Sugar Ray Leonard - Great fighter.

Enquirer have you seen Ray vs. Bonaducci on youtube? Ray says Danny startled him so he let to let go a few "I thought you were serious man!"

 

Bonaducci could probably have taken the norris that lost to mullings though.......

 

He was one of the best of his era but imo I thought Hagler was better, and I thought Marv beat him.

 

Forgive my bluntness here, but I believe the tactics you're using are rather **** poor. Mancini was out of the game for nearly four years and still managed to make a somewhat prime Camacho look unimpressive. Leonard was returning from a three year layoff, and fighting at middle weight for the first time in his career against a still reigning champion. I'm not sure of your perspective, but frankly I see no real congruency between Leonard or Camacho when compared in their fights with Mancini and Hagler. Furthermore, I think Leonard was slightly more deserving of his decision against Hagler than Camacho was against Mancini. Taking into account that Leonard was a far bigger underdog against Hagler, whereas Camacho was the heavy favorite against Mancini, and I'd say the foundation of your rebuddle is rather weak.

I disagree, and frankly I still fail to see where Marvin Hagler was robbed against Leonard. The win could probably be fairly described as indecisive and close, but there's no way Leonard lost that fight.

Merely being undefeated does not necessarily equate to the domination of an entire era, if the fighters you're beating are not the very best..

Ray Leonard was hardly just a flash in the pan sensation. He took the gold in 1976, and from 1979-1984, was considered one of the very best. During this period, he defeated Wilfred Benitez, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran - all champions in their primes and future hall of famers. Leonard also acquired a fairly respectable win over Ayub Khalule, who was 36-0 and a Jr. Middleweight titlist.

Same **** poor tactics again Rooster. Leonard was about 6 years older than Camacho was in 1991. He was facing Terry Norris who was a superior fighter to Greg Haugen. Upon fighting Norris he was off for some 14 months and had only fought some 4 times within a 7 year period. Camacho, who was 6 years younger, taking on a lesser opponent, and had fought some 14 times within the same 7 year duration, still required dirty tactics to cope with Greg Haugen who beat him.

Norris was no novice. He was a world titlist, with 30 pro fights, and in the peak of his prime, yet couldn't finish Ray when he had him in serious trouble. If you think Leonard's legs which withstood the pounding of Hearns and Duran many years before, would have failed him against Norris, then I'd say your familarity with this man is highly in question.
And let's not forget who beat who head to head! Yes, Leonard was

There are certainly degrees of being past one's prime. Camacho while past his best, was fighting actively and far younger than Leonard. Frankly, I think their were probably fringe contenders, and perhaps even some journeyman who would have beaten Leonard in 1997. Therefore, I refuse to give Camacho ample credit for this victory.

I would like to review the context in which this statement was made ( if any was made at all. ) Personally, I have serious doubts about my making such a statement in the very sort of context in which you have used it here.