Ray Leonard - Smoke and Mirrors?

All these guys were great, but Haglar was the best of the bunch because of his HTH wins as well as his other defenses. By the time he and Leonard fought (I thought Haglar would win), he was way past his prime, and I scored their fight a draw. Gotta give Leonard credit for winning, but I think if the fight was made in the early 80's Haglar would have KO'd Leonard.

 

I don't have strong feelings about Leonard either way, but it is telling how he managed to manipulate the media and other fighters to suit himself.

 

I think the real problem here is some people like you cant handle the truth. Time to wise up.

 

You call that winning?

 

Well, if you're saying Hagler's record is better then I wholeheartedly agree.

But that doesn't make Leonard all "smoke and mirrors", does it ??

 

First of all, I don't see how anyone can think Leonard possibly lost to Marvin Hagler. Sugar clearly won that fight. What's more, he was coming back after a three year layoff, and fighting at 160 for the first time in his life, making the victory even more impresive. In addition, leonard pounded the very best version of Thomas Hearns that anyone ever faced in their first fight, which was another win over an all time great. Against Duran, Leonard fought galantly in the first fight, then outboxed Roberto convincingly in the second fight. Why Duran actually quit, I still don't know, but thats not Leonard's problem. In the third fight both men were past their primes, but Duran was coming off a good win over Barkley and holding a world title, yet Ray beat him convincingly enough. Sugar also defeated another great fighter in Wilfred Benitez who in turn beat a prime Duran. Ray also had good wins over Don Lalonde and Ayoub Kylule. The only prime loss that the man had, was to another all time great whom he beat twice. His later losses were a result of old age and nothing else. Leonard was also an olympic gold medalist, something that none of the other 3 can claim.

Now, when comparing Leonard to the other three greats of his era, I like to see each man for having their own unique accomplishments rather than rate one over the other. All four were a tremendous credit to boxing, to their era, and to each other. Roberto Duran had tremendous accomplishements at both lightweight and welterweight. Hagler was one of the most dominant middleweights of all time. Hearns won belts in god knows how many divisions and was still kicking as well into old age. Leonard, managed to beat all three of them, and brought a type of charisma to the table that none of the others brought in my opinion.

All of the them should be rated fairly close to equal, but I certainly don't see this argument about Ray being overrated or any less of a great fighter than his three peers.

 

He lost the montreal fight but it wasn't a clear decision. There's much of a case for Leonard winning that fight as there was for Hagler winning his fight with Ray. Fact still remains, he came back like any true boxing champion would and dominated Duran into submission. Who else made Duran quit in his career?

The Leonard vs Hagler fight is fascinating. A welterweight comes back from a 3 year lay off to take on the #1 p4p fighter in the world, a natural middleweight. Not only does Ray last the entire 12 rounds, but he defeats Hagler. I had the fight for Leonard. This was no robbery.

He was the first person to not only defeat Tommy hearns but stop him. How can you see any angles here. The draw came in the twilight of both of their careers, so much like the third duran fight, holds little weight.

Fact still remains, Leonard defeated three all time great hall of fame fighters, not even including Wilfred Benitez, and you guys have the audacity to insinuate the man is overrated. Un-****in' believable. atsch

In h2h matchups involving the fab four, Leonard was the most dominant because he was the only one to defeat all three of his peers. There is no arguement.

I think the reasons these issues are brought up in the first place is based purely on the fact that people don't like Sugar Ray Leonard's attitude. For instance, Duran gets an enormous amount of credit for moving up to Middleweight and losing a fairly clear decision against Hagler. Whereas Ray Leonard gets little to no credit for doing the same thing after a three year lay off to win a close decision. If I'm missing the point, help me out.

