How great was Ray Leonard really?

But why though? Is it just because I asked a simple question and no one can answer it? That's no reason to shy away. If you really believe in what you say-that leonard is #2 behind Robinson then you'd all put me in my place.

Of course, I agree with your number 1 choice but Leonard #2? Impossible.


I asked anyone here why leonard's accomplishments are regarded more highly than someone from back in the 70's or even as far back as the 1920's and before. And i believe the answer is because no one here is actually familiar with other welterweights.

How many people here actually saw Basilio as a welter? Or Demarco. Ted Kid Lewis.

So it goes to say that if you haven't seen them then even less is known about their opposition and so you can't really do a fair comparison. In fact, the only welters you can compare him to come from the same era - late70's - early 80's. And Maybe Pernell.

And so this is why I put you all on a spot knowing full well no one could answer it. Not truthfully anyways. Instead I always get the most pathetic excuses coming from grown men. But if I didn't know better I'd say it was logic from a 10 year old mind.

Anyways, his standing would be higher if he could have pulled out a victory against young Terry Norris. After all, he was expected to beat him but he didn't and look what happened.

 

Hudson you make a good point. Leonard's short career definitely hurt him. If you're planning to make this many comebacks why not do it sooner rather than later? It makes no sense. He might have done a little better.

facing a taller man can be difficult. I don't know how Hagler did it so often and so successfully. To a lesser extent, Leonard also managed to pull it off. But I don't think Tommy was yet at his peak. That was to be another three years away at a time only Hagler could claim superiority.

 

But most here have already agreed that Tommy reached his peak in the Duran fight and based on what I saw him do to Shuler, maintained that level of supremacy which had to include his fight with Hagler.

I'm not saying leonard is no less a fighter than some of the others of his era. Let's make this clear: Ray Leonard was a very good boxer but comparing matches with the hitman, Hagler was much more effective than Ray because for much of the fight, Ray wasn't getting much done. He was spectacular in rounds 6, 7 but once Tommy got on his bicycle, there wasn't much happening. Or hadn't you noticed?

Comparing that with Hagler's performance, he got started right away and we can see was much more effective as the aggressor. He didn't give away rounds because he didn't have to. Even boxing in the second round, Hagler was more effective thean Ray Leonard during rounds 1-5 and made Tommy miss often while countering. Didn't you see it?

And in round three when Tommy got on his bicycle, it threw Hagler off for mere seconds, not 6 rounds like it did with leonard.

Hagler closed the distance much more quickly than did Ray leonard and waisted no time in getting him out of there. In the end they both triumphed but Hagler's way of doing it was much better and let's fact it-Hagler Hearns was a better fight than Leonard hearns 1. Leonard looked like a piker in comparison.

Let's face it-the real competition was in the middelweight division. So let's please not compare Ray Leonard to someonelike Hagler, whose performances eclipse those of leonard's (Leonard-Duran 2 :-( ), (Leonard-Benitez :dead)

If there were no Hagler, I'm sure these same these performances would seem more impressive and people might mistakenly take these for memorable wins and would surely become one of the more memorable boxers of the 1980's.

 

Manassa is not being serious. Your bitterness towards Norris cannot be denied but let's discuss what's relevent-Ray Leonard's career. Sure his comebacks were a joke, not to mention carefully planned, but the bright side is his win over Hagler.

The only thing we can judge him on is his unusually brief first career.

I try to find positives in everything but this one is somewhat difficult. The jury is still out on how good he could have been especially in light of how the Hearns fight went before it ended not to mention the disasterous fight with Norris.

Even if Leonard were past his prime, this was Sugar Ray Leonard we're talking about and with his vast edge in experience, there was no way he should have been taken to school in the manner which it happened. He should have found a way to win. As John Thomas and other fiction writers would put it "If there's a Sugar Ray, there sure to be a way". Or something similar to that.

Joe Louis, who actually was washed up, put up somewhat of a fight against Marciano who sported facial damage before Louis succumbed to marciano's attack. So then, Leonard even if he was to lose, should have at least made it close. You can only cut so much slack and make so many excuses to defend someone.

 

And once his record exceeds 63-3, I'll agree with you. There's also the matter of defending his titles.

 

That's a good point Manassa. I'm inclined to agree. And anyone who says Norris was **** is full of **** himself.