Ezzard Charles or Ray Leonard?

[Method Checker]

Hagler & Duran were both post-prime. Hearns was overtrained (not Leonard's fault.. but was trailing when he stopped hearns.) and denied a rematch for a long time. Benitez is a good fighter, but I'd take Burley, Bivins, Moore, Marshall & Maxim over him as being better wins.

Post-prime and over-trained? Those are just excuses.

In reality, Hagler, as great as he was, lost to a welterweight who had been out for a couple of years. He beat one of the greatest middleweights of all-time in his comeback fight.

Duran was out-boxed by Leonard twice. The third time, he wasn't in his prime. The second time, he was. Just because it wasn't at lightweight doesn't mean it wasn't in his prime.

And if you're bashing his Hearns win because he was behind on the scorecard, then that means Ali's victory of Lyle should be bashed because he was behind on the scorecards, as well. Nobody thinks like that, unless they're looking for excuses.

The depth that Charles' resume has is just incredible. He fought every top contender, every champion and every elite fighter that would fight him from middleweight to heavyweight - no exceptions. The guy was way past his best and still taking on all comers like Harold Johnson and Rocky Marciano. In fact, he came close to beating prime Rocky twice.

He has a great resume and he did take on all of the top contenders, but match his greatest wins to Leonard's greatest wins. I think most people will agree that Leonard has the greater wins.

And he didn't come close to beating Marciano. He lost a clear decision and got knocked out in the second fight.

Leonard's resume isn't as impressive as it's made out to be.. he beat 4 great fighters (two post-prime) and the rest is filled with average contenders and "retirements".

It's all excuses. If you can't present a valid argument, you shouldn't be debating.

[wmute]

Post-prime and over-trained? Those are just excuses.

In reality, Hagler, as great as he was, lost to a welterweight who had been out for a couple of years. He beat one of the greatest middleweights of all-time in his comeback fight.

Duran was out-boxed by Leonard twice. The third time, he wasn't in his prime. The second time, he was. Just because it wasn't at lightweight doesn't mean it wasn't in his prime.

And if you're bashing his Hearns win because he was behind on the scorecard, then that means Ali's victory of Lyle should be bashed because he was behind on the scorecards, as well. Nobody thinks like that, unless they're looking for excuses.


He has a great resume and he did take on all of the top contenders, but match his greatest wins to Leonard's greatest wins. I think most people will agree that Leonard has the greater wins.

And he didn't come close to beating Marciano. He lost a clear decision and got knocked out in the second fight.


It's all excuses. If you can't present a valid argument, you shouldn't be debating.

Charles' resume leaves no space for those. Leonard''s does. This is why Charles is ranked higher.

[Obama]

Charles was the best LHW in the 40s...even better than Archie Moore. Charles is also rated p4p higher than all the fighters he beat, except for maaaaybe Joe Louis (close). I wouldn't rate Leonard over Duran or Hearns p4p. I'll explain Hearns briefly.

WW: Leonard > Hearns
JMW: Hearns > Leonard
MW: Leonard > Hearns
SMW: Hearns > Leonard
LHW: Hearns > Leonard

3-2 Hearns.

Going by best wins, Leonard's best win is Hearns (would be Hagler if he wasn't past his prime), while Charles' best win is Moore.

Leonard is realistically 1-1 with Hearns, said so himself.
Charles is 3-0 with Moore.

[Method Checker]

Charles was the best LHW in the 40s...even better than Archie Moore. Charles is also rated p4p higher than all the fighters he beat, except for maaaaybe Joe Louis (close). I wouldn't rate Leonard over Duran or Hearns p4p. I'll explain Hearns briefly.

WW: Leonard > Hearns
JMW: Hearns > Leonard
MW: Leonard > Hearns
SMW: Hearns > Leonard
LHW: Hearns > Leonard

3-2 Hearns.

Going by best wins, Leonard's best win is Hearns (would be Hagler if he wasn't past his prime), while Charles' best win is Moore.

Leonard is realistically 1-1 with Hearns, said so himself.
Charles is 3-0 with Moore.

I'm all for debating and hearing opinions but that was just stupid.

[Obama]

I'm all for debating and hearing opinions but that was just stupid.

Thanks for admitting that you're defeated.

[donkim]

Thanks for admitting that you're defeated.

Grow up dunce.

[Method Checker]

Thanks for admitting that you're defeated.

Defeated by what? That wasn't a valid argument..

One of the reasons you gave of why you think Charles is greater than Leonard is because, in a series of fantasy match-ups, Hearns beats Leonard 3 out of 5 times. How are fantasy match-ups supposed to define where someone is ranked all-time?

[CCobra]

Post-prime and over-trained? Those are just excuses.

