Was Hector Camacho the best pure boxer of the last 40 years?

I'm asking you can you prove Leonard was a better boxer like you keep saying? I certainly saw no proof of it ever.

This was a near massacre Robbi and I'm not even close to exagerrating about the degree of this mismatch--the way you have been describing the Leonard-Hagler fight.

Leonard was no match whatsoever ever since the end of the second round. he tried his best but even so you could see he was going to have problems as early as the first round when a body shot sent him back to the ropes. So from start to finish it was all Terry Norris, even the rounds when he coasted. Ray had never faced ANYONE with the speed and talent of Norris. Never

The only way I would be inclined to agree with you here is if this were a close fight which sometimes happen. I remember in 1997 leading up to the DLH-Whitaker fight on sports talk radio. Fans and even the host was saying how easily Oscar was going to beat Pernell.

I said to myself Oscar may win but no way it's going to be easy (unlike the Norris-Leonard fight). I KNEW Pernell was past his prime but not completely over the hill. And the fight was somewhat close as I suspected. I gave it to Oscar but if someone were to argue that a younger Pernell would have taken the decision then I might be more inclined to agree.

You however really don't have a case at all. leonard's career is too short, he ducked too many fighters in their prime which makes him look bad with the appearance of weak character, avoided rematches, and in his prime he still struggled too much for my tastes to be called an elite.

 

Thank you sir. It is clearly an honor to be placed in the top 5 of all time. :good

 

Picked his opponents with caution if you want to be perfectly honest. But not cautious enough to keep from getting the beatdown of a lifetime. i will never foget it and he will never live it down.

 

A prime Leonard is every bit as quick as Norris and when it comes to boxing ability, he is a level and a half above Norris.

Talk all the **** you want about Leonard being down on the cards against Hearns, if Tommy ever faced Norris, he would have stretched him out for the count within 3 rounds - all of which he would have lost :good

 

I'd be looking at a Jackson type scenario if not worse. A few early jabs and BOOM!

 

I never saw Leonard in the ring with Jackson. I don't think Leonard believes he had a realistic chance of winning nor does anyone else.

 

^ Well he had his chance to prove it but never did. Instead he bypassed him for three other fighters less attractive to the public. No one was ever really interested in Leonard v. Lalonde. Only a numbskull would give a second thought to watching uno mas which is why I didn't bother showing up to watch this 9 years too late rematch or Hearns-Leonard two which wasn't really saleable in the light of Tommy's last two performances.

Micheal Nunn and jackson sure would have slienced a lot of critics. I guess if your standards are real low like yours and Seetpea you will take whatever you are given with Leonard v. Lalonde or Leonard v. Howard or Leonard v. Hagler too late. Your type are used to getting the crumbs and scraps. And if Leonard loses to a 3-1 underdog you will find some way to find the loss as acceptable but for me, nothing short of a clear cut win is satisfactory if you are going to be justifiably as fighter of the decade. You need that image of a percieved threat. What percieved threat was there with Donny Lalonde? What percieved threat was there with Marvin Hagler at this latest of stages?

He couldn't bang anymore. He lost all of his speed. The biggest threat to Leonard was overcoming ring rust against a mere shell. And don't tell me that Hearns or Duran were percieved as threats either.

Micheal Nunn was percieved as a threat following his knockout of Parker. The perfect time for a Nunn-Leonard matchup would have been right after the Kalambay fight but I knew that with leonard it was a mere pipe dream becuase of his reluctance historically taking risky fights. Jackson too was a percieved threat following the Drayton and Norris fights but like Marvin Hagler in the early 80's and Nunn, he too was bypassed for the late 80's farces. Fights with Hagler, Nunn, Jackson are for fighters who are men, not boys.

It would have been interesting to see how long leonard would have held up to Jackson's poundings to the body.

 

Well as you like to bring up the fact Norris was the underdog going in against Leonard. The same rings true here, Leonard was the heavy underdog against Hagler, was it 6-1? I'm not sure. Point is Hagler musn't have been shot if he was that much of a favourite.

 

3-1 favorite although I seem to recall many people were picking Leonard at the time, citing Hagler's decline. With Terry it was much different because I couldn't find anyone other than myself picking Terry to win.

I liked Norris big over Leonard and since it went exactly as it did, it confirmed my suspicions all along as to why Leonard had to be so selective. His career was clearly a farce. Sugar Ray Robinson, the real Sugar Ray at 34 may or may not have lost to Terry but there is no way he would have lost in this kind of disgraceful manner as Leonard. Robbie would have put up a fight to the end-win or lose.

 

Let me get this straight...Despite beating Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler he was only exposed when he fought Terry Norris? His career was all smoke and mirrors till at the age of 34 when he fought Norris?

For the record if MANY people were picking Leonard, then he wouldn't have been a 3-1 underdog. Simple gambling knowledge says that, but whatever you say.

Lastly, Leonard did put up a fight to the end. It was a drubbing as you say and he lasted the 12 rounds. He didn't quit because of stomach cramps like a previous foe did. Which is worse, being pounded on for 12 rounds, or suffering stomach cramps that its likely were never there? Yet you excuse Duran. Your logic is full of holes and contradictions.