Unfortunately for you there is more wisdom in the hole in my ass, than you could ever hope to achieve.
Brilliant comeback there Ace.. You basically just repeated what I already said, confirming the truth in my rebuttal
As usual Foxy responds to dispassionate ****yis with impassioned vitrilol. The guy is just an a$$. I guess because I used a word he probably doesn't know, ****ogous, his junior high reasoning kicked in and immediately thought "Gee this sounds like "****" I can't respond to the logic in the post, but I can lash out and use the word "****" to trash this guy. Which of course, just makes him look like the douche he is.
I looked at the March 1990 Issue of the Ring last night. They rated him "Best Fighter of the 80's." Not too shabby.
They did indeed. Leonard was in all likelihood the best fighter of his era bearing in mind Duran's was a bit prior. God i love the 80's.
Yeah, it was a good era for Boxing. it was great to have a plethora of free tv weekend fights to enjoy during my formative years. I'll add that I grew up in the same metro area as Sugar Ray Leonard. He fought many of his early fights at the Capitol Center in Landover, MD. He was on the local news and articles were often written about him in the Washington Post. He had the "All American" Image. That said, he was never one of my favorite fighters. I always favored the underdogs or the guys who made it from nothing, with hard knocks along the way - hence my username "Saad54." But, objectively, Leonard was a great fighter, and I always respected his great accomplishments.
I'm a bit backward with appreciation and acceptance of some of these guys from my time. I disliked SRL for ages as he beat my fave (Hearns) and didn't fight him again forever. I ended up appreciating just what an amazing fighter he was tho. Larry Holmes was another, didn't give my guy a title shot and didn't overly excite me. I slowly gained a lot of appreciation for his talents and warmed to him when he was finally taken down. Jeff Chandler, another. Likes Pintor better but post career i appreciate what a great fighter Chandler was.
It was easy to get the impression that Leonard was more about Big Showmanship than being of real substance within the pro sport. He'd been given the stage from the Olympics onwards, along with all the adoration - and the big paydays. When a sportsman is given all that air and money, it's easy to dislike the celebrity, when you've got the seemingly earthier talents of Duran, Hearns and Hagler in the mix. But, ultimately, it was the big stage on which Leonard thrived and he ended up [eventually] giving all the top guys a go and winning. His greatest performances were against the elite, in globally publicized contests. His more modest performances on the scaled-down platform. Whether people liked him or not, at the time, a prolonged hindsight brings the reality of these events into the cold light of day. Today, most people can at least respect Leonard, as a fighter, because he did live up to the hype.
There seems to be a lot of variation in the way Leonard is evaluated by boxing fans and casuals alike. It is difficult for me to say if he is under or over rated. I loved Sugar Ray is an amateur. Unbelievably skilled with a ton of charisma. He claimed an amazing backstory. I soured on him later. He appeared too calculated. Perhaps scheduling the second Duran fight and never giving him a rematch until their primes had flown past was simply good gamesmenship but it but it bothered me. Also, the way he avoided giving Hagler a rematch turned me off. When I met him he did not match his public persona. However, this is not rare. It is often said that one should not meet their Heroes. I know a fighter who claims that Leonard took advantage of in a promotional agreement. He refuse to pay him as promised and then tied him up in court . I also thought the way he treated Angelo Dundee was classless. I still find his interviews grating to watch, again too concerned with his persona and Public Image. On the other hand the grit he demonstrated in turning the tables on Tommy Hearns in their first fight still constitutes one of the greatest performances I have ever seen. And while he definitely engaged in some gamesmanship, it also cannot be argued that he didn't go out there and take some risks and put it all on the line. He also delivered at crucial times under the hot lights.
If R.Leonard is over rated every fighter in history is also. Very few fighters in HISTORY defeated the number of ATG's Leonard defeated at the or close to the top of their games. If theirs a fighter overrated its F.Mayweather. Every great fighter he's beaten was too small coming up in weight, over the hill, or way over the hill. Not one signature win, That doesn't have a lot of questions about it.NOT ONE.
where to begin? I've never read anything so hilarious since I read that writer's account of Norris - srl in SI you were right about one thing; Wilfred didnt have Terry's speed of hand or foot why'd you include him then? and if you think falling behind on all score cards and having your trainer yell at you "you're blowing it son" is "doing well" you got rocks in your head, son what makes you think that kind of performance, throwing one haymaker at a time would inspire confidence to upset Terry Norris? Even Gil Clancy criticized him (heavily I might add) because of the way he failed to cut loose on a dance and move (fighter in motion) hurtman which SOMEHOW lead to the scenario that a "tiring" Norris becomes SUDDENLY stationary just in time for Leonard to trap, then pummel a helpless Norris on the ropes maybe we should call him "Just in time" Leonard! or "moderate pressure" Leonard It's clear to me that you couldnt explain why the ineffective performance in the Bonds fight, a dime a dozen performance which shows no indication he could have handled Norris You TRIED tho! tried to turn the straining to be mediocre-never to be heard from again- Bonds into a credible opponent that only someone like Leonard could have dealt with so effectively and your explanation of the Howard fight, that REALLY inspired me to believe in your PRIME Leonard-Norris fight outcome I would like to be the first forumer here to tell you that you're full of ****
so how would a Norris - srl (prime version) go? the outcome of their actual fight in which Leonard was heavily favored, is the kind of pattern we would expect to see in which Leonard could not break out of the fight's groove in other words, the performance we saw would be a constant Leonard-Bonds really brought out Ray's weakness as a fighter; his deficiencies I know Saad & comp. would like to imagine a more positive scenario in which Leonard traps Norris (who somehow tires from Leonard missing him) and then relentlessly batters him with one round to go But of course, that is just fantasy, borne out of a mind that has read too many funny stories whereas Bonds could merely run to escape, Norris would use quick, sudden strikes to get Leonard's respect (as he did by round three) and then flurry in quick staccato fashion to intimidate him. I foresee at least one or two knockdowns to keep Leonard honest and continual movement that would keep him off balance and just as Chavez could not figure Pernell out in time, neither would Leonard be able to gain enough offensive steam to hit what-is-not-there offensively, Terry's output is 5 times to Leonard's one miss. If the bout is scheduled for 12, Ray can get thru it, bit if 15, Norris eventually decides to put him away and out of his misery Once again, Norris UD 12 Leonard or tko 15 Leonard
