Is Sugar Ray Leonard the complete boxer?

Whatt???? A complete change of tactics is what was the difference in the second fight. The tactics in the first fight were wrong, and that's something Leonard has admitted openly and repeatedly.

 

Those are called excuses, not admissions.

Yes, maybe Leonard did want to prove a point, but he was typically more of a boxer-puncher than a pure boxer anyway, so it's not like it was outside of his usual boundaries to fight anything like he did in that fight in the first place. In the rematch, I didn't personally care for his tactics at all to be honest, as he didn't do enough effective work to justify them, or for it to be called a schooling. Duran was just not himself that night. That's my excuse, or admition?

 

One of the most complete boxers ever, I would put Robinson and Charles ahead of him with him and Duran being very close then the Jofre, Gomez etc.

 

But Pea, the fact remains, the smart way to fight Duran, assuming you have the ability to, is box him. You don't brawl with him.

 

Kudo's for sure, but in reality it was the best thing he could have done. The worst was give Hearns punching room. Hagler said for years and years he would get close to Hearns chest and bash his ribs etc. Hagler had always said he would smother Hearns, and then backed it. Maybe people didn't beleive him :huh

As for steady pressure winning the day, maybe, maybe not. Probably but a great poster like Stonehands believes if Hearns boxed he would have won, so it's not an absolute.

Leonard is brilliant with both gameplans and adaptions. Anyone could see the numerous tactical changes of both combatants as the match ebbed and flowed vs Hearns. Yes, Leonard indeed fought brilliantly considering how outgunned he was in certain area's.

He fought the infinitely smarter fight vs Hagler too, and was justly rewarded for it. Tactically Hagler isn't in his stratosphere.

Yes, and didn't he learn his lesson. He was only ever caught out tactically once, and that was more from personal infuriation than anything else. He wanted to knock Duran's head off his shoulders, which of course was exactly where Duran wanted him. Chalk one up to the great Duran, another simply brilliant tactical maestro. If Hagler faced this P4P version of Duran i have no doubt at all Duran would have taken him. Hagler by comparison to Leonard was still making tactical mistakes in his last ever fight. If Hagler had the tactical nuances of Leonard and Duran he would have been nigh unbeatable historically.

 

Proyors fundamentals are atrocious compred to many, i cannot believe you have this opinion atsch

Great fighter, but should not be in this discussion one bit. There are MYRIADS of fighters belong here before him. Even a Buddy McGirt might deserve consideration in his own division first.

 

In this case tho lets put Hagler against bigger badass light heavyweights too for similar comparision. How about Hagler vs Michael Spinks, Bob Foster and Ezzard Charles. I'm sure you get my drift.

No hard feelings mate, gosh. You're a top lad in my books and always will be. Just thought i'd brush ya up a bit

 

the entire fight did not go the way round one did. round two, Hagler did in fact fight smarter than Hearns, making him miss with his head movement and countering expertly. Fact is, Hagler took round two more convincingly than round one.

 

Fact is Hearns, for whatever reason or factor of reasons was (incredibly) a spent force by round two.

 

JT, I don't believe that's true. Hearns continued to box well in the second round until Hagler's steady pressure caught up with him. For you and Stonehands who believe a strategy of steady pressure from Hagler wouldn't beat Hearns (anything's possible), well the fact is from 1 minute into the fight Hearns starts boxing and moving. A strategy of steady pressure wins the day in their fight. There's a lot of myths about the Hagler Hearns fight eg Hagler didn't throw a single jab during the first round (wrong), Hagler was out on his feet in the first few seconds (compete hyperbole), Hearns was suckered into a brawling fight (Hearns brawled for up to a minute, then boxed). Watch the first round again.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FuYclaefqPQ

I could argue your other points as well, but I have a feeling there will be other opportunities.

 

he could do everything egually well and took a great punch. The only weakest part of his game was defence and he still was well exceptional in that department.

 

Watch the shots that Hagler lands on Hearns. Hearns took alot of punishment from Hagler in round 1 and his legs demonstrated it in the next 2 rounds. Hagler took alot of punishment himself, but he had the superior chin and structure to cope with it. Hagler knew after that first round that he had Hearns ...he had the momentum. Hearns and Manny knew that Hearns was in trouble. After that it was search and destroy -Hagler had taken the best shots Hearns could offer and inflicted heavy punishment to slow him down. His courageous, high-risk, though simple, strategy paid off after 3 minutes.

 

Hearns' effectiveness wasn't the same throughout the 2nd round. Especially during the moments he was exchanging punches with Hagler. When he boxed a little bit at long range he done better, although his balance wasn't too good. The snap had gone in his punches when he was exchanging punches. Handspeed diminished somewhat as well. His speed and sharpnish was running in 3rd gear during the 2nd, and not 5th as it was in the 1st.

 

Yes. In fact Leonard could win by out boxing, out swarming, or out slugging.