Leonard fought far better than Tyson did vs Douglas and Duran fought far better than Douglas, it was an awesome display in an awesome fight.
The quality in the Montreal fight was miles above the Hagler fight, Leonard wass far better at welter than at middle.
42-1 underdog. Had much more historical significance. In terms of spectacle you could easily put Hearns vs Hagler over it
Historical impact yes, but Montreal was still more important because it was deciding the legacy of two of te greayest fighters of that era, whereas the Tyson fight was just a huge upset, with an untrained Tyson going belly up, Hagler v Hearns was awesome, but Tommy was better at welter.
Ah, i was worried that i missed something in my research of him for a second lol Might've actually had to do something drastic, like put him above Sugar Ray Leonard...
Yes, but Ali wasn`t in the prime that he had been in vs Williams and Tyrell where he was starting to peak, his body looked softer and flabbier vs Frazier, Leonard`s hands were fast against Duran and threw a lot of punches, but Duran`s defense was awesome he got hit way less than Frazier did in his epic vs Ali, great fights.
Foreman was a one dimensional fighter which was proven by his loss to young Ali was past his peak and still shaking off rust Tyson was clearly terribly prepared (confirmed by sparring partners and other witnesses) Charles and Robinson were the smaller guys in those matchups Leonard was a multidimensional once in a generation talent, entering his prime and coming off one of his career best wins but not just that Duran was the smaller man moving up. Durans win is the greatest for me, atleast out of the ones you listed.
Ali vs Foreman, would get my pick, Leonard over Hagler, Schmeling over Louis#1, Douglas over Tyson, Turpin over Robinson, Ali over Liston, Than Duran over Leonard, esp now with hindsight, with the realization of how truly special Duran was.
I would disagree. Tho controversial i don't believe at least half the world think Hagler won. Over many many years in here the vast majority (tho not quite all) of posters that make me sit up and take notice have called SRL the winner, plenty of them confidently. Here is a comprehensive list of media cards. While media cards don't always tell the story we are talking about more than half the world thinking Hagler won. 6 out of 25 score the fight for Hagler, 13 for SRL (more than double) and 6 penned a draw. That's 19 out of 25 notables that do not believe Hagler won. Media Scorecards Dave Anderson of the New York Times: 114-114 Associated Press: 117-112 Hagler Baltimore Sun: 7-5 in rounds Leonard Al Bernstein of ESPN: 115-113 Hagler Dave Bontempo of ESPN: 114-114 Boston Globe: 117-111 Leonard Boston Herald 116-113 Leonard Chicago Sun-Times: 115-114 Hagler Chicago Tribune: 7-5 in rounds Hagler Nigel Collins of The Ring: 115-113 Leonard Howard Cosell: 117-112 Leonard Houston Chronicle: 115-114 Leonard Michael Katz: 117-112 Leonard Harold Lederman of HBO: 115-113 Leonard Phill Marder of The Ring: 114-114 Larry Merchant of HBO: 114-114 New York Daily News: 117-111 Leonard New York Post: 114-114 Newsday: 115-114 Hagler Philadelphia Daily News: 116-112 Leonard Oakland Tribune: 117-112 Leonard Jeff Ryan of KO Magazine: 118-111 Leonard San Jose Mercury-News: 116-115 Hagler United Press International: 116-112 Leonard Washington Post: 114-114
No. It's actual somewhat doubtful that it is even the best single welterweight win of 1980. It could be, but .... Hearns-Cuevas was devastating and emphatic and over in 2 rounds. Cuevas had a whole string of defences of his WBA belt. Cuevas was regarded very highly. And, among those who believe "Leonard made Duran quit", and claim not to buy into Duran's excuse bandwagon, surely defeating Duran like that in 8 rounds trumps what Duran did against Leonard ?