 

Good post, and I advocated many of the same points that you did in an earlier post of my own. I really don't understand people's tendency to question the validity of Leonard's career so often. Years ago, when I used to be an avid reader of the ring magazine ( 1988-1994 ), authors would constantly make the same criticisms, but with no explanation of origin. Some called him a poor man's Ali, and I have no idea where that came from. They were two totally different fighters with completely different accomplishments and virtually nothing in common. Leonard was the only fighter of his era to generate 50 million dollars without the aid of Don King, and that's excluding his earnings from his later bouts with Norris and Camacho. He had a slight hint of cockiness, but nothing like what we see with Floyd Mayweather. As you've already mentioned, he was the only one of the fabulous four to defeat all of the other three, yet this doesn't seem to register with some people. Rather than giving him credit for beating Duran twice, some prefer to focus on the fact that he lost the first fight. Rather than emphsize that he beat Hearns, some would like to point out that he was behind on the cards before doing it. Rather than crediting him for beating Hagler after a three year abscence, they tend to use angles and make the fight out to look like a robbery, which it clearly wasn't.

Leonard was arguably pound for pound the best fighter in the world during the 80's, and I was sad to see him go. Its a shame that others don't have the same appreciation for him that his most dedicated fans have, because we will likely never see another man like him in this lifetime.

 

For those of us who think that Hagler deserved the verdict over Leonard, then THERE IS A CLEAR ARGUMENT for Hagler being the most dominant of the "fab four", or at least more dominant than Leonard.

In head-to-head match-ups I thought Hagler beat the 3 other guys, and at first time of asking. I also think all 3 of those guys came in their fights against Hagler very close to their bests, all fired-up, and fought inspired fights. Obviously Leonard did, but Duran's showing is underrated too (this was an extremely "on" "hot" version of Duran), and Tommy Hearns was near his most monstrous ever, full of power, menace and bad intentions, but crashed into the immovable object called Hagler (... cue "leg massage" excuse ...)

I think Hagler was the fighter of the 80s, but not just because of his matches with Duran, Hearns and Leonard. His solid reign as undisputed middleweight champion weighs just as heavily.

Having said that, Leonard was a great fighter no question, and even though I think Hagler edged him in 1987, I think what Leonard achieved in that fight was greater than what Hagler achieved.

Leonard's win over Hearns was GREAT, but I dont believe Hearns was necessarily a better fighter at welter in 1981 than at middle in 1985. Experience, maturity, and not having to make weight do off-set the advantages of proportional power to a large extent. I dont think Hearns was a "natural welterweight" by any means, in fact he looked remarkably UNNATURAL at that weight. I'm not saying he was better at middle (he had stronger and more sturdy foes to contend with), but he was one hell of a middlewight c.1985. Most agree that 154 was his best weight. So welter and middle are both slightly off optimal if that's the case.

Anyway, for those who insist that 1981 welterweight Hearns was a better win for Leonard than 1985 Hearns was for Hagler, I'd say, well, Hagler made short work of Hearns regardless, took his best, chewed him up and spat him out, inside 3 rounds.

As for Duran, Hagler beat an inspired Duran at first time of asking. But I admit that relative size and "natural size" between Hagler, Duran and Leonard at the relevant times IS a factor. 1983 Hagler SHOULD be expected to beat Duran more so than 1980 Leonard. But Hagler also proved himself against PLENTY of full-blown (often "live, young") middleweights, and guys who'd nowadays be comfortable in the 168 division, and Hagler did so more solidly and more consistently (more defences) than Leonard ever did (even at his "own weight" - welter).

That's just my take, my reasons for rating Hagler above Leonard. I'm not adamant that Hagler should go over Leonard, he just IS (and always will be) in MY reckoning. I certainly cant deny Leonard's greatness.

 

I really don't think that Hagler beat Leonard, and as for his great dominance, his best wins and even a loss was against fighters rising in weight, whereas Leonard in fact beat fighters when rising in weight himself.

 

I wish some people could get that into their thick skulls.

For some reason, they think if you just quit in the biggest fight of your life, you didn't really lose it, because it went only 8 rounds, so the opponent shouldn't get any credit either. atsch

Duran's loss to Leonard was WAY worse than Leonard's loss to Duran.



Also, Hagler was considerably larger than any of the other 3 - i think this should be taken into account. p4p, Leonard was the most dominant of the FF.

 

it' meaningless against a shot fighter even though he moved up in weight. Why didnt he take the fight 3 years before while Hagler was still near the top of his game? He took that fight with Howard so he should have also taken the fight with Hagler when both are still in top form.

 

Leonard also wasnt rushed into sweating off 40+ pounds either. :yep