over-rated or under-rated I don't have a clue who is saying what,,,, SRL was lb for lb one of the best I have ever seen in the ring in his prime :good
Yes, he is slightly overrated. Although an ATG. He was a cherry picker, but still talented, He never tested himself unless he HAD to, and then only if he had every detail in his side. How would his career had been had he not been able to dictate Glove Sizes, Ring Sizes, or Length of the fight..Even Judges and referees? Had he fought with none of those advantages, He likely would have lost much more often. He simply does not have the longevity or straight talent to be considered as high as he is... In my opinion.
He is over rated. He used every trick in the book to get an advantage. He only gave a tough opponent a rematch when he felt they were over the hill. -He made Duran sign a return match just 5 months after their fists fight knowing that Duran would get out of shape in between. -He had a rematch with Hearns only after he felt Hearns was old. He avoided him lack the plague before hand. - He saw Hagler slipping and then decided he would fight him. I will give him credit though his 30 second end of the round flurries strategy won him the Hagler fight.
Its incredible through rose colored glasses. He lost to Duran and Rematched when he was out of shape. Hearns was winning through 14 rounds in the first and won the second. Benitez= Best win Hagler - Leonard lost in my book, but got the call for flurries at the end of round.( Shoe shining).. and see above posts about him making sure he got a huge ring, big gloves, 12 rounds... Etc
Why is it a negative that he lost to Duran in the first fight? It was a competitive fight and Robert Duran was an awesome fighter. You're making too much of the loss I think.
Its not so much a negative, But it helps for the debate on his ATG status. Leonard was obsessed with " names " But not with making the fights with those names when they were at their peaks. He has to be given credit for fighting Hearn's and Benitez, But he thought for sure he could take Duran, who was older and coming up in weight. He was wrong He got destroyed by Norris and Camacho. He is just overrated, but still an ATG.
But was he the same fighter in the Norris and Camacho fights as he was in the Duran and Hearns fights? Also, Duran was only 29 in the first fight. He looked to be at his peak. The only difference was that his power didn't carry as well up to Welterweight. He had a short prime. That's probably the worst you can say about his career. But in that time he was still able to take on Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Benitez.
People ALSO forget. He only had 40 FIGHTS!!!!! He cannot be at the level of the Durans, JC Chavez, Foreman, Holyfield. He was a natural talent, but he never had the fortitude and inner strength to test himself to the limits after Hearns. I think he feared Duran, I think he knows deep inside he cheated himself and could have done more. In any case, his on and off retirements, lack of fights and cherry picks just make me rate him lower than most.
Leonard was not at ATG level anymore with Camacho or Norris. BUT, Norris and Camacho were not either. Probably never were. He was not even competitive with them.
No. Anyone who has Duran,Hearns,Benitez and Hagler wins on their record has got to be pretty formidable. Yes,Hagler may have been past prime when they fought but so was Leonard. Obviously his legacy would have been enhanced had he been more active circa 1982-87.
Duran was the champion with the say so about when and where, Leonard made him sign nothing. Leonard is 2 years older than Hearns Leonard came back after 3 years and beat the reigning middleweight champion, having never previously fought at that weight. After losing to Leonard for the second time " OLD" Hearns went on to win versions of the Super Middleweight title and the Lightheavyweight title. Bottom line Leonard beat 4 ATG's, two who were undefeated and all of whom were reigning champions, and one is a lock for ATG p4p status.