not believe in himself to be able to wage a brawl and what he had inside him. He had a discussion with Jackie Gleason who told him that Duran would whip him because he is an animal, to never fight him (this was early on in his career) Leonard questioned himself after that, could he deal with that. I think Duran woke Ray up to what he had inside, and Ray needed that fight to become what he was.

You also pointed on another thing. Leonard did have a injury forced shortened career. I have never ranked him with or above an Ali, Louis, Robinson. Never. However, since the 1970's the quality of ray's career is IMO above anyone elses as I can not think of a fighter that even when you look at their entire career, Chavez, Roy Jones, DLH, etc...I can not think of a fighter that has wins over 4 fighters the caliber of a Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Hagler. Whitacker is close....Mayweather is coming up....But Yes longivity matters, and defenses matter. However would you rather support a fighter that fights greats almost each time he steps in the ring,or someone that beats the quality of fighters like say Roy Jones, or Hopkins did during his title reign. Now recenty Hopkins has solidified his resume with wins over winky, and Tarver (well tarver is not great but it is a good win). However I still take Ray's career over Bernards any day.

So you bring up good issues, but I think if you remove the bias and focus on what he did, vs whom and what he meant to boxing. I think his quality of wins will superceed the short career he had. Do I wish he would have staged wars with Pryor (well that would have been an easy win and history would not have been favorable on him beating a fighter that IN REALITY only beat one great fighter at his prime (Arguello)and he moved up too...other than that Pryor is more hype and folklore and wins vs nobodys or past their prime champs with 10 losses than great wins over top opposition), rematch with Hearns, whom I agree ray should have immediately rematch. Had he been around in 192-87 he could have fought the Marlon Starlings, Donald Curry's, LLoyd Honeyghans, Moved up and fought the beast mugabi, Julian Jackson, Simon Brown, Terry Norris when he was not a shell of the prime Leonard, The body Snatcher,...He could have and easily beaten a prime Hagler. EASILY. You all talk about how Duran was not ever a welterweight til he fought Ray, then what about Hagle rin 83..He forced hagler to box and lead...Duran was no where near the boxer Leonard was, and in 82=-83 Hagler would have been the same hagler that fought Duran and barely beat Antefermo...You let that Hagler get in the riing with Leonard, and he losses 10-11 rounds out of twelve. It is simply Hagler is not a good figher when dealing with the slightest hint of angles or mobility, or if he has to lead. Hagler is at his best ..chest to chest, or when someone comes right at him, or when he can counter punch his pponent and his opponent is right there. This is not the case with a prime Leonard. Hagler is lucky he got Ray when he was a shell of himself, and had no stamina.

So yes it would have been better had ray been able to fight from 82-88. Howver that is not the deck of cards he/we were dealt. So we can only Judge Ray off of what he did vs whom and it is better than anyone else since Ali..... No ray is not a top 5 fighter, but he a top 10 in my book....Right there along with Duran kneck and kneck...IMO slightly ahead, but I can see those who would place duran ahead. However dont start to argue he shoudl be based on his 70 wins at lightweight because that is a joke of a resume at lightweight to fight 71 fights and the best names is Ken buchanon, Esteban Dejesus ( he is good), Viruet, Kobychia,Marcil..These may be good fighters but Chavez, Mayweather, Whitacker, all have beaten better fighters....Duran gets the nod for simply coming up to Welterweight and beating Leonard, then beating Moore and Barkly at higher wieghts, but honestly his exploits at lighweight are great but the names are not legendary.

Gavin1970... your absolutely right. Duran won the fight and was never a welterwieght before that year, Hmmmmm What happened in the rematch. Also, if your gonna knock Ray for losing to a fighter that was never a welter..then help me understand why many (not saying you) dont credit ray for pulling the same feat vs Hagler. Hmmmm wow! & Ray had not fought but once in 5 years..vs a seasoned champ.

London Rules. I dont care to try to make you like Ray Leonard as much as I do. In fact I am a realist as much as I like ray, I look at facts, and it appears you and some others,,the minority but some others always try to find excuses for his wins. YOU brought up the points issue, not me, and the Duran fight was about as close as one could imagine. You falsly point out that Duran uniformly and comprenshivly beat Leonard. I had Leonard winning the fight, as does anyone that has ever sat down at my house and watched it and scored it, with out the sound. I challenge you to get a pen and paper out and score the actual fight...I can tell you this it hendged on how you score round 1 and 12....the others are somewhat close but tends to have clear cut winner. After rounds 4, Ray gave as good as he got, he simply and WILLIGNLY chose to fight with his back on the ropes. I also challenge you to find one point in that fight where Duran cut the ring off on a mobile Ray. You can't cuz Ray chose to go toe to toe, even waiving duran inside to war with him when his back was on the ropes. So my point in bringing this up, is many people often score the style of the fight, versus what actually was happening in the fight. I found myself originally doing this in the Leonard Hagler fight, when my original score card was 9-3 ray...however when going back and removing the volumen and looking at punches, ring genalship, etc..it was a clear 7-5 for Ray. Back to Duran. I am not knocking him as it is a great great great accomplishment to step up to Welterweight and do what he did and beat Leonard in any style of fight, because as we all know Ray has beaten legends going toe to toe also...hmmm Hearns, Benitez (leonard did very little moving in that fight too, only he was not on the ropes). Duran deserves every bit of credit for his win, but he did not comprehensivly beat Leonard, it was a close very close fight with Duran probalbly deserving the victory by round 13 but he gave away round 15 and ray won round 14... So I think you need to go revisit the fight, It was the best showing at welterwieng for two great fighters I have ever seen, and the action was intense both ways. It was however Durans night, and his type of fight.

