Someone explain why Ray Leonard is ranked so highly?

My position is quite simple to people who don't suck Ray Leonards genitalia for a hobby.

By the time Hearns fought Hagler, his skills had diminished to such an extent that Tommy could have COMFORTABLY outboxed him, but foolishly chose to go to war with Hagler instead.

And that, combined with the 11 round struggle against the LIGHT MIDDLE Mugabi, gave Leonard the courage to fight Hagler.

I really don't give a **** how much Leonard dick riders try to " big up " Hagler, he was nothing like the fearsome warrior he had made his reputation on by that time.

You might just as well try to claim Mayweather is the dogs bollox because he beat DLH, who beat JCC, blah, blah, blah.

 

Interesting gay references. Not my thing, but to each his own.

There's no way in hell Hearns - with his glass jaw, as you acknowledge - was ever going to stay away from Hagler for 36 minutes.

An observation which has absolutely nothing to do with Leonard.

 

This little diatribe would have some semblance of credibility if it wasn't for the fact that Leonard actually did fight Hearns, you fat dolt. atsch


By the way, tell me more about Duran's title unification with Rodolfo Gonzalez.

 

Poll of the Experts : It's Almost Unanimous: the Fight Belongs to Hagler




LAS VEGAS — Odds favoring Marvin Hagler over Sugar Ray Leonard in their fight on a Caesars Palace tennis court tonight hovered at 3-1 all last week.

However, if a poll of boxing people and accredited journalists by The Times means anything, something like 15-1 would be more like it. Either that, or a lot of cowards are wearing press badges in Las Vegas this week.


Of 50 people polled, only four picked Leonard. Sugar Ray, most seem to believe, can't possibly have retained sufficient sharpness after having only one fight in 62 months. The second-most-often cited reason for favoring Hagler is that Leonard is not a natural middleweight while Hagler is.

As Jerry Lisker of the New York Post put it: "Natural weight wins, always."

Hagler himself passed that tip along at a news conference this week when he said: "I've weighed 158 pounds since 1973. Leonard's a welterweight."


http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-06/sports/sp-18_1_marvin-hagler

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3819353.html



Little bit of advice for you in future, Sir Elton: if you're going to attribute false quotes to people (least of all when it comes to a random actress that few people even know about today), at least do a quick f*cking search on the net and make sure there are no traces of said people not only commenting on the subject, but actually offering comments that are in almost total opposite to what you "remembered" them making.

 

A complete bull**** observation based on over estimation of Haglers THEN skills and a total under estimation of Hearns skills.

 

We have had this convo before. http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=455255

My thoughts:

Sugar Ray Leonard with a win over:

Tommy Hearns (Top 5-10 Welterweight all-time)
Roberto Duran (Top 5 Lightweight all-time)
Marvelous Marvin Hagler (Top 5 Middleweight all-time)
Wilfredo Benitez (Top 20 Welterweight all-time)

I think this puts Leonard's resume up there with Greb, Robinson, Charles, and Ali. Here is my list as of today.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I see the defeat by Duran is conveniently omitted. I'd say the ring all time list that had Duran in the top ten, and Leonard out of it was more accurate.

 

Leonard has two wins over Duran.

One Duran quit in. The loss he had to Duran was so close that it could be scored a win for Leonard. Heck, Leonard fought on Duran terms and at his pace and still was able to put some serious leather on Duran. Considering that Duran was at the height of his offensive/defensive powers that is extremely impressive. Leonard beat all of the fighters that beat Duran. Hearns, Hagler, and Benitez. With that said, would I rank him over Leonard?

Why would you say what you said? May I get a reason or see your list?

 

Maybe because of that 72-1 record (almost all by knockout), decimating the 135-pound division, BEFORE moving up to welterweight.

 

I think your own bull**** observation is based on underestimating Hearns's and Steward's intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge. Hearns fought the way he did specifically because they knew that it was their best chance against (the notoriously slow-starting but ultimately relentless) Hagler, and it almost worked. The fact that it DIDN'T work doesn't mean that anything else would have.

You're like the guy who watches someone hit 16 against a 10, then after he busts says, "You should have stood." Everyone's a great quarterback on Monday morning.

 

Understood.

Duran's record at lightweight is does not surpass Leonards win over Benitez, Duran, and Hearns. I would say it is equal. Leonards wins over Duran 3, Hagler, and Delonde were extremely impressive and was greater than Duran wins over Barkley, Palomino, and Quevas also impressive wins. Leonard would have beaten them as well but I am not sure the other way around.

I do not hold Duran's loses to Hearns and Hagler that highly against him because he was so far past his prime. On the other hand, I do not give Duran a whole of credit for his win over Moore because Moore only had 12 fights. All in all I give Leonard a very slight edge over Duran because of who he beat not how years Duran held the lightweight title.

 

Firstly I have ZERO interest in what you call football, or any terminology connected with it.

Secondly I am saying that that version of Hagler was nothing like the 78 - 82 version.

As early as the Duran fight you could see him declining, and as stated was forced to pull the fight out of the bag in the last 2 rounds.

Tommy had no chance going to war with Hagler, so where you get " it almost worked " from is ridiculous. Tommy cut the guy's head, thats all.

Thirdly you can convince yourself all you like that the Mugabi fight showed the true Hagler from his prime, but that is just more bull****.

 

Bollox. No one other than a childish Leonard fanboy could make him the winner in Montreal.

The ONLY reason Leonard fought Durans fight that night is because the arrogant fool thought he could, and win.

Their 3rd fight was meaningless. By that time Duran was almost 39.

As for the list in the " Ring " that had Duran above Leonard it was at the turn of the millenium. I'm sure you could find it if you looked hard enough.

 

You used the word "childish" and "fanboy" in the same sentence. What are you 16? I give you credit for using 'bollox' or 'bollocks'. (Se.x Pistols) It was kind of cool.

I-ight. Now, down to business.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

How did you score it? Only a 'childish' 'fanboy' would NOT post his scores and explainations......................exactly.

Why do you keep talking about the "Ring". I have their '80 greatest fighters of the last 80 years'. They rank Pernell Whitaker in the top ten over fighters like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles. Do you agree with that too?

OK, so throw out the 3rd Duran fight and count the first one as a win for Duran. We still have everything else I posted. I guess you agree with all of that but do not want to acknowledge it.