Who has the better resume Sugar Ray Leonard or Manny Pacquiao?

[VolumePuncher]

no doubt.....if you read our posts , noone really was able to refute it....all they did was attack our characters.....and here you are doing the exact damn nonsense you usually do....lol...and i wish baracuda was here!

That's because there's no argument to be had. SRL fought in the better overall era, and beat better top end competition. As I said above, there's no argument for Pacquiao over Hearns, and even Roach said Duran beats him at 140. As far as a head to head match-up, SRL would stay on the outside and pop Pacquiao with enough jabs and straights to win by decision.

As I said above, I love watching Pacquiao fight and I'm far from a hater, but better resume or even better fighter than SRL? No way, and I hate Leonard.

[KnockUTheFukOut]

Hagler and Hearns aren't that highly posted on all time lists. In fact, Morales, JMM, Berrerra are right behind those two.

I have an issue with Hagler being posted highly on there (a lot of people put him higher than Hearns, which is ridiculous), the fact that he retired early and he only fought Hearns 1X, Duran 1X, and Leonard 1X. No rematches?

For all the clamor most people fail to acknowledge there was only *1* trilogy among all those fights against each other. Yes, those guys fought each other, but they did not fight trilogies. In fact, most of them never fought rematches.




4 fighters? Hearns, Duran, Leonard, Hagler...yeah, 4.

There are some hall of famers in this era too.

Shane Mosely, De La Hoya, Mayweather, JMM, MAB, Morales, Manny.

And Manny is set to fight the 5th of those guys. I just don't think it's as clear cut, plus Manny is fighting some pretty high level competition outside of HOF fighters as well.

Cotto, multiple division champ, Margarito, multiple division champ, Hatton, multiple division champ.

You make some valid points!

Starting off with Hagler, so because he didn't have any Trilogies he shouldn't be rated very High All Times? lol I seriously doubt guys like Hearns was all that interested in fight Hagler again especially after that fight. Of Course everyone wanted to see him fight Leonard again, but he was clearly frustrated with the decision of the 1st Fight and decided to retire. But I don't think because he didn't have many Trilogies he shouldn't be rated as high All Times.

And OF COURSE it was 4 ALL TIME GREATS in that ERA total, but it was 3 that Ray Leonard went up against...not like he could have fought himself lol

Manny ERA, yes it has Hall Of Famers... nobody ever said it didn't

BUT HOW MANY ALL TIME GREATS? Hall Of Famers and ALL TIME GREATS are NOT THE SAME THING! It is many Hall Of Famers who are not rated very high All Times and are not on most Top 50-100 Rankings. Other then Morales and Antonio Barrera and MAYBE JMM and Oscar...who else would you consider "All Time Greats" and guys that could end up on a All Time Greats Ranking when their career is over??? And HOW HIGH WOULD THEY BE RANKED??? I certainly don't see them being higher then Duran, Hagler or Hearns.

We can get into all the "How Good Was Hagler" or "How Good Was Hearns" but it won't matter, their Legacies are already SET.

[puga]

quality wins:

leonard
duran - 2
benitez - 1
hearns - 2 (one is disputed)
hagler - 1 (disputed)
total : 6

pac
hoya- 1 (no excuses please)
hatton -1
cotto -1
margo -1
erik -2
mab -2
jmm - 1(disputed)
sasakul -1 (lineal champ)
totla: 10

pac >>>>>srl......if you say srl beat the bigger names therefore he's greater then you must also belive lamotta has a better resume than srl, becuase he beat the bigger name in ray robinson....

titles and awards
division titles:
pac- 8(only man to do it)....srl -5
if you dont want to include pac's sww title then you shoul'dnt include leoard's lh title ....leonard won two div titles in one fight which is ridiculous to say the least...

fighter of the year award:
pac -3 ..... leonard - 2

lineal div titles:

pac - 4 (only man to do it)....leonard - not more than 3

div titles out of the original 8

pac -4....srl - 3

both won fighter of the decade...

again pac >>>>>srl...

facts are facts gentlemen.....love it or hate, it is what it is.....

[Stromprophet]

I based that more on the fact that Manny is a complete bum defensively and would take enough shots that it wouldn't matter. I love watching Manny fight, but if he tried his "take one, give two" garbage against Duran, he would end up on the canvas. Hell, I don't have a link to the interview on ESPN, but even Roach said Duran beats Manny at 140.

We have a love affair with the "golden era" in the boxing community.

But you're not talking about comparing fighters here (which is comparison of competition, longevity, dominance, etc).

Athletes today are much stronger than their counterparts of times before. Stronger, faster, better trained. (And yes, possibly juiced).

So if you put Mark Spitz next to Micheal Phelps today (who may have actually evolved from a fish) who is going to win?

[VolumePuncher]

De La Hoya is commonly ranked above both Hagler and Hearns. Mosely is ranked around the same area. Mayweather ranked slightly lower. Personally I think Hagler is vastly over rated. He retired early, and he didn't fight enough competition.

