Originally posted by slicksouthpaw16
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why is Leonard considered greater than Hearns?
Collapse
-
Originally posted by danc1984 View PostI agree with this. Having watched a lot of both of their fights based purely on boxing ability I would favour Hearns. Tommy's disadvantages in terms of chin and stamina outweighed that though.
You cant.
Tommy was a good boxer, but chin, stamina, avoiding punches, etc... all are bot of the equation.. Leonard won hs big fights except for the 1st duran fight, ...If tommy was soo good why did he continously come up short.Last edited by wpink1; 08-29-2008, 07:33 PM.
Comment
-
To wpink1:
Hagler was an entirely different beast after he beat Minter for the championship, I don't really place much stock in his fights prior to this one.
Hagler certainly fought a very dumb fight against Ray, no doubt, however if you think that was Hagler at his peak I can only conclude that you have only seen 1 or 2 of Marvin's fights.
And on your comment about records, sure it is the official record that counts, but when you are talking legacies it is ok to consider situational circumstances. For the purposes of legacy Whitaker DID beat Chavez, just like Tommy clearly beat Ray in their second fight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wpink1 View PostSlicksouth paw...you have got to be joking. Leonard is a much better boxer than hearns was. Just like Roy is a better boxer than Tarve was, and Mosly is vs Forrest, and finally Mayweather is than the 36 year old DLH. The reason Hearns beats leonard in head to head boxing, simply is he has reach on Leonard and Height, and Ray has to appreciate his power. IF YOU BOX...I am not saying you didnt. HOWEVER..IF YOU BOX. You know that a pure boxer like a leonard, Roy most times (sometimes he will defy all basics) mayweather, they have to change their strategy vs a man with the physical advantages that hearns had. Have you ever heard of of the quote you box a fighter, you fight a boxer, if you have the skills and this man has certain advantages on you.
If leoanrd boxed Hearns 100 times he would use the same style and at their peak he would probably stop him 80 times....It was not heat and Tommy legs that beat him. Leoanrd had Tommy damm near ready to go in rounds 6 and 7. It was leoanrd that simply stopped punching. Tommy did some great boxing after that, but a well rested leonard could have put much more pressure on Tommy in rounds 8 when Tommy had no legs and with 1 minute left he was hit was light righ hand and his legs buckled then too.
Tommy simpy was a freak of nature at Welter.. 6'1 78 inch reach,and power. You do not box him, you chop him down body then to the head. Any trainer will tell you this. Why do you think Mayweather is not fighint Williams...He will not be able to outbox Williams with a 80 inch reachk, but do we assume Wlliams is a better boxer than Mayweather, or Tarver than Roy.
Hearns was no where near as fast..That is plain a joke. Tommy had a fast jab..His right was simply powerful, No combinations...Where is his fast combination punching. Where is the foot speed. Forrest summed it up brlliantly after he beat Mosly the first time. Reach and height neutralized speed if you have a jab. Tommy had a great jab, however he was not as fast as leoanrd. Wow.
It is obvious you dont like Ray, but you got to come stronger than that.
Also, i am a fan of Ray Leonard, but not a huge one. I have nothing against him at all. He fought all the best fighters of his era and beat them all. I just personally like Hagler more so of course i can't be a BIG fan of Ray...lol. Hagler actually came to my Uncle's hotel back in 90( after he had been retired) and they discussed the controversial decision. My uncle told me that he was very upset when he firsr brought it up and gave him a mean expression, but then laughed afterwards and told him that he clearly won the fight and that Ray even told him that after the fight was over. He also told him that Ray Leonard was too scared to give him a rematch.Last edited by slicksouthpaw16; 08-29-2008, 07:36 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wpink1 View PostName one fight that Tommy through fast combinations in. I think your confusing Reach and the attributes that come with reach like neutralizing anthers speed becasue the short fighter cant get to you, and has much further to get back out once they throw their punch,,I think your confusing Reach and its attributes, with speed. Tommy had a fast jab...and no his right was not slow, but no where near the hand and foot speed that Ray had....Go look at Ray vs Duran, or the comginations he threw vs price, chavarini, geraldo..or go look at her olympics....Tell me what fight you saw Tommy showcase hand and foot speed like that...
You cant.
Comment
-
Originally posted by slicksouthpaw16 View PostVernon Forrest was obviously a better boxer than Mosley, same with Tarver against Jones simply because they OUT boxed them and they are tighter with their technique. Forrest has always had Mosley's number, even when they met in the amateurs. These fighters had the tools and ability to negate their opponents game and take advantage of those flaws because they are the better boxer. A fighter like Forrest and Hearns will always have advantages over the speed fighter because they have the ability to exploit their lack of technique. For Example, Mosley had little success with boxing Forrest even on the outside because his game is speed. Do you believe that 1 inch in height advantage for Forrest would really make that much difference? Ray Leonard was special and he showed why he was great, he took advantage of the only shot that he had of winning( on the inside) and took advantage of it. Many fighters cannot weather such a power storm the way he did, and to show that the technique of Hearns and the fact that he was a better boxer showed because he was behind on points when he did it. Hope that made sense.
