Ranking Ray Leonard over Hagler and Hearns is debatable but reasonable. To rank Leonard over Duran is a reach. Unless you just throw away the first 10 years and 70 fights of Duran`s career. 6 years and 12 defenses as Lightweight Champion is hard to ignore.
or maybe Vito is right. Has it ever occurred to you that you're wrong and can't admit it? It looks to me like your back's to the wall and and keep inventing excuses "you can't believe some guy from KO mag". "You can't believe Vito either - no matter what" "sure you can fight the perfect fight if you're gone even though you're legs are in overdrive throughout and win every round while doing it" if Ali were faded even though beating foreman, why was he able to compete at the championship level from the time of his comeback until the end of 1975? beating every contender from Quarry to Foster to Bugner to Lyle to Frazier and Foreman. all within a five years frame which doesnt add up to a faded fighter. Looking at Ali, he DID NOT fight the perfect fight by laying still on the ropes and absorbing punishment. A big difference between what Ali did and what Leoanrd did again, your claim doesnt hold water. its merely another claim without merit how do you MISS these things??? Didnt you notice Leonard's movement and Ali laying on the ropes with his trainer yelling at him to get off? yet you still compare the two performances. atsch and how do you execute the perfect fight plan when you don't have the legs to do it? as for Leonard winning the fight at the table, I say he won it by letting Hags' opponents slug the life out of him (none of which you noticed either) In the words of SRL to Roldan "thanks for softening him up for me buddy" how would you explain that little slip?
its not spin, it's fact. you know, facts, those things people like you cant accept in real life btw, the line "everyone thought Hagler was going to destroy leonard" another myth. you have several people in the business including Bob Arum, Hagler's promoter and Thomas Hearns picking leonard to pull the upset. what about the HBO cast of Tompkins & Merchant? and those are just some of the more recognizable names
In case you missed it, as has been pointed out, your star witness, Antuofermo, picked Hagler to win the Leonard fight.. I can't post the link, because I haven't been a member here long enough to post links, but I did find it after GoYourOwnWay brought it up. So, speaking of "Has it ever occurred to you that you're wrong and can't admit it..." lol. Read all of your Antuofermo references in all of your posts to me, and explain your argument again in light of the fact that Antuofermo picked Hagler to beat Leonard. Ali was able to compete at such a high level for so long, by the way, because he was so much better than the field that even a faded Ali was better than the rest of the division.
you're getting ahead of yourself going from one excuse to another, looking for a way out from the start. which is why I said Ali-Leonard types like to make with the talking points but they dont have any critical thinking skills first you said the editors of KO magazine couldnt be relied on to assess Hagler's condition and now youre saying Vito, who fought Hagler twice cant be counted on either. first you said it was his motive clouded his judgement, bitterness over having made one defense I still dont see how making one defense would lead to saying that Hagler after 6 yrs of making defenses, is finally thru as a fighter you dont think that's reasonable? could not the same be said of Napoles? 6 yrs is longer than most championship reigns an to say that he is ripe for the taking would not be considered an insult by any stretch of imagination. except yours you also failed to respond to Leonard's comment towards Roldan (thanks for softening him up for me buddy) as well as the comments made by Tim Ryan "Leonard said he was counting on the slowness of Hagler. he said he lost alot of speed" which means you're shot, not that he ws a slight natural decline. you either are or you arent and while you're at it, tell me why Leonard waited until the outcome of the Mugabi fight to say "I can beat him" when Ray had been doing commentary for Hagler's fights since his first defense with no open declaration in those years. and then explain how Ali fighting with his back to the ropes taking punishment is fighting the perfect fight
LOL. I'm moving from one excuse to another? I'm pointing out that your biggest piece of evidence - Antuofermo, who should know better than anyone, said that any of Hagler's challengers could beat him - was complete B.S. I'm not saying that Vito can't be counted on; I'm saying that he never made the claim that you've been attributing to him. The editors of KO (at least their ratings board) had Hagler the #2 P4P fighter in the world; I was questioning the one writer you relied on, whose name we don't know. A fighter can lose a lot of speed and not be shot (particularly if he doesn't rely on speed as his primary tool). Leonard probably waited because Hagler was certainly past prime, which is a long way from being shot. Leonard was good enough to beat a Hagler at, say, 85% of his full prime ability. But an 85% Hagler was nowhere near shot - he would have beaten just about anyone else at or below his weight class. Just as the Ali of the mid- and late-70s was better than almost evey other fighter in the world (i.e. Not shot) but had obviously faded from his prime. Explain Ali-Foreman? Really? At any rate, you've become too incoherent to be refuted.
Why do you keep doing doing this to yourself, redrooster/KingAbdullah/Piglatinsuperstar/Elton John? :conf
You know you're not winning the argument when even the completely fabricated claims you use to support it aren't persuasive. Tune into tomorrow, when Red Rooster recalls a 60 Minutes interview with the irreproachable Nelson Mandela, who (allegedly) claimed that Hagler told him that he was shot after the Mugabi fight.
I don't think the people in the game who picked Leonard would have done so if Hagler hadn't negotiated all the advantages to him. Ring size, glove size, 12 rounds instead of 15.
that's all you do is avoid the tough questions. not tough for me but tough for you. you either avoid them altogether or you pick another topic you can bs your way thru you couldnt even tell why Ali fought the perfect fight. about the only thing you know how to do is compare Ali with leonard your explanation on Leonard's assessment on Hagler was TOTAL BS. Give me a case where a fighter lost his speed and wasnt shot you cant. again, you fan boys TRY but you dont have any critical thinking skills you're still sticking with your "Hagler was on a sligh natural decline", at 85% according to you even after losing the vast majority of his speed if he wasnt shot or near it, then why didnt he fight again? see? you wont answer that either. you got nothing and i mean NOTHING! that's why you rely heavily on other people's opinions in the fight game but at the same time discount Vito who has more first hand knowledge on Hagler than anyone you mentioned- Bert Sugar, Teddy Brenner, - all of them, bar none and light years ahead of you in sizing up Hags and of course, his integriity far outweighs yours. I think the only one with questionable motives is you
Vito thought Hagler was going to destroy Leonard, as did 46 of 50 experts surveyed by the L.A. Times. You completely fabricated his position (and Merchant's) in an apparent effort to get some credibility. There are many examples of fighters losing their speed and not being shot. You seriously think the Ali that beat Foreman (let alone Norton, let alone Spinks) was prime, or had all his speed?
You guys shouldn't even try to debate Rooster on the subject of Leonard. I've been posting occasionally on this board for almost 6 years and the whole time Rooster has had a hate on for Leonard the size of Texas. You'd think that Sugar Ray raped his mother and pimped out his sisters or something with the rabid obsession Rooster has. Save yourselves the headache and walk away.
Good question, the key part being SO HIGHLY. I agree that those who say all-time top ten are a little off the mark. SRL carried the standard for boxing after Ali, probably because he was smart, personable good-looking (for TV audiences), clean-cut....etc....etc.....etc. Neutrals liked him and boxing needed him and he was very, very good. He beat them all at his peak and only failed when trying to out-Duran the man himself. (and only failed by a whisker) I suspect Hearns,Duran,Hagler and Benitez would all say he was the best they fought and without his eye injury he would have been greater I think. BUT........ All-time top 10 ??? Not in my book. Duran places higher as an out an out fighter and many fighters, even with multiple defeats have better CV / resume's. Rematches with Hearns and Benitez (if he trained!) as well as fighting peak Hagler (pre-86) and Pryor at least once would make me reconsider. As with so many fighters you still think what if...... by the way, I think his stamina was what set him apart from Hearns and Hagler, Leonard always seemed fresher from round 10 onwards ( when it matters most ) than his opponents, if they lasted that long.
