Would you back any ww or lmw to beat SRL twice in a row?

i am just saying that a man that can give away the better part of half a stone away to archie moore and have him on the deck four times must be able to punch a bit better than wilfred benitez

 

McLarnin was a great fighter, the Pacman of his day I would say. And this was his best win IMO. Young Corbett was a very, very good fighter and McLarnin just waved him away like a mosquito.

Yeah, Ray would probably favoured over both, Barney and Henry, but Ross has the skill and intelligence to pull it off, and if Duran could beat Leonard, so could Armstrong. I´m pretty sure both would beat him once, Armstrong´s chances to beat him a second time are better though and both are on the longest odds here.
I thought of Britton and Lewis too but somehow I never got warmed to them and never looked much into them. So, I left them out. Going by their records you can´t rule them out though.
Like to hear your opinion on Corbett and Zivic, both could be hell for Leonard or maybe he has an easy time with them. He never dealed with a fighter like either one though.
McLarnin´s only chance is to knock Leonard out IMO. And if Hearns couldn´t I don´t think he could. That´s why I didn´t include him here.
With Walcott I´d have to ask for the rules. If it is a 20 round or fight to the finish type fight of Walcott´s era I don´t think Ray would have a chance. On the other hand I don´t Walcott has more than a punchers chance in Ray´s era - but what makes me unsure here is that Walcott was able to hang in with Gans without getting totally outboxed, so he has more of a chance here than Ray has in his era. I don´t like fights like this though, hard to judge when the rules are so different.
Yeah, after Robinson, Burley and Rodriguez are the best bets here. Right after them are Gavilan and Walker. Griffith and Basilio are only at slightly better odds than Armstrong and Ross, I think. Prime Curry and Napoles have a good chance at winning one fight but not two I think.

 

No, because Duran is bigger, faster, rangier, more powerful, better defense, better counter puncher and actually had a jab

 

Fair enough.

It's a very interesting match-up. From what I've seen of Burley he wouldn't try to slug it out, but rather draw Leonard in and counter.

 

yeah i think you are right

 

mcclarnin would be a live underdog against leonard but beat him twice i am not so sure

 

Not really, but I can see this pimp sparking him out twice with some luck:

This content is protected

WW Armstrong has a chance despite what PP says. If you can retire Barney Ross you certainly have a chance to swarm and neutralize Leonard, it's just styles and Armstrong before Ambers II was fast and very hard to hit, not to mention that his WR was incredible and once he got inside he neutralized a guy's style

 

Cocoa Kid hasn't been mentioned yet. Any love for his chances to do a double?

 

@bodhi

- Just posted somewhere previous that Armstrong might be more effective against Leonard than I first thought. If he could close the distance consistently without getting hurt too much and work for extended stretches of time with his head on Leonard's chest, he takes away Leonard's leverage and room to work as he did against Garcia. Ray was better than Garcia and different to Ambers, Zivic, Jack etc, but he didn't fight in the same way on the inside as the latter 3 did; they matched Armstrong there stylistically whereas Leonard, though very robust and a warrior himself, was open to be hit (although he's bigger and faster I'll grant you, which could and perhaps would work against Armstrong). You'd think that a rangy, powerful boxer-puncher should be well-matched against Armstrong at any weight (I often see people picking Saddler to beat him at featherweight), but like I said, he had that thing where he seemed to transcend style. It's an interesting battle when you weigh it up even if it seems that Leonard might be a step too far.

- I'm not massively knowleadgeable about Lewis or Britton really but I was wondering whether Lewis' aggressive, swarming style could take Leonard out of his comfort zone. I'd most likely favour Leonard's overall ability though.

-I agree with you about Zivic/Corbett. It's probably dependant on what Zivic is allowed to do and get away with I suppose. One of those fights I wouldn't be comfortable speculating on without actually seeing it, such is the amount of room for interpretation. I could hear arguments for both men, especially over 2 fights. Only thing I'm confident about is that Ray would have no idea what had hit him even if he won, which is a distinct possibility. Same thing with Corbett (being hard to interpret from my point of view), though I wouldn't rule him out based solely on the McLarnin fight, not when he beat the various men he did outside of Jimmy over so many fights.

- I'm not sure why I threw Walcott out there actually. Futile act trying to compare two men in h2h sense in two such different eras.

 

Walcott's got a great chance just because of monstrous power and an unrelenting style, if he lands on WW's he WILL hurt them, there is no doubt about that. I think Armstrong has a better chance against BOTH sugar rays than people give him to be honest, if he closes the range on you he is very good at neutralizing left hands, he can take a hell of a beating and never stop throwing leather. so..

 

robinson

 

Mike McCallum anybody?

 

Robinson beat him pretty easily when they fought, some say he carried him, and Armstrong wasnt as far past prime as some thing, some of his best wins were scored around this time