Is Sugar Ray Leonard overrated?

I will agree however that leonard WAS hard to hit cleanly unless your name is Kevin Howard, Marcos Geraldo, Terry Norris who didn't seem to have much trouble, or Hector Camacho

sidenote: if you can't stand to look at this and your name is Mcvey, then don't butt in and say "I'm not concerned about Norris or Leonard"

Or to put it another way IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT DONT LOOK AT IT

In other words, SHADDUPA YOUR FACE!

 

Leonard was pretty amazing. Unless you're ranking him alongside Langford or Robinson, he's not overrated.

 

Oh, and I could never stand him and thought Hagler deserved the nod.

 

Red rooster has major issues.

Leonard in his prime was a far greater fighter than Norris or Camacho. Not close.

And I was no Leonard fan but those are the facts. Leonard the far greater technical fighter and he will always be ranked above these two all time. No question.

 

no sir, YOU have major issues because you make claims you can't back up! Have you ever seem Camacho in his prime?

I didn't think so

for every champ Leonard beat, Hector beat two, including Leonard himself. OOPS!

Guess what bright boy? Hector was past his prime himself

guess what else? Hector is really nothing more than a blown up lightweight so everything evens out including Hector's height and reach disadvantage!

or don't that count?

I suppose knocking Leonard senseless along the ropes is reason to deem him inferior!

I was there on a Saturday afternoon in July 1982 watching his pro debut while you were doing what?

You only THOUGHT you knew boxing until I set the record straight

again, how many defenses did Leonard make at 154 compared to Norris'???

so what are you talking about "NOT EVEN CLOSE"?

Hey bright boy, did you know that not one boxing expert gave Terry a chance going into the fight?

yet he won FAIR AND SQUARE! :smoke

That's right, Leonard, unbeaten in 11 years, lost every round.

It was the speed! Spelled S-P-E-E-D!

If leonard were half the fighter people like you imagine him to be, and expect the rest of us to accept the pile of manure you're serving, then Ray would have had no problem beating him

HELLO! Did you catch that? Leonard, the overwhelming favorite to win, should've won!

All I get from crybabies like you is a pathetic "Leonard in his prime", "Leonard in his prime!" :tired

but when it came down to it, all he proved was that he couldnt handle speed

Hey bright boy, why'd it take 11 rounds for him just to take out Larry Bonds??? Is that your proof?

back your **** up or SHUT UP!

Ray doesnt deserve to be in the company of people like hagler, Jones, Floyd, etc

and those multi year layoffs? BULL****!

 

That's more believable sho nuff yes it is!

 

Red has SERIOUS ISSUES.

Leonard's last two bouts of his entire pro career were against who?

Norris
Camacho

Leonard was a shot fighter by this point in his career. What these two fighters did to Ray in these two bouts is completely irrelevant to respective abilities or all time ranking.

And BTW I watched Leonard, Norris and Camacho LIVE in all their major bouts.

All time Leonard rates way above them. His comeback to ko Hearns and his bout to win the undisputed middleweight championship vs Hagler (thought unbeatable at that time) are what all time greatness is all about.

 

Yeah, I mean everyone but Rooster understands this.

By Rooster's logic, Pat Lawlor > Duran and Benitez

His inability to put certain fights in context is pretty glaring.

 

Red still baiting the hook after all these years

 

I think the sad thing is he really believes what he is saying.

 

Simple question

Please name all the historians and boxing periodicals that rank Norris or Camacho over SRL all time Pfp.

I'll be waiting a LONG TIME I am sure for a straight answer.

 

look what we have here; a human parrot with a birdbrain.

Leonard was shot by his 40th bout (or was it his 200th?)

so what? So was Camacho, about five years earlier

dumkoff!

moreover, Hector is a blownup featherweight, beating up on a blownup welterweight

so it evens out

Did you read it that time?

or would like you like to repeat the same worthless babble once again?

not to mention, I could not (and neither could anyone else) find anyone in the know picking Norris over Leonard

unless you happen to be a monday morning quarterback like yourself

in addition to a blatant liar "I watched all of Camacho's bouts live"

This content is protected

 

that's your own logic, but you don't seem to understand this!

have I ever agreed that Ray Leonard was shot going into the Norris fight?

That's the excuse you choose to give so you can pose this argument mudbrain!

nucklehead!

all you do is confuse yourself

it just takes someone like myself to successfully point it out

 

Being nearly 35 years of age, only having fought once in two years and only five times in 9 years, along with struggling in his last two fights with equally past it opposition... If that's not the definition of "shot" then Terry Norris at 30 and losing to Keith Mullings must have really sucked.

 

I got a better idea: name all the historians and boxing periodicals as well as sports writers that chose Norris to beat Leonard in a boxing match

When you beat a man in the ring one on one, mano a mano, it means your are the better man no matter how it galls the blood UNLESS,,, there is something drastically wrong with him (lack of reflexes, injured, cuts)

This was NOT the case with leonard; he was simply outsped, outsmarted, and outfought

NOW, ANSWER my question!

It will be next to impossible because you see, there ARE NONE, and since that's the case, that only further proves my point - about Leonard and about you. You simply can't accept the fight Leonard couldnt handle Norris-speed!

In fact, speed issues are why he put off the Hagler fight five years

He can only handle a fighter of this caliber when he is greatly physically impaired

it's similar to Leona Spinks with his 7 fights, beating Ali in a 15 round championship fight