Ray Leonard's legacy

Leonard was special... and I'd consider him an exception. But 40 fights just isn't helping in terms of tried and true greatness. It has to be overcome with other stand-out assets, and its a burden or should be a burden to do so.

Leonard, Whitaker, De La Hoya are modern era stars who many consider to be great fighters. However... greats from the golden era had as many fights as they had as a career total when they were 22 years old. And then fought 15 times a year for the next 7 years give or take.

Now, everyone makes a hobby out of dismissing the names on the old records -but history is an amnesiac. Those who remember Chalky Wright are dead. I would assert that anyone stepping into the ring with a man who has trained and who has two arms is putting his health in dire risk. No gloved man is wisely dismissed. Of course, there must be tests to establish greatness... but the more fights a fighter fights, the more seasoned he becomes... it is all experience.

The question for me is this: how "great" would these modern fighters be if they had to fight twice a month over several years? It essentially becomes a different sport when you have to put your body on the line 15 times a year... as opposed to 3 times a year. Recent guys have the luxury of preserving their bodies, picking their opponent, and safely studying them before stepping into the ring for a fight that lasts 3 less rounds and is easier than the smokey, non air-conditioned venues of yore.

 

I dont hold the Norris & Camacho fights against SRL anymore than I hold Ali`s losses to Holmes & Berbick..... Duran to Pazienza.... Robinson to Archer.... Morales to Pacquiao & Diaz.... Whitaker to Trinidad..... Chavez to Tszyu.... I think you get my point, no need to go on & on thru boxings long history.

I wish Leonard didnt retire in those prime yrs but what he accomplished when he DID fight was nothing short of ATGness.

As far as pure talent & opponents fought & defeated.... I have Ray Leonard in my top 5 p4p all time list.

Ps. I respect most opinions but I cant accept an opinion that doesnt have Leonard in the top 15.... No way.

Cheers.

 

I agree to a certain extent. But consider this carefully. Its fantasy, but worth thinking about had it been the case. Leonard has a very good resume as you know. Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler. But lets say he had 8-10 opponents on his resume he beat of similar quality in those 40 fights. He would have a good shout for the best resume of all-time. Thats arguable of course. But would the 40 fights still hamper him? I could fully understand someone putting him above Pep with that sort of resume even though he never fought as often. Pretty simple, quality over quantity.

Thats something we don't know. It maybe would not have not been a problem with the modern day fighters. But probably they would have struggled looking back in hindsight. They may well have adjusted to it like the old timers if it was served upon them. How would the old timers have coped with having to fight only twice or three times a year? Not sure they would have done well at all. It's all about each era being in a 'comfort zone' so to speak.

After all that, doing it more often is impressive.

 

He is top 5 in my opinion. He didn't have the longest career, but the only way to evaluate just how good a fighter is is by evaluating their competition. Ray has one of the best 4 top wins in the history of boxing, and dominated a golden era for the welterweight division. The losses to Norris and Camcho are about as damaging as Ali's losses to Holmes and Berbick.

 

The majortity of fighters you are talking about probably never had to fight fighters of Hearns, Duran, and Hagler's calibre. I think it almost evens itself out when Leonard is concerned, because he beat so many all-time greats, but I could see how some would rank fighters about him based purely on longevity.

 

Its not always the case that old time greats with 100/200 fights are better than the modern greats who had fourty or fifty fights.
I think an instructive example is JCC who had over 100 fights but fought a lot of tomato cans as well as very good fighters. You could probably trim off half of chavez' fights and still have the same resume,ditto carlos monzon.
I think that modern boxers are at a disadvantage in that they should fight more often to stay sharp and learn more in their early career.
Ray leonards resume is second to none in terms of the atgs he beat,even robinson never beat the quality that leonard did,especially at welter. I think quality counts much more than quantity.

 

I'm not so sure this is simply a matter of quality over quantity.

How many posters are really that familiar with even names like Zivic, Wright, Bivins, Lytell, Marshall, Chase, Booker...? Take a look at Ezzard Charles record and if its still easy to put Leonard over him, then I don't know what to tell you.

I suspect that the dust of history allows for too much bias for the fighters we all saw in blazing color on Wide World of Sports in the 70s and 80s.

 

I'm fairly convinced that at least 30% of this forum only hold really old fighters in high regard because they would be criticised for doing otherwise.

By the same token, it's easy for some to overrate the fighters from the 40s and 50s. I've seen Robinson on film, Pep on film, and I just don't see what is so great about them. I suspect that a lot of it is just a myth, but maybe one day for lack of a better word, I might wakeup?

 

I appreciate guys like charles,robinson and such like,and charles has an amazing resume at lt heavy especially...
But sometimes you get modern guys who are unquestionably great and have only a handful of fights compared to the old timers.
With leonard you have a guy that has wins over FOUR hall of famers,with three of them being top ten (or better.) all time head to head at their respective weights.
I will wager you that ray robinson has no win the quality of leonards over hearns,hagler or duran. Even charles struggles to have three better wins than leonards best three.
As for p4p ray being above charles,well i dont really have a list of p4p because its soo subjective and there are soo many great fighters,but as a welter i rate leonard as the number ONE of all times,more complete than robinson and with more quality great wins. Robinsons best win at welter was gavilan,leonard has hearns,benitez and duran....But for the detached retina i wager leonard would have proved himself definately the best welter of all time,as it is many rank him a close second behind robbie anyway...

 

I know about Charles' great resume. Many of the fighters he fought he beat more than once. Bivins and Marshall may well not be as well known as Moore and Walcott, but they were superb light-heavyweights from the 40's.

Charles' resume is better than Leonard's considering he has multiple wins over some of the best fighters he fought. The exact stats I don't have to hand.

What I'm saying is that it's not all about fighting often. I bet you are only knowledgeable about 15% of Pep's opposition. You can only rate greats on what you know about them and what you see on film enhances someones perception on the matter. Thats only natural. Well, Greb's footage is as good as zero. But I'm sure your placing of Greb would be altered if suddenly you seen 50 of his fights on 9mm film. Your placing could go either way, up or down.

It's only natural for someone to be more influenced on fighters they are more familiar with and know more about.

I never rated Duran highly 10 years ago until I read about him, studied him as a fighter, and watched more of his fights.

 

And to be honest,charles is a bloody exceptional case!!! Not many,if any old timers have a win resume like charles....

 

I only ever rate a boxer if Ive seen enough footage of him to know his style, what I read about them comes 2nd but I DO take it on board & if I can see in the footage what people were writing then I will rate that boxer as I feel he deserves to be rated.

Boxers like Charles are guys I havent seen a lot of footage of but its highly likely that if I did see enough of him at his best then he would easily crack into my top 10 because so many people cant be wrong.... BUT.... I will not put him in my top 10 when I personally havent seen enough but nor will I ever say things like `Charles isnt as good as such & such` because I PERSONALLY just dont know.

With all that said, I`ll get back to the thread title..... I have Ray Leonard battling it out with Duran for the no3 spot in my top 10 with only Ali & SRR above.

Cheers.

 

I don't think this is the place for lemmings. And anyone who doesn't consider a Robinson better than a Mayweather has an awful burden to overcome. And make no mistake, that burden is rooted in not only facts and figures, but common sense.

There may be agreement here in regarding fighters in the 40s as better overall than the 00s but only because competing arguments inevitably fail to convince us otherwise.

 

Realitistically, a fight between Mayweather Jr and Robinson at welterweight would be more than competitive.