Prime Leonard vs todays Mayweather

Probably the worst thread ever.

Floyd and Leonard are completely different levels. Floyd would have no chance.

 

He has a point though. I'm a Leonard fan but I'm still aware that he fought for every advantage during negotiations, aka Hagler fight.

 

I don't dispute that (and I'm not sure why that's held against him, they're all big boys). But there is a clear dilineation between Leonard pre-surgery and Leonard post surgery and also his goals and motivations. To use the term "anything but fearless" in describing Leonard is unreasonably harsh and I'd say idiotic if I didn't know that the poster knows what he's talking about generally and wasn't just biased.

To speak of a more neutral, less polarizing fighter than Leonard or Duran, I think we can all agree that JC Chavez turned into a bit of a **** in his later years in and out of the ring. But I don't think that detracts from his prime. Nor do I think anything Duran or Leonard did late in their careers detracts from their prime (throw in B-Hop as a modern day example).

On topic, Mayweather is a great fighter, no doubt and would make a tough fight, but I think Leonard would win a Leonard/Benitez like chess match, and if it turned into a fight, Leonard had more balls than just about anybody and certainly Mayweather.

 

Stonehands and Duranimal are fascinating posters, but they probably have more hate and disdain for Ray Leonard than Roberto Duran ever did. At least he got $8 million. It's just the way it is.

I doubt Leonard is concerned about it.

 

You've thrown this rock before but then avoided a debate. Try not to this time.

You do realize that my post that you reponded to clearly chooses Leonard to defeat Floyd and acknowledges his great skill, right? Where's the hate? And what does any of it have to do with Duran?

Both Floyd and Ray are known to angle for every possible advantage outside the ring during negotiations and if you believe that Leonard is Hagler or LaMotta-like in the willingness to fight anyone then you don't know Leonard.

Mike Trainer was an attorney who was Leonard's advisor. The whole Leonard operation was about profit -and Trainer was all about maximizing profit and minimizing risk as Leonard was coming up. That's a matter of record. Dundee was told to match him very carefully as he was an investment first and foremost, a commodity that had great potential. Now, you probably think I'm "hating" on him about that because it's good business. And you'd be wrong. But the truth is that Leonard was not willing to fight all-comers and the Hagler fight just showcased what was always his mindset. He was not a "warrior" in the true sense of the word and anyone with half a brain knows that.

Leonard was brilliant -inside and outside of the ring, but he and his whole operation sought the bottom line first. Good business, yes, but not so profitable to legacy. He had to take risks for his legacy and he did, but they were calculated risks...

Benitez? Trainer knew that a championship -as soon as possible- would boost profits and commercial opportunities. Dundee knew that Benitez was safer than Cuevas, who had the other belt.

Duran? Duran was also the safer bet! He was a lightweight whose stomach was bigger than his division and he hadn't looked so good since the Palomino fight. Again, Dundee did not want to cross swords with Cuevas who was considered a monster back then -in choosing the smaller, older, man who couldn't hit as hard, he took the safer bet. By the way, Leonard made 10 million for that fight. Guess how much Duran made. Ten times less.

Duran II? Come on, man. That one is a study in finding every conceivable advantage possible. Leonard himself all but admittted that he did not want to tangle again with an-shape and ready Duran. Duran's camp wanted to wait until the spring, but Trainer let them know they'd risk a 9 million dollar payday. Are you getting this?

Hearns? Leonard was accused of ducking Hearns and Hearns was fed-up enough to throw a rubber chicken at him in the post-fight press conference after Duran II. There was an awful lot of pressure on him to fight Hearns and, politically-speaking, he had to. Did he want the challenge? Sure he did, but that didn't mean he was going to be make it a done deal too quickly. The Kalule fight was viewed by many as a way to stall Hearns and tease Hagler.

....
Leonard had some great wins and those are all included -particulary Hearns I which is a all-time beauty. But if he and those behind him weren't Machiavellian behind the scenes, then I don't know who is.

 

It's very odd how pointing out facts and fact-based observations about Leonard's career is called "hate" by a few posters.

And you haven't been paying attention -I've gone straight at duranimal to attack his overblown views about Duran and straight at Red Rooster to defend Leonard.

 

This should be closed for spite... SRL wins 10/10

 

I ain't mad at cha. Again, I enjoy your writing style and columns. I'm no Leonard fanboy either, although I consider his run up through 1982 amongst the very best of the last several decades. I've no love for what he did during his numerous comebacks although I do consider Hagler a great win regardless of the stipulations for the simple fact that virtually nobody picked him to win, he'd fought once in the previous five years and was involved in his first fight ever at 160 against a natural, ATG Middle no matter how 'faded'.

Obviously you don't consider him a **** fighter in the least or else the entire premise of Duran's win over him rating amongst the greatest of all-time goes straight down the toilet bowl. Leonard had better be Damn Great. (Obviously it is, and Leonard was).

Gotta see that.

