A Case for Ray Leonard being rated over Duran - An Analysis

Hagler wasn't slipping,he was shot.Leonard may have been past prime,but he wasn't shot.Not that I believe Don LaLonde was a great fighter,but he was decent and Leonard knocked him out at 168 after Hagler.Marvin's reflexes were gone,footspeed non-existent,handspeed slo-mo.Just look at the Mugabi fight.The evidence is there for all to see.Mugabi was landing bombs left and right.And it wasn't just this "sloppy" performance-again,look at the Roldan fight.Leonard knew Marvin was shot better than anyone.That's why I don't give Leonard the same latitude.Despite spending YEARS(and I do mean YEARS)discussing a possible Hagler fight,he wanted absolutely nothing to do with Hagler until he was certain that Marvin was shot.I have only one question for you-logically,why did Leonard wait that long to challenge Marvin?I believe the answer is obvious.

 

I think you know as well as I do that Leonard's losses to Terry Norris and Hector Camacho can hardly be compared to Duran's defeat to Leonard. Once again, Duran was fighting actively and coming off a top flight performance when he met Ray for the third time. Leonard was off for over a year prior to the Norris fight, had to drop weight to get down to the same division and was facing a PRIME opponent, whereas Duran was not.. The Camacho fight has no bearing on this discussion.. Leonard was over 40 years of age and had been retired for 6 full years..[/quote]
Well put,but when Leonard went back down to 154 for the Norris fight,was he weight drained or was it pretty easy for him?Was 154 the contracted weight?I remember the fight,just not the circumstances.

 

You are the only one laughing at that dire comment. Well done.

Duran at welterweight was a more proven and effective force than Leonard at middleweight. And Duran would rank higher at welter h2h than Leonard would at middle h2h for sure.

Only a biased imbecile like you would even try to disagree.

But don't let me stop you embarrassing yourself again, go right on ahead :good

 

If you insist on believing that Hagler was "shot", while Leonard was still the more able bodied of the two despite nearly 5 years of inactivity, rising from a lower weight class, and being close to the same age, then sobeit. Frankly I think John Mugabi was a better fighter than Don Lalonde, and Hagler wesn't decked by Mugabi the way that Leonard was against Lalonde. This whole notion about Leonard waiting for Hagler to diminish so that he could challenge him is speculative and frankly I don't buy it. Leonard retired after facing the average Kevin Howard due to a lack luster performance. He felt his skills were diminished in 1984, so why would he expect them to be any better in 1987?

To finish this, I don't have a problem with those who rate Duran higher than Leonard, which is what your argument is clearly designed to do. But, I have to say its disheartening to see how heavily pissed on and underappreciated Leonard's win over Hagler really is. I can't believe the great lengths that people travel to in an effort to make Hagler the deteriorated fighter, when it was clearly obvious who the underdog should have been.

 

I can remember clearly how heavily favored Hagler was to beat him and how many felt that Leonard was seriously risking his health by taking this fight. Much like yourself, I don't see this logic that Hagler was supposedly "shot" because of his performances against Mugabi and Hearns. They were both excellent opponents at the time and Hagler beat them decisively. Kevin Howard was not the fighter that either of those two men were, yet Leonard even stated that his struggles against Howard had spelled out the end of his career.


For the record, I don't have a problem with those who rate Duran higher on a p4p list. My only issue is the METHODS and arguments that some of these guys are fabricating in an effort to do it. In 1987, Ray Leonard's win over Marvin Hagler was considered as being among one of the greatest single victories in history and now all of a sudden 20 years later on some internet forum it isn't? Ray Leonard beating Duran 2 out of 3 times is somehow not as good as Duran beating Leonard once? Leonard beating Hagler, Hearns and Benitez ( all three of whom beat Duran ), is somehow not as good as Duran beating Buchanan and Dejesus, or fighting into old age and beating journeyman and tomato cans?

I don't get it and probably never will.

 

Thanks,Puncher.