One thing I will agree with you on. Duran did make Ray. Absolutley. You see a very skillful, and fast and elite BOXER in ray up to the Benetiz fight, even Davey Boy Green. However, after the 1st 4 rounds of fighting Duran, you saw another Leonard that never ever was there before and carried him through the hearns, hagler fights, and helped him impose himself on other fightrs that could have been a upset Kalule, and Lalond. Duran the 1st 4 rounds did beat the hell out of Ray (well rounds 2-4). I remember watching the fight a rerun, saying dammm ray is getting his ass whipped, no substance! I honestly thought that. Then came rounds 7 (5 and 6 ray easily outboxed Duran and frusterated him a bit at how it ws in the middle of the ring those 2 rounds). In rounds 7 until the end. he dug deep and got hit with shots, and immediately returned fire, and often hit duran with shots and duran returned the fire. It was a classic brawl. Ray before that fight, did not believe in himself to be able to wage a brawl and what he had inside him. He had a discussion with Jackie Gleason who told him that Duran would whip him because he is an animal, to never fight him (this was early on in his career) Leonard questioned himself after that, could he deal with that. I think Duran woke Ray up to what he had inside, and Ray needed that fight to become what he was.

You also pointed on another thing. Leonard did have a injury forced shortened career. I have never ranked him with or above an Ali, Louis, Robinson. Never. However, since the 1970's the quality of ray's career is IMO above anyone elses as I can not think of a fighter that even when you look at their entire career, Chavez, Roy Jones, DLH, etc...I can not think of a fighter that has wins over 4 fighters the caliber of a Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Hagler. Whitacker is close....Mayweather is coming up....But Yes longivity matters, and defenses matter. However would you rather support a fighter that fights greats almost each time he steps in the ring,or someone that beats the quality of fighters like say Roy Jones, or Hopkins did during his title reign. Now recenty Hopkins has solidified his resume with wins over winky, and Tarver (well tarver is not great but it is a good win). However I still take Ray's career over Bernards any day.

So you bring up good issues, but I think if you remove the bias and focus on what he did, vs whom and what he meant to boxing. I think his quality of wins will superceed the short career he had. Do I wish he would have staged wars with Pryor (well that would have been an easy win and history would not have been favorable on him beating a fighter that IN REALITY only beat one great fighter at his prime (Arguello)and he moved up too...other than that Pryor is more hype and folklore and wins vs nobodys or past their prime champs with 10 losses than great wins over top opposition), rematch with Hearns, whom I agree ray should have immediately rematch. Had he been around in 192-87 he could have fought the Marlon Starlings, Donald Curry's, LLoyd Honeyghans, Moved up and fought the beast mugabi, Julian Jackson, Simon Brown, Terry Norris when he was not a shell of the prime Leonard, The body Snatcher,...He could have and easily beaten a prime Hagler. EASILY. You all talk about how Duran was not ever a welterweight til he fought Ray, then what about Hagle rin 83..He forced hagler to box and lead...Duran was no where near the boxer Leonard was, and in 82=-83 Hagler would have been the same hagler that fought Duran and barely beat Antefermo...You let that Hagler get in the riing with Leonard, and he losses 10-11 rounds out of twelve. It is simply Hagler is not a good figher when dealing with the slightest hint of angles or mobility, or if he has to lead. Hagler is at his best ..chest to chest, or when someone comes right at him, or when he can counter punch his pponent and his opponent is right there. This is not the case with a prime Leonard. Hagler is lucky he got Ray when he was a shell of himself, and had no stamina.

So yes it would have been better had ray been able to fight from 82-88. Howver that is not the deck of cards he/we were dealt. So we can only Judge Ray off of what he did vs whom and it is better than anyone else since Ali..... No ray is not a top 5 fighter, but he a top 10 in my book....Right there along with Duran kneck and kneck...IMO slightly ahead, but I can see those who would place duran ahead. However dont start to argue he shoudl be based on his 70 wins at lightweight because that is a joke of a resume at lightweight to fight 71 fights and the best names is Ken buchanon, Esteban Dejesus ( he is good), Viruet, Kobychia,Marcil..These may be good fighters but Chavez, Mayweather, Whitacker, all have beaten better fighters....Duran gets the nod for simply coming up to Welterweight and beating Leonard, then beating Moore and Barkly at higher wieghts, but honestly his exploits at lighweight are great but the names are not legendary.

Good post.:fing02:

Leonard really gets bashed on internet forums, and I don't know why. He's clearlty a top ten fighter of all-time.

Leonard really gets bashed on internet forums, and I don't know why. He's clearlty a top ten fighter of all-time.

I'm not bashing Leonard AT ALL. He's clearly one of the all time greats, I just get tired of people focusing on the second Duran/Leonard fight without giving Duran his due for beating him the first time. Duran clearly fought on way too long, and the Duran most people remember was one far above his best weight, fighting in his 75th, 85th, 100+th fight and then they say "oh Duran sucked." It's like people saying that Roy Jones sucked, even when he didn't lose a single fight until he was 35 (you can't count the first Griffin fight where the ref disqualified him.)

I'm not bashing Leonard AT ALL. He's clearly one of the all time greats, I just get tired of people focusing on the second Duran/Leonard fight without giving Duran his due for beating him the first time. Duran clearly fought on way too long, and the Duran most people remember was one far above his best weight, fighting in his 75th, 85th, 100+th fight and then they say "oh Duran sucked." It's like people saying that Roy Jones sucked, even when he didn't lose a single fight until he was 35 (you can't count the first Griffin fight where the ref disqualified him.)

