Leonard's Detached Retina

greater probably.

I have Leonard as a top10 guy as it is.

 

when you look at rays record it looks really great even when taking this injury into consideration. but when you look deeper i get a bit of smoke and mirrors feeling, not as much as with floyd but still. making duran rematch him quick because he knew he would party and balloon up after montreal. the way he threated hagler(retirement thing and rematches), the controversial decisions against hagler and hearns 2.
Going in and out of retirement 100 times. I dont know it all seems a bit shady to me, I was born in 87 so didnt grew up watching ray, on videos he seems like the complete package. but some of these things just stand out so much. also that he has relatively less fights then most of his generation. He was also very keen on the catchweights i saw. Can anyone that grew up in that era clarify. is this all just coincidence or is leonard some kind of cunning mayweather type of person?

 

What he did from beating Benitez to the Hearns fight was beat Benitez,Duran and Hearns, 3 legends. Unheard of to fight that many greats. I think he was burned out by 1982 and the Finch fight.. I know he had a detached retina, but part of me thinks he wanted a break since he did resume fighting later and the retina was not an issue. Then he came back with Howard and was knocked down, but he still was not motivated. I do not think he was like Duran or Hearns or Hagler where he could fight the whole decade. Like Ray stole rounds he sort of stole the decade by fighting in the beginning and then the late part of the decade. Then he got fighter of the decade award when his 3 contemporaries fought almost the whole decade. Hearns and Duran really were the only ones to fight the complete 1980's .

 

Uh how is that Leonard's fault :huh

 

exactly. Duran gets the excuses in his losses all the time. With Benitez and Hearns he did not train supposedly. So he fights the two great fighters and doesn't train? I like Duran and thought he was great, but people excuse his losses instead of maybe seeing some of his weaknesses. Duran lost to all the legends in the 1980's and Leonard beat them all. And when Duran fought Ray in the 3rd match in 1989, it looked just like his 1980 rematch, meaning if Ray moves Duran looks the same every time. He could not hit Ray when Ray was moving.

 

Well said ..And Duran is one of my all time favorite fighters but Leonard can't be blamed for Duran's lack of discipline ..

 

:think Tough to tell but he and Hearns would have definitely fought a rematch the following year and he probably would have lost...Hearns would fight a much smarter fight and win a clear decision. Besides that, it's really tough to tell because all the money was in fights involving the big four so there wasn't much incentive to fight anyone else...meaning a rubber match with Duran would have happened MUCH earlier and the Hagler fight would have probably happened sooner('84-'85ish) as well.
I may be in the minority here but I really think his legacy would have suffered GREATLY:nut had he never been injured because he would have been forced to fight versions of Hagler(3 years younger) and Hearns(rematch following year instead of '89) that he, IMO, could never beat. It would also have been much more difficult for him to duck a very dangerous McCallum or Curry as all of the "Big Fight" options would have already been exhausted.

So there you have it, I must be crazy because I think Leonard would have added a few one-sided losses to his record(younger Hagler, Hearns rematch, McCallum at 160) if he was injury-free and his legacy would have suffered greatly as a result(still top 20 but out of the top 10 p4p).:nut

 

I don't think Hearns would have ever beaten a prime SRL at 147. His chin was too dicey and SRL was too strong and smart at that weight. As you move up in weights though, it favors Hearns every time. SRL was an ATG WW. He wasn't a MW. One thing that is always conveniently overlooked when it comes to SRL is how long he was out of the ring before coming back against arguably the greatest MW of all time. No One comes back after that long and looks that good. He was a special fighter.

 

Hearns was better. SRL got lucky the first fight waited till he was shot to rematch him. Got whooped then got a gift draw.

 

You don't even beleive that lie !

 

he fought every great fighter around at the time i dont know many fighters that did that

 

1. There is no "smoke and mirrors" with Ray Leonard. Look at his resume and who he fought. Nobody "fakes it" against that resume.

2. I never understood how people hold it against Leonard that he wanted to avenge his loss to Duran right away. It's actually admirable.

3. Hagler's management accepted all of Leonard's terms, but you can't hold their poor negotiating abilities against Leonard. He beat Hearns fair the first time and even admits to losing the rematch. No foul play there.

4. Can't hold the judging of fights against him. As I said before, he admits to losing to Hearns the second time.

5. Leonard absolutely was the complete package. Probably the most complete fighter in history, pound for pound.

6. Damaged retina.

7. The most legitimate concern you raised, if any.

 

Nah, Ray was the better of the two in my opinion.

Both of them were different gravy though, great fighters.

 

"you're blowing it kid!"

This content is protected