Could Ray Leonard have achieved greatness above welterweight?

Did he come out JUST for Hagler? I recall others following that so his eye no longer held him back from taking other fights. now that he was active, why couldnt he just make some defenses? If he was really good enough to beat Hagler after a long layoff then it follows he shouldve been able to handle most challengers

I dont understand if Ray is ONLY into big name fighters which is what people like, why would he take a bottom of the barrel type fighter like Lalonde? That really dissapointed me. Other people must be saying "why is he fighting that guy? WHo is he?"

He took a step down and was equivalent to fighting another Kevin Howard or Dave Green or Larry Bonds

It's as if hes saying he is only good enough to take fighters at the end of their careers at the very low point of their abilities or mediocrities no one has heard of

the best Ray could do is to stay at his weight and defend his title against the TOP contenders, (not some handpicked stiff)

people like Graham, Tate, Leonard shouldnt have trouble with. That would set him up for a unification vs WBA Champ

Then we would see how good he is

Actually, I think that Kalambay had better credentials as champ than Hearns had as WBA champ. The contenders he beat were more better

Kalambay was brave enough to lay it on the line against Micheal Nunn who, was slick, quick, and would make him sick. I thought Mike was spectacular in his first ever superfight. he really shined! This made Leonard not want to fight him and becuz of that, you can see how Leonard repeatedly backs down from formidable fighters (as he did in 1982 with Hagler)

Ray set himself up in a scenario to fight Hagler in front of a Baltimore audience watching, then quickly backed out. poor excuse, poor champion

 

I think his fights after hagler were meaningless. I think it'd have been much more impressive had he stayed at middleweight or even dropped back down to welterweight.

My views of leonard as this:

He had proven himself as one of the greatest welterweights in history. His victory against kalule demonstrates that during his prime active years he could have done some good stuff at 154.

I think to return from a 5 year semi-retirement and jump 2 weightclasses to take on the best mw in the world is ballsy. To be competitive with that mw is amazing.

The **** at smw didn't mean anything and he never won the championship at the weight.

Ofcourse i'm disappointed because I feel he could have done more. What he had already done was great, but he had the potential to do more.

A rein at middleweight with victories over top contender's would have been favourable to a trinket at a higher weight imo.

 

a shot at Hagler in 83 would have been ballsy. If fighting after a 5 yrs lyaoff was ballsy how come no ballsy career moves after that?

So it wasnt really a ballsy move as it was calculated as in "this is my best chance at beating Hagler" who was slow & hittable

challenging Nunn is to have been expected. He didnt take it

The only ballsy thing I saw from him after 1981 was taking on Norris which was a bad mistake. Ray had never faced anyone with that kind of speed

 

Fighting hagler in 83 would have been tremendous, how could anyone ever say otherwise?

I have no idea why he stopped being ballsy, ask him. All I know is, if a welterweight ends a 5 year layoff and takes on the best middleweight in the world, it's ballsy. I agree on the nunn and middleweight front I told you that.

Perhaps after edging hagler in a razor close fight he felt he no longer had it, he felt he was over the hill hence why the meaningful fights ended that night. Both their careers as great fighters ended that night, one retired and one took easy fights.

Maybe he just didn't have it anymore and up until fight night he was convinced he was as good as ever, but after coming so close to defeat he realised he just wasn't the same.

 

"go****himself"? Really? Honestly,such wit - how could I ever stage a comeback from that? Seriously,though,you kiss your mother with that mouth?



Yes,using your logic,he most certainly did avoid the likes of Michael Spinks.Spinks called him out on numerous occasions before he eventually did move up to Heavyweight,and all Hagler ever responded with was for Spinks to make the unrealistic move down to Middleweight.Two unified American champions would have been a huge fight and both would have made millions for it.Unfortunately,Miss Marvis was content to sit within his own comfort zone and rely on fighters moving up to his division to make big money.



And what "**** performance" against Mugabi? He beat the ever-loving **** out of Mugabi and knocked him out to cap off a dominating performance against the top contender in the division at that time.A very impressive performance considering the one year layoff.If that's your example of a shot fighter,I suggest you start watching more of this sport.




And for **** sake,stop referring to him as "Marv".He's not your relative,and he's not your friend.It's creepy and makes you look like a deluded cultist who believes he's closer to his hero than he actually is.

 

And you're taking the **** out of MY wit?Ever look in the mirror?

And no,that's not my logic.There's a big difference but you probably couldn't comprehend that one either.Hagler didn't tease a whole bunch of people for the better part of 6 years for as Spinks fight as Leonard did for a Hagler fight.Spinks was never on Hagler's radar,as Hagler only demonstrated a desire to be recognized as one of the greatest middleweights ever and to break the then record of middleweight title defenses held by Monzon.But why let facts get in the way when you can embellish like you're doing?

