Someone explain why Ray Leonard is ranked so highly?

Angelo came out saying it's best to delay the fight for further down the line when it'll be more juicy, but that's good old Angelo hyperbole, imagine the damage to the career of SRL the olympic goldenboy if he had lost to Hearns when they were both contenders on the up, game over! Angelo new what a massive danger Hearns was & thats why they went the WBC route whilst Hearns went the WBA, who ever could have imagined a 21 yr old bean pole blasting out a monster like Cuevas.

As you well know, it's businnes & it was fast track SRL to the title, he ducked no one mind you & fought all the available faces on the ladder upwards. But Angelo new that Hearns was a wrecking machine & the perfect foil to SRL. After the Bonds fight the Leonard camp wanted Cuevas, but it was unavoidable to dodge a showdown with Tommy. To much scribe & public interest/pressure to see the unification & as we know Tommy was expected to win that fight hence the Leonard team taking out insurance with the Kalule fight at 154 prior to the Hearns fight.

All this hyperbole from Angelo about waiting till the fight was more juicy $$$ wise is just crap. SRL was already a mega brand commanding mega $$$$ & no way did team Leonard want an obstacle like Hearns standing in there path. A nice easy stream of selected WBC top 10 oppanants would still keep the jack & jill rolling over.

But all credit to Leonard for pulling out that victory from the jaws of certain defeat with that late do or die effort. Leonard never ever allowed himself to be put in that position again where he was hemmed in by public opinion/demand to fight anyone other than of his choosing albeit by time frame, weightclass or opponant & history more than confirms this.

Leonards much vaunted comeback in 84 against Howard was a tune up for his challange for Milton McCrory & then Don Curry, he wanted no part of Marvin Hagler or Tommy Hearns, he was going to fight for his old titles at 147 but Kevin Howard blew those plans to atoms & SRL fled the sport & in his own words, it's not there anymore, I don't want to embarrass myself, there's none sharper in the self preservation department than SRL.

He knew he was DONE! Even at that young age of 27! He knew he'd struggle against the next batch of young up & commer's, so he quit!

Rooster hits the nail on the head when he says that Leonard could not handle SPEED!! A fighter like SRL who relied on his reflexes is always gonna have a short shelf life when pitted against fast young prime competition, even Duran was to fast for him in Montreal, Duran out boxed Leonard, Duran countered him to death with his overhand right hand. Duran near on had SRL out of there in the 2nd boxing mid range, Leonard said he was shocked at the speed of foot of Duran & that Duran was approaching the geriatric stage of his career being near on 30 & 70+ fight veteran.

Nah to rate Leonard at number 6 is pure homo! To short of a career & to short by his own sense of self presevation, he knew where the money was & that was to haunt ringside at ever major title fight as guest yapper for the closed circuit thus able to snipe & sneer at anyone who had the audacity to dare to take some of the limelight of himself.

That was why is was so poignant when Camacho beat the crap out of him, SRL dropped in a few subtle nasties with regard to one of Hectors performances back in the early 80's that he was color commentator on. Macho went ballistic & challanged Ray to a fight there & then, Ray just waved his hand & dismissed Hector, but Hector never forgot!

Leonard was exiting to watch, it was a great time back then for us boxing/fight fans, we had it all. but SRL is yer perfect example of smoke & mirrors, a media manipulator, he got away with it & still gets away with it today. If SRL had a good run as 147 champ then I'd accord him the proper respect due to a dominant champion, but he was just a lightning bolt with no thunder, his choice! He made the decision to evade capture! He saw his doom right before his eyes in 82/84 in the shape & form Of Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns, Don Curry, Marlon Starling, above, in the middle & below he was fuked & he knew it.

Kevin Howard exposed SRL to himself, he was finished at the top level, to slow of foot & to slow of reflex, ice skating around the ring does not constitute milling on the retreat in my eyes, he faux Ali act got him decked by Howard & that was game over for SRL who could not flee the sport fast enough with his tail between his legs.

