Someone explain why Ray Leonard is ranked so highly?

Now I have a boyfriend do I?

maybe u have a boyfriend as well and u all go down each other's pads and cuddle under the covers while reminiscing how Sugar beat up on big bad Donny Lalonde :nut

or as I call him, the actor from Blue Lagoon (co-starring Brooke Shields in her big break out film)



maybe the problem is I live in the greatest of States (Cali) and forgot what cold feels like while u forgot what warmth feels like or maybe its that u cant tolerate others with views that contrast with yours?

maybe it bothers you when we can cite their sources and you cant? RRRRR! :fire

or maybe it has to do what I mentioned about benitez.

I said he didnt have speed and he doesnt

i said his offense was lacking and it is

it's part of ranking fighters, and why some are ranked over others

he wasnt the complete package and only excelled in one area-like it or not.

Wilfred wasnt blessed with great handspeed while Terry was

its the reason why Wilfred lost in a landslide and Terry won in a landslide to the same fighter

at any rate dont get too upset, they're all good fighters but comparatively speaking; Norris >>SRL>>Benitez

 

with Hamsho I think Hearns took his confidence and they made the wrong decision moving up when Wilfred was best at 154. I thought he fought better at 154 than the other weights. More solid and experienced. Hamsho was wrong for many guys.. awkward and strong. Moore? Ankle injury? Wilfred was a great fighter. 3 titles and youngest man to ever win a title. Beat Duran and Cervantes and his punch against Hope was spectacular. Fighting Duran,Hearn,Leonard,Cervantes,Curry,Palomino and 3 titles is great. losing his first two fights to Hearns and Leonard is not an insult.

 

are you seriously comparing Norris to Benitez? Norris fought an older Leonard and Benitez fought a younger Ray 12 years earlier. Norris had no chin and was not a great fighter, as much as people want to make him great. Wilfred was great and beat Duran and outclassed him, something Terry would never have been able to do. You cannot compare the 1979 Ray to the 1991 Ray. Ray was good when he fought his old buddies from the early 80s because he knew them and they had decline a little also. So Hearns and Duran were safer than a young Norris. Yet the same year Ray lost to Norris, Tommy beat 10 defense undefeated 175 pound champion Virgil Hill easily. I think Ray coming down to 154 hurt him with Norris.

 

Ray may have been older but was far from ringworn

Look at Floyd who is still knocking 'em dead at 38 to Ray's 34

how cum Floyd can do it and Ray cant when Floyd is older and has more fights???

lets not forget, Ray had no handicap of any sort going into the Norris fight as he did in the Hagler fight and was by far the more experienced of the two

his only problem was that he never faced anyone with Terry's handspeed N defense

Wilfred didnt have the handspeed and between two boxers, the one with the greater handspeed wins

lookit Camacho-Davis

lookit SRL-Benitez

Lookit Roy Jones-Reggie Johnson

Lookit Nunn-Kalambay

Lookit-Norris-SRL

its a big part of why Roy jones was so successful and Floyd too

I know people dont like this fact but that's just how it is

 

Because Floyd had spent his career fighting taxi cab drivers and fighters way past there prime!..Leonard fought the best in every division he fought in. You cant say that he didnt!

 

Southpaw; I hated Leonard for beating(close and controversial decision aside) Hagler, but I have to
admit he was a brilliant fighter. I haven't seen many more chilling knockouts than his against Dave Green. I despair when others fail to recognise such obvious class.

 

Ya as a fan of the Fab 4 a rematch with Hagler or a third fight with Hearns would have been nice!

Poor David Green!:good

 

Donny LaLonde was a vicious spectacle as well!

 

no, becuz Floyd is good enough to still win whereas Ray fell flat on his face when presented with the first opponent that could box, bang N move

so your reasoning is actually the reason why Ray was as successful as he was. That is, until he met Terry Norris who had him bewitched, bothered, N bewildered for all 12 rds

 

How can you keep comparing Leonard's age 34 to Floyd's 38 when Hagler was younger at 32 than both when you say he was shot/past his best? You surely must know that age isn't the only factor that causes fighters to slow down. Hard fights, length of career, lifestyle outside the ring, too busy a schedule, too many years inactive etc. Do you think the Leonard of the Norris fight was the same fighter as the Leonard of the Hearns fight for example?

 

The sheer stupidity of this guy to keep saying that said fighters were past their prime... Without addressing him (because some of his responses are incredibly inappropriate and quite twisted!) Some fighters peak early, Tyson, Benitez, Lopez,Saad, Reid, Moore etc etc ... SRL last truly solid fight was against Hagler and even that was not anywhere near peak and the decision was debatable. Look at the ring ledger`s of SRL and benitez... Case closed... BTW, great points AlFrancis

 

Hes just a typical Floyd fan..excuses and more excuses while all hes doin is really ignoring Leonards resume in comparison to Mayweathers. Does anyone really believe Floys could have knocked out a 147 lb Hearns or stretched a 12 round decision against Hagler at MW. I believe your right about Rays last solid performance was against Marvin but that doesnt mean he was done after that fight.

 

Another voice of reason enters the fray.

 

Guys, rooster has been trolling this board about Leonard for about ten years.

It's a bit creepy to see the same act going strong to this day tbh

 

Agreed!:good