That's not how I remember Duran. I remember him slugging it out three times with Esteban De Jesus. Oh, and destroying Pipino Cuevas. And giving Marvin Hagler the fight of his life while well past his prime. And beating Iran Barkley for a title while well past his prime. In short I remember him as one of the greatest p4p fighters of all time.

Poet

That's not how I remember Duran. I remember him slugging it out three times with Esteban De Jesus. Oh, and destroying Pipino Cuevas. And giving Marvin Hagler the fight of his life while well past his prime. And beating Iran Barkley for a title while well past his prime. In short I remember him as one of the greatest p4p fighters of all time.

Poet

As do I, and those accomplishments and more when far past his prime show just how good he was. I just get upset when people make judgements about Duran and Foreman based solely on these second careers, without ever seeing enough of their respective fights in their prime.

As do I, and those accomplishments and more when far past his prime show just how good he was. I just get upset when people make judgements about Duran and Foreman based solely on these second careers, without ever seeing enough of their respective fights in their prime.

Yeah, it reminds me of the idiot who asked Paul McCartney if he was with anyone before Wings.

Poet

Yes Duran was great, but some make him out to be some sort of god..and the facts are he really didnt beat great fighters at Lightweight, he beat very good fighters...He did beat Ray Leonard but again it was they style of the fight that dictated the winner, as I believe Ray adjusted just fine after round 4 and from that point on,,,Duran at welterweight saw a different leonard toe to toe and when he used his boxing style. As for Duran wins vs Barkley and Moore, My hats off, those couple with his dominance at lightweight, propel Duran into my top 10...Easily but not above Ray, as Ray beat better fighters, maybe not around as a professional as long, but beating duran, hearns, benetiz, and hagler is something that not many fighters ever can touch.

As do I, and those accomplishments and more when far past his prime show just how good he was. I just get upset when people make judgements about Duran and Foreman based solely on these second careers, without ever seeing enough of their respective fights in their prime.

I'm not saying Duran wasn't great, but Leonard is misunderstood on this forum.

If you go by the STATS, Sugar Ray Leonard has to be rated as one of the best.

Leonard fought a total of 21 Boxers that were rated in the Top 10 in the World when he fought them in 40 Pro bouts. That's a percentage of 52.5%. Compare that with Basilio 19 out of 79, Napoles 27 out of 85. Here's some of the top boxers, with their Stats:

* Champion in another weight class, so if you count them, the ratings would be a little higher for some. Example: Joe Louis would be 36 (instead of 34 because he fought 2 Light Heavyweight Champions that were not rated as a Heavyweight) out of 71 for a percentage of 50.7042%. I also added them at the end:


