Someone explain why Ray Leonard is ranked so highly?

Hagler never would have had to outbox Hearns. If Hearns didn't stupidly fight fire with fire, Hagler would have had to outpressure him, and if Leonard did it at 147, Hagler could have done it at 160.

A different fight plan for Hearns would have led to the same result; it just would have taken longer.

 

Thanks Duranimal

Someone has to keep these douches straight. when the cat's away the mice will play

even tho I never believed Tommy was anything great after just 3 defenses of a paper title, it was Sugar's only worthwhile performance becuz he actually slugged with Tommy

but that dont put him up with Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon, & Marciano and only proves he was overrated

in fact some guy I was debating with earlier said Tommy was all Ray needed to show his greatness, meaning that less is more

but these folk are disingenuous

becuz most people are going to want to see Pryor (superfight 83), Hagler (superfight 84), (Hearns rematch - superfight 84) Curry (superfight 85) (Lloyd Honeyghan superfight 86) and Nunn (ssuperfight 89)


If Ray was really fighter of the decade, he would continue his tradition of superfights year after year

but he couldnt becuz he didnt have the sustained physiology to do so and his fans know that

his fans know he had durability this side of the titanic

they saw it when he quit after the Howard fight in 1985, and several times after in his numerous knockdowns 1984 - retirement

he won ONE big fight with Hearns, BIG DEAL. winning one big fight doesnt make you a legend but immediately after that fight, KO mag DUBBED him a young legend which didnt sit right with me becuz u got to have a confirmation

u cant just sit on your laurels, u got to MOVE ON to the next big challenge and Leonard didnt do that

for instance, what would happen if he LOST to Hagler or Pryor?

that is why those two matches were so important.

and after the Howard fight, he QUIT! Instead of facing Hearns, bigger N better than he'd ever been, Ray dropped out, which i dont respect

I dont hear these hypocrites saying "Tommy made a mistake slugging with Ray" or "he shouldve boxed Ray" and I believe these same people were actually relieved Ray wouldnt allow Tommy a rematch at this point

tey probably said something to the effect of "well, Ray did what was best for himself and was smart to retire" but drop the subject when to comes to any of his later comebacks


like I said, his first and only win over Hearns was good if not spectacular becuz ofthe way he was outboxed. I shouldnt really complain becuz as bad as he looked going after Hearns, when he finally caught up with him, he put him down in the nick of time

much better than his acts of gayity over washed up Hagler and then recently 40 pounds overweight Duran

 

?

Douches ? That`s what I love about the rooster,knowledgeable and classy keep it coming, weather `s cold outside and your laughs provide us all with good humor !! Almost forgot, where do you rank Mullings the guy who spanked your boy ? Brown and Boudani as well ??

 

Did you both forget that Leonard stopped Hearns ? And his initial retirement came from detached retina`s ? Just askin...

 

Again if you read my post about the soul crushing attitude you would have seen that I said it was a weakness and a vulnerability. He didn't go into the fight to beat up and KO Duran he tried to out fox Duran and show him he was tougher. Mugabi was the real deal KO puncher everyone knew it he was avoided when promoters scouts were looking for opponents for their house fighter. Mugabi was also a world class amateur fighter, Mugabi KO'd anyone put before him Lt Middle or Middle a whopping 6 pound difference between those weights. You do not give Leonard enough credit how many years was it before he fought Hagler after his last fight????

 

You must be joking if you are comparing the completely weight drained Hearns that fought ( for the last time EVER at the weight ) Leonard, with the Hearns who was comfortable at Middle.

Like I said Hagler could never have beaten Tommy at anything other than the war they had, because by that time his speed, and footwork had considerably declined.

 

You didn't say anything about a weakness at all. I enlarged exactly what you wrote, and I'm telling you AGAIN the scores show that Hagler didn't out fox or out anything Duran, and indeed at the time he was accused of showing the far smaller Duran far too much respect.

I don't care how good an amatuer Mugabi was he was a LIGHT MIDDLE, against a career ( 65 ) fights at that time Middle, who at the level he had been fighting, should never have given Hagler problems, and lasted 11 rounds even.

So you can try to big up Hagler all you like, but by the time Leonard got him, he was a fighter in serious decline.

 

Hearns at 160 was not Hearns at 147, but neither was Hagler at 160 Leonard at 147.

 

Illiterate, reading impaired or something else just not sure which issue you seem to have. I am sure you have an irrational dislike for Leonard to the point of blasting the reputations of very good fighters. Olympic level fighters are world class talent and ability. Hagler was in decline he also had a weakness with trying to beat other fighters at their own game which he usually could until he got older. Mugabi was a very good fighter who turned out to have a hell of a jaw and a huge punch which Hagler can attest to. Mugabi could fight he was world class he was knocking out middleweights like Frank the animal Fletcher. For a fighter one tough fight can ruin their resistance to taking punches. Re-read what I was saying and try your best to read EVERYTHING and have an educated translator f needed. You can run Hagler down and rip his opponents apart Hagler is still a top 10 (5 IMO) middle ATG.

 

I don't give a **** what you Leonard fanboys think of Hagler, by the time Leonard got him, he was NOTHING like his prime. In fact he was tailor made for a hit and run merchant like Leonard.

If you want to convince your stupid self that scrapping by against a career Lightweight, and beating a china chinned Tommy Hearns in a fight that he was in danger of being stopped himself due to a cut over his eyes left him in top form going into the Leonard fight, then crack on. Most sensible people don't fall for Leonard sycophancy.

As for your obsession with trying to portray Mugabi as a legitimate world class Middle challenger to Hagler, you're embarrassing yourself.

Beating the already 4 times beaten, once by stoppage, Fletcher doesn't make you a legit Middle title contender. No matter what the governing bodies claimed, I'm telling you that was due to Duff using his considerable influences, and connections.

 

Exactly what I thought

 

So your position is that Hearns was "china chinned" (even at 160), but would have survived and won against Hagler, who had scored knockouts in 9 of his 10 previous title defenses, hadn't lost a fight in nine years, and had a career knockout percentage over 75%, if he had adopted a different fight plan?

 

I gave him credit for the win. at the same time I was noting the problems he seems to have when opponents give him any sort of movement.

as it turned out, this was the strategy needed (and employed to perfection by Norris) to turn Sugar from sweet, to sour

 

That and the fact that Norris was 23 years old and Leonard was 34.

It's funny how Norris stopped employing strategies to perfection once HE got over 31 years old, too, losing his last three fights to guys he would have chopped up in his mid-20s.

 

According to Webster's, SHOT means "reduced to a ruined or useless state". Undisputed middleweight champion Marvelous Marvin Hagler was NOT SHOT in 1987.

Hagler was the most feared, most respected universal champion in the world: 7 years as titlist, with 12 defenses and a 78% overall knockout percentage, Marvelous was willing to forego the WBA belt to make the Leonard fight.

You mention this as a knock on Hagler. It is another one of your many misleading claims.

In your frenzy, you have misunderstood the following: Hagler, as all great champions with long reigns, was slipping due to NATURAL DECLINE, yet he had just--through guts and fire--turned back a tough, young lion in Mugabi.

This is not too different from what Michael Spinks did in dethroning Larry Holmes: Holmes was clearly past his best, yet still the champion--still beating tough younger men--when Spinks moved up to challenge and beat him. The big difference? Spinks was the active, longtime, undisputed light heavyweight champion of the world; Leonard was away for 5 years!

A champion losing a lot of his speed does not mean he is SHOT, as you assert.

You call Ray a charlatan. This reveals your fanaticism. I respect Leonard because I RESPECT HAGLER SO MUCH. Only a great fighter could pull off the feat of frustrating a focused Hagler, who knew exactly what was at stake that night. Leonard is not the most likable of greats, but his detractors must accept that Leonard displayed great strategy, great focus and discipline, great athleticism, and, yes, great heart, in dethroning Hagler over 12 rounds.

Hagler was a great champion. Leonard beat him. What does that make Leonard? A charlatan? Wrong again.

You've got it backwards. You harp and harp on Leonard's loss to Norris. Norris was a good fighter. All old champions who come back once too many times get spanked by the young guns around, as happened to Leonard. It happens all the time and--understand--it is historically unmeaningful.

What you must see is Leonard beat a prime Wlfredo Benitez, a prime Thomas Hearns, and undisputed champion Marvin Hagler. Not to mention reversing his loss to all-time pound-for-pound great Roberto Durán.

This type of résumé qualifies Ray Leonard to rank among boxing's best ever.

But, friend, keep yakking about Norris and Camacho et al.