240-3-3

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by quintonjacksonfan, Nov 20, 2021.

  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    57,536
    19,403
    Nov 24, 2005
    De La Hoya. It would not be difficult to find five wins on his record that would yield similar or better combined w-l-d numbers to Leonard's.
     
    Sangria likes this.
  2. Saintpat

    Saintpat Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,103
    9,063
    Jun 26, 2009
    There’s an account in Four Kings of this too. I think that one says he was knocked down but I’ll have to look — and then do you trust Ray’s account or the one from the book? I’ll try to get to it over the holiday.

    Of note: Taylor was a southpaw and Ray was obviously preparing for Marvin to fight lefty in his camp.

    But Marvin and/or the Petronellis either got pig-headed and decided that he’d start orthodox to prove something (I seem to remember Marvin thinking he was going to outbox Ray) or they thought they could gain an advantage by zigging when everyone expected him to zag.

    Good plan. Didn’t work.
     
    Keleneki, Pugguy and Sangria like this.
  3. Pugguy

    Pugguy Active Member Full Member

    505
    621
    Aug 22, 2021
    Cheers, appreciate that.

    Anyone’s guess but perhaps the righty election, rather than strategic, was possibly more about Marv trying to show off and empathise his dominance over Ray.

    Notwithstanding some evidence of decline in Hags game, the pervading feeling at the time was that Marv was going to steam roll inactive, bulked up Little Ray. Marv was always bitter about not getting his just dues, particularly as compared to Ray.

    Hags might’ve thought that Ray would be such easy meat that he, Marv, could indulge by outboxing Ray as a righty (and perhaps later as a lefty too) then dispatch him in usual Hags fashion. Thorough domination.

    And yeah, without account for how much Ray was able to call back in of his old self (which was a shock), the plan backfired big time.
     
  4. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    39,333
    18,982
    Apr 27, 2005
    Well i really don't think the poster was just considering their records so much as picking out the great guys SRL beat and being impressed by their collective records. He did name drop the fighters in his opening gambit. They definitely aren't Peter McNeeley and co. It's an inspiring bunch.

    Don't you feel even a little bit of awe?
     
    Sangria likes this.
  5. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    57,536
    19,403
    Nov 24, 2005
    No, not particularly impressed by the numbers. The numbers don't mean much. That is what I think.

    Obviously Ray Leonard was great, and some of those he beat were great too. But very little of that is based on W-L-D numbers.
     
  6. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    39,333
    18,982
    Apr 27, 2005

    Do you think you would you be more inclined to be impressed with these numbers or the numbers of a guy whose 5 collective wins equaled 3-3-204?

    Open up your heart for a little bit of SRL old mate.
     
  7. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    57,536
    19,403
    Nov 24, 2005
    Obviously, 5 fighters with combined record of 3-3-204 would likely be at least 4 or 5 bums.
    But that's not the point at all.
    The statement I made was "the numbers don't really mean much", which you seem to disagree with. For some reason. I'm not sure why.
    In modern eras, lots of good champions have multiple wins over title-holders who were undefeated or had 'great numbers' at the time. SRL's best wins are outstanding for other reasons, because of what we know about Hearns, Hagler et al. that has very little to do with their numbers.
    I am not sure why you seem to be treating this as a point worth disputing. I think everyone who isn't a complete newbie to boxing would agree with my point.

    Leonard was a great fighter. I am not sure why you seem to be interpreting my statement as a slight against him.

    For me, the Hearns win is a much better win than the Kalule win, despite Kalule being valued in numbers as 36-0 to Hearns at 32-0.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021
  8. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    39,333
    18,982
    Apr 27, 2005
    Well i guess my entire point is that the numbers do mean something as the numbers were backed by names right from the opening post. When talking this class of opposition the it's something.

    It would actually make a good thread to see what everyone could come up with for others in comparison with a view to quality of opposition in mind vs just numbers.
     
  9. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    57,536
    19,403
    Nov 24, 2005
    Ultimately it will always come down to how good those fighters are deemed to be, rather than the numbers. I don't even think Benitez's 38-0-1 featured many good names, for example, but he's rated as a pretty good young welterweight champion based on how he looked in the fights around that time.
     
    Mark Dunham likes this.
  10. Mark Dunham

    Mark Dunham Active Member Full Member

    578
    298
    Mar 19, 2021
    I've never heard anything about this about Wilfred. The fight was prematurely stopped but I notice he looked a little dazed when the ref stepped in. It must have been a strenuous war of jabs!

    seriously, Hearns could have used a few more pounds of muscle on him and in need of a few more years of development. Not QUITE ready for prime time action
     
    White Bomber likes this.
  11. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    39,333
    18,982
    Apr 27, 2005
    Indeed. His best wins were a fine one over Cervantes at 140, an impressive showing against Shields and another one against Palomino. He looked very impressive in these.