Ali, Muhammad 38/061 = 62.295% = 62.295%
Leonard, Sugar Ray 21/040 = 52.50000% = 52.50000%
Griffith, Emile 57*/112 = 50.892857% = 51.7857142857%
Charles, Ezzard 58**/115 = 50.43478% = 52.173913%
Louis, Joe 34**/071 = 47.887% = 50.70422535%
Spinks, Michael 14/032 = 43.75% = 43.75%
Bivins, Jimmy 48*/112 = 42.857% = 0.4375%
Ortiz, Carlos 29**/070 = 41.42857% = 44.2857%
Ortiz, Manual 52*/128 = 40.625% = 41.40625%
Saldivar, Vincente 16/041 = 39.02439% = 39.02439%
Maxim, Joey 44***/115 = 38.26087% = 40.869565%
LaMotta, Jake 39*/106 = 36.792453% = 37.735849%
Johnson, Harold 32/087 = 36.781609% = 36.781609%
Patterson, Floyd 23/064 = 35.9375% = 35.9375%
Walcott, Jersey Joe 25/071 = 35.211% = 35.211%
Frazier, Joe 13*/037 = 35.135% = 37.8378378%
Fullmer, Gene 22/064 = 34.37500% = 34.37500%
Fenech, Jeff 11*/032 = 34.37500% = 37.50000%
Burley, Charley 32/098 = 32.65306% = 32.65306%
Napoles, Jose 27/085 = 31.7647% = 31.7647%
Williams, Ike 49***/155 = 31.6129% = 33.548387%
Robinson, Sugar Ray 62*/200 = 31.00000% = 31.5000%
Sharkey, Jack 17*/055 = 30.9091% = 32.727272727%
Tiger, Dick 25*/081 = 30.8642% = 32.0987654%
Foster, Bob 20/065 = 30.769231% = 30.769231%
Gavilan, Kid 42/143 = 29.37063% = 29.37063%
Benitez, Wilfredo 18/062 = 29.032258% = 29.032258%
Montgomery, Bob 28/097 = 28.865979% = 28.865979%
Jack, Beau 34/118 = 28.813559% = 28.813559%
Moore, Archie 63**/219 = 28.767% = 29.680%
Laguna, Ismael 21/075 = 28.0000% = 28.0000%
Apostoli, Fred 20/072 = 27.777778% = 27.777778%
Gomez, Wilfredo 13*/048 = 27.083333% = 29.166667%
Chandler, Jeff 10/037 = 27.02703% = 27.02703%
Giardello, Joey 36*/134 = 26.86567% = 27.61194%
Brown, Joe 43*/162 = 26.54321% = 27.1604938%
Ramos, Sugar 17/066 = 25.75757576% = 25.75757576%
Armstrong, Henry 47***/183 = 25.6831% = 27.3224%
Hagler, Marvin 17*/067 = 25.373134% = 26.8656716%
Olson, Bobo 29*/117 = 24.7863248% = 25.6410%
Conn, Billy 19***/077 = 24.6753% = 28.5714%
Qawi, Dwight Muhammad 13/053 = 24.528302% = 24.528302%
Basilio, Carmen 19/079 = 24.0506329% = 24.0506329%
Norton, Ken 12/050 = 24.0000% = 24.0000%
Cuevas, Pipino 12/050 = 24.0000% = 24.0000%
Pastrano, Willie 20/084 = 23.8095238% = 23.8095238%
Cokes, Curtis 19/080 = 23.7500% = 23.7500%
Marciano, Rocky 11/049 = 22.44898% = 22.44898%
Carter, Jimmy 27*/121 = 22.31405% = 23.140496%
Liston, Sonny 12/054 = 22.2222% = 22.2222%
Jofre, Eder 17/078 = 21.79487% = 21.79487%
Sanchez, Salvador 10*/046 = 21.73913% = 23.913043%
Angott, Sammy 29***/134 = 21.64179% = 23.8806%
Rodriguez, Luis 26/121 = 21.4876% = 21.4876%
Arguello, Alexis 19/090 = 21.11111% = 21.11111%
Elorde, Flash 24/116 = 20.689655% = 20.689655%
Baer, Max 17/084 = 20.2381% = 20.2381%
Benvenuti, Nino 18/090 = 20.0000% = 20.0000%
Braddock, Jim 17/086 = 19.76744% = 19.76744%
Harada, Fighting 12/062 = 19.3548% = 19.3548%
Galindez, Victor 13/070 = 18.5714% = 18.5714%
Berlenbach, Paul 10**/054 = 18.5185% = 22.22222%
Battalino, Battling 16/087 = 18.3908% = 18.3908%
Zivic, Fritzie 42**/234 = 17.94872% = 18.8034%
Johansson, Ingo 05/028 = 17.85714% = 17.85714%
Carbajal, Michael 09/053 = 16.981132% = 16.981132%
Arizmendi, Baby 19*/113 = 16.814159% = 17.699%
Chacon, Bobby 11*/067 = 16.4179% = 17.9104%
Ambers, Lou 17**/104 = 16.34615% = 18.2692%
Canto, Miguel 12/074 = 16.216216% = 16.216216%
Monzon, Carlos 15/100 = 15.000% = 15.000%
Berg, Jack Kid 28*/192 = 14.58333% = 15.10417%
Buchanan, Ken 10*/069 = 14.49275% = 15.9420%
Pep, Willie 35/242 = 14.46281% = 14.46281%
Graziano, Rocky 12/083 = 14.4578% = 14.4578%
Schmeling, Max 10*/070 = 14.285714% = 15.7142857%
Graham, Billy 18*/126 = 14.2857% = 15.079%
Foreman, George 11*/081 = 13.5802469% = 14.8148148%
Cervantes, Antonio 14**/106 = 13.207547% = 15.0943%
Canzoneri, Tony 23*/175 = 13.142857% = 13.7142857%
Bass, Benny 25/228 = 10.9649% = 10.9649%
Jenkins, Lew 12**/114 = 10.5263% = 12.2807%
Brouillard, Lou 14*/141 = 09.929078% = 10.638298%
Chocolate, Kid 15*/152 = 09.8684% = 10.5263%
Cerdan, Marcel 10/113 = 08.84956% = 08.84956%
Brown, Panama Al 15*/70 = 08.235% = 09.4117647%

Leonard was a great but its two things that always stick with me.

1) He didn't give Hagler a rematch
2) He was SCARED of Aaron Pryor

coke head or not..dude could fight and would have beat leonard and everyone else. I put Hawk above Leonard.

gizzzle...that is a joke...it is people who know nothing about boxing, nothing about time line...nothing that continously say unsupported stuff like that. Pryor called out Ray leonard. when....hmmmm. Get your facts straight. He called out ray during an era when ray fought duran, twice, bentitez, kalule, Hearns..... Ray then foguth one time after that and forced into retirment due to retinal damage.

Tell us this ...when shoiuld a Pryor Leonard fight have taken place.
Better yet what validated Pryor as legitimate Welterweight contender
Who great did Pryor beat at their peak that was a solid Jr welterweight.
If Ray leonard had fought Pryor instead of Hearns then how would history have remember Ray.

Keep in mind Pyrors fight with Arguello was AFTER Leonard had retinal surgery.

Finally, Ray leonard fought the toughest stretch of fights I can remember anyone fighting, no matter who he fought there is some who know nothing about negotiatons, boxing, or the options Leonard had...some haters will always sit back uhhh Ray was ducking this fighter or he ducked that fighter... You cant fighter everyone, and Pryor who never ever fought at welterweight before he retired, did nothing to deserve a title shot with leonard while leonard was active. As far as being scared, why would he be scared of little ol Pryor and face fighters like heanrs and Haglr...and when he use to whip up on Pryor in sparring.

If you go by the STATS, Sugar Ray Leonard has to be rated as one of the best.

Leonard fought a total of 21 Boxers that were rated in the Top 10 in the World when he fought them in 40 Pro bouts. That's a percentage of 52.5%. Compare that with Basilio 19 out of 79, Napoles 27 out of 85. Here's some of the top boxers, with their Stats:


** Stats are nice Henry, and it is impressive the vast array of stats that you have come up with on this forum. As I recall, many you have provided seem to be the product of your own research and obviously took some time to compile.