 

i dont know if Hearns is a hall of famer or not but after 3 def of a wba title vs non descript & VERY SUSPECT opponents, I question whether he is ATG as SRL fans make him out to be. everything they say is so blown out of proportion

Hagler, I agree shot to hell in 87

 

You say my list is shear non-sense and does not add up. Why did you add 33 more wins to Monzon's record? He had 87-3-9-59KO's. Where did you get 120 from. You did not do you research before you jumped into this convo. No problem. I corrected it for you..

Check.

This content is protected

This content is protected

You say Duran was an old 29 when he and Leonard fought. When Napoles and Monzon fought Napoles was 34 in his 14th year of fighting with no fights at middleweight. He was stopped in the 7th (quit on his stool). He went right back to welter. Duran was a greater fighter all-time than Napoles and he earned his shot by fighting through the welterweight ranks instead of getting an unearned shot (Monzon was stripped of a title for not facing Valdez), and Duran actually beat Leonard once.

This content is protected

Great wins. But since you are playing hardball...Nino was in his tenth year as a pro. His third round KO (Nino's last fight) was a lot worse than losing one of the most controversal decision in all of sports (Hagler-Leonard). Starting with Benvenuti's two fights with Griffith, from 1967-71 Nino was 11-6-1. Hagler from '83-'87 was 7-1 all KO's except for Duran who he beat. Hearns and Mugabi on that list. I think that is impressive. Much more than Monzon's win over Benvenuti. BTW, Leonard was out of boxing for three with a detached retina.Then came back and fought on even terms with the one of the greatest middles to ever fight. No knock on Hagler. Leonard was just special. Yet you call Leonard a "boy.

This content is protected

This content is protected

1. Natural welterweight. 2. He had been 12 and 15 years by the time he had his two fights with Monzon. In two fights Monzon had to go 29 rounds with him. That means this 35 year old man with 15 years of hard fights behind him gave Monzon some of his toughest fights ever. Leonard facing Hearns. Hearns and Leonard was one of the greatest fights of all-time by two of the greatest welterweights to ever fight. Both in their absolute prime. This is not even comparible.

This content is protected

Great wins.

Do me a favor please.

Give me your scores for the Leonard-Duran I fight and school me on Monzon's career from '63 to '70. In my mind it is impressive because it shows his consistancy..but it also looks like record padding like Julio Cesar Chavez. A ton of wins in Latin America but no one I have ever heard of. Standing by..

Leonard, if he wanted to pad his record, could have well done the same thing. If Leonard wanted to have 14 title defense instead of consistanly fighting HOF'ers he could have. We did not even talk about his Wilfredo Benitez fight or his KO of Donny Delonde who was a natural 175'er.

Why you spend so much time on Norris and Camacho? Should we talk about Ali's loss to Holmes or Berbick as well? That Leonard wanted to fight a young lion like Norris should speak volume of his fighting heart and character.

End of the day. Since you feel so liberal in calling names I have one for you.

"Useless"

Mate.

 

Great factual post ! And the name you chose, `Useless`, perfect !! It`s like trying to talk to with an infant...

 

Fine, post Duran-Leonard your scores since you have such a strong oppinion. Have you seen the offical score card? Angelo Poletti scored 10 rounds even. Judge Raymond Baldeyrou of France scored it 6-4-5, judge Harry Gibbs of England saw it 6-5-4, and Poletti had it 3-2-10. Close fight Not out of the relm that Leonard could have won this fight.

I rank Leonard so high because he beat Hagler (neither were prime), Hearns (both primes), Duran (both primes), and Benitez. All Hall of famers. Duran is in my top ten p4p all time and I think Hagler and Hearns are both in my top 15 p4p. That is why. Everyone is trying to downplay all of Leonard's opponent. If they were so weak how come everyone else had such a hard time with them?

