Someone explain why Ray Leonard is ranked so highly?

I'd at least like to be tested on some level, but you seem to lack the tools to do that. You're still locked in troll mode, but every now and then a genuine belief/thought pops up in the middle of your long-winded diatribes, and then that's promptly refuted with considerable ease (as was the case with my last post, to which you have no response.)

 

"Give me a case where a fighter lost his speed and wasnt shot"?

According to you, Leonard!

 

point to where I said Leonard lost his speed

in fact, I have stated just the opposite. In uno mas, I pointed out his eight punch combinations and why does his non stop movement remind people like you of Ali lying on the ropes getting pounded by Berbick or Holmes?

how does my assessment of Leonard in his previous fight translate into "leonard lost his speed"?

People like you are already so thrown off mentally as jackasses so often are, that you subbed in your ideas for my ideas

I think people like you and goyourownway is that you are so set in your beliefs that you look for excuses just to feed your own belief

the only time i actually admired Leonard was for calling out Hearns, a sharp hitter with few weaknesses. altho Tommy as years away from his peak, I would call it a good win

still, calling Leonard top ten is way off. he couldnt deal with speedy young fighters while Floyd Jr does it all the time! and at 38 Floyd is still knocking em dead while Leonard failed the test

I know you people dont like talking about it but Ray failed miserably. that along with the way overdue date with Hagler

If Ray was so great it wouldve been him vs Hagler in 82, 83. after all, hadnt he been cleared to fight that same year?

a win over Norris wouldve answered a lot of question about Leonard that have been plaging him since his comeback

but instead of slilencing his critics he failed worse than the Obama care website

when Norris moved out of range, he couldnt do anything about it

when Norris tied him up in close, he couldnt do anything about it

when Norris launched his uppercut thru his guard, he was just like any other fighters who had been hurt

he couldnt handle speed or movement, and that's why the late comeback vs Hagler, the comments like "I can beat him" surfaced 6 yrs later instead of during Hagler's prime and "thanks for softening him up for me" along with "Ray said he was counting on the slowness of Hagler. he said Hagler had lost a lot of speed"

I dont care if my comments here are unpopular. it dispels myths and if you want to continue with your lies I will continue with my truths and enjoy watching as you grow silent trying to answer them

 

Kind of like you substituting your ideas for Vito Antuofermo's and Larry Merchant's?

 

No response? I even spelled out the names of those who went along with Vito in assessing Hagler at the time including Arum, Hearns, Merchant, and Leonard himself.


you can refute all u like but u got to have facts to back it up, like me :smoke

 

look who's back, the defeated one who dared take on the man who made a liar out of him. stuff like that leads to humiliation and feelings of hostility

just give up now son, and spare yourself further shame

 

name one

I'm not concerned at all becuz all you have is "Ali"

and Ali at the time was losing more than winning. he was almost murdered by Norton in 76 in a fight I believe contributed to his current condition. he was beat by Shavers, beat by Young in 76

he wasnt winning those fights, he was given gift decisions

see there? I know more about Ali than yourself so you cant lie your way out of this one either

I can see that youre helpless becuz helpless people say things like "you're lying about what Vito said"

In fact, you never saw the interview so how would you know?

 

I have no feelings of hostility, just amusement and a little pity that you've been shown to have completely made things up in an effort to give yourself some credibility. Since your 'argument' changes every time it's been shown to be bogus, let's go back to the beginning.

I made one initial claim: Hagler was not "shot" at the time of the Leonard fight.

You responded to this with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, but relied most heavily on the opinions of experts - including an unnamed reporter for KO, but most strongly Vito Antuofermo and Larry Merchant.

In fact, Hagler was thought of so highly at the time of the Leonard fight that he was #2 Pound for Pound in KO (the magazine that *you* introduced into evidence), and 5 out of 7 former middleweight champions (including Antuofermo) and 46 of 50 other experts (including Merchant) picked Hagler to win the fight.

 

so if your experts have been wrong on predictions, why do YOU still count on their opinions?

fact is, Vito is more qualified to assess Hagler than Bert Sugar, Teddy Brenner, or anyone else including you

also, you never mentioned the fighters who lost their speed and werent shot

yet you want me to believe Leonard was shot in the Norris fight after having just witnessed what he did to Duran in uno mas

you TRIED swaying me to thinking Ray was ready to be taken becuz Duran got in ONE shot that cut Ray?

I saw that fight TOO

I also watched Mugabi & Duane Thomas

John couldnt do anything with Duane. i was waiting and waiting for John to put him on ice and instead, Duane pops him in the eye.

Duane Thomas by TKO 3rd round

fair fight

Too bad Hagler had to do it the hard way

and Hags had a hell of a time too, pissing blood afterwards, so said Dr. Flip Homansky

Hagler pissing blood after the fight and having a broken nose and injured back to postpone the fight 4 months, is a lot more convincing than Leonard's imaginary coke problem

"Leonard's coke problem led to his losses"

he just couldnt handle speed, we ALL know that but only I am honest enough to say it openly

 

And here's what Vito had to say:

"If I were in Leonard's camp, I would give him this advice: Don't show up," said Antuofermo, 34, who announced his retirement six months after his second fight with Hagler.

"But if he did show up, I would tell him not to try to bulk up. He should fight at his former fighting weight instead of coming in five or eight pounds heavier, like he's planning to. He's going to need all of his speed. He's gonna have to move. I don't see it going any more than three rounds."
Pick: Hagler

Does that sound lime he thought Hagler was shot?

My point in posting the Hugman quotation wasn't that Leonard was ready to be taken because Duran got in a shot that cut him. It was that Leonard's performance in that fight was nothing special. Duran fought a totally uninspired, lackluster fight. It was hardly evidence for your claim that it demonstrated that Lonard was still in peak form.



One thing that would help would be if you understood that there's not a switch that goes from "peak" to "shot" instantaneously. A fighter can be past his prime and not be shot.

 

then Hagler was past his prime in 1984 according to all the press at the time

question: why would Ray wait till Hagler's last fight then tell Roldan "thanks for softening him up for me buddy"?

why say that Hagler had lost alot of speed then tell someone that you are counting on Hagler to slowdown?

the greater the loss the better, otherwise Ray wouldve tackled right after te Howard fight when Hagler was merely on a decline rather than shot and in his last fight

and any way u cut it u have tried to discredit Vito. you're the same person that said Vito's opinion shouldnt be counted becuz he is bitter that Hagler made more defenses than him

does that mean leonard is bitter over the way Norris whipped him and racking up a record number of defenses?

you must be the only one who believes his own tripe

its no wonder you wont acknowledge Vito, that every previous challenger to Hagler's title could take him at that point

if Vito was wrong about anything, it was Leonard who we all THOUGHT was washed up but as it turned out, had never been better

that's why i dont understand why with additional fights you say he was past it when he should have been even better

He had the edge on Norris in experience, hadnt lost in 11 years, had won five championships, a prohibitive favorite going in, and shouldve won

so what if his performance wasnt special according to some nobody writer?


Ray's performance vs Larry Bonds & Kalule wasnt special either!

bsides, Steve Farhood said Ray fought the PERFECT fight (not like the fight Ali used on Foreman) and I could hear Tim Ryan tell him "what an abolutely BRILLIANT performance!"

the only reason you are saying it wasnt special is everyone was completely turned off by the overuse of his mobile attributes

evidently you dont know the difference between "losing it" and emplying the kind of tactics that stink out the house (Griffith-Tiger)

my advice to you is read up on other fighters other than just Ali and Leonard

My hope is that my comments have contributed significantly to your education

 

I'm not discrediting Antuofermo. I'm discrediting you. Obviously, from the quote above, Antuofermo did NOT think Hagler was shot at the time of the Leonard fight.

You obviously attributed YOUR belief that he was shot to Antuofermo, for credibility; unfortunately for you, he is on record with comments that make it obvious that he did not have the position you attribute to him.

 

You mentioned Merchant and Tompkins, implying that they along with Hearns and Arum (go ahead and cite your source for this one) thought Leonard would win, based on the theory that Hagler was slowing down. I just offered you two quotes from those two men that shits all over your implication.



You've offered heavily-slanted opinions, you've offered highly questionable sources with absolutely nothing to back them up with, but facts? You're immune to them.



Keep trying, Sir Elton.

 

http://www.b*xingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53624


patsch

 

Alright you're right you didn't say it.
Can I ask you a couple of questions? I just want to get it clear in my head the points you're bringing up for not rating Leonard.
Hagler lost speed so therefore he was shot when he fought Ray at 32?
Ray didn't lose speed so therefore he wasn't shot when he fought Norris and Camacho at 34 and 40.
He had lost speed but he wasn't shot because he should of found another way of winning?
Leonard should be downgraded because Floyd Mayweather is 38 and still beating young fast fighters?
Which of the young fast fighters Floyd's been fighting are as good as Terry Norris?
By the way I never said Ray should be top 10.