Nope. Gavilan was a great fighter. No doubt. Leonard was simply better. He was faster. He hit harder. He had three inches in reach. No doubt a great fight as Gavilan had a terrific chin but Leonard outpoints him.
Leonard would beat Gavilan by close but unanimous dec. Leonard in my opinion is the 2nd best welter in history, he had all the tools R Robinson had, may have been faster, but didn't have the dynamite in his fist Robinson had or the experience. But physically he was just as talented and was a very good puncher himself. I see Leonard very early realizing he's not going to ko Gavilan, go into skilled boxer mode with his fast feet and hands, go on to a unanimous and clear cut dec.
Watch footage have you seen of Kid Gavilan where he looked like a master boxer? His boxing ability is not what made him special. (And he was indeed special)Billy Graham was a pure boxer who gave Gavilan all types of fits. If Gavilan wins it will not be because he beats Leonard at his own game
This content is protected I don`t know if I`m allowed to paste this because boxing24 has said don`t paste full copywrited vids from youtube, but I think that means the whoe fight or something.
That is possible because Pryor was the naturally smaller man and had never been hit by a powerful welter, also his come forward style would mean he`d start absorbing power shots early and with Ray`s hand speed he`s land a lot, specifically hooks which Pryor was wide open to.
he was shot and was no better than a 4 round fighter by the time Leonard picked a fight with him. 15 years of battles with the world's best fighters finally caught up with him to which most anyone could see Obviously, you are not one of those in fact, this wasnt the first time Leonard thought Hagler was ready to be taken remember 1984? Kevin Howard ring a bell? Sugar was encouraged by watching Duran go the entire 15 rounds without so much as a wobble or knockdown still, when leonard was decked by Howard, he knew he better not continue and challenge Hagler no matter how bad he looked in defenses 8 & 9 had leonard been this super amazing fighter you say he was, he'd have defended against YOUNG, UPCOMING Micheal Nunn and removed all doubt instead we get Don Lalonde, a fight nobody wanted Ray's last chance to prove he could best top opposition on the way up came against Norris but instead proving his critics wrong, he proved those of us who said he picked a fight with an over the hill Hagler right, losing every round and then losing to an over the hill blown up featherweight in a fight everyone picked Leonard to win
yes. I have him ranked over Gavilan and Leonard Leonard was worthy but Napoles was a step above him and I think he had more guns than Gavilan
well, that's what many thought going into the Arguello fight but look what happened in actuality, Pryor's going to outpunch Ray 3 to 1. I can see why Leonard ducked him Ray looks pretty against Davey boy Green types with no head movement, slow footed plodders with little offense. human punching bags who actually walk right to you Gavilan is a little more measured stand up boxer w/o the overpowering offense that Pryor possesses. I think Kid is a safer fight
he was shot and was no better than a 4 round fighter by the time Leonard picked a fight with him. - is that so? I don't recall any of the press at the time saying that but please feel free to post a link. had leonard been this super amazing fighter you say he was, he'd have defended against YOUNG, UPCOMING Micheal Nunn and removed all doubt - I said Leonard had a great CV based on what he did in the late 70s and early 80s. I won't hold it against him that he didn't fight a bigger, younger man when past his best. In matching him vs Gavilan, we're discussing how good a welterweight he was in prime during which he beat prime versions of Benitez, Duran and Hearns. His not fighting a much bigger, younger fighter nearly a decade on is utterly irrelevant. Ray's last chance to prove he could best top opposition on the way up came against Norris - what? were Hearns and Benitez on the slide when Leonard beat them? He'd already proved 'he could best top opposition on the way up' over a decade earlier. He was from another era than Norris. Putting any weight on that result is like saying Holmes was crap because Tyson beat him. losing to an over the hill blown up featherweight - as above. Squared. He was 41 and had fought once in 8 years, Your bringing this up repeatedly doesn't do your argument any favours.
it doesnt matter what the media says as the general sports press does not follow the development of most fighters however, the BOXING press HAD been saying that Marvin had been declining since early 1984 Now, the next time you respond I want you to address the comment by the two commentators Clancy & Ryan at the 20 second mark of round 6 Leonard - hagler "Sugar Ray said he was counting on the slowness of Hagler" and then to clarify his statement said, "He said that Hagler had lost a lot of speed" How are you going to rebut THAT Mr EZZARD???
LOL! He started in the late 70s! who are you kidding? you go around BRAGGING how he beat Hagler with one fight in five years but back down the moment he's challenged by a young up and comer like Nunn? "I dont hold things like that against him!" what else are you supposed to say? it's clear youre embarrassed your man ducked out of it and dont care to know how it would have turned out and you know how it would have turned out? It wouldnt have turned out the way you like; it would have turned out more like Camacho - Leonard! what was he doing fighting during those years? didnt the Doctor tell him his eye was at risk? he's fighting Lalonde, fat pudgy Duran, and soft oft ko'd hearns proving my point he picked up a sloppy seconds Hagler. he wouldnt have a snowball's chance in hell when it mattered as I said, he looked pretty good against flat footed fighters who were slow and dint hit hard but against fighters who could move, tight defense, fast hands and COULD hit hard, not so hot. sertainly not an all time great