Ray Leonard overrated

[hemichromis]

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

[Hawkins]

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.

[hemichromis]

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!

[Jim Jeffries]

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?

[Jim Jeffries]

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.

[LondonRingRules]

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.

[Hawkins]

** 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.

[wpink1]

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...

[hemichromis]

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

[LondonRingRules]

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.