ray robinson v ray leonard?

Robinson at both 147 and 160 by decision.

 

atsch

I'm sorry, I couldn't see anybody at 147 knocking Leonard out. In fact, Prime Leonard beats every other Welterweight in history on his best night, as long as his tactics are right. He would have handled Duran with ease had he not traded in Montreal, and I think the rematch supports that notion. I'll wait for Duran to be rescued on that one though. The fighter with the most excuses in Boxing History.

Leonard would win on points against Robinson at 147, any higher then Robinson wins on points.

 

Why are you waiting for Duran to be rescued for beating Leonard? Duran was out of shape in the rematch, but yes, he lost legitimately - just like Leonard did in the first fight. If Duran had came to the 2nd fight in the same shape and with the same mentality as he did for the 1st, maybe he could have made it as close as the 1st fight and only dropped a decision. What you are saying is pointless really. Basically you are saying that if Leonard fought better, he would've won. But he didn't. And that can be said about any losing fighter and any fight in history. On the night, Duran was the better man.

In saying that, I agree no-one in history could stop Leonard at welterweight. He was just too strong and too good there. I think Robinson would edge it, but Leonard would definitely have a good chance.

 

Are you referring to Leonard's eye injury? That is pretty disrespectful to a boxer who sustained a serious injury. If you think Robinson would win then fine, but that's a shitty comment.

 

There you go.

You rescued him.

 

You rescued Leonard for getting beat fair and square.

 

Robinson UD maybe even late KO

 

It's not boxing, it's an armchair warrior referring to an injury when there was no need to do so. If you are a real boxing fan, leave the insults out of it, respect boxers, and make your comment.

 

The results in both rematches would indicate that my opinion holds some weight. Leonard lost fair and square, but he fought the wrong fight.

 

Duran lost fair and square, but he wasn't in as good shape as the 1st fight.

You see - we could do this all day. Your initial comment about Duran was harsh.

 

OK, you crack jokes about boxers' injuries then, that's hilarious.

You can't buy class like that.

 

Had Duran been competitive in either of the rematches, I would be inclined to agree. A lateral moving slick boxer like Leonard from the second and third fight is something Duran could never handle at 147.

A little guy named Wilfred Benitez would probably agree with me.

 

- Benitez won on the night because he was a great fighter, it was not a purely stylistic victory. Benitez was a young, natural welterweight. Duran was older, and a natural lightweight. Duran beat all types of fighters in his career.

- The 3rd Leonard v Duran fight is irrelevant here, the Duran who fought that night was not the same Duran as the one who won the Brawl In Montreal.

- You implied Duran's career is propped up on excuses. I disagree. He was possibly the best lightweight in history, won titles at multiple weight divisions over nearly two decades, fought regularly at weights far too high for him against the best opposition. When he lost (DeJesus, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez), he lost fairly and legitimately. Same when he won (DeJesus, Leonard, Barkley, Cuevas, Moore).

Two men got in the ring, Leonard and Duran. They were both in top condition. They went at it for 15 rounds. One man won. No excuses. Give the winner the credit he deserves. End of story.

 

Benitez won because he didn't brawl with Duran.

Leonard was not the same man who fought the Brawl in Montreal. In fact, Leonard was the more inactive of the two fighters at the time, so if anybody has father time as an excuse it should be Leonard.

Besides that, fair enough. :good