Is Sugar Ray Leonard overrated?

Was Norris coming out of retirement AND rising in weight when he met those guys? The answer is no... No they weren't... Norris was in his prime and fighting right at his best weight while all of them were well past it and all of them making weight adjustments to meet him...In Leonard's case it was the exact opposite... Sure Hagler was past his prime too, but so was leonard and Marvin still had some obvious adantages...That's the difference..

 

Whatever I say?

He was favored at least 3-1 over Norris whatever YOU say!

How come none of your experts picked Terry to win BEFORE the fight, smart guy?

Mel Taylor ruined by Chavez? No brains! What a laughing stock!!

people like you should just keep their ideas to themselves and stay quiet

The way most people with eyes saw it, Mel was so far ahead that ref Steele had to stop the fight with two seconds left and hand it to Chavez, after which Mel quickly won another title, easily outpointing Aaron Davis (Same Aaron Davis who kayoed Breland) winning 12/12

You got anything to support your claim that Chavez ruined him other than Mel winning another title?

You're dumb

 

and listen to this "Simon Brown was past his best fighting weight"

the way you describe it, Simon tacked on an extra 20-30 pounds ala Randy Turpin

and what's this about "FIRST FIGHTS"?

let me ask you, why couldn't Simon, your great hope to defraud Terry Norris, duplicate the feat?

What went wrong in that fight?

Bet you don't answer

 

yeah look. Saad and his kin are having a really bad day. Can't you tell?

he just wrote a mile long response and had it laughed off like the rest of his posts

As for Norris, let's stop with the excuses and acting like Sugar was at any kind of disadvantage, pretending he was on another of his self imposed exiles from the sport

If anyone was at a disadvantage it was Terry

Leonard was nigh untouchable in his previous fight and the publications even said as much


and now it is Terry who, according to Ike-man sucked when it came to the competition

yet because of Leonard's lack of competition dealing with young speedsters, foundered.

obviously, if Terry beat him the way he did, you can't just be better than Leonard, you have to be a lot better

the score reflected how much Leonard has to catch up to be in Terry's class as a fighter

It's like trying to jump to the moon. can't be done

the rest of your post, especially regarding Hagler, is total bst

what since when are a lack of reflexes considered an advantage?

 

Terry Norris will never have to buy
toilet paper as long as you're around.:smh

 

In that case they must have some sh!tty schools where you come from because the word is " minutes " not minues.:roll::roll::nut

 

Leonard presents a bit of conundrum, when rating him in the context of overall Boxing history.
On the one hand, there's no doubting his talent. He was brilliant. In what was a relatively short 'first' career he was in not only some of the most exciting fights ever seen but also those exhibiting the broadest array of Boxing skill and tactics.

Criticisms levelled at Benitez, the man who Leonard unseated to become champion, can only be justified to a certain extent.
But, all-in-all, Benitez had earned his good reputation as the undefeated master and, whilst Leonard was deemed favourite to win, anyone would have reasonably been forgiven for thinking against the bookmakers forecast.

Both the 'pre-first retirement' Duran matches are classics for different reasons and Duran's calibre is unquestionable.

Neither should there be any doubts about the quality of the win over Hearns and claims that Hearns was weight drained for his tussle with Leonard are a peculiar, revisionist and little more than vaguely theoretical.
Weight-drained fighters do not perform the way Hearns did that hot night in '81. They generally don't weigh-in 2lbs below the limit, either.

And, the Kalule bout, for a 154 strap should not be overlooked. Kalule was a quality opponent, big, undefeated and who gave Leonard a good contest at the higher weight, but getting ultimately stopped.

Leonard's first career is impressive but somewhat short, due to a medically-driven retirement. However, the nature of this retirement and the manner in which he announced it leaves a bitter taste.

The twilight [Howard ] period leaves little to comment on. We think he's finally gone into retirement for good after this brief return.

Then Hagler.
The man he announced his retirement to, in person, on a shared stage to a shocked audience in 1982, was now his target.

I do understand people's lack of satisfaction with this fight and when it occurred. It should have happened 4 years earlier and, at a point when Hagler was verging on retirement, the whole event seemed to have been geared towards showcasing the ever popular Leonard's return.
The decision remains controversial and is argued to this day. Thus, how much sporting credit he deserves for this will always split opinion. But do these contentions damage his overall rating in any case? I'm not sure it can.

Leonard / Hearns brings another controversial decision but, perhaps more importantly, shows how past it Leonard (and to a lesser extent Hearns) has become. Compare these old warhorses to their respective versions of 8 years prior.

It is rare I hear anyone talk about the Duran rubber match and subsequent defeat to Norris in terms of any sporting relevance; rather than a tip of the hat to ageing legends.

With the above in mind, the return of Leonard can be viewed with much scepticism. Nonetheless, on balance, this does not discount any achievement from the glorious, if comparatively brief, run he had up until '82.

It truly shone and was more than enough to demonstrate Leonard's deserved place in history. This cannot, in my view, within the realms of good reason be sensibly disputed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Like I said Curry was shot after Honeyghan destroyed the myth, McCallum just made sure even the idiots ( like you ) could work it out.

Taylor had a further 21 fights after that over a 12 year period, and WON 14 of them. So your point is?

Duran was by far and away at his best as a Lightweight, but he still managed to beat guys at higher weights. As did Brown, so again what is your point?

As for Blocker, I could understand your whining if he ONLY lost to guys above Welter but the fact is he didn't. He lost 3 fights at Welter and was stopped twice. So yet again wtf is your point?

 

So are you claiming it is pure coincidence that directly after that fight Tommy went up to 154, then proceeded to box for a further 25 years going up as high as Cruiserweight, and NEVER attempted to weigh 147 again?

 

why do you say that, because I can properly defend him from smear jobs?

He beat your guy, favored and all, didn't he?

unlike yourself, I give proper credit where credit is due, despite his lack of popularity

and unlike yourself, I base this on results, not popularity contests

It might take you another 20 years to finally get it, but it'll eventually sink in

 

well, since you never responded, we can pretty much discredit the rest of your post too

Who says? yer Daddy

 

Define 'pure coincidence'.

As a consequence of Hearns' loss of his title to Leonard, his conqueror had become the undisputed World Welterweight Champion. A rematch with Leonard seemed not to be on the cards and, in view of the apparent lack of opportunity left at 147, he set himself bigger challenges.

He had Marvin Hagler in his sights as early as 1982 and he had suffered hand trouble leading up to and after their scheduled meeting on May 24th of that year. And, once the rescheduled Hagler date was also cancelled and all hope of a Leonard rematch had been thoroughly dashed, by his medical retirement, there was Benitez with a nice shiny WBC Strap at 154.

This is just cause and effect. There's nothing particularly striking about these events happening and the subsequent circumstances arising, in and around the same time.

Moreover, I think most people would agree that, despite losing to Leonard, the bulk of Hearns' legacy is built from his rise through the divisions; giving further credence to the idea that Hearns had consciously decided to take this career path.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk