Should we rate Benny Leonard a little higher?

This is an open question as opposed to a persuasion - not necessarily an argument in favour of, nor intended to be a well structured essay, just some food for thought.

Leonard is pretty well regarded anyway, and many if not most posters here seem to have him in their top fifteen all-time list. Less frequently he will appear in the top five - but should it be a case of more frequently?

For a time I rated Duran the greatest lightweight ever, and I can't think why. Ability? Arguable (I'd say painfully even), but not if we're talking about what they accomplished at the weight.

Leonard's record is incredible. At one point, between the years 1917 and 1924 he amassed a streak of 80-2-1 (counting newspaper decisions), the only losses being a four rounder to the excellent Willie Ritchie who he later knocked out and a disqualification to the great welterweight, Jack Britton, with the draw coming against the other great welterweight of the era, Ted Kid Lewis. During this period he also expressed superiority over such Hall of Famers as Johnny Dundee, Johnny Kilbane, Freddie Welsh and Lew Tendler, against whom he resulted 4-0, 1-0, 1-0 and 2-0 respectively - and 2-1 against Britton. Rocky Kansas and the previously mentioned Willie Ritchie were two particularly notables who Leonard went 4-0 and 1-1 with. He beat everyone worth fighting within about ten pounds of the lightweight limit either way; Charley 'KO' White and Soldier Bartfield were among the other top names Leonard beat on his run of dominance.

They say he had it all, scoring high in categories such as 'intelligence', 'technique' and 'movement' whilst also possessing excellent power and a great jaw. It's important to realise that up until Ray Robinson became consensus, Benny Leonard was considered by many to be the greatest of all time and was also a big draw in his own era, commanding massive crowds and setting records. It is interesting to note that although Leonard was stopped five times, four of those occured within his first year fighting (aged fifteen and sixteen) and the other in his very last fight against Jimmy McLarnin - a knockout-free period of twenty years and one hundred and ninety eight bouts.

I rate Leonard #5 and I may move him to #4 on my pound-for-pound list.

 

And me. How about in all divisions, all time?

 

#8 seems to be the typical rating. I'm believing more and more that he's a top five lock.

 

1. Harry Greb
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Ray Robinson
4. Sam Langford
5. Benny Leonard
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Willie Pep
9. Roberto Duran
10. Archie Moore

This is what I seem to have settled on for now, having given Fitzsimmons' fans the benefit of the doubt and moved him up.

11. Joe Gans
12. Packey McFarland
13. Barney Ross
14. Mickey Walker
15. Muhammad Ali

 

Thank you. Looking at a list like that, someone could easily call me biased towards old, sub-heavyweight greats, but I find the simple fact to be that smaller, older fighters tended to box more often and therefore rack up deeper lists of opponents. Ali, while truly great, doesn't have the same phenomenal record as some of those above him*. Neither does Louis, Holmes or Lewis.

Ray Leonard relates to the same point. He didn't fight enough for my liking, even if he crammed in several big wins - Jimmy McLarnin did that too, but even more so; ****, he beat twelve Hall of Famers in a career as long as Hagler's. Leonard rates about twenty four or thereabouts, only because there are too many greats who fought much more than he did.

*A funny thing happens with more famous fighter's opponents, and in particular, Ali's. Some fighters who were good but otherwise unspectacular have their reputations inflated. Two of Ike Williams' opponents who seem perfect comparables - Willie Joyce and Freddie Dawson - were likely better than Ken Norton and Jerry Quarry but are largely forgotten. Ali rates above Williams for me, I'm just saying.