1980: If SRL had fought Cuevas instead of Duran....

And frankly, who could blame them? Hearns was an ultra-unique talent, one of the absolute greatest punchers in ring history; especially @ 147 and he's widely considered the best LMW ever as well. I cant even fathom how highly regarded he'd of beaten Leonard in 1981 and Hagler in 1985 when you consider he's still easily one of the greatest and an absolute H2H Beast.

I can see why people dislike SRL although I staunchly disagree with discrediting his record and accomplishments. But Hearns? You have to be a piece of **** not to like him. Always gave everything and would run roughshod over anybody in his path today.

 

My issue with this thread is that we're talking about the outcome based on weaknesses instead of strengths. The Pre-Hearns Cuevas was a better boxer than he's being given credit for. And his power cannot be described accurately. (I know Scott Clark personally and he was at a loss for words to describe it).

I personally despised Leonard, but he was an AMAZING welterweight. Ungodly stamina, heart, ring intelligence, discipline, and on and on and on. Maybe none better ever.

That being said, I agree that the SRL camp would've preferred the risk of smaller Duran over bonecrushing Cuevas and I wouldn't have blamed them. More money, less physical danger, more publicity, more credit for beating a higher profile HOF'er.

I suspect Leonard wins 95 out of 100 times. But I would bet the farm that Cuevas would look sharper, smarter, and more like an ATG in what would be an edgy, memorable and very competitive fight that Leonard would not want to repeat depite the win.

 

Cuevas would be so far out of his depth...

 

Montreal Leonard KO 4 Cuevas....... Cuevas too stiff and upright, plus easy to hit....... Leonard by easy KO......

MR.BILL:hat