 

I just find it difficult to see fighters like Benitez and to a lesser extent, Ayub Kalule as relative cherry picks. Cuevas was one of the hardest punchers of all-time but one dimensional. It's hard to envision a fight with him not ending ten rounds sooner than Benitez and with half the struggle and tactical warfare going on in a complete ass whipping masterclass. Christian Giudice (in Duran's biography) actually claims Don King had as much to do with Duran coming into the picture over Cuevas as much as Dundee was concerned for Leonard's health.

Taking Kalule, a bigger, rugged, undefeated 154 lber with the Hearns superfight on the horizon... He couldve done a lot worse. Like Pablo Baez.

 

Kalule was too good a fighter to be seen as anything other than a quality scalp. And that was Kalule when he wasn't a corpse at the weight.

 

Who cares if you're mad at me? Just be fair. I'm a fan of Leonard even with his games, but my eyes are wide-open. And never once did I call him a cherry-picker. The fact that he strived to find every possible advantage over his opponents, over who he fought, who he didn't fight, who he stalled, etc., is a matter of record -before Hagler, before his injury.

Leonard was a special talent with a helluva record no matter what the fine print says. But natonic's crying "foul" when someone points at the fine print deserves zero support.

 

Fair enough.

 

Stoney is an excellent poster and writer, so I don't dismiss his many redeeming qualities, but he certainly has a hard-on for Leonard and blind spots regarding Duran.

 

Leonard by close but unanimous decision or late stoppage. Leonard
had equal or greater speed and skills, giving the defensive edge to Mayweather.
However, Leonard had more strength at welterweight, and a greater hunger to
silence the naysayers. Leonard was more often than not able to produce
at the key moments when the fight was hanging in the balance. I believe Leonard
would steal some rounds with flurries, and even hurt and taunt Mayweather.
So either Leonard unanimous 115 to 114, 116 to 112 and 115 to 113 or Leonard
tko 12.

 

Hands of Iron made most of the relevant points already, and I try to spare these threads from off topic debates. But, you called me on it, so here goes. I'll admit that you tossing Leonard in with Mayweather using the term "anything but fearless" pushes a button. I suppose I expect more from a legit journalist. Leonard anything but fearless? Dude would have chewed someones leg off to win a fight. Who the **** ever fought the 2 year, 5 fight (4 against ATGs and a damn good Kalule) schedule that Leonard did? I'm sure you can dig up somebody from the Black Murderer's row, but the list is short.
Here's why I shy away from these debates. Because I love all of these guys, Leonard, Hagler, Duran, Benitez, Hearns. To defend a point I have to run one or more of them down. You say Leonard was not "Hagler-like" in the willingness to fight anyone. c'mon man, seriously, you can do better than that. You mean the Hagler who fought Fully Obel twice? Caveman Lee's crack corroded corpse? Wilford Scypion? What was the point of the 2nd hamsho fight? I suppose if Hagler was "Leonard-like" he would have fought Spinks or better yet, laid off for nearly five years and come back to fight Roy Jones at 168 (I know the timing isn't quite accurate but use your imagination).
"Dundee knew that Benitez was safer than Cuevas". Whether Dundee held that belief or not, it's just not a sound theory. I'd say it's pretty clear that Leonard would have toyed with Cuevas and stopped him mid rounds, or worst case, got tagged, got pissed off and would have left Cuevas like Andy Price.
"Duran was the safer bet". Your hero a safer bet than the wooden Cuevas? I respect the lengths you'll go to win a debate but no, he wasn't the safer bet. Just under a year before te first Leonard fight Duran put on an absolute master class against Palomino. I doubt anybody put much stock in what a disinterested Duran did against Gonzalez, Nsubuga, and Wheatley.
Duran II? It's called professional boxing. They get paid handsomely at the elite level. I believe if given more time, Duran would have just run himself down more. That's on Duran. I know it's difficult to accept that Duran QUIT, but that's on Duran, not Leonard.
Hearns? So your theory is that Leonard wanted to wait longer, risk Hearns getting closer to his absolute prime, because Leonard was ducking Hearns? That's nonsensical. The greener Hearns was, the better the more seasoned Leonard's chances. Sorry, you're pulling that theory out of your ass. I know, of course Tommy came in at 145 (Leonard's fault), and it was the 2lbs, not those body shots that seemed to come out the other side which did Tommy in. Leonard should have ducked Tommy for another year, give him more time to get old. Yeah, that's the ticket ;-).
Was Ray's team Machiavellian? Sure. But he simply took the biggest money fights, risk be damned during his prime. Mike McCallum claims all thes guys ducked him. It wasn't fear, it was just money. Nobody (general public) knew who the hell McCallum was until 1987. Leonard didn't duck anybody or fear anybody. In his prime, he took the most money (which the majority of the time was the highest risk also).
Hagler? c'mon Stoney. Sure Leonard and his team angled for advantages. But I know you remember, people weren't questioning whether Leonard could win. They were questioning his sanity and worried for his health. Five years, 1 fight, no tune-ups, up two weights against the P4P #1 fighter. It's a remarkable feat.