Ezzard Charles beat so many great fighter that his record is up there with Greb and Robinson. Whitaker does not belong in that conversation. Chavez and a few other solid fighters do not get it done.

 

Crazy talk, but at least the paragraphs and punctuations looks nice.

You start off with basically saying Leonard and Angelo Dundee took a big risk facing Hearns after Hearns took care of Cuevas. You make it seem like Leonard was fresh out of the Olympics and he was scared of Hearns. The reality, Duranimal, is that Leonard had KO'ed two HOF'ers (Benitez and Duran) by the time he faced and KO'ed Hearns. That is three hall or famers KO'ed from 1979 until 1981. Two years! Leonard did take a big risk. That is what real fighters do. He overcame. That is what Leonard did.

After the Hearns bout he KO'ed Bruce Finch in 3. He then retired because he had a detached retina. Detached Retina. Why didn't you mention that? Again, make it seem like he fought and was exposed for being some kind of fraud. He should have never fought again. For the next five year he had one fight. His prime. Then the Howard fight. The one you penalized him for. Yes, he went down but, then he got up and KO'ed Howard, and then retired again. Because he had been out of boxing for 3 years and he was still dealing surgery for a detached retina. Detached Retina.

Then in '87 he get up the nerve to fight Hagler. Hagler had not been beaten in since '76. Two fights before the Leonard fight Hagler put Hearns out in 3 rounds. Leonard had not fought since '84. Long story short, he beat Hagler retires for a year, beats another champion Delonde, beat Duran, and draws with Hearns. Basically, he comes back to close out unfinished business that he could not and he did. After that he retire for 2 years and then foght Norris retired and after 5 years in his 20th year he fought Camacho. Seriously, to hold these fights against him so far after his prime is silly.

You say Leonard at age 27 in 1982 retired because he knew he could not handle the next batch of up and comers. Like who?

You Duran was geriatric at 29 when he fought Leonard. How come Duran fought and won titles at higher weighclasses after he turned 32 and 38? Late twenties is still prime for great fighter. For All-time great fighters early-thirties is still prime.

Leonard could not handle speed? Duran was fast defensive and offensive (beat him), Hearns is top 5 for me speed all-time (beat him too), Benitez was fast hand speed and defense (I see a pattern). Leonard handled speed just fine.

I rank him at 6 for his resume and also because I do not think any other welter beside Robinson could beat him prime for prime.

 

What must be remembered is how rusty Leonard was in the Hagler fight. One bout in five years,and that was THREE years previously !

 

As previously stated a great box / fighter for sure. But it is ludicrous to have him in the top ten ATG's.

 

Great post. I'm not sure if he'd be in my top 10 like I said in an earlier post just because of the depth of great champs there's been in boxing history. He was a great fighter and specially at welter. Funny enough he seems to be getting penalized on her for not not fighting Hagler in 82. Why! He was a natural welterweight in 82. Nobody knocks Hagler for not fighting Spinks.
As a welter I'd find it hard to not give him at least a 50/50 champ against any of them in a series.

 

what's WRONG with bringing up Terry Norris? the result of that fight didnt turn out as u hoped?

Like I said, if your boy were the fighter everyone had said, he wouldve whipped Terry no problem. as it was, he had enough problems dealing with Kevin Howard

and since when does Ali holmes compare with Leonard v Norris?

or Ali berbick for that matter?

if anything, it was Hagler who resembled Ali in the holmes fight becuz he was as slow & lethargic, & impotent

while Leonard in uno mas won every round by boxing, moving and throwing multi punch combinations while Ali had resembled a punching back going back to 1976, 4 yrs before Ali-Holmes (see Norton-Ali 3)

the problem is people like u like to play down performances when Leonard cant win

and why does everthing Leonard does get compared with what Ali did? are those the only two fighters u know about?

and btw, Camacho is every bit as done as Leonard as Leonard was not to mention, fought the bigger man so it EVENS OUT

also, in no way did Carlos turn out to be another JCC. Much smarter and beat the best not only here in USA but worldwide


