i agree. he had an amazing left hook to the body later in his career at higher wieghts which wernt as applied at welter. he was a headhunter at welter and used his bread and butter jab-ross to win fights. at the higher wieghts he had a more refined skills set and more a matured fighter
do you feel ray was a good a light middle as hearns. i think that hearns can carry the wieght well...very well many light middles arnt 6'1 while leoanrd is a welter and is more naturally built for the wieght at welter but not at light middle.
Well, he was fighting possibly the best Middleweight of all time. There is no shame in losing to Hagler.
Hearns gave leonard hell at 147. At 154, Hearns would have be more comfortable and stronger. Hearns seemed more durable at 154 and probably could have lasted longer. If SRL doesn't knock Tommy out, Tommy will always beat Sugar Ray because the Hitman is the superior boxer.
Hearns carried the weight better at super-middleweight and certainly light-heavyweight. If Leonard could trouble Hearns at 168lbs, which he did a couple of times, then surely he would have as much a chance at 154lbs. I agree, Hearns' resume was much better at the weight in question. But Leonard never had the 'motivational' fights that Hearns did at 154lbs. Kalule, Howard, Norris were hardly pushovers, but not quite the 'superfight' category which Leonard usually shined in. I reckon if it came off in 1982/83 Leonard would have been be a very dangerous proposition.
Well, Leonard was great. There is always a chance he could beat anybody. I believe Heans was a better fighter at the higher weights. Heans would have blasted out Howard and Kalule. There is a reason why Leonard did want to fight him again when they were both in their primes. Leonard didn't fight certain opponents unless he saw certain weaknesses. He thought Hearns was shot before the second fight. That's why he fought him.
In all honesty Hearns didn't belong in a boxing ring with Hagler. Hagler was by far a superior fighter. I suppose the same can be said regarding Hearns and Roberto... although I still think Roberto was very off for that fight. What this basically boils down to is a search for those that would create a big draw during the 1980s.
Poor Barkley, thread turned into another Hearns\Leonard\HAgler affair after about six posts. The blade was nothing special, but yeah he's underrated for sure.
Yes, but Barkley didn't have the talent of Leonard and Hagler, was a massive underdog, and showed real iron man grit to pull it off. Just because the "wrong" guy one doesn't mean you cant give him some credit.
That's the kind of NO CREDIT statement I was talking about. "Good win" sound like giving credit but followed with Hearns "Just got careless". Then the 2nd fight is completely written off, despite the fact that Barkley was considered over-the-hill too, and Hearns had a recent win over Hill.
Excellent post SJ. If Duran didn't have much respect for Barkley before the fight, he sure as hell did afterwards. You could literally see Duran's respect growing during the fight. Iran also broke Hearn's nose in the rematch, en route to a deserved victory. I think he did very well, considering he was never going to be an established star in boxing. One of my all-time favorite fighters.
The Blade was definately an overachiever. He could beat some great fighters with his fighting spirit, but he would never be great.