Could Ray Leonard have achieved greatness above welterweight?

Leonard could have been a strong MW champion, he achieved something very special against Hagler that is too easily glossed over on this forum. But his era was stacked, it really depends when and who he is defending against.

Still stylistically he could have outboxed Toney, his speed and movement against Toney's stationary counter punching would make it similar to Leonard-Benitez or Toney-Jones Jr.

Nunn was essentially the Paul Williams of his time - great physical gifts but technically left openings big enough to park a bus in, no easy fight for Leonard but at some stage he gets to mid range and starts landing consistantly

Herol Graham very good contender, tricky tricky fight, Leonard's better but tricky, he does enough to win imo

McCallum, master technician against a much faster boxer mover, that's a fascinating fight

Kalambay - Kalambay is technically better, this is similar to the Mayweather Sr fight except Kalambay is bigger, stronger and isn't getting bullied

Hearns 2 - imo this maybe the toughest challenge stylistically, after all Leonard lost the rematch when it did happen

No he isn't beating the lot, but less than a handful of fighters in history would

Hagler 2 - I think he can repeat what he did

 

How do you figure hed lose to much speed? Even an older Leonard with a 3 ,4 year lay off had a decisive advantage in speed over Mccallum.. IF your talkig about his tougher than expected time with Kalule, well that was his first fight at JM against avery good champion, he would have adjusted and done just as well as the other greats that moved up in his era.,,, He started out at WW unlike Benitez and Duran who started lighter.. Leonard also took the lay off during in his prime at 25,26, theres no doubt that he was about to fill out at JM and eventualy mw.

I know Graham and Kalamby are beloved on the classic.. I agree that they they were excellent fighters, but Leonard was definitley better thah Graham,, I know Graham was a super talent but he seemed to always find a way to lose or **** up in his biggest fights., Where as LeonaRD was the opposite , in his prime he always found a way to win especially when fights wee tough or not going hais way. ... When under pressure Ray wore greatness on his shoulder.. Something Kalamby and Graham didnt. I also think once Leonard adjusted at Jm or Mw, he hit at least as hard, and was there equal or better in almost every category.. Yet both gave Mccallum fits or beat him evey time they met... Curry was alos outboxing Mccallum and was clearly faster... Once againg Leonard just alitle better at everything., Except for power... But SRL had a way better chin than CUrry... Again if Curry was having success, Why wouldn Leonard?

 

Thing is we didn't really see an active prime Leonard at the weight, it's tough to extrapolate on the performances we do have.

If he had hung around and fought actively and properly circa 86-87 and onward, instead of mostly cherrypicking his superfights against the old etsblished aging greats, i reckon it's safe to say he would have won some and lost some.His eyes might not have held up too well.

McCallum seems to get slower every time he's brought up in these fab 4 related threads incidentally.

 

He had an advantage, but I don't think it would have been enough. Especially since his legs and stamina had suffered even more than his speed.

I think he looked great against Kalule. Another win of his that gets consistently underrated. Going up a class to beat a good champion that convincingly... Very, very impressive.

I think Leonard could have owned 154 even more than he did 147 had he stayed there during his prime years (i e no retina problems etc). I don't understand all those here who thinks Hearns would have beat a prime Leonard at 154. Very little in the two fights they did have points to this.

But on the other, not one in five posts on Leonard on this forum has any quality. This thread is not an exception.

Kalambay and Curry were both technically a bit better than Leonard as well as bigger. For me they (in their prime) were better than Leonard post lay-off. And don't forget that McCallum is 2-1 against them.

Leonard was better than Graham, but I think his perfomance against McCallum gets a bit overrated. Yes, he made him look bad, but outside of that wrongly ruled KD and a couple of flurries in the early rds Graham really did nothing to win - he just ran. I had McCallum winning that one comfortably, even though it clearly was a tricky encounter.

But even if Leonard was better than Graham he didn't have the legs to run like him post lay-off. McCallum's jab would give him a lot of problems and soon or later he would be in range... I just to don't think that his stamina at this point would let him deal succesfully with McCallum's smooth but relentless pressure. But that's just me.

 

Hearns is massively overrated at 154 compared to 147 by some imo.He may not have been worse per se at his best there, but he certainly wasn't better either.