JMM, MAB, Morales are all ranked in the 40s of the top 50 fighters of all time. Hearns and Hagler are ranked in the 30s.

Duran is ranked so very highly and very deservedly so above SRL in most lists. IMO SRL is somewhat over rated. I'd put him around 15 or 20 all time.




?

Duran wasn't. Duran took the title from him. So how could he be #1? Leonard and Hearns were considered the top 2 in their division. So, how is that different than #1 or #2 of any division fighting eachother?

And if we're counting HOF fights. Manny has more because he has fought these guys more than once. Something SRL rarely did.

My point is it's not that clear cut. To say it is and just dismiss the argument is really disingenuous.

Duran is ranked much higher than SRL because Duran fought way more competition and fought much longer at a high level. Manny falls under that same category (though not as prolific as Duran).

Anyone who puts De La Hoya above Hagler or Hearns is completely ******ed, regardless of what qualifications they have. Plus, De La Hoya was old as dirt and couldn't have beat me by the time he fought Pacquiao, so I'm not really sure what that fight proved.

Also, according to this ESPN ranking, that's not accurate. Hearns, Duran, Leonard, and Hagler are all ranked ahead of De La Hoya: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...e=greatest3140

[Stromprophet]

hearns - 2 (one is disputed)

The second match ended in a draw. Leonard retained his title because it was a draw. But he didn't not win the fight. His record was 35-1 coming into the fight, and he left 35-1-1.

[-KPB-]

Lol at Pac fans dis*****g some of SRL big wins.....as though Pacs win over JMM isnt disputed...or Morales being visibly weight drained in the 2nd/3rd fight (forgot which one)

[VolumePuncher]

We have a love affair with the "golden era" in the boxing community.

But you're not talking about comparing fighters here (which is comparison of competition, longevity, dominance, etc).

Athletes today are much stronger than their counterparts of times before. Stronger, faster, better trained. (And yes, possibly juiced).

So if you put Mark Spitz next to Micheal Phelps today (who may have actually evolved from a fish) who is going to win?

I agree with you, but considering I think they're comparable based on what he had at his disposal in the 80's, imagine what Hearns would look like if he had what Pacquiao has today. Sadly, we'll never know.

[Stromprophet]

Anyone who puts De La Hoya above Hagler or Hearns is completely ******ed, regardless of what qualifications they have. Plus, De La Hoya was old as dirt and couldn't have beat me by the time he fought Pacquiao, so I'm not really sure what that fight proved.

Also, according to this ESPN ranking, that's not accurate. Hearns, Duran, Leonard, and Hagler are all ranked ahead of De La Hoya: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...e=greatest3140

So what was the disparity?

DLH 39, Hearns 37, Hagler 35. And I have issue with Hagler, really, look at his career. Give me a break, he retired early, he only fought a few distinguishing fights. That's it.

What I said is DLH is commonly ranked. As in, it is common for him to be ranked ahead of those guys. Often. In other words, not rare.

And why should people have their head examined? The reference you posted has them ranked close. 39 to 35 isn't a stretch. In fact, that means *it's debatable.* You are acting like people are putting DLH in the top 10 all time.

Oh and where were MAB and Erik Morales? In the 40s.

[IronDanHamza]

De La Hoya is commonly ranked above both Hagler and Hearns. Mosely is ranked around the same area. Mayweather ranked slightly lower. Personally I think Hagler is vastly over rated. He retired early, and he didn't fight enough competition.

Oh really? Like whom?

Could you provide me a list by a legit historian that has De La Hoya above Hagler or Hearns please?

JMM, MAB, Morales are all ranked in the 40s of the top 50 fighters of all time. Hearns and Hagler are ranked in the 30s.

Juan Manuel Marquez is NOT ranked in the Top 50 fighters of all time, not even close.

Neither are Barrera or Morales. If so, again, provide me a legit Historian's list that has that ranking.

ESPN and Bert Sugar list does not count as legit..

Duran is ranked so very highly and very deservedly so above SRL in most lists. IMO SRL is somewhat over rated. I'd put him around 15 or 20 all time.

I agree..Except for the 'overrated' part.

Duran wasn't. Duran took the title from him. So how could he be #1? Leonard and Hearns were considered the top 2 in their division. So, how is that different than #1 or #2 of any division fighting eachother?

Duran took the title from Leonard thus becoming the Lineal Champion thus becoming #1. Leonard beat him in the rematch when Duran was #1 at WW..

And if we're counting HOF fights. Manny has more because he has fought these guys more than once. Something SRL rarely did.

That doesn't matter. The 3rd Morales fight and second Barrera fight's were pointless anyway and do nothing for Pacqiauo's legacy.

My point is it's not that clear cut. To say it is and just dismiss the argument is really disingenuous.

But, it is clear cut. Manny Pacqiauo, as great as he is, is not as great as Sugar Ray Leonard.

Duran is ranked much higher than SRL because Duran fought way more competition and fought much longer at a high level. Manny falls under that same category (though not as prolific as Duran).

I agree.

But Pacqiauo is not ranked anywhere close to Duran.