Is Sugar Ray Leonard overrated?

I don't have discussions with fairies. especially fairies that give me the runaround

and I don't give a damn how many laws you people try to pass, you can't normalize deviant behavior into society

 

All very interesting but totally irrelevant to Hearns weight making problems. Less than 3 months after Leonard Tommy was in with a Middleweight, then 3 months after that he was in with another one, then again 5 months after that. He then had a 21 month period at 154, before facing Hagler at Middle.

Meanwhile Leonard was fighting at Welter in both 82 and 84. The fact is Tommy Hearns simply couldn't make 147 anymore without it affecting his performance, as evidenced by the way he gassed in the fight he was comfortably winning against Leonard.

 

Try 11.5yrs

I used to practise sharpening my tools on him.

 

Lets dispel these moronic fan boy excuses shall we?

1 down 1 to go

The lengths of Leonard's retirements were nothing more than his choice. Less than fuk all to do with detached or damaged retina's. Read the dates of diagnosis and surgeries yourself. Unlike Leonard fan boys they don't lie.

And please, what is this nonsense about a weight he hadn't made in ages? I believe he put a 162 limit on Hearns for their rematch even though it was for a 168 title. I don't know if he even made 160 for the Hagler fight. For Lalonde he might have managed to be a flabby 165, who gives a sh!t anyway? Ffs don't try and make out the guy was a Hatton or Duran type fighter that ballooned between fights, cos it simply isn't true.

 

The difference being of course both Rooster and myself can spell, especially a simple word like minutes.

You being one of the usual suspects ( fanboys ) is no surprise. It is just your different excuses for his humiliating defeat at the hands of Norris that are entertaining.

You see it is quite simple. Even Murican odds makers have got more knowledge, and money than you will ever see, and they made Leonard favourite. No maverick actions from them which might have happened had they believed all the fanboy garbage about only having 8 fights in 10 years. Nah, they likely thought Leonard was at his best weight below Middle, coupled with the fact that Norris had been beaten thrice, one of which was a pretty brutal KO.

 

I know it wasn't your question. I was straightforwardly implying that maybe your question is the wrong question - particularly in light of your out of place claims regarding Mayweather's superiority.

It seems odd to me that you would focus on the Bonds and Howard bouts as a benchmark for a prime Leonard; especially the latter, since the contest occurred after a two-year-plus lay-off and sight-saving eye surgery.

Bonds was a tune-up for southpaw, Ayub Kalule, who Leonard had already signed to fight. Bonds was a southpaw.

In any event, both cases were stoppage wins. If it's the time it took to achieve that then I think, in addition to the above, you might have in some way already answered your own question, in that Leonard was not, by nature, a pressure fighter. But he was able to manage distance and launch minor assaults that would draw his opponent into his traps for counters and major assaults.

This leads to the other peculiar basis for your argument - if I've read you correctly - and that is the predication on Leonard needing to have been a consummate "pressure fighter" to beat Norris. Why is that?

Leonard's body was barely allowing him to execute his usual style, let alone chase Norris down all night and Norris wasn't usually that hard to find, as Brown discovered to his delight, in every round of that brief, first bout they had.

Against Leonard, Norris played a cautious game with a weary-legged challenger. Why should I think a version of Leonard, who was ten years younger, wouldn't have been able to draw Norris out and snare the traps he had once been so adept at setting?

On the matter of Hearns - He may have been only one of at least four All Time Greats that Leonard faced and beat but he would have torn threw Mayweather's 147 and 154 resume, as well as Mayweather himself, with relative ease.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think you have reading comprehension problems, as well as a limited idea as to the reasons why Hearns lost the fight.

If you research interviews conducted with Hearns, you'll find, when discussing the fight, he has himself stated that he was in physical shape for the bout.

You might also want to learn the difference between a 'fact' and an opinion; why a fact stands by itself without needing to be evidenced, having already been proven and recorded, e.g. If you can find an interview in which Hearns states he was in good physical shape then it's a fact that Hearns stated he was in good physical shape. This is unlike an opinion, such as: "Tommy Hearns simply couldn't make 147 anymore without it affecting his performance, as evidenced by the way he gassed in the fight"

Are all fighters, who are ahead in fights but gas in the later rounds and lose, weight-drained then? Does your brand of logic account for other factors in the match, which might have contributed to or even been the direct and only cause of the loss?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think you understand me perfectly.

Why the Bonds fight?

Because it showed what he couldnt do, prime or no prime no matter how you slice it

come to think of it, I forgot about the Kalule fight

nothing special going on there!

barely a cut above Davey Moore. That is, 10-0 Davey Moore who gave him a similar clobbering within a year

and THIS is prime Leonard you're talking about?

The Hearns fight, he resembled a so-so stalker throwing one punch at a time. Nothing much going on there either!

where's the awesome PRIME Leonard you all keep bringing up?

so WHAT if Bonds was a southpaw? He did nothing but retreat because he couldnt do anything else

shouldnt PRIME Leonard have done a better job?

why it's no wonder he fell behind in the Hearns fight

he is what we call INEPT

and no, i'm not being overly harsh, but telling it like it is

It's not just the time he took to dispose of those sub par, brought in punching bags, it's also how terrible he looked that makes me wonder "why would anyone think he has a chance against someone of Norris-like speed, Norris like mobility?"

tell me how he's going to cut down Norris IN TIME before his 12 rounds are up



and if you can't do it, then just come up with another ploy and say something like "I think you're asking the wrong question"

and please stop with the wishful, hypothetical thinking "would have torn thru Mayweather's resume of 147, 154 pound resume"

He had his ass handed to him by Norris remember?

Floyd is 50-0 whereas srl is a subpar 36-3-1. it's simply no contest-Floyd was the better fighter

 

The logic of this post is simply unassailable. :good

 

he's telling me that I shouldnt use either the Bonds or the Howard fight (he said ESPECIALLY the Howard fight) as a barometer of Leonard's prime

in other words, he wanted me to throw out the bad fights (or unflattering, unimpressive performances) and instead only remember his best performances

it's just like telling someone not to count the Norris fight for the same reason-because he doesn't measure up as described

Those fights however were according to his fans, during his prime, the period they keep referring to

so I brought them up which means ANY of those performances are fair game since they show what he could, and could not do

he also didnt seem to appreciate the fact that I mentioned Floyd and that I dared to bring up the fact that his success overshadowed Leonard's and then went on to say that Leonard would have RIPPED thru anyone on Floyd's resume without actually having him prove it(again, some hypothetical version of Leonard we've never seen)

 

Exactly what would you pinpoint as Norris' absolute (amazing) peak

This content is protected

?

 

Norris never had a particularly "amazing" point in his career he lost in all stages during it.

At the beginning lost to some guy called Derrick Kelly, in his prime got flattened by Jackson and Brown and got DQd twice against Luis Santana and in the end lost his titles to bum of the month Keith Mullings.

 

I don't care about reported articles, or the fact that Tommy is not a whining ****** like Leonard and therefore didn't look to make excuses for his defeat. I like millions of others saw Tommy gas around the 11th.

Further I don't " believe " I know for a fact that Hearns never tried to make 147 ever again, as evidenced by who he fought.

That is the name of the game. Evidence and facts. The opinions of Leonard fan boys are as nothing in comparison.

If you are so keen to prove your opinion is in reality " factual " post the weights Tommy weighed in at for,

Singletary
Geraldo
McCracken
Benitez
Sutherland
Minchillo
Duran
Hutchings
and Hagler

then come back and tell me how he could have made 147 if a rematch with Leonard had been in the offing.

 

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............

 

Let's dispel everything you've ever posted here.