Someone explain why Ray Leonard is ranked so highly?

domination is a fact of life and happens in may areas of life where contests of any sort are involved such as debates like this one, superbowls of the 1980s, and boxing matches (Norris-leonard)

i think they're cool

when one contestent has mastered the other, this leads to domination, demoralization, oft times embarassment :bbb

 

Now go out and shake a can so you and da missus can actually go and SEE a fight

 

Elton would know a lot about "domination": he's spent the better part of a month being continually "dominated" by a number of posters.



Sick ******* probably pays for this sort of treatment in his personal life. :-(

You mean besides being a mental midget? Being useless at cutting the ring off? Not having the balls to ever call out a fighter above his own weight class? That's the only thing Mah-vis is guilty of?

Who's the rest of us? You and the three voices in your head attempting to convince you that you still have some leg to stand on in this argument?


Do you know what politicians do? They lie, they spin, they refuse to accept reality - all traits you've perfected in this very thread alone.

 

That's wonderful to know: some turd-twiddler on a forum instantly thinks of an anonymous user on an internet forum as he's making a concerted effort to tread in dog **** in the street.

 

really struck a nerve this time didnt I?

but then again, its just u I'm debating and out of the four of u, u have the least to offer. that's why your replies are so short and pathetic, kind of like your d*ck

listen little boy why dont u run along and play mind games with your little sister than come back in a few years when u get to be a man

 

Elton says he struck a nerve then proceeds to reference both his ***** and his troubled relationship with his sister (possible link here, perhaps?) all in one single post.



A "debate", he calls it - your delusional state is truly admirable.

 

Nope...my three favorites of the 80s are Sanchez, Hagler, and Holmes. My posts are about facts and opinions of ability, not "favorites."

I never went out of my way to discredit Antuofermo. I initially made the mistake of believing that he said what you claimed he said, and you asked why he might have that opinion, so I speculated as to why he might have an opinion that differed from over 90% of experts polled. Of course, I came to realize that he never made the claim you attributed to him, so it was all moot.

Actually, you're the one who changed the words of Ryan/Leonard (unless you just made them up, as with Antuofermo). Your original quote there was that Hagler "had lost a lot of speed," which you then tried to twist to "he was shot." I didn't replace any comments; I just pointed out that a fighter can lose a lot of speed and not be shot, particularly when that fighter doesn't primarily rely on speed in the first place. If your initial comment was that Hagler had lost a lot of speed by the time he fought Leonard, I wouldn't have disagreed with you in the first place. Instead, you took the asinine position that he was shot.

I didn't compare Leonard to Ali; I used Ali when you asked for an example of a fighter who had lost a lot of speed but was not shot. If you don't agree that 1) Ali wasn't shot in the mid-70s, and 2) Ali had lost a lot of speed by the mid-70s, then you've actually raised your own bar for ignorance, and I didn't think that was possible, so congratulations.

I didn't say that or anything like it.

It's bad enough you have to make up stuff that Antuofermo never said; now you're making up stuff that I never said. Not only do I not "keep" saying that; I NEVER ONCE compared Leonard's hiatus to Ali's.

I think of him as a great fighter with a short peak, but one who for a while stood clearly on top of a division that was loaded with talent.

 

that wasnt much better

this coming from a guy who thinks he's replying to Elton John

same "you're delusional" repeats as before, no originality. that's what happens when u are stumped by someone of superior intellect, breeding, & class

how I hate beating up on dumb mutts on public forums

 

its not that I'm making up stuff that Vito said; its that u cant accept what Vito said and that is the reason u have tried your best since day 1 to explain it away. THAT is the problem

moreover, Hagler's division was superior to Leonard's. check it out: wheras the welters only had ONE puncher, the middleweights had several: Sibson, Obel, Scypion, Roldan, and later Hearns & Mugabi

In fact, one of the top middelweights- Hamsho was better than one of the top welters & Jr middles - Benitez

but u cant accept that either which is why u make up stroies u cant prove and have no basis (Benitez peaked early & dried up at 25)

