Listen, I'm not saying Leonard isn't an all time great. I'd easily include him the top 100 boxers of all time, but he is regularly placed top 30, top 20, even TOP 10! I don't see the justification of placing him this high, I feel much comfortable placing him around 50-60. The fact of the matter for me is that him retiring so young really dampens his legacy (yes I understand the retina issue). I feel like he had potential to be a top 20, but he only fought 6 times from 1982-1989 and he was beyond his prime once he did make a decent comeback. He was outsmarted by Duran the 1st time, and came back to outsmart Duran the second time, I'll give him that. He showed great resilience in coming back to defeat Tommy the first time. He came back to have a very close fight against Marvin which he won, I'll give him credit there, but he did wait til Marvin was battle worn. He waited til Tommy was way beyond his prime before he gave him a rematch, and Tommy still won (despite what the judges were watching) Like I said, top 50 or top 60 boxer of all time, but how do people consider him in the top 30, 20, or even the ridiculous idea of being top 10?
He was certainly an upper tier modern great. Top 10 seems extreme though. Bentiez, Duran, and Hearns are spectacular wins. Coming off a long lay off to get the nod over Hagler was impressive as well. Even Lalonde was a nice win considering he was a LHW Belt Holder.
He had the full package, and was exciting as well. His H2H talent and legacy put him up there he beat elite fighter after elite fighter.
Do you think he belongs in top 20 or 30 then if people agree that top 10 is ridiculous? Like I said, top 50 or 60 seems more reasonable to me at least
Id have to agree!!..key moment here being "He did beat elite fighters". Top 10 might be stretching it, but I wouldnt lose any sleep over putting him in the top 20. He was great nobody can deny that!
Well that's two different things, "top ten all-time" and "top ten all-time talent." The latter could easily be argued. In fact, it could be hard to argue against. But as we all know, "Great" means more than just talent. Talent itself is only one component.
Level of opposition … Ray was one of the top ten of the second half of the 20th Century .. the man was the real thing .. he had it all ..
I know what your saying if your arguing is he top 20 top 30, there's such a depth of talent over the last 100 odd years. Out of curiosity who would you pick to beat him prime for prime in a series at 147, the Leonard that beat Hearns?
Beating a prime Leonard at 147 would not be an easy task!!..Even Duran couldnt make it look easy no matter how hard he tried!
Leonard was superb, but to suggest 'he had it all' is rubbish; he lacked humility and arguably a personality...
These normally aren't thought of as boxing traits so I don't know how that applies to what he does in the ring, outside of the hotdogs he did in his 2nd fight with Duran.
great fighter and had the good fortune of fighting and beating some great fighters, even in his loss to a prime & fit Duran he put up a good fight in losing but on top of that he stopped Tommy Hearns at Welter and beat Marvelous Marvin ( I thought Mavin would be too much) fast hand, good feet, and power as well as ring smart. Another thing we overlook is that Leonard had great killer instinct & finishing skills, look at Hearns 1, Andy"the Hawk" Price, Dave"boy"Green