Mugabi,even though he was highly ranked at middle going into the Hagler fight,proved to be nothing after as he was even ko'd in his next fight by whom?"A very impressive performance..."Lol,that's just a ****ing insanely ridiculous statement.Mugabi was making old and slow Marv miss regularly and was landing some serious shots himself that a younger Marvin would have easily avoided.And you can't even see that?Did you ever see Hagler fight before the Mugabi fight?Judging by your posts and lack of knowledge and insight on the subject,you're the one that most definitely should be watching another sport.

I never even met the guy.He's not even my favorite fighter ever.But of course you wouldn't even know that without having ever met me.I just write "Marv" to shorten the statement.atschI'm creepy for calling him "Marv",but yet you call him "Miss Marvin"?Are you ****ing serious?You're not just a ****ing *******,but an obvious hypocrite as well.And you probably can't even see that,either.Anyway you're just a garbage poster,simple as.Go have a cookie,cookieboy.

 

If the meaningful fights ended after the Hagler fight,why did he fight Tommy Hearns again,afterwards?Btw,he "retired" after the Kevin Howard fight,saying that he didn't have it anymore.Hagler's career as a great fighter ended long before the Leonard fight.Even Larry Merchant commented on the slippage factor after slowpoke Roldan was landing regularly on Marv.Redrooster mentioned Jerry Izenberg doing the same thing.I didn't know that Izenberg did that.

 

What's your point?

 

Anyone saying that SRL after `82` was still prime Leonard, just doesn`t know boxing... It`s just stupid. Yes he stilll had some skills, but nothing like th e star that stopped Hearns. Hagler too had lost quite a bit of his fastball by the time he met SRL. I think SRL would have been pretty good at jr. middle, middle would be a stretch however. McCallum would have been tough and Jackson would be dangerous (ask Norris !! ). I

 

Rooster, does Nunn stretch china chin Norris in one or two ????

 

1) hearns meant the most post hagler but that doesn't say much. As rooster said, a run as middleweight champ against the top contenders would have been far more impressive than the run he had at smw.

2) my point is that a man dominating a traditional weight has no expectations to jump up and conquer the next traditional weight. It's fantastic if they achieve it but not expected. For example pac is our current great welterweight; if he defeats martinez it's brilliant but we shouldn't expect him to take on maravilla

 

Both of your points here are correct.However,the fact that Leonard fought a close fight against Hearns in their last bout proves he was still formidable.OBVIOUSLY not prime,but still very effective nevertheless. I agree completely with your second point as well,but if you were around at that time(I don't know you and have no idea how old you are),you would have known that Leonard was the one teasing everyone,and I do mean every boxing related person around,as well as the casual fan,about a possible Hagler fight for at least 6 years.Whereas Michael Spinks was never on Hagler's radar.

 

When I start referring to you as "Shiton" or other incredibly lame and childish variations of your username,then you can get back to me.

When someone is retired,it suggests that they have no serious intention of fighting anybody.Once he places himself in retirement,he is no longer an option and isn't to be regarded as such.The only serious tease Leonard ever made in regards to fighting Hagler was when he personally invited him to the benefit rally in Baltimore - some three and a half years before Leonard ever challenged him.


Hagler's greatest desire was only ever to make as much money as he possily could - if you had bothered to do such research on your hero,you would have known that.Spinks presented him with the opportunity to make the type of money that he had always wanted,but Spinks had the misfortune of not being a Welterweight.He frequently spoke of it before and after he won the title.The whole record of title defenses only became frequently spoken of when he was actually close to doing so.

I've seen every single title fight that Hagler was involved in,and I've seen several(close to a dozen)of his non-title fights before that.I've also seen several of John Mugabi's fights - and the fight that you've referenced in which Mugai was "ko'd" was anything but a legitimate knockout.



Mugabi had his moments inside of the first four rounds and was then dominated and beaten to a pulp through the remainder of the fight,so claims of him "miss regularly" are as stupid and wrong as virtually ever single post you've made in this thread have been.Hagler's jab was as present in this fight as it always had been,and once by the middle rounds was landing his left with regularity.Yes,an impressive performance from a man clearly suferring from ring rust.

Really? Two letter's is too long for you to type out?


When I refer to Hagler as such,I'm not doing so with affection as you are - so no,that doesn't make me a hypocrite,you fool.

 

Well he got dropped twice, it was two old welterweights fighting over a stone above their prior bout. I have no doubts hagler himself would have beaten hearns that night, or at the worst put up as much fight as ray did.

I'm 23 and was actually born the year leonard "beat" hagler so I don't know about the times, I will say this tho, if pac came out and said he wanted to fight martinez then fought mike jones instead i'd be quite annoyed with him too.

Still i'd say any perceived decline by hagler is matched by a 5 year semi retirement and a jump to a new weight. I feel considering how close the fight was actually I find it hard to claim one is shot and one is not.