Also, i am a fan of Ray Leonard, but not a huge one. I have nothing against him at all. He fought all the best fighters of his era and beat them all. I just personally like Hagler more so of course i can't be a BIG fan of Ray...lol. Hagler actually came to my Uncle's hotel back in 90( after he had been retired) and they discussed the controversial decision. My uncle told me that he was very upset when he firsr brought it up and gave him a mean expression, but then laughed afterwards and told him that he clearly won the fight and that Ray even told him that after the fight was over. He also told him that Ray Leonard was too scared to give him a rematch.
Forrest was a pretty good boxer, but you said it all his reach with proper technique neutralized the faster fighter in mosley. Tarver was no where near the boxer Roy was. NOWHERE NEAR. Prime Roy literally kills Tarver. Literally Kills Tarver. Tarver didnt beat Roy the first time they fought when they boxed in the center of the ring. Remeber. He didnt even punch. He only scored when Roy was versus the ropes. The 2nd fght was a ko..and that can happen to anyone at any time..Its not like he was outboxing Roy. The 3rd time, Roy simply became a hoe....In summary Tarver does own Roy...But, He is clearly no where near the boxer Roy was.....
The point you made that Leonard had only one shot, was Dead Correct. In fact Dundee said in sports illustrated the week before the 1st fight that Hearns would control leonard from the outside that is to be expected, but that Ray would spend he 1st coupld of rounds moving to avoid catching anything early and zap some of the strenght from Tommy...Hmmm this is exaclty what happened. It is not that Tommy is a better boxer than leoanrd, Leonard can do so many things that Tommy cant do, many...However Tommy vs 5'10 leonard has a physical mismatchin size and reach that simply placed him at the top of all time welterweights.
I ask you this..Tommy should have been probably early on jr middle then a middle for most of his career, if he was on the level of a boxer wth Ray leonard, how do you think he would do vs middleweights day in day out boxing. I dont think he would be as successful as a welterwieght Ray, he simply was a freak of nature at welter, just like Paul williams is at welter, yoy think Williams will do great at Middleweight.......
Comment
-
Originally posted by wpink1 View PostSlick...Good post, but it is not technique always when your facing someone that has reach and height, and you have to respect certain things that they physically bring to the table.
Forrest was a pretty good boxer, but you said it all his reach with proper technique neutralized the faster fighter in mosley. Tarver was no where near the boxer Roy was. NOWHERE NEAR. Prime Roy literally kills Tarver. Literally Kills Tarver. Tarver didnt beat Roy the first time they fought when they boxed in the center of the ring. Remeber. He didnt even punch. He only scored when Roy was versus the ropes. The 2nd fght was a ko..and that can happen to anyone at any time..Its not like he was outboxing Roy. The 3rd time, Roy simply became a hoe....In summary Tarver does own Roy...But, He is clearly no where near the boxer Roy was.....
The point you made that Leonard had only one shot, was Dead Correct. In fact Dundee said in sports illustrated the week before the 1st fight that Hearns would control leonard from the outside that is to be expected, but that Ray would spend he 1st coupld of rounds moving to avoid catching anything early and zap some of the strenght from Tommy...Hmmm this is exaclty what happened. It is not that Tommy is a better boxer than leoanrd, Leonard can do so many things that Tommy cant do, many...However Tommy vs 5'10 leonard has a physical mismatchin size and reach that simply placed him at the top of all time welterweights.
I ask you this..Tommy should have been probably early on jr middle then a middle for most of his career, if he was on the level of a boxer wth Ray leonard, how do you think he would do vs middleweights day in day out boxing. I dont think he would be as successful as a welterwieght Ray, he simply was a freak of nature at welter, just like Paul williams is at welter, yoy think Williams will do great at Middleweight.......
Paul Williams on the other hand, wouldn't be as successful. He is not on the level of Hearns in terms of skill or punching power. He mainly looks to out work his opponents and overwhelm them by throwing volume punches. He would run into problems with both a naturally bigger boxer or a physically strong fighter. A fighter should fight at the best weight that they feel comfortable at and where they would be most effective. Williams should stay at welter or he would give up his advantages.Last edited by slicksouthpaw16; 08-29-2008, 08:36 PM.
Comment
-
Comment