Is Sugar Ray Leonard overrated?

You can always detect and dismiss Leonard fanboys by their bolstering his wins, and discounting his defeats. As far as they are concerned Montreal was either a blip or his using the wrong tactics, while the non fight in New Orleans was a history changing master class.

As you pointed out although favourite in M.S.G. against Norris, that one sided embarrassment is discounted due to perceived ageing, and / or inactivity. Funny that. They crow about his coming out of a 2 year 11 month retirement to beat Hagler, yet having put 3 wins together over 13 months, and aged only 34 he is suddenly old, or inactive when Norris makes him look a mug.

Highly over rated by neurotic fan boy types. Bottom line this all American Welterweight superstar that the media and the public couldn't get enough of LOST to a guy that had campaigned at 135 and UNDER for 11 years.

NOBODY denies his ability, but his resume is fundamentally flawed when you take the important loss to Duran, the catch weights, and the gifted draw against Hearns in the rematch, plus the use of economic clout into consideration.

To me he is no different to Pacqioua who used his economic clout to get catch weights and type of gloves worn, blah, blah, blah when he was the biggest draw in boxing.

 

I don't think anyone puts much weight on what Leonard did after Hagler when they rank him.

The LaLonde fight was a bit of a farce, but showed that Leonard's power held well against bigger guys. The fight with Hearns should really have been a loss, but indicated that the first fight perhaps always would be somewhat of a blueprint for their fights. The Duran fight added just about nothing, really. Nor did the losses after that.

Had Leonard behaved as a true champion after beating Hagler and somehow managed to beat the upcoming field of Nunn, Kalambay and McCallum - well, then he would be in serious discussions for one of the very top spots p4p. But he didn't and he isn't.

 

1. Be clearly beaten by Laing.
2. Be clearly beaten by Norris.
3. Be put to sleep by Tarver.

Would anyone not choose option 2 here?

 

No he isn't overated and his resume is terrific!
Duran
Hearns
Benitez
Hagler
Kalule

What fighter of his era has a better one?

 

Yeah, I think I could suffer a SPLIT DECISION loss to the Welterweight Laing if I was having my 78th fight, and I had started my career 14 years earlier at less than 120 lbs.

 

The big difference is Curry, Starling, Kalambay, and McCallum were viable fight for Leonard who was at or around those weight when he was in and out of retirement. Jones only stayed at Middle, and S / Middle for as long as his body allowed. You could rightly criticise him over Rocchi, and Dariusz, but not the Brits, or Collins.

It is your opinion that Benitez, Kalule, and Hearns were greater fighters than Kalambay, and especially Mike McCallum, it certainly isn't mine. I'd back Mike to tear Kalule, Benitez, Leonard, Hearns and Duran new assholes, and possibly out point Hagler.

 

Jones was active at SMW when Eubank, McClellan, Benn, Collins and even Nunn were active in the division. Of course he could have faced at least a couple of them.

Curry and Starling had their best years when Ray was in retirement. Facing them after Hagler wouldn't have made much sense. Kalambay, Nunn and McCallum would have made sense from a legacy standpoint. But if Leonard would have beaten them as well, he'd perhaps be up there with Robinson and Armstrong. Certainly by far the greatest of the fab 4. But he didn't and he isn't.

I was going to accuse you of misquoting me, but perhaps I was a bit unclear. I meant that facing Benitez, Duran x2, Kalule and Hearns in 23 months were an even more daunting task than if Jones would have faced Eubank, McClellan, Benn, Collins and Nunn in the 23 months he was at SMW - which you claimed was an impossibility for him.

 

Wasn't you angry about the excuses Leonard's fanboys made for him?

Duran was only 31 when he lost to Laing. It was only two years after Montreal, a year before the win over Moore and six years before the win over Barkley.

I'd take the loss to Norris, a really good fighter, every day.

 

Your continuous blasting at Jones ( how the fuk have I found myself defending this guy when I am no fan of his ) is flawed, mainly because Eubank, Benn and Collins were Britain and Ireland based fighters, so who the fuk was going to do the travelling, and to where, and for how much, if a fight was going to take place between any of them? Apparently he and McClellan were close friends who agreed not to fight each other, so that leaves Nunn for you to complain about him not fighting.

Leonard on the other hand did his fighting in the US, as did the men he could have fought particularly McCallum whom I firmly believe Leonard wanted less than no part of.

 

I'll repost this for you the second time. This time you can't conceivably miss it:

If you bothered to actually read my post you'd see that I said no such thing. What I said was:

"I personally think too much is made of this [Jones not facing Eubank, Benn, McClellan and Nunn plus Rochigianni and Dariusz] at times, you just can't fight everybody. But if you're going to hold it against Leonard that he didn't fight Curry, Starling, Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn etc - you surely would like Roy to have squeezed in at least some of the names there by the same standard."

And, yes, Leonard wasn't the least bit interested in McCallum. But again: Leonard's ranking is almost exclusively built on everything he did up, until and including Hagler. No one is saying he's a great MW champion. In fact, he vacated the title immediately after beating Hagler and never fought at the weight again.

What Leonard did after Hagler didn't really do anything for his legacy. It was already built on the wins over Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler plus a handful of WW contenders and a JMW titlist.

 

No, he has the best resume of wins since the 1980's!

Leonard was a rare fighter, who could win by boxing, slugging, or spoiling. Fantastic skills, speed, and durability too.

 

I already spelled out the Jones comparison. After Kalule, Leonard has very little to his resume. In contrast, Jones has a very long list of fighters he beat who were near or above Kalule's level. I don't have time to list them at the moment, but it's a very long list and a key difference between them, or nearly any top 25 all time fighter.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To me what's hurt him more than anything is his lack of bouts and longevity. Talent he had in spades, but having fought less than 50 fights is, in my view, a blemish.

 

He has one of the best, if not the best, wins in boxing history after Kalule. The one in Hagler. And also a monster win over Hearns. If you discount those you're not really worth my time.

But, yeah, Jones had a deeper resume in terms of wins against ranked opponents. But Leonard's top wins are more outstanding. All said and done, though, I can see the argument for having Jones over Leonard.

That's not silly in any way. But pretending the wins over Hearns and Hagler does next to nothing for Leonard's resume is beyond silly. It's the very meaning of underrating.

 

The Ring appears to have had Hearns at number one and Hagler at number 2 at 160 when the fight with Leonard happened, judging by the annual rankings. I don't know who was pfp number one at the time, maybe Tyson.

My point about Hearns-Leonard was that it was built to be a super fight. The actual skill level wasn't obviously higher than Jones-Hopkins. It was good timing.

I stand by Toney being better than Duran who showed up to "no mas." He was undefeated and it was his prime weight. His excuses sound more like bullsh it to me than Duran's.

Sorry, I'm too pressed for time say more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk