Better Win- Robinson v Gavilan 2 or Leonard v Hearns 1

I have Gavilan higher alltime then Hearns..In that respect I consider it a more significant win seeing as though Gav was coming off his two wins over Williams.

Now the method of victory obviously favours Leonard here but after 12 rounds of that fight with Tommy he was 5, 6 and 4 points down on the 3 judges card..He had to really did deep..Whereas from most of the reports Ive read Robinson clearly took over the fight around the mid way point after a close start. Another thing to consider I guess but not as important.

Another point that may swing it in Leonard over Hearns' favour is the fact that Tommy was the unbeaten, defending champion. Whereas Robinson held the belt against Gav and already had the win over him.

There is probably an arguement for either but Ill go with SRR over The Cuban Hawk by a whisker.

 

Both great great wins, but I'll be the ******* to critisise both:

Galivan - would lose 5 other fights in the 13months after losing to Robinson, still only 23yo,

Hearns - Only 22yo, never been past the 12th before, perhaps weight drained

I personally feel Hearns was the better fighter. It also depends on if you think Galivan won the first SRR fight.

Did Galivan win SRR-Galivan 1?

 

No, he didn't it was a UD for SRR in only 10 rounds, SRR was on record of saying Gavilan was his toughest opponent.

 

Hearns is the better name, but Gavilan was right at the top of his game, whilst Hearns was arguably 3 years and 7lbs below his best; so on balance Walker Smith takes the Sugar, Ray Charles the Nutrasweet....

 

Nutrasweet is technically 200times sweeter than sugar

 

I think Leonard/Hearns 1 was one of greater magnitude

 

But Sugar is the real deal; and does leave that nasty aftertaste in your mouth.

 

I disagree.

I think Hearns was about as good as he ever was. In fact, I don't think he ever boxed better than he did in the first Leonard fight.

Conversely, Gavilan had not yet fully developed into the well-rounded, versatile fighter he would later be as champion. He was mostly a swarming pressure fighter, a bit like Calzaghe, not yet the crafty, deadly accurate counterpuncher he would be as champion.

What makes Robinson's win impressive as that he basically outclassed and overwhelmed Gavilan as badly as he did in their second fight.

 

Leonard/Hearns I, was a unification fight featuring the two best fighters in the division, and Hearns was a monster and Leonard was peaking.

 

In terms of greatness I might say robinson over gavilan.

In terms of ability, hearns is a physical freak that i'd favour over almost anyone at ww and leonard was somehow able to knock him out. That version of hearns probably beats that version of gavilan.

Robinson is one of only a couple of people to legitimately beat kid at ww. Leonard is the only man to legitimately beat hearns at ww.

The difference is that gavilan went on to achieve greatness at the weight whereas hearns just left the division.

Suppose it depends on how you view hearns victory over cuevas, something i've not yet made my mind up on.

 

Leonard over Hearns was a stoppage over a drained opponent .
Smith over Gavilan was a decision over a game opponent .
this is d balance , and as far as i currently know , i rate smith's higher because a hindered opponent counts much less 4 me , even if d win over him looks impressive , but d reason 4 that looks doesn't have much 2 do with d quality of d winner nor d quality of d loser but more with their physical conditions .

 

Robinson over Gavilan.

I think Sugar Ray won that fight 12-3 on one judges card and it was 9 to 6 on the other. I believe he swept the second half of the fight.

Ray Leonard pulled out the win against Hearns after getting behind on the cards. It was just as impressive in a different way.

You could make a case that both Hearns and Gavilan were slightly green at the championship level.