Is Sugar Ray Leonard overrated?

Prime For Prime.

Hearns VS Leonard..... Hearns is the favorite
Duran VS Leonard. .. Duran Easy
Hagler Vs Leonard.... Hagler would crush him


Leonard is OVERATED and the least of the fab 4.

 

ok, i am going to watch these fights again before i keep posting

 

ok ok, take it easy for gods sakes :good

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

I agree. He's overrated in that respect.

I'd probably rate him above Hearns.
Duran and Hagler were greater, imo.

 

First time I've been accused of that.

 

I'd have Leonard at #3 and Hearns at #4. It's close.
You perhaps give Hearns too much credit for losing to Hagler.
Hearns was never the real champ at 147 or at 160.

 

I have switched them time for time on my lists.

They are close. But , I would also say head to head I would favor Hearn's. He was winning their first fight, and he likely would do the same in any fight they fought.

I also rate Hearn's on his Longevity, and Record in wins.

That just edges it for me ( For now)

Sugar Ray had something special about him... He really was an ATG and a great talent, I just wish he would have fought more, and fought the best when they were closer to their primes.

 

Yeah, that's a fair enough assessment.

 

What about the fact that Hagler had by far the lowest quality of competition? His only big wins were against men who were at their peaks in lower weight classes (much lower in Duran's case) and unlike them, he never moved up to fight bigger men.

 

Fine, should we all just assume that you're right and that Hearns and/or the SI writer were lying. :?

 

He dominated his weight class. Hagler was not a big middleweight. Some of the middles he beat were actually a lot bigger than him.

His quality of opposition is underrated.

I give credit to any undisputed champion who can dominate a weight class for 6 or 7 years with 12 or 13 defences.
The undisputed middleweight championship is prestigious title in my opinion.

Other people have different criteria, so give more credit to the likes of Leonard who made 1 or 2 defences then retired and picked his times carefully to take on the big names, and pick up a title here or there and never defend it.

 

I don't believe that.

Who do you think would win the fight between a Prime Leonard and a Prime Hagler?

 

When they fought at 147 Leonard koed Hearns.

Leonard koed Benitez. Hearns won a decision over Benitez.

Leonard beat Hagler. Hagler knocked Hearns out in 2 rounds.

Leonard won 2 out of 3 from Duran. Hearns koed Duran.

So out of four Hearns only bested Leonard vs Duran.

Leonard was the superior fighter. If you know boxing just watch them fight. Leonard exhibited by far the superior skill set.

 

But Leonard wasn't fighting on the back foot against a former flyweight. He was doing it against one of the most formidable MWs ever, never having fought at the weight before and with years of ringrust.

Had Floyd boxed Golovkin to a decision win, no one in their right mind would have criticized him for that.

I agree he should have lost Tommy to the second time around. But he was 33 then, fighting way above his best weight, so I don't see that fight as very relevant. The first one is the one that really mattered.

Yes, Hagler could have won their fight (would not have been a good decision, but not unreasonable either). But what somehow is forgotten now is that very few thought he'd even be competitive with Hagler. And why should they? He'd only fought once in 5 years and never before at MW. Either way you splice it, that is one tremendous performance.

I do agree that he never really convinced against Duran. That is the only blot on his record as far as I'm concerned. The rematch and rubber are both unsatisfying wins. But Montreal is his only prime loss and it came against against a tremendous opponent in a close, hard fought fight.