I also find it surprising that u are so easily impressed by the Lalonde fight since Donny was seen as the joke of the sport. yet Sugar went right ahead and fought him. no waiting period for those who cant fight

so as I said u and people like u, give Ray way too much credit "well Ray couldve made 14 defenses if he wanted to".

really? then let's see them. in real life, its not enough just to make claims; u got to back them up

and since when does anyone say things like "so he lost every round. at least he had the courage to fight him"

where I come from. to be ranked 6th ever as u rank him, u better do a lot more than just show up while expecting to lose

winners dont carry that attitude, the atittude of "I'll sign and just hope to last the distance"

that's not what winners do, let alone the 6th best ever

and the fact is, he was expected to WIn. by every sports columnist and boxing writer out there which makes Terry's win every bit more impressive than Ray's win over Hagler, since he won every round as compared with Leonard's split decision over a very slow and immobile, in his last fight, stripped of 2/3 world title, Hagler

why dont u bring up Terry's win instead since it was every bit as unexpected as Leonard's win over Hagler, while at the same time, the much more convincing win?

u really shouldnt be so biased against fighters like Terry & |Camacho

Sugar Ray isnt the only one who can make history

 

Hagler idnt get the same level of esteem from the media so he isnt expected to do as much

besides, he had his own division which kept him busy with young contenders from both the WBA & WBC knocking at his door every 3-4 months

what's wrong, the Roldan fight wasnt tough enough for people like u?

if u want to be number one in the sport as the press kept calling Leonard, they shouldve called for hm to keep proving it

I remember the time Ray sat down with a boxing historian from England and acknowledged "you just got done beating the best fighter", meaning Hearns.

he said now you have to fight the next fighter even better, meaning Hagler

but the over here in the states, the media was reluctant to press Leonard into meeting with Hagler and always played down demand

Why?

becuz they know Leonard wasnt up to it any more than he was up to fighting Nunn, even tho Ray & Mike were now at the same weight

no disadvantges now are there?

Ray just plain didnt do well against fighters with speed, the reason why he ducked Hagler, Pryor, etc. etc. etc

as a welter, I'd give Ray a shot against the more intermediate level champs, but someone like Robinson, he'd get the same dose of speed & humiliation he took from Norris. he just couldnt handle speed

 

I was taking you somewhat serious until this post.

You claim that Monzon fought great fighters abroad but you gave him 33 more wins than he actually had. How can I trust you if you do not own up to that mistake? I look at his record and I do not see anyone I recognize until the Briscoe fights. JCC was a great fighter just like Monzon but, they both have very padded records in their home country. When the came to America to fight they proved that they were the real deal.

Ali was beaten up by Berbick and KO'ed by Holmes. Is that really what happened to Hagler? Was Leonard the night he lost to Norris the same Leonard who beat Hearns, Duran, and Leonard? The truth is Leonard had not fought anyone in 14 months. This was his first fight at 154 since he KO'ed Kevin Howard in 1984 (BTW, retired after before and after that fight because of a Detached Retina). The Norris fight was in 1991. Leonard had been a pro for 14 years fighting the best in the world even through eye surgery.

The Lalonde fight was a year after the Hagler fight. Leonard was fighting over the middleweight limit the first time in his career. He took on a champion who naturally weighed 175, got of the deck, and KO'ed him. How are you not impressed?

Title defenses. Sugar Ray Robinson had only four welterweight title defenses. Oscar De La Hoya has five. Does that make Oscar a greater welterweight? Steve Ottke has 21 title defense at 168. Does that make him greater than Roy Jones Jr who has only five? Of course not! We know that those men were dominant no matter what the title defenses were.

In No Mas, Leonard did not win every round. It was a close fight when it was stopped.

You are asked me ware the only two fighters I know about are Leonard and Ali. Did you not see in the post of mine that you quoted, in bright

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected