Could Sugar Ray Leonard have been even greater than he was?

A very comfortable non-committal middle class statement perfectly suited to the suburban sunday lunchtime boozer 1/2 a pint of bitter brigade:yep

 

His career was pretty hard to top as it was.. But of course, the elimination of outside ring habits, along with more fluent activity is something that could help most men's career. I think it would have done him great justice to have beaten Donald Curry around 1985 or 86, before Lloyd Honeyghan got to him. Certainly would have been a good notch on his belt, or at least perception wise.

 

Duran is lucky to have fans such as yourself. :good

Believe me, I'm not vanilla. I have my heroes too, but for me the sport of boxing is greater than any one guy. I appreciate your point of view, though.

 

Now you go too far. Never, ever question my love of this sport.

 

Out of the fab 4 it's a close run thing between Marvin/Tommy & Roberto with Ray being followed more by yer boxing casual. We all knew who Sugar Ray was because we all followed him during the Montreal Olympics so he was already a global brand as such. But Duran was the villian personified & a full-on REBEL whilst Mighty Marvin was the doughty blue coller honest grafter & Tommy could only be viewed as down right dangerous & sinister whilst Ray persued & employed the image of a winking bumboy:yep

Most of my mates were either Hagler or Hearns & very few where big Leonard fans as SRL was just too main stream for our liking but i suppose thats just a true reflection of our anti-social intentions

 

When is your site going to be back up? Any idea?

 

Sugar Ray Leonard was a media darling in his prime kind of like Oscar Delahoya was. By that i would say no he couldnt be greater than he was because he was great but the media made elevated his achievements even more. Which means he already is greater than he really was.

:hat

 

Norris inferior? How do u set the record for defences in your own weight class and still be inferior? Terry clearly destroyed Leonard! Leonard was bewitched, bothered N bewildered!

SPEED was the determining factor! While Leonard looked for opening that weren't there (cuz Terry never stood in front of him), TN PITCHED N painted!

Terry was a ghost that nite giving Sugar Ray the illusion that he was in front of him when he really wasnt!

Sugar had never faced anyone with Terry's speed and couldnt adapt to so fast an opponent.

as for Camacho, I dont believe Hector shouldve ever been a license to box after his brutal defeat to Chavez 5 yrs earlier. it was horrific. But box he did and he totaly threw Ray off his game. Alot of fans didnt like that but that's too bad. Hector beat him fair N square. A lot of people can't handle that fact & tryy to bad mouth Hector cuz he knocked Ray out.

Ray tried but it wasnt enough becuz hector had too much speed. So much speed that Ray had to back up just to see what the hell Hector was doing to him! It was gr8!

Ray wouldve whipped Starling no sweat. after all this WAS Sugar Ray Leonard. McCrory was a sitting target and wouldnt last five w Sugar's merciless body raping. Shots to the ribs would cave him in.

Honeyghan wouldve sent Sugar to the hospital (too much naked power in Sir Lloyd's fists)

leonard also wouldve falen prey to Sir Micheal Nunn's slippery yet lethal style. Again, too slick, too quick and wouldve made Sugar VERY sick

mcCallum? I giave Sugar a decent chance but this fight would be demanding.

Benitez-Leonard rematch wouldnt be sellable at worthwhile prices at this stage. You know, been there, done that.

Sugar would struggle with Moore. I would keep my fingers crossed on this one

The Mugabi that lost to Hagler was only 26 and with too much TNT hiding behind those gloves. The first stray punch that catches Sugar cleanly gets him in trouble. Mugabi goes after him but Sugar lasts a few more rounds. he just might make the final bell only to lose on points.

 

Actually,

The boys in the Television Boxing Business thought Howard Davis Jr. was going to
be a 'bigger star'.

As CBS-Sports signed Howard to a long-term exclusive contract.

 

I've grown 2 appreciate duranimal's poetic style of putting things and reflecting and informing on his time .

 

This is so debatable, how can you say it with such authority as if it's an obvious fact? It sure isn't that at all.

Leonard won the Olympic gold in 1976 and by 1979 was probably the best welter in the world, with superb performances already behind him. The Ranzany and Price victories being especially dominating and evidencing excellent power.

Then he beat Benitez in 1979, destroyed Davey Green in early 1980, then had the first two Duran bouts that year where he grew bigger and better by Duran #2; then beat Bonds, Kalule, and Hearns #1 in 1981, took on and easily beat Bruce Finch (the FIRST "easy" match-up in years for Ray) in early 1982 . . . I imagine that most observers would say we surely saw the best Sugar Ray THEN. How many all-time greats did he need to face and beat for you to agree? The rest of the contenders from the mid-1980s weren't as good as the group named above, anyway.

You think a mid-1982-and-later Leonard would have been better than the top contender and then champ Leonard in the four years from 1979-82? I sure doubt it.

Do you think, as future opponents, that the 1983 Duran who fought Hagler was half the fighter who fought Leonard in 1980? Or that the now-beaten Hearns and Benitez were as good as they were when BOTH were undefeated when they met Leonard in 1979 and 1981, respectively? I don't think so.

 

This is about the most ignorant and fact-devoid post I've seen on this site, which is saying something.

 

That judging in fight #2 was ridiculously biased. Anybody who gave Duran ANY round other than the one where Leonard fell in the corner (not from a punch, but it might have been Duran's round anyway, I believe it was the 5th rd), is blind. Hell, every time Duran got Leonard against the ropes, it was LEONARD who won the exchanges-- very different from the first fight.

WATCH the fight! Duran won no more than one round. Leonard was very sharp, and Duran was not sharp at all. His weight issues for that fight, etc., are already well known.

I've seen the fight numerous times including live that night and then the ABC (also live call) of a couple of weeks later, and nobody THEN acted like Duran won more than one round-- except for the judges. The fight was VERY one-sided . . . hence one of the most dominating ways to win a fight occurred: making the other guy quit. The quitter isn't protesting a referee stoppage but instead prefers to end the bout and lose.

 

Another ignorant post, Duranimal. You've made several in this thread alone knocking the original post by another guy who said, essentially, why must a fan dislike any of the great fighters when a boxing fan can like all of them. I agreed with him.

You've bitched in another post that "your generation" is somehow different in being, apparently, weird losers who must hate other fighters to love one fighter, because you had man-love for that one fighter in your teen years. Who the hell decides in their teen years who their favorite fighters are and then has no more growth from that? You needed to identify with a freaking boxer as a teen to help you grow up? You sound like a teenie-bopper groupie for what's-his-name Bieber. And you have ZERO knowledge of what generation anybody is from based on their liking several boxers rather than hating most of them to elevate one.

You need to bring up one's social class here?? You sound really f__ked up to me. And you have great trouble spelling a word as simple as "to".

I am quite sure I'm a more knowledgeable boxing fan than you, and a bigger one, and the fact that most of us would appreciate all of the fab four fighters while you need to hate three of them to feel like an even bigger Duran fan, tells all anybody needs to know about you. You think like a gang member.

And, consistently, it's only the Duran fans who go from web site to web site hating all other Duran opponents in order to show their undying love for Duran. I don't think I've ever seen a Hearns, Leonard, or Hagler fan need to knock Duran or any of the others, but some Duran fans seem psychotic.

 

Hey, redrooster--

Norris and Camacho were VERY inferior to a prime Leonard. I was referring to the fact that Ray was OLD when he fought them, otherwise their inferiority vs. him in his prime would be obvious. They were clearly better than Ray in the years that the actual Leonard fights took place. But best Ray vs. best Terry and best Hector? Ray wins easily over both. Neither was in his class careerwise.

That you have Leonard struggling with Davey Moore is hard to believe. I liked Moore, but Hearns and Starling would have whipped him, and Curry beat him in the 1980 US Olympic Trials. Moore was unseasoned, and an old Duran had his way with Davey. Leonard would have killed Moore.

Mugabi? Not nearly the fighter a prime Leonard was. Yeah, I suppose he makes it tough for Leonard if they fought in 1986, but not prime to prime.

Honeyghan gets destroyed by a prime Leonard, is this even debatable? Starling kicked the crap out of Lloyd, as did Breland.

My entire earlier post was assuming Ray is still close to prime when he takes on these guys, as in, say, 1982-84 and with no eye injury; NOT hanging around until 1989 or 1990.