Ray Leonard: P4P Rating over last 50 Years?

They're wrong, and you's might be as well, jabroni.

He was a more complete talent. Better? I'm not so sure. Ray wasn't so great at punching on the move. He was easier to find. I think peak Ali's well ahead of the pack at Heavy, more so than any other fighter is ahead of his own division. Maybe I'll edge towards Leonard as the better fighter - maybe - but it's damn close. They're similar level talents, so any difference means little in terms of greatness.

Maybe he would have. He didn't though, and that's that.

His wins over Duran aren't too terribly impressive. Duran's fault for coming in so ill-prepared, but you and I both agree that ole' Roberto wasn't so hot for the rematch. About half the people who've seen it think he lost the Hagler fight, so there's that, too. Ray's top wins can compete with pretty much anybody's and they're better than Ali's, but not by much.

Now, let's talk about overall resumes. Let's factor depth into this. Top 10 wins? Top 20? Top 30?! Who's got the edge there, ese?

Dominance?! Longevity?! Eh? EH?!

Ali all day, son!

 

So he didn't have legitimate reasons for his first professional retirement? Nobody rates nor really gives a **** less about anything post-Hagler. Most of it was in the bag by '82 anyway although he very well could've added Curry and McCallum. He ducked who: Hagler? No more than Hagler ducked Spinks. Cuevas? Pryor??? :rofl

 

:yep:bbb

This content is protected

 

One little thing, HW doesn't have the depth as other divisions, probably the weakest of the original 8.

And I'm out.

This content is protected

 

^ True. The dancing bit, I mean.

The other thing: Yeah. I wouldn't say the weakest, but bottom 3. All the same, being clearly the best man in an original division's history (and I think it is clear) is pretty impressive.

 

Damn right, they are. :twisted:

Too much deliberation only to arrive to the same conclusion. Complete, better, whatever you want to call it. I think Ray being top three amongst a surplus of talent at 147 is more impressive than Ali heading a rather shallow HW field. Even then, his selection there isn't completely unanimous. A good percentage of fighters, historians, writers and fans don't believe he is... In other words, not exactly the SRR of the HW division.

Know, that's why I voted where I voted.

Ali wasn't terribly impressive in a number of fights, some of which he shouldn't of even won. 7-5 all day, and around 100% of the people who predicted the fight were calling an easy Hagler win. I actually think by A lot... Norton wasn't great, he was a contender with Ali's stylistic number (took two of three from him too) He picked up both Frazier wins post-Jamaica and lost to the best version he fought. Liston II an obvious fix. And no way was Hagler more past it than either of them, better too.

Where did I vote, son? I wanted to bump my thread!

 

I could probably count the number of times I've seen the whole lot of them mentioned on the general forum with my fingers. It's sad.

 

top 5 since 1960
ali
duran
leonard
pacquiao
napoles

 

What about Sweet Pea?

 

Actually benitez has gotten very overrated in an all time sense. He was very inconsistent, basically got a gfit against bruce curry, drew with harold weston, and was shot by the time he was 24. I would easily have joe frazier, bob foster and sonny liston above him on the all time list. I havent seen his fight with palomino, but a split in benitez hometown.

 

I think pac and napoles are more accomplished, but this is ESB and i know everyone here loves whitaker.

 

Was a joke.

Already 350+ some posts over that in another thread.

EDIT: 475, actually.

 

I am actually shocked that hearns seems to be in everyones top 10 and Mike McCallum is seen as an unknow. Just goes to show that if you fight the Fab 4 you get overrated. Mcallum beat a murders row of 154-160 fighters, hearns beat on smaller fighters at higher weights. Head to head mike beats hearns anyday.

 

I know! :twisted:

More complete doesn't necessarily mean better. Hopkins was a kind of complete that Ali couldn't have even fathomed, but he was still an inferior fighter. For what it's worth, if they were of similar size, fighting in the same division, I'd pick Ali. Quite confidently, actually (style match-up favors him, I think).

Also, that percentage of fighters, historians, writers and fans are all wrong. They can have whatever opinion they want, but it's wrong, and someone needs to tell them it's wrong.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVdEINfm7H4[/ame]

Yeah, yeah. He had **** performances every so often in the 70's.

All the same: Ali's resume > Leonard's. Ali's longevity > Leonard's. Ali's dominance > Leonard's. ShaBAM!

You agreed with fists of fury and his inability to see Ali over Leonard! fists of fury, man! That guy's a good poster! So...I don't know where it is exactly that I'm going with this, but...um...:twisted:

 

You caught my drift, though. This is an easy out post, cobra. I see we done, always fun. All of this stuff SRL lacks, and yet so close to Ali. Something has to give, and it's his top wins and talent/skill/ability/'completeness' as a fighter for my money. I wouldn't consider him 'greater' in the grand scheme.