 

Puncher,you're correct in the assumption that I hate Leonard.But his waiting to fight Marvin until Marvin was shot IS THE #1 REASON I hate him.

 

What evidence do you have to support Leonard's SPECIFIC intentions of PURPOSELY holding off to fighting Hagler, until he was satisfied that he had diminished?

Would it have made more sense for Leonard to have signed to fight Hagler in 1983 shortly after sustaining a torn retina injury? How about in 1984 following a lack luster performance against Kevin Howard? Do you not think that Hagler's destruction of Hearns in 1985 was something that could have made a fighter think twice about returning? Do you think that going 11 rounds and taking the very best that a man like Mugabi who had stopped all of his 25 opponents was a good indicator that Hagler was finished?

Personally, I think that all you are doing is taking the mere fact that Leonard never signed to fight Hagler EARLIER as an automatic red flag that he was waiting for signs of deterioration, without any substance to prove that this was the true reason. Did you ever consider that Leonard wasn't getting any younger either, and that the prolonging of this fight was only extending Ray's period of inactivity, hence leading to the further diminishing of HIS skills as well? Assuming that he HAD been waiting for such signs of deterioration, he also would have been risking the possibility that his window of opportunity would have closed as a result of either Marvin retiring or losing to someone else in the interim, hense blowing a multi-million dollar pay day...

These things work both ways and there are many reasons why fights get made at certain times or are never made at all.

 

Once again,Hagler hammered Hearns because he absolutely mauled him.IF Tommy were able to keep Marvin off of him and on the outside,he probably would have outboxed Marvin.Tommy couldn't,he got beaten up.Secondly,I'm also basing my opinion on the Roldan fight,in which the slowpoke was able to hit Marvin frequently,as it was obvious that Marvin's reflexes were failing him.Thirdly and most important,think about what you wrote above.Leonard retired after Howard(for what,the second or third time?I just don't remember.Lenny would have to have another self-serving "retirement Party" to stroke his own ego) because the Howard fight indicated the end of his career because of a sub-par performance.So what does he do?He comes back,what,3 years later to challenge one of the greatest middleweights ever?So,he felt that he was sub-par against a decent welterweight,but comes back 3 years later to fight one of the greatest middles ever because,what,he's a better fighter and has a chance against Marvin after A THREE YEAR LAY-OFF?Just think with a little logic.Of course he knew Hagler was shot.How else could you explain that he would come back against Marvin?Do you get it now?

 

Exactly.Leonard wanted nothing to do with Marvin until Marv was shot.You seem to forget or just fail to mention who the cash cow was and more importantly called all the shots.Leonard was no where near as shopworn.He was younger,had a much shorter career,and even though he impressively beat several Hall Of Famers,didn't have the depth of quality opposition over the course of an entire career that Marvin did.

 

So what does that tell you? For me, it says that a very competant all time great boxer was taken completely out of his game and destroyed, because his opponent ( Hagler ) had what it took to make it happen. For most people, this would not be taken as an indicator of being "shot".

The Roldan meeting took place in March of 1984, two months BEFORE Leonard's fight with Howard. By your logic, Leonard should have taken advantage of this performance and fought Hagler THEN.... What does he do instead? He waits a full THREE years AFTER having a lack luster performance of his own to sign for the fight..... Do you think Leonard felt that his own diminished skills were going to improve as time went on?

So you think that Leonard's retirment was just all smoke and mirrors and planned to call it quits for an undecided amount of time, with a Hagler fight in mind down the road? Sounds like a stretch to me.

Oh I get it quite clearly... You want everyone to just ignore the fact that Leonard was past his prime, had fought only once in 5 years, was jumping weight classes and at a terrible disadvantage, all so that we can focus on the fact that HAGLER was shot, and that Ray's campaign to retire for 3 years and come back with the intention of waiting for Hagler's demise was all just a big scheme....

I'm finished here....

 

Still waiting for the evidence that I asked you for, and not just speculations about schemeful or shady business moves......