His hands were ****ed half the time he was there and his big wins were against fighters he would have beat just as badly as a Welter imo.Even his clinching didn't really notable improve until he was past his peak at 160 and above.

 

When Nunn and Toney came on the scene,, Leonard was already starting to fade out... Remember Leonard was shot by 91 when he fought Norris... The same year that Toney kod Nunn foe the title.

After Leonard beat Hagler in 87 he started to slowly decline with each fight.... Nunn started electryfying boxing fans Around the time of Hearns-Leonard II. Both Hearns and Leonard were still elite but were faded versions and neither wanted nothhing to do with Nunn..

Nunn the Paul Williams of his time Totally diffeerent styles , only their height is simila, except Nunn knew how to use his to his advantages.. There were times when Nunm didnt look good, but it was because he was uninspired , not because he was flawed... I hear what your saying about Nunn and his openings. .But when he was in his prime and in the zone it didnt matter, Like a young ALi he was so fast and well awasre of his oppoinents range that they didnt have a chance to make him pay...

This is the one guy that is all wrong for SRl.. His height range, along with, being super fast of foot and hands,.. would have troubled Leonard, and also had the power to hurt and keep SRL honest....In a recent RIng article Toney said Nunn was the fastest guy he fought even faster than Jones... And forget his fights at SMW and LH he was just a shell of himself by then

 

Nunn was much lazier and a lesser ring general than almost everyone else though, which somewhat balanced out his freakish physical abilities.

leonard is someone he probably would have been really up for though, i guess.

 

Yeah, this thinking that a Leonard in his 20's would actually do worse against Hearns at 154 than he did at 167 when 33 - and when it was 12 rds instead of 15... But then even threads about Ali is a utopia of levelheadness compared to those about Leonard.

 

Seems like popular opinion that Hearns would have always been wrong for Duran.. Well i dont buy it...

Duran had slowed down considerably when he moved up to Jm.. His foot speed, lateral speed were a thing of the past... The JM Duran was still a helluva fighter, but he was also hot and cold.. And the one who fought Hearns was cold,weight drained and was there for the payday.... Also at JM i think Tommy was physically alot stronger than he was at WW... Dont think he would have been able to walk down Duran like that at WW. Throw all these intangibles in and i might lean towards the Duran of Montreal and Palamino fight to stop Hearns late . I am also sure that Duran was fast enough to avoid getting teed off on , the way he did in their fight., Duran more elusive,faster hands, and a meaner fighter that still had that fire, aso a harder puncher at this weight.


I agree with you on Hearns -Benitez.. Benitez had really changed that much since his WW days.. A little quicker at WW but i think his power picked up a little at Jm

 

Ah, i should have clarified i meant 147 Hearns against the early eighties 154 Duran, not a late 70s'ish relatively prime Welter one.I've never had a strong opinion on that to be honest.

 

Getting sparked out inside of two rounds doesn't give you much of a credible argument for ever standing a chance against a fighter.Seven pounds and a couple of years(especially when there was never a dramatic decline in Duran in the early 1980's) isn't going to make a drastic difference.



And,honestly,the Paul Williams comparison(to Michael Nunn) isn't that off.Nunn was clearly the more athletically gifted of the two,but he is as guilty as wasting his height and reach advantage over opposition as Paul Williams has been.

A single post could not do justice in describing just how stupid,wrong and downright ******ed this claim is.


Take your cookie,go sit in the corner and don't involve yourself in any further discussions in future.

 

I agree with Lora ; Hearns at 154 was about the same as he was at 147.

 

Limited success, cause Hagler ruled the Middleweights with an Iron fist!! Why is it that Hearns & Duran. two fighters which Leonard defeated, challenged Hagler way before Leonard took on the challenge??

 

Yes, but it would have been tough.Bruce Finch rattled Ray's cage temporarily in their '82 fight, and I could see Davey Moore doing the same to Ray, though it would have been more than occasional.I could see him eking out Mike McCallum in a tough fight, and the same with Curry and McCrory.

 

Davey Moore was an exciting fighter,and a good athlete,but he was clearly a very flawed fighter.Regardless of being poked in the eye,he was always going to catch a beating from an elite fighter.Just didn't have the ring smarts and intelligence to compete at that level at that stage in his career.

It just may have a little something to do with the fact that both Duran and Hearns were active during that time,and both men never suffered a detatched retina.