Leonard - Best Boxer In Last 30 Yrs

you call that proof, that he fought hearns to a draw? that's an improvement over how he fared in 81 where he was further behind that there's no doubt he would have lost in 12. And it's not like leonard didn't have to come back in the 14th to pull out the win.

also keep in mind that being off just over a year is nothing to leonard who came back after three years to beat marvin hagler who is a much bigger name than terry norris was in 1991. so that's not an excuse either.

surely you have more compelling evidence than this. :yep

my proof that he wasn't in decline is much stronger than your case claiming that he was in decline especially when coupled with his flawless performance in uno mas where he showed no signs of slowing. and if he was, please point out which one of the 12 rounds where ray leonard was too tired to dance.

no doubt you've seen my writings before so my views should be no surprise to you. but you should have brought forth stronger evidence other than just age. Was bernard hopkins over tha hill at age 36 when matched up with tito? I don't recall hopkins doing all that well when he was younger-age 28 (versus roy jones) either.

 

Duran is above him.

 

I loathe Leonard, but would agree:

To 30 pro fighters who turned pro from 1976 onwards:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

butcher, mcvey, whoever, there isn't one person who can hold their ground with me on this. if you make a claim you got to back it up like I do.

 

You gotta be kidding.

 

how can it be terrible if everything he mentioned is true? there's few people on this board who are completely honest when it comes to leonard's status but Thad Spencer is definitely one of them.
I'd like to give leomard more credit but I just can't. it wouldn't be honest.

 

Whitaker could be ranked higher in the last 30 years. :bart

 

Whitaker has been the best fighter since sugar ray robinson, he would school duran and benny leonard. He has a better overall resume than leonard too, besides his wins over the other fab 4 guys, leonard's resume becomes very thin.

 

how can you argue against facts? It's too late for revisionist history.

 

Ah yes,

Thad Spencer, the unbanned prime Frazier. The same poster who once claimed that Mike Tyson defeated Larry Holmes in the midst of his prime at 38.

Is this the ally you speak of?

 

I have to agree with SRL. He Put a end to 4 all-time great winning streaks
Hearns and Benitez were undefeated Duran and Hagler had not lost in 10 years.

 

where was leonard in 82? He flatly refused a fight with Hagler.

Is that opinion or fact? Please, just the facts.

That's media buildup you dope! Why are trying to use that bs on me? I wasn't born yesterday like John Thomas or some other nuthugger.

The press described Gerry Cooney the same way-"oh look what he did to Norton, Lyle, Young. Big deal! Veterans on the way down. His defenses hardly make him one of the more distinguised title reigns-Luis Primera, Pablo Baez, Randy Shields.

so don't start that nuthugger "master boxer" with me. Did Ray box well enough to to put himself ahead of Tommy on the scorecards?

If he were, then he wouldn't have to have come from behind with his own trainer telling him "you're blowing it son" instead of being reduced to an ineffective stalker throwing one haymaker at a time - the same approach he used with Norris. he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell with Terry.

Hagler was far more impressive against Tommy. More effective pressing the action, and got to work faster. That makes Hagler the better fighter. What's more, that's leonard's greatest accomplishment while the Hearns win for Hagler was much more convincing and was just another in a long line of great wins for him.

so? I'm not impressed with the Hagler fight. Leonard looked good and the fight could have gone to leonard. But it's not the most convincing win over a faded fighter that I've ever seen but i'll go along with it for now.

However, when the commentator says "Ray said Hagler lost a lot of speed and was counting on the slowness of Hagler" which was very evident on film, it cheapens the accomplishment. Could he have done the same against prime Hagler? I doubt it. Could he really done that much better with a young Terry Norris? Not with Ray's style of fighting. Leonard's never proven he's effective or even comfortable taking the role of the aggressor.

You're a fool! You brag about Leonard's split win saying nyah nyah, leonard beat Hagler but can't accept the fact Norris gets bragging rights for his win. Terry didn't get no "split win". he kicked his but all over the ring, mastered him at every turn-against the ropes, in the middle of the ring, on the inside, and from the outside boxing. Why the hell should I take you seriously, because you're another misguidedfan who can't accept reality?

it wasn't narrow. The round which he lost were lost by a narrow margin but he kept losing them. when Duran stepped on the gas, leonard couldn't keep up with him. when Duran decided to take a breather, then Ray was able to win a round here and there but don't fool yourself, it wasn't a close fight.

Everyone knew who the winner was that night.

 

yeah, Hearns would have no problem at 154. no way leonard could win.