Fighters you are astounded are considered ATGs?

I am no particular ‘basher’ of Ray. Leonard as an entire package isn’t my cup of tea but I do love his fights.

My only agenda is to point out that Leonard’s achievements to be this top 10/20 p4p all time fighter 10/20/30 spots ahead of the pack with the likes of Spinks/Holmes/Holyfield/Hagler aren’t actually there.

But addressing that and arguing that Leonard’s signature wins aren’t a million miles better than those bunch has got me the label of a hater, and such insecurity in itself regarding Leonard’s career should tell why he is likely overrated.

 

The Whitaker fight was close but Whitaker was too defensive and not active enough, debatable decision for sure but certainly not outrageous that ODLH got it.

I think Mosley 2, Trinidad, decisions were worse especially the Trinidad decision which would've heightened ODLH's resume significantly had he got it.

 

Hearns has the better legacy yes. But he wasn’t actually a better fighter than Bowe. Hagler walked him down with no fuss and starched him, a major embarrassment for any elite fighter to be walked through like that. Barkley threw one Hail Mary and that was that. Leonard was jabbing air for 6 rounds and one sharp short uppercut in the 6th and Hearns was getting hammered out on his feet almost for 2 rounds and being stalked on borrowed time for the remainder of the fight. Second Leonard fight Leonard really didn’t do much either but got bailed out because of Hearns’ chin and would’ve easily stopped him over 15. Couple in all the others shaky chin moments, I really can’t see why it’s sacrilege to say Bowe is a tougher prospect to beat.

 

I believe the only people that consider him an atg are his hardcore fans. I haven't seen anyone that wasn't a fan consider him to be an atg. Perhaps they are out there, but I haven't seen any.

 

Ok... So Hearns wasn't a great win for Leonard because Leonard beat him? That's the reasoning you want to stick to?

And the other losses are at least two weight classes up, one of them to the perhaps best ever at the weight.

Around the actual weight Leonard beat him at, he smashed Cuevas and Duran like no one else ever did. Didn't even come close to. And outboxed the master boxer Benitez.

But Bowe is a greater win for Holy, the very narrow win he did get in three tries, because Bowe beat... Holy.? That's it. Those are the only really good wins he had.

Because you can't seriously be saying that you base your view on how good he was on him beating washed up Tubbs (barely), washed up Dokes and Herbie Hide? If that was the kind of opposition we would be judging Hearns's quality on he'd be the GOAT.

And not even a year after KO'ing Holy, Bowe got beat into retirement by Golota, who sure as hell was no Hagler. Not even in the same stratosphere.

You really think you're making a strong argument here?

 

I've always scored that fight clearly for DLH. Never seen a way I could give it to Tito or even a draw. But Quartey should probably been a loss and with the loss to Mosley in the first fight and razor close win over a probably past prime Whitaker... Not ATG material, I think. But he did have a good run at 154, though. Have to give him that.

 

You giving Michael Spinks a pass for the Tyson show, then because he was walked through like few elite boxers have ever been walked through? I love Michael - often said here that he's my favourite fighter along with Ezzard - but Tommy's effort against Hagler deserves way more credit.

Also, yes you had '15 rounds to try and land something decent against Hearns' to win. Not strictly true as, at welterweight and jr middleweight, only Ray managed it. And in that 15 rounds you had to make sure he didn't get to you first which was the main problem for 95% of his opponents until Hagler came along. A man who, incidentally, Leonard beat.

 

Of course Leonard beating Hearns was a great win. Hearns was a great fighter. But Hearns didn’t take a punch very well at 147 or 168 and whilst Leonard had great pop and hand speed, he wasn’t a murderous puncher, and Hearns didn’t even need to get caught flush by Leonard in either fight to get hurt bad. So I’d put limits on how great the win was, but then I’m aware I’m likely in a minority who aren’t particularly high on Hearns.

And career success really doesn’t tell the story of how good fighters are anyway. So let’s not bother with that.

Bowe beat Evander Holyfield, a better p4p fighter than Tommy Hearns, looks very good on film, and was highly thought of by a great trainer like Eddie Futch so there’s a few reasons to rate him highly to start.

Bowe and Hearns both had strong amateur backgrounds and had great trainers in the pros and I’m convinced at the highest world class level there’s really not too much difference in talent between these pros. I do think Hearns with his handspeed, power and jab is more talented, but the difference in durability is so large that I cannot see an argument that makes Hearns the better fighter overall.

 

He didn't always win.

Oh ****, yes he did!

 

Who else hurt Hearns at WW or even JMW? If you can't give me something, you're basically just saying that Leonard's win over Hearns wasn't that good because Hearns lost to Leonard.

That's one of the most stupis things I've seen written on this forum, and I've seen a lot.

Hearns met fewer world class opponents at WW than Holy did at HW, but from what we got to see of him there he looked way better. And that stands if we include 154.

He didn't lose to fighters like Moorer, or have tough fight with fighters like Dokes and ancient Holmes and Foreman. He eradicated or dominated everyone he met except for Leonard. The same can't be said of Holy at HW.

CW Holy can perhaps be compared to WW Hearns in terms of dominance, but HW Holy didn't look as good.

Even though he beat much, much better opposition in devastating fashion and didn't have anything remotely close to the debacles against Golota at his best weight you cannot see an argument? That is pretty wild.

So far you got: "Leonard could KO him, therefore it's not very impressive that Leonard KO'd him." And "He got KO'd two weight classes up from his loss two Leonard by two big punchers, one of them among the best MWs ever." And "That Hearns had far better wins and not as poor performances around his best weight doesn't mean anything."

Do you feel comfortable with that?

 

Good post. You've made some points that have raised eyebrows, mine included, in this thread - which is great as it stirs debate. Also it's been courteous. And this is as good a post as the thread has had and there've been some good ones. Kudos and apologies if this reads a bit pompous and patronising. I reread it and it does but it's not meant to be.

 

I could name fifty fighters who could have gone through that resume.

 

He landed more punches and knocked DLH down. No argument is to be made for Oscar winning.

Defense, by the way, is a category of judging a fight, so you just gave him three of three.