I havent seen one explanation which means, you're stuck

the truth is that the mauling brawling crude but effective bullying tactics of Hamsho neutralized the boxing skills of Benitez. round after round, Mustafa got physical with him, slobbered all over him, and round after round, Wilfred had no answer

that spells superiority

regarding Ali & Leonard, you're always comparing the two. in fact, u compared Ali's performance vs Foreman with Leonard's against Hagler (predictable)

then u told me ALi fougt the perfect fight but never explained how

i bet u dont even think of these things until I bring them up

that's cuz I'm smarter than u

alo, why call out a guy after 5 yrs to fight when the same guy says he lost a lot of speed and that he is counting on him to be slow? :smoke

If I'm c*cky its cuz I have reason to be

goodbye

 

You asked me to explain it; I offered possible explanations. Even if Vito DID say that (and again, I'll give you $500 if you can prove it), his was just one opinion, and it was CLEARLY a minority opinion. The overwhelming majority of experts felt that Hagler was a top P4P fighter at the time of the Leonard fight, and would beat him.

The middleweight division was very good in the 80s. Top to bottom, maybe it WAS better (though at the very top, I think the welterweight division was better...Hearns was certainly better than whoever you want to say the second-best middleweight was. And your Benitez/Hamsho example is flawed; Benitez was better as a welterweight than Hamsho was as a middleweight).

But top-to-bottom, sure, let's say that 160 was a better division. What's your point in mentioning that? I never said Leonard was better than Hagler P4P. I said that Hagler wasn't shot at the time of the Leonard fight. In fact, your point about the strength of the divisions helps my argument, if anything. Hagler's most recent fight was a knockout of one of the guys you just cited to show how good the middleweight division was.

Sure I can; see above. This is the first time you made the point that the middleweight division was better than the welterweight division.

Since you occasionally make a good point, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that this commen is beneath you. Benitez was THE YOUNGEST WORLD CHAMPION IN THE HISTORY OF BOXING. It's insane to say that there "no basis" to say that peaked early. You're hurting your own credibility much more than anything I could say here.

Sorry, one explanation for what?

Hamsho was certainly superior to Benitez at that time and in that weight class.

In the sense that both fighters turned in great performances against world champions in fights they were expected to lose. I think their careers have some parallels, and obviously, they do.

As I recall, your point in bringing up Ali-Foreman was to show that Ali wasn't past his prime, which he obviously was. Ali fought the perfect fight against Foreman in that he recognized Foreman's biggest weakness - lack of stamina - and devised a plan to both exploit that weakness and neutralize his biggest strength - punching power. By periodically letting Foreman hit him, but controlling WHEN and WHERE he hit him (mostly on the arms), he managed to do something that Foreman's other opponents couldn't do - drag him into the middle rounds and shake his confidence. Ali wasn't in his prime in '74, but he didn't need to be, because he had enough skils AND the perfect fight plan to win anway.

Actually, it's because your statements are so random...so completely incidental to the discussion...that they're very difficult to anticipate. Please elaborate on how the fact that Hamsho beat Benitez means that Hagler was shot when he fought Leonard?!

I imagine because he wanted the money, and he wanted to win the fight. Again, I never claimed that the '87 Hagler was as good as the early 80s Hagler.

 

He/s going to make the money anyways.

why call out a guy after 5 yrs to fight when the same guy says he lost a lot of speed and that he is counting on him to be slow?

 

$500, how dumb.

$500 doesnt tempt me anyways and how would u deliver it?

its obvious u dont think things thru

 

at the time, Tommy was second best but not for long it seems. he didnt make it to even one successful defense. his chin & stamina were not up to par with the Hamsho's the Sibson's, Fletchers, etc

Benitez, can u prove Benitez was a better welter than Hamsho was a middleweight? u seem to know very little about him

Wilfred barely got past H. Weston (a draw) while Curry was ripped off. those were his two most demanding challenges at the weight

and a win over so-so Palomino proves little

On the other hand, Mustafa owns wins over fighters they said he would lose and lose badly to including Watts, Scypion, Parker, Minter, Czyz, & Benitez

consistent wins. dominant wins. I would put more stock in Hamsho's wins @ a160 than I would Benitez' draw & the other a robbery

also, I dont buy none of his excuses either, excuses such that "Wilfred forgot to train", "was too lazy in the gym"

all of those are bull**** excuses

Benitez was a bum, a lamb, no passion, no firepower, no balls. nothing. I would even go so far as to say Wilfred was a lucky champion

 

Domination is a fact of life! And a great song!! How old are you WG!!

 

Ugh!!! Foxy is just as bad if not worse than Elroy!!