Is Sugar Ray Leonard the complete boxer?

Leonard was probably as complete a package as there has been he had boxing ability,ring smarts ,courage ,will to win ,coolness under fire ,finishing ability ,good power, took a good punch,and had a great variety of punches,he lacked a little of the explosive power of his name sake but was a little better defensively ,imo.

 

against benitez leonard showed great slipping to get his own shots in but agianst hagler and duran i felt leonards defence was more in and out and running from his opponents (especially Hagler). But saying that it worked i wouldnt call it a defence but he didnt get hit so he must have done something right

 

Leonard was not ever really accepted by many older boxing fans, it was considered he had things far too easy, and his distant attitude to the working class male fancy, cost him even more.

After the Hagler fight, his battle was lost, he was never going to be any more than respected for his skills, by the majority of the proper boxing fancy, thus he could never be the complete boxer, because he was not going to get an emotional attachment to these people like say of his era, Hagler, Hearns and Duran did.

 

The blue collar mythologising of Hagler makes me sick to be honest.

 

He did a lot of that I'll grant you. But against Hagler there were some instances later in the fight where he was laying on the ropes and making Hagler miss. It was a brilliant performance because it was something I couldn't recall ever seeing him do before. In fairness, NOBODY would have gotten away with that against a late 70's, early 80's version of Hagler.

 

But his fight plan against Duran in the first fight was all wrong. He needed a rematch to correct it. I daresay that if Hagler had the luxury of a rematch against Duran it would have been a battering for Roberto. Leonard was also was struggling against Hearns, by standing tall and trying to jab with Hearns until his trainer had to spell it out to him that his strategy was "blowing it", whereas Hagler's strategy against Hearns was a masterstroke.

 

Well I think you should be proud of your class, if you are blue collar working class, you have been the blood of this sport.

So I think, you have every right to be annoyed at those who do not pay homage, and Mr Leonard had an awful lot of blue collar money in his bank account, and yet decided not to respect that.

Ray Leonard was a brilliant fighter, but lacked the qualities to be the complete boxer.

 

Hagler was much bigger/stronger however

 

sure, but my point is Hagler would have benefited from a rematch, just as SRL did.

 

a fighter i have been watching alot recently and i think is a complete fighter

is aaron Pryor i would say he is more complete than leonard

 

John is still learning to think for himself :

 

I better re read what I have written then ,must have made a mistake!:huh

 

As perfect as is reasonably possible I would say

 

There's the rub. Hagler's one definite weakness. We all know he would have taken Duran apart in a rematch. Leonard also made a bad tactical and tempermental mistake vs Duran, but the Duran he fought was literally hell on wheels compared to Hagler's. Marvin also fought much better vs Antuofermo (regardless of first fight scoring or opinion) given time to ponder. Even at his experience peak he again fought the wrong fight vs SRL.

The thing is Leonard came back to convincingly stop Hearns. Hagler's strategy was indeed spot on vs Hearns, but what else was he to do? He was never going to outbox Hearns from a distance (given Hearns reach, great speed and superb jab) and would have opened up the chance of his scarred brow opening up while waiting for his moment for a stoppage. A fine strategy, but a basic one. Hearns thinking he was invincible following his incredible KO of Duran walked right into it and wilingly hammered away thinking the KO would be his. Incredible fight, and incredible moment in boxing history.