Is Sugar Ray Leonard the complete boxer?

He is up there but I think Kalule, Duran, Mayweather Sr, Hearns, Benitez etc showed that he had some shortcomings when it came to his pure technical ability. He was troubled in all those fights by those mentioned boxing skills and I think he had to call on more then just his skills to win those fights.
I think he is a little like RJJ in the fact he was a phenomenal natural talent and athlete..And he developed a style that complemented these god given gifts.

I reckon the Norris fight reinforced this somewhat because it showed once those reflexes and his speed had diminished he didnt have that much savvy or pure skills to call on and he ended up getting dominated

I agree Robbi..Leonard wasnt all that effective on the backfoot, it was more flash than substance. Not to say he wasnt very good, but I have seen better. Thats why I cant understand why people think that Leonard-Duran II was some kind of domination when you watch the fight overall..SRL moved a lot more, which frustrated the hell out of Duran but he just wasnt landing that many punches. When he stopped and flurried and at times battled Roberto on the inside (like he did effectively at times in the first fight) he was far more effective but also let Roberto do some work aswell.
But on the back foot he just wasnt doing much other then moving heaps and taunting.

 

I think the Benitez fight proved his immense skills better than any other actually. He put on a technical masterclass against one of the slickest, most skilled defensive masters of all time. I didn't think that fight was anywhere near as close as everyone makes it out to be, and gave Benitez about 3 rounds as Leonard countered and beat him off the draw consistently.

I also thought his performance against Mayweather was one of his more impressive. All certain performances (that one included) proved was that he typically liked to feel his way into a fight and get into a groove. He never really had a problem with Mayweather Sr.'s aggression, he was just feeling his way into the fight like he usually did, especially against those aggressive types. Against Benitez he never had this problem, which is why he looked so calm and collected throughout the fight and never really seemed to have any issues adapting.

 

Completely agree with you on Leonard Duran 2, Rock.

I do think Leonard was more or less a great fundamental textbook boxer-puncher though.He just fought loose at times because he was so good athletically as you say, that he could get away with taking risks\getting a bit unorthodox.

Almost every single one of the all-time great boxer-punchers had little things you could say were wrong in a textbook manner, as they had the innate balance and overall ability to improvise on top of their skills.

 

I didnt think it was particularly close either...But in the mid rounds there wasnt to much in it round by round, as Wilfred starting getting into his own defensive groove and had Sugar missing with the right a fair bit..Most of those rounds went to Sugar but considering the way it started and the way it ended, it was a far less level of ascendecy in those rounds.

He looked great against Money May Snr who was a very good boxer himself..But I feel he had to call on his power towards the end of that fight after Floyd gave him trouble with his jab and his awkwardness whilst attacking..Obviously he was young and had a lot to learn but my point is in answer the original question that if there was anything to critique about his game it would be the fact that too many people consider him this pure master boxer, when there were probably better at it and he did rely on his physical abilities a lot aswell.

There are times that boxing to conventionally is not always the best method though.

 

You are right there Mante...Ray also had a great chin that allowed him to get away with things like that.

As I said boxing to the book at all times isnt always the best way..Most greats didnt, many completely chucked it out the window.

 

I think Ray Robinson was better on the backfoot but they are about even when it comes to in fighting.

 

[yt]_G5v_PNsl4Q[/yt]

Watch the video at round 3.00 and you'll see boxing on the backfoot. Many fighters can move backwards and generally box defensively. Leonard used lots of movement against Duran in their rematch, and later against Hagler. But not once did I see him backing up, drifting away as his opponent was advancing, and scoring punches at the same time in either of those fights. IMO, it's one of the hardest things to do in the sport, effectively anyway. To maintain balance, footing, and keep your punching technique as equally as tidy while moving backwards, hard to accomplish.

 

What?

 

That's how I saw it as well.

 

Was Ali the only HW that could do it? Both Tunney and Walcott moved and the stopped to shoot, didn't they?

 

Easily top 5 ATG ever in completeness. We have to bear in mind we are talking of a 147 Leonard here too, not the old manufactured 160 job. At 147 he was close to if not the most complete i have seen.

 

Ray Leonard was a complete boxer.

He easily satisfies the following criteria:
1. Exemplary technique
2. Athleticism
3. Will

What bothers me a bit, to be honest, is the fact that he had so few fights, although the names are impressive, in the end he only stepped into the ring 40 times. Also, that loss to Norris. It wasn't like he was a 47 year old Duran stepping in against Joppy, or a 39 year old Moore stepping in against Patterson. I'd be more confident in his foundation had the 34 year old Leonard beaten or was at least competitive against Norris.

 

I would also add "ring generalship" to that. (Even if Robbi may well have a point that Leonard didn't retreat and punch at the same time)

 

IMO Hagler and SRR are the most complete boxer ever
they was brilliant attacking, brawling, defending, back foot. everything

Leonard had his short comings and if he could have scored on the back foot he would have been the best

 

So Leonard's only shortcoming keeping him from numero uno is ability to score off the back foot? Hearns had him on the back foot almost an entire fight and he found the way to a stoppage. Duran ambushed him but Leonard had an axe to grind and Duran had some very very special skills on the front foot. He gave Hagler strylistic probs even at 160 years later. To Leonards credit he turned it all around and forced the quitsecond fight..


What fights of Hagler's would be the best for showing his ability to score off the back foot?

What fights of Leonard's would best serve for showing his inability to score off the back foot?

Where Leonard surpasses Hagler is adaptability and ability to think during the heat of the moment and/or under duress as well as formulation of a great plan. It's probably Hagler's only weakness, but a key ingredient when opposition levels reach the pinnacle.