Excuses that Hearns himself never used. It was Manny Steward who said himself that Hearns had over-trained himself.

Post-prime is not an excuse. Hagler was past his best, that much was obvious in watching him fight.

Duran was out-boxed by Leonard twice. The third time, he wasn't in his prime. The second time, he was. Just because it wasn't at lightweight doesn't mean it wasn't in his prime.

The first fight was close but Duran got the decision and you don't see many people complaining about it. It's common knowledge that Leonard offered Duran a lot of money for a rematch knowing how bloated Duran would be and how much weight he'd have to lose to make the weight.

And if you're bashing his Hearns win because he was behind on the scorecard, then that means Ali's victory of Lyle should be bashed because he was behind on the scorecards, as well. Nobody thinks like that, unless they're looking for excuses.

I'm not bashing his win over Hearns. I'm saying that an over-trained Hearns was beating Leonard until he inevitably gassed and then get stopped. Leonard gets full credit for a win over Hearns, the win I consider to be the best on his entire resume.

He has a great resume and he did take on all of the top contenders, but match his greatest wins to Leonard's greatest wins. I think most people will agree that Leonard has the greater wins.

Most people who give the edge to Leonard are people who probably don't know the quality of fighters Charles faced. Archie Moore trumps any win on Leonard's resume. Charley Burley, Joey Maxim, Lloyd Marshall, Jersey Joe Walcott.. these are all great fighters. Leonard beat 4 great fighters and that's it with his resume, it doesn't go any deeper then that. Charles beat great fighters and good fighters one after the other.

Look at Leonard.. beat Hagler, Hearns, Duran & Benitez yet he was beaten by Duran and unofficially beaten by Hearns in the return (something that Leonard himself acknowledges).

And he didn't come close to beating Marciano. He lost a clear decision and got knocked out in the second fight.

Marciano had to knock Charles out and was in danger of being stopped if he didn't. Charles was years past his prime and was able to take Marciano close twice and was very close to stopping him the second time.

[Obama]

Defeated by what? That wasn't a valid argument..

One of the reasons you gave of why you think Charles is greater than Leonard is because, in a series of fantasy match-ups, Hearns beats Leonard 3 out of 5 times. How are fantasy match-ups supposed to define where someone is ranked all-time?

That wasn't a fantasy matchup.

It was a rating of the fighters at those weights. Leonard can only be regarded as the better Welterweight and Middleweight. No one with half a brain would dare rate him ahead of Hearns in the 3 other divisions I listed. Their resumes make it beyond obvious.

[Method Checker]

Excuses that Hearns himself never used. It was Manny Steward who said himself that Hearns had over-trained himself.

Ever thought that he was making an invalid excuse because the best fighter he ever trained got beat?

Post-prime is not an excuse. Hagler was past his best, that much was obvious in watching him fight.

Was Leonard in his prime? Did Hagler not fight for three years before that fight?

The first fight was close but Duran got the decision and you don't see many people complaining about it. It's common knowledge that Leonard offered Duran a lot of money for a rematch knowing how bloated Duran would be and how much weight he'd have to lose to make the weight.

That's just an excuse. He didn't get big enough to where it would make him lose. He was just able to brawl with Leonard but not box. It didn't matter how lazy he was out of the ring.

I'm not bashing his win over Hearns. I'm saying that an over-trained Hearns was beating Leonard until he inevitably gassed and then get stopped. Leonard gets full credit for a win over Hearns, the win I consider to be the best on his entire resume.

He may have been ahead on the scorecards but that doesn't change the fact that he lost fair and square.

Most people who give the edge to Leonard are people who probably don't know the quality of fighters Charles faced. Archie Moore trumps any win on Leonard's resume. Charley Burley, Joey Maxim, Lloyd Marshall, Jersey Joe Walcott.. these are all great fighters. Leonard beat 4 great fighters and that's it with his resume, it doesn't go any deeper then that. Charles beat great fighters and good fighters one after the other.

In Charles' generation fighters fought a lot. It was different with Leonard's. And most of the fighters you named aren't better than Leonard's.

Look at Leonard.. beat Hagler, Hearns, Duran & Benitez yet he was beaten by Duran and unofficially beaten by Hearns in the return (something that Leonard himself acknowledges).

Charles was beaten Walcott, Bivins, L. Marshall, R. Layne and other top contenders in his prime. Duran, Hearns and Hagler (maybe Benitez) are generally ranked ahead of them.

Marciano had to knock Charles out and was in danger of being stopped if he didn't. Charles was years past his prime and was able to take Marciano close twice and was very close to stopping him the second time.

He didn't come close to winning the first time. It was a clear win for Marciano. The second time he was knocked out and that's that. Plus, Marciano wasn't a very good technical boxer and it's not a surprise to see him win from being behind on the scorecards.