However, there are stats, and there are stats. It seems you penalize career longevity heavily if I read your conclusions properly, Basilio and and Napoles lasting twice as long as Leonard.

Just like using title fights as a main marker of greatness, when so many fighters are frozen out of title fights for much of their careers, or even all their careers, yet titles being a dime a dozen today. How great would Charles be ranked if he never fought for the heavyweight title, yet had the same exact record?

Most modern historians would rank Ray ahead of Jeffries in compiling a greatest fighter list. Jeffries career lasted half as long as that of Ray, and 45% was against HOFers at or near their best, save Jackson. All those HOF bouts came in Jeffries last 15 fights, a 60% ratio. Oddly enough, plug in title fights for HOF and the exact 45% for career remains. How many fighters have and close out their careers like that? I doubt you can find any fighter who comes close to those records, but does that make Jeffries the best?

What we knew about ancient mid and South American native cultures was published extensively over the past century, but it turns out that the picture of the cultures the archeologists put together has mostly been turned upside down by recent, more comprehensive excavations.

Seems those early archeologists restricted their research to what could be found next to major roads in the region. Modern aerial mapping and excavation techniques have greatly expanded our understanding, but even so it just represents a limited point of view.

We cannot even begin to fully describe and understand all the myriad of permutations of modern American culture, much less that of the world. Yet every year new books come out by historians claiming to do just that at one level or another.

Boxing is a great deal more simplified than all that, but even so, it's still an immense undertaking, something like 300,000+ fighters in Boxrec, most of whom very little is known. Consequently, the focus tends to be on those more widely covered fighters. Still, there is no wide consensus on what actually occurred in the first Flynn/Dempsey fight, much less the Liston/Ali rematch, reasonably well covered events in their day and relatively modern history in comparison.

Ray is one of the best, without question. Ranking him becomes an exercise in how many great fighters can you rank on the head of a pin. I dare say it's fairly easy to rank a few, but any more than that it becomes a swearing match, with many claiming me, me, I've got the most and best fighters ranked on a pinhead plus a spreadsheet.

I reckon these lists makes Burt Sugar a little walking around money when he comes out with his new published list, and I doubt he even has a spreadsheet.

Well, your spreadsheets are greatly welcomed, and it's very interesting to contemplate your passion that led you to go to that much trouble. Might be worth a comprehensive compiling of all your spreadsheets in a publication with your own rankings in your own story. A touch of honey to flavor all that sugar might be tasty.

I just wanted you to see another way of rating them. During Leonard's 40 Pro bouts he fought more Top 10 contenders then Basilio did in his 79 bouts. I also go by who they fought and what their opponents record was. Example:

Ali fought guys that had an average record of

Ali: 33.2-5.2-1.2
Louis 38.1-10.2-2.6
Marciano 29.7-10.16-1.8

Leonard 31.85-4.575-1

I know STATS don't show you the whole picture, BUT it's another thing you can look at when your trying to rate them.

My comment was he was scared to fight HAWK....which he was. You cannot lie about that one. Hawk repeatedly called out leonard and because they were friends, leonard always jokingly said no. Hawk would've beat leonard and you know that. They could've fought after Pryor, who already was WBA titleholder after destroying Cervantes in '80, could've fought after the Duran rematch. Pryor would've been coming off a destruction of a good fighter in Lennox Blackmoore. Instead of fighting Larry "fvckin" Bonds, he should've of fought Aaron Pryor. But NO...As far as sparring is concerned, there is a video on youtube of pryor schooling a young tommy hearns. Facts are straight. Look at the mans record. He destroyed people. People weren't looking to fight him..give me a break.

Gizzle...First off son...let he help you in one area. You say I know Pryor would have beaten Leonard. No I do not know that. I think Leoanrd would have destroyed Pryor. IMO Pryor got hit way to easily and was rocked by Arguello, knocked down by dujuan johnson, cervantes, kameda....all fighters that hit about 10% as hard and fast as Ray does...Hmmm had that have been Leonard in that fight with Arguello Pryor would not have made it to round 8....More speed, bigger fighter, more power and better jaw, that what he faced in Arguello and Cervantez his too biggest challengers.

Gizzle, another thing I have seen the boxing match with a Amateur Tommy hearns and he did not destroy him. It was a semi close fight. He was the aggressor but we all know Tommy had no power as an amateur and was considered a boxer.

Now you say he should have fought Pryor...hmmmm lets analyze that. Your obviously a Pryor fan. Kudos.. However if you know boxing and know business, what sense would it have made leonard to fight Pryor a Jr welterweight who at the time only beat Cervantes, never moved up to Welterweight (As Duran did and beat Palimino), and oh yeh after the Duran fight he fought who.....you forget to list the champions he fought 1st Kalule the 154 WBA champion, and then Tommy Hearns. Lets see Gizzle...How friendly would history had been on Leoanrd had he not fought Hearns who also called him out with a rubber duck after he beat leoanrd. Oh by the way the media wanted this fight 10x more than a Pryor fight, as evidenced by that fight racking in more $ than any other fight ever at the time. Leonard fighting Hearns who just destroyed Cuevas, was 32-0 with 30 ko's but he was scared to fight Pryor who did not hit as hard, smaller less reach...and who he used to beat up in sparring. Hmmmmmm And Gizzle these are Pryor's own words regarding Leonard and his sparring sessions...1st statement..."Yes Leonard use to Lump me up when we sparred, but I got in some good licks too", and second Statement,..."Leonard I would have loved to fight Ray,,,ask him he knows me".......I agree Pryor called ray out, but who didnt. If you were alive at the time, and if you were a boxing enthusiast at the time, you know that every fighter from 135 to 160 including on Mr. hagler who the media was wanting Ray to fight also ,,,, much more that Pryor, wanted to fight ray. Was calling out Ray. Fighters from 1979 Cuevas, Palimino all were lining up their fights to get a chance to fight ray. Ray fought the winners of great matchups at the Welterweight division,,,Son. Look up your facts. He fought the winner of Duran Palimino..and Benitez Palimino...Both of them. He fought the winner of Cuevas Hearns......So what he fought a bum in Larry bonds..Who else did he fight between 79-81.

I ask you this since you want to throw darts, Who else has fought a tougher stretch of fights n a 3 Year period than Ray did.

Finally, Gizzle...You talk about this fight,,,the media was not even thinking about this fight or pyror until after he beat Arguello. Pryor was a 2-1 underdog vs Arguello coming up to beat him. There was no media demand for this fight, until 83, after he beat Arguello and after Ray retired. Pryor wanted money, and Ray was the route to this....However, son if you know your facts, Ray's majore issue at the time was a man named Hagler and a rematch with Hearns. Pryor was a possible opponent but down the list. It is folklore and people that simply do not know exactly the time line back then..(Look up the dates, or do i have to list them for you) so that they can easily tell that all this Pryor stuff is simply people trying to make a big challenger out of a fighter who never came up to Welter wieght and fought his biggest and only valid qualifying fight after Ray Retired. I also ask you what if Ray had came back and fought Pryor instead of Hagler....How would history view him.

Your arguement is honestly a joke, unsupported, and if you think about it instead of jumping on bandwagons cause your a Pryor nuthugger you will realize that Leonard could not fight every fighter out there, but he did fight the best of the litter and all 4 were more qualified for a title match with him than a fither who never fought at welter, and only beat 1 fighter in his entire career that was a top fighter that was an original super featherweight, at the end of his career. I suggest you continue to support pryror,but when debating me, get your facts straight and get of the pryor nuthugger pipe.



Time line my friend.

Leonard duran fights june -nov 1980
Leonard heanrs 9/81
Retires november 1982
November 12th Pryor Arguello 1st fight...

" Once again between rounds Pryor's notorious cornerman Panama Lewis, well known for cheating and doing anything to win, could be heard requesting the second bottle, and telling an aide "No, not that one, the one I mixed", when the aide offered the water bottle that had been used throughout the rest of the fight."

Just a little quote on how Pryor rallied to win that fight.

Sept 1983 Rematch with Arguello.........

So my friend Gizzle Where was there a legitimate chance it to make sense for Ray to fight a fighter who did not enter into anyone's consiousness until 1982..He was not even ranked until 1980 at Jr Welterweight.

I got a lot of other facts for you if you want them. The whole issue is this. Pryor was good, but he was robbed of his chance at greatness. He may have been able to do the things that many think, but he never showed it versus top flight opposition for whatever reason. Based on objective reasoning, and factual evidence that we can see, and common business sense which anyone who knows Ray knows not only did he face the best quality ever, but he made the most money at the time,,,,there is no valid supported arguement for there to ever have been a Pryor vs Leonard fight, unless he had not retired. That is a decision he made based on the best information he had at the time, and seeing examples of other fighters Sugar Ray seals, Greb, and Pryor himself later, all fighter who did not head the warnign about detached retinas...


Also here is a list for Ray quality of opposition I will quote HHascup, for showing a quantitative, objective way at looking at reviewing the quality of a fighters career.

I just wanted you to see another way of rating them. During Leonard's 40 Pro bouts he fought more Top 10 contenders then Basilio did in his 79 bouts. I also go by who they fought and what their opponents record was. Example:

Ali fought guys that had an average record of

Ali: 33.2-5.2-1.2
Louis 38.1-10.2-2.6
Marciano 29.7-10.16-1.8

Leonard 31.85-4.575-1

I know STATS don't show you the whole picture, BUT it's another thing you can look at when your trying to rate them.

Just for the record Pryor fought opponents that had an average record of 24.23-11.05-1.256

Thanks,,,So what we have here is a fighter who had comparible amount of fights...who had oppositions with an average record of 24 wins 11 lossess and 1 draw... Pryor ...Vs a figher who had a an average of 32-5-1..Also a fighter who beat four top legends.... where 3 of his opponents where bigger, stronger, and higher rated pound per pound than Pryor could dream of being rated...and the fourth was Duran.....And again Pryor never set foot in the welterweights til much much latter in his career, but we on here debating Ray not fighting Pryor....wow. It would be a better arguement about Ray not fighting Cuevas, or hell he could have fought Chavez he had just as much a right to fight Ray as Pryor did.

It took a novel to get your point across eh?
Anyway, I don't believe your my dad so they're isn't going to be any sons around here understand? To address your statement you make a valid point. Do me a favor and re-read the original post. I did not say Ray didn't fight the best, nor did I knock any of achievements. I stated that Ray, to me, will always be less than he could of for not fighting Pryor and having a rematch with Hagler. POINT BLANK. Is it my opinion that Ray was scared of Pryor, YES, I believe he didn't want any part of him because he saw something in him. I'm not a Pryor nuthugger by any degree, if its the case, you wrote a novel defending Ray Leonard, looks like you have more invested in the nuthugging department eh? Pryor wasn't a defensive fighter at all. He blocked punches with his head. The punches, however, didn't affect him. Look at his knockdowns since you have so much to go back on. The man got knocked down and literally JUMPED back up. He couldn't be hurt. So what Ray beat him up in sparring. I bet Pryor kept on coming back for more and more. Thats why I believe he was the best. You said it right he would have been an all time great if he just had the opportunity and had he stayed clear of drugs. I'm just calling it like I see it. Any more discussion needed?/

Listen SON........you gotta get tougher mentailly than being upset because of 3 letters typed in a chat room. I will respect your wishes. Gizzle ok... However I have no problem with anyone ever thinking anyone can win a fight as we never know until the fight, which Pryor and Leonard never did.

Yes Pryor was the unfortunate victim of timing, and being in a in between division. If anyone should be accused of ducking him, it shuld be Duran as Duran moved up from beating all the top lightweights, and skipped right over him to fight Palimino and Leonard at welter? Once again Ray was the name and thus He is the target for most. Many say things (not targeting you) with out ever thinking about it.

Honestly think about How DUMB of a career decision would it have been for Ray to Fight Pryor at the time.

1. In 80-82 Leonard fought the best welterweight and superwelts with distant demand by the media to eventually face Hagler. Pryors name was not mentioned during this time, as he had not yet beaten Arugello til the end of 82.
2. The drum beat in 81 and 82 was for ray to face the WBA champion Hearns..then the media wanted a rematch with hearns and Hagler at the time leonard had a detached Retina and retired.
3. You correctly point out ray should have rematched hearns. However you leave out that he was in surgury for his eye roughly 6 months later in march of 82.
4. Pyror may not have been hurt by 135 pounders and 140 pounders but it is different when fighting Ray at welter. I think the avg person can agreee (maybe you and I can not) that getting his and dropped by the people he faced leads one to wonder about his balance and how would he be able to deal with the same leonard who stopped welter wieght champions who at the time had never been down and jr middle champions (kalule) who never was down amateur or pro. We can not say for sure what would happen, but I think that Pryor would have a lot more on his hans had he stepped up to 147 and fought any of the top fighters, and trust me he would have gotten killed at 147 had he faced hearns....This is not a amateur hearns who had no power, it is a professional hearns who learned how to punch.

5. Finally, need I mention to you that Ray leonard was the name at time. His job was to make sound business decisions and fight the best. He did this better than anyone ever since Ali, making over 100 million, beating 4 legends and 5-6 titles in different divisions. Ray job was not to make decisions to help other people make money off of him, especially others who never ever was a legitimate contender or demanded by the media during Rays active years. I suggest you revist the timelines and you will see Pryor was not even ranked by the Jr Welters til well into 1980. Never fought at Welter, and only became a media icon in 82 (winning fighter of the year and fight of the year) with his controverial win vs Arguello. In fact Pryor was considered nothing special at the time and the media had picked Arugello to move and beat him and gain his 4th title. Arguello was a 2-1 betting odds favorite. You honestly think that there was anyone who wanted to see a Pryor-Leoanrd fight instead of a Leonard Hearns or Hagler fight pre- Pryor -Arguello when he was not even picked to beat a figher moving up from 135. Come on now...Lets be honest. That at that time is when he could hollar the name Leoanrd and Leonard and his camp would be forced to recogninze that there is some money in this fight, and Pryor doesnt deserve a shot, as much as a cuevas or palimino who were all top WELTERS NOT JR WELTERS...but media demand is part of this too. Pryor simply came a tadbit too late ot the party. Remember, when Ray retired it was Hagler who the media wanted him to fight, and who was the VIP on hand at Leonard retirment celebration. Pryor was there as other fighters were too, but they all wanted to make their money off of Ray, This is not Rays fault.

I repsect your opinions about who would win, Gizzle. No doubl Pryor was great talent, and media favorite, and had a tragic and unfortunate ending to his career. But to fault ray for anything including not fighting him is simply a myth that the media AFTER Ray had retired started to say, and demand. Before Ray retired Pryor's name was not on the chart anymore so than hmmmm the great Japanese champion that had a lot of people wondering if Ray could deal with him.

It took a novel to get your point across eh?
Anyway, I don't believe your my dad so they're isn't going to be any sons around here understand? To address your statement you make a valid point. Do me a favor and re-read the original post. I did not say Ray didn't fight the best, nor did I knock any of achievements. I stated that Ray, to me, will always be less than he could of for not fighting Pryor and having a rematch with Hagler. POINT BLANK. Is it my opinion that Ray was scared of Pryor, YES, I believe he didn't want any part of him because he saw something in him. I'm not a Pryor nuthugger by any degree, if its the case, you wrote a novel defending Ray Leonard, looks like you have more invested in the nuthugging department eh? Pryor wasn't a defensive fighter at all. He blocked punches with his head. The punches, however, didn't affect him. Look at his knockdowns since you have so much to go back on. The man got knocked down and literally JUMPED back up. He couldn't be hurt. So what Ray beat him up in sparring. I bet Pryor kept on coming back for more and more. Thats why I believe he was the best. You said it right he would have been an all time great if he just had the opportunity and had he stayed clear of drugs. I'm just calling it like I see it. Any more discussion needed?/

Listen, Pryor was NOT all that. Who did he beat? A washed up Arguello who would have knocked Pryor out if it had been just five years earlier. Hearns would have iced the Hawk at Welterweight and so would Leonard and I'd have laid even money on a past his prime Duran doing the same. Pryor fanatics remind me of the Tony Ayala freaks who think he would have ripped the Welters apart despite not having a single name fighter on his record.

Poet

Listen, Pryor was NOT all that. Who did he beat? A washed up Arguello who would have knocked Pryor out if it had been just five years earlier. Hearns would have iced the Hawk at Welterweight and so would Leonard and I'd have laid even money on a past his prime Duran doing the same. Pryor fanatics remind me of the Tony Ayala freaks who think he would have ripped the Welters apart despite not having a single name fighter on his record.

Poet

I totally disagree with this Arguello was not past his prime and in previous fights to Pryor he didn't look past his best or washed up i don't think your giving Pryor enough credit for that win no one thought Arguello was past his best prior to the fight thats why he was the favorite and he certainly didn't fight like he was past his best when he fought Pryor.

Now i don't think he would of ripped the Welterweights apart but he would defintely give Duran, Leonard, Hearns, tough fights.

I totally disagree with this Arguello was not past his prime and in previous fights to Pryor he didn't look past his best or washed up i don't think your giving Pryor enough credit for that win no one thought Arguello was past his best prior to the fight thats why he was the favorite and he certainly didn't fight like he was past his best when he fought Pryor.

Now i don't think he would of ripped the Welterweights apart but he would defintely give Duran, Leonard, Hearns, tough fights.

And Cervantes was not only past his prime but at the end of his string: After Pryor he fought sporadically over the next three years against nobodies Arguello WAS past his prime, his best days were in the 70s at Featherweight not in the 80s at Junior-Welter. A lot of observers don't realize a fighter is past his prime until it reaches out and smacks them in the face, even though logic would tell them the truth of the matter. Hindsight IS 20/20 afterall and we can look back and see, yeah, he's past it better than people watching at the time. Did Pryor fight Benitez? Hearns? Leonard? Duran? Hell, did he even fight Cuevas? No. There aren't any of these PRIME names on his resume. He simply doesn't have the credentials to justify the adulation people shower on him.

Poet

And Cervantes was not only past his prime but at the end of his string: After Pryor he fought sporadically over the next three years against nobodies Arguello WAS past his prime, his best days were in the 70s at Featherweight not in the 80s at Junior-Welter. A lot of observers don't realize a fighter is past his prime until it reaches out and smacks them in the face, even though logic would tell them the truth of the matter. Hindsight IS 20/20 afterall and we can look back and see, yeah, he's past it better than people watching at the time. Did Pryor fight Benitez? Hearns? Leonard? Duran? Hell, did he even fight Cuevas? No. There aren't any of these PRIME names on his resume. He simply doesn't have the credentials to justify the adulation people shower on him.

Poet

But when did Arguello look past his prime in previsious fights ?? he didn't look past his prime against Mancini or against Kevin Rooney who he dismantled your telling me he was past his best but your not telling me in what fights he was past his best prior to Pryor fight i have watched quite alot of Arguello and i see both of Mancini and Rooney fights and he certainly didn't look past his best in those fights nor did he look past his best when he fought Pryor in there 1st meeting im not saying Pryor has a load of great wins but i still don't think your giving Pryor enough credit for Arguello fight remember Pryor was the underdog against Arguello.

But when did Arguello look past his prime in previsious fights ?? he didn't look past his prime against Mancini or against Kevin Rooney who he dismantled your telling me he was past his best but your not telling me in what fights he was past his best prior to Pryor fight i have watched quite alot of Arguello and i see both of Mancini and Rooney fights and he certainly didn't look past his best in those fights nor did he look past his best when he fought Pryor in there 1st meeting im not saying Pryor has a load of great wins but i still don't think your giving Pryor enough credit for Arguello fight remember Pryor was the underdog against Arguello.

I think the reason Pryor get such adulation and praise is a combination of factors - alot of guys didn't want to face him, the myth that Ray ducked him, the Arguello fights and his truly exciting, take no prisoners, style.

I think he's in the vein of many fighters in that he is vastly overrated and underrated at the same time.

I think the reason Pryor get such adulation and praise is a combination of factors - alot of guys didn't want to face him, the myth that Ray ducked him, the Arguello fights and his truly exciting, take no prisoners, style.

I think he's in the vein of many fighters in that he is vastly overrated and underrated at the same time.


I think he's in the vein of many fighters in that he is vastly overrated and underrated at the same time

I totally agree with your last comment well said.

Tommy Hearns vs Aaron Pryor as Amateurs. Tommy wasn't a KO artist as an Amateur as he only had a few KO's before he turned Pro. Also, Hearns was only 17 and was just out of the JO's at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BvlgGbrKzs

" think the reason Pryor get such adulation and praise is a combination of factors - alot of guys didn't want to face him, the myth that Ray ducked him, the Arguello fights and his truly exciting, take no prisoners, style.

I think he's in the vein of many fighters in that he is vastly overrated and underrated at the same time."

Hawkins..great post. I agree with 99% of your post. Only thing i question is being underrated. For Pyror to be even ranked in the top 100 of all time is overrating him. Not that I dont think he would have ultimately achieved this had he faced better fighters..except for Hearns and Leonard at Welter. However, He simply does not have the resume to justify this folklore that we have with him. It is funny how many people jumpt on the Leonard ducked Pryor bandwagon, with out doing their research. A simple time line, and any intelligent business thnking shows that simply Pryor came along a shade bit too late.

I think that the fight that could have propelled him to stardom would have been Duran when he was moving up. Now I know there was some back door conversations between the two camps that resulted in them never meeting. However that was more a "should be" fight than a fighter who was in a weight class that Pryor entered 8 years or so later.