Is Sugar Ray Leonard the complete boxer?

I don't share these sentiments at all. And, as it was mentioned by someone else, this has nothing to do with his skills.

 

...
One of your punches strayed low, Dave. What is it about "I think that you misunderstand what is happening" that you took offense too? My opinion is that you misunderstood the first round. Where did I claim or imply that I have some monopoly on analytical aptitude?

Not necessarily. A concentration of heavy blows inside of seconds before the fighter can recuperate is far more damaging than a good shot landing now and then, where there is time to regroup and clear one's head.

You forget that Hearns could hit like hell with punching room. Even a man with Hagler's strength and chin would have reason for pause if he's catching more than he's landing.

Says who? What was that you said about monopoly?

Very harsh? Duran swelled up his eye. Mugabi swelled him up good. Hearns cut him and a doctor was called in. To completely dismiss the possibility that Hearns -boxing from the outside, could cut him or otherwise cause facial trauma is unwise.

 

Lots to repond to, so I'll respond to the last two. Many fighters at Jr middle and middle with strong chins lasted the course with Hearns without buckling and continued to press. Hagler would do the same, but with better defence, perhaps and even stouter chin, and better offense. Secondly, you can't completely dismiss the chances of cuts to most fighters, but I think it is unfair for it be a major factor when the guy has never suffered a loss due to an injury. The best chance to defeat Hagler would be with a fighter who possessed great durability, tremendous speed of hand and foot, stamina and endurance, physical strength and an ablility to switch up tactics mid fight. You could pick out a small number of fighters from middleweight history who have all these talents in sufficient amounts. Hearns ain't one of 'em.

 

Do you not understand the ****ing question?

I would say, he is pretty much complete.

 

He`s no Terry Norris, but he is a sound all around boxer...

 

Colbert, Singletary and Sutherland went the distance. Geraldo took a dive. McCracken got stopped. None of the pre-Hagler MWs were close to stopping him. None of them outboxed him. No MW ever outboxed him and Hearns was reckless in warring with any of them -particularly Hagler, Barkley, and Roldan. He could have made things easier.

I'm not confident that Hearns would stop Hagler in any way, I am adamant in the belief that had Hearns boxed and moved on Hagler, the odds are great that it would be a different fight completely.

Hagler: "It was really the only way to fight a guy like Tommy Hearns... I had to go inside and work him."

--Hagler's right. There is no way he would have outboxed Hearns. Do you agree with that? He had to get inside. Had Hearns worked at the range best for him, you see it as a foregone conclusion that Hagler will do what he did in "the War" only in 5 or 6 rounds. I don't see it that way. Hearns greatest weakness wasn't his chin or his durability, it was his stugots.

Who said it was a major factor? I said it is a possiblity -and it is, demonstrably so.

Willie Monroe beat him. Sugar Ray Seales fought him to a hometown draw. Bobby Watts beat him, albeit it a hometown decision. What did any of them have over Hearns? In fact, all three were tall, rangy fighters like Hearns. So contrary to what you say, there is precedent, particularly considering the fact that Hearns is superior to all three.

I regard Marvin very highly -ranking him at the top of the MW division in terms of greatness and in terms of H2H. But looking at your best chance fighter who could beat Marvin, you seem to be unwilling to see him being beaten by anyone this side of Zeus. I don't.

 

Duran was, like most human beings, a man of flaws great and small. It is a fact that he indulged himself after the first bout and gained about 40 pounds. It is a fact that Leonard lured Duran back into the ring for a rematch soon enough so that Duran could not be as formidable as he was the first time.

The bout that means the most for most observers is the first one. Both men were nearest their best and they clashed mightily. It matters most -no less than the Frazier-Ali I matters most.

You believe that Leonard, because he beat Duran 2 out of 3 times is the better technican. I strongly disagree that you could support that claim in that way.

Leonard had other weapons at his disposal, including physical advantages. remember that Duran was a natural LW. Leonard was faster, taller, had a longer reach, and was younger with younger legs. Duran was technically better. That's where I come down. That is not to say that in a pure boxing match that Leonard wouldn't "outbox" Duran. Do you see the point here?

 

It very much depends what is meant by complete boxer, there is no universal meaning, everyone has their own interpretation.

I am not part of this new fancy that has come to the sport, so I will struggle to understand the question if it is not black or white, and yet wants an a simple answer.

 

I don't see it that way. In the first fight, Leonard tried to match Duran at his own game, and made it a very good, if losing, effort. In the rematch, when he played to his own strenghts, he was clearly superior IMO.

When it comes Duran being overweight and "lured" into an early rematch, you can as just as easily say that Leonard was lured into fighting the wrong fight by Duran insulting his wife. Perhaps the dirtiest pre-fight tactic I've ever heard of by the way.

As I see it, Leonard comes out much better out of these two fights. That Duran says "first I'll fukk you up, then it's your wife's turn" to Leonard, and thereafter quitting a losing effort in the rematch... Makes me sick to my stomach.

But I don't think Leonard proved any superiorty in technique, though. There they were very close.

 

Duran was being Duran. It wasn't "tactics" -it was the beast in him. Duran couldn't spell 'tactics'.

See my new threat. It challenges the status quo about Montreal.

 

My expectations of a great body puncher are a little more.
A great body puncher should have the ability to sink a good one whereas his opponent goes down and you can count to 1000 and they dont get up.

 

Whatever.

Body punching isn't all about power. The end results of someone falling to the canvas just highlights the power to a certain degree. Whitaker was a very good puncher to the body, yet had powder puff power.

 

I understand what you're saying. Even as a complete boxer he wasnt able to handle that speed. I agree.

Even as far back as the Hearns fight this could be seen. so from that point on he didnt want to take any more chances so, he became very selective. And to this day people actually believe that a damaged eye played a role in his retirements/well planned comebacks.

 

LOL I already said that a small number fighters in middleweight history would have a shot at beating Hagler. No need for Zeus !! Where did that come from?atsch

Seales, Watts, Monroe all way way way before Hagler's prime. Can't see the relevance at all. Way off the mark. Also I never said Hagler would outbox Hearns.

 

Obviously those three fighters were before Marvin's prime... and obviously you have to go back that far to find blemishes on his record. You offered a list of assets that you see as liable to beat Hagler. The problem is, those assets you offered would beat anyone -so they are worthless. Thus the Zeus comment. The other problem is that there is precedent for fighters with significantly less than the conqueror you imagine who were still able to beat Marvin in the mid-70s.

To summarize, lesser fighters than Hearns did give Hagler some problems -and you can throw Antuofermo as late as 1979.

I asked if you agree that Marvin couldn't outbox Hearns.

...but that wasn't the point. The point was that Marvin would have to get inside and if Hearns worked at the range best for him, that isn't as easy as you pretend. Again, you see it as a foregone conclusion that Hagler will do what he did in "the War" only in 5 or 6 rounds. I don't see it that way. Hearns greatest weakness wasn't his chin or his durability, it was his stugots.

Had Hearns never fought Duran, I think it likely that he would have done what he should have done on Hagler, which is play matador and box him, and make him pay with the rushes.

Could Hagler have got to him anyway midway through the fight? It is possible! Could Hearns have done well enough from the outside over 12 rounds (more of a chance there than 15) to keep him at bay and take a decision in 1985? That is possible as well.