How good was Leonard's win over Lalonde?

Yeah, but LaLonde was a LHW whereas Barkley was a MW.

A bit perhaps. But he usually came in a couple of pounds shy of 175. Shedding another 5-6 lbs can't have been that taxing. And it was not like he gassed. He got KOTFO.

 

It seems people bend over backwards in trying not to give Leonard credit for this one.

Weight drained? He came in at 5-6 lbs lower than normal, that shouldn't really be too hard should it. And he didn't look very weight drained. He didn't gass, he just got his lights punched out.

Not a very good fighter? Probably just as good in his division as Iran Barkley was in his. He was limited, but good enough to be a belt holder. He had power and was much larger than Leonard, who himself came in at his highest weight ever and was past his prime.

And that he looked sluggish etc, etc. Anyone ever stopped to figure that Leonard was good enough to make him look bad? He made much greater fighters like Duran and Hagler look bad at times, but I supposse there's excuses to cover those.

Could it actually be that Leonard - just like Jones and Ali - was good at make even really good fighters look bad. Or was it merely a fluke that these very smart, quick and skillful fighters made guys like Duran, Hagler, Liston, Toney and Hopkins look bad.

 

I have not seen that much of any of them, but they were both limited but could punch. That he looked bad should be seen as credit to Leonard as much as anything else.

Even on this forum many lack the understanding that some fighters are experts at making others look bad. Leonard, Jones and Ali often doesn't get the merit they deserve for their wins because of that. Instead ther's this plethora of excuses. Now what is the more reasonable explanation; that these guys easily disposed of really, really good fighters because they themselves were great, or that they just continued to be lucky all the time?

I think the main reason why Leonard is so hated on this forum is that he made many's favourite fighters look bad. People cant' handle this, so they start with "oh, he was just a sneaky **** that lured Duran into an early rematch and waited until Hagler was shot". You have some really bad nutcases like Redrooster, but many others also fall into this trap.

And here you have a 32-year old Leonard coming in at his highest weight ever, taking on LHW belt holder and knocking him senseless. Had this been a popular fighter in this forum, like Duran, people would go nuts over this win, but no it's "oh, he was not the best LHW out there, he was weight drained". And yada effing yada.

The circus with the two titles was unfortunate and embarassing, but if one looks at it for what it was, it's easy to see that this was a very, very good win.

 

No, I don't think it was quite as good as Duran's over Barkley, rather I use that one as a reference to show that it was, after all, very good. The main differences between the two wins, as I see it, is that Duran was six years older than Leonard and that LaLonde was fighting a bit below his natural weight. On the other hand Leonard scored an impressive KO and had never fought at the weight before. So while there's a difference I don't think it's huge.