Someone explain why Ray Leonard is ranked so highly?

Norris only had one essential advantage in the fight, and it was reflected on sir birth certificates.

 

The same could be said about Leonard, re: the Hagler fight.

The question is are people stupid enough to swallow it as an excuse for the result?

 

that's no evidence

as for mine, it would surely explain why his sudden interest in Hagler and his better than expected showing. anyone can look great against a shot fighter.

Everything I say just adds up and ties together perfectly!

btw, I didnt see your man hold on to his title six years

and yet u still like to pretend which is something I never do. no sir, I just lay out the facts one by one

I have comments by Antuofuermo, editors of KO magazine (no Hagler lovers themselves). Gil Clancy. even leonard himself!

and btw, most fighters are done by the time of their last fight, especially when they dont return. becuz they know they're done

well, that's more than you have. You might say my proof is stronger by mega miles!

btw, you wouldnt care to comment why Leonard said after viewing the fight with Mugabi why he said "I can beat Hagler!"

its not as tho he never saw any of Hag's fights. In fact, he did commentary for them going all the way back to hs first def. Jan. 1981

I dont recall ever hearing the words "I can beat him". I DID hear the words "I'd like to give him a shot if only he would handicap himself and drop 6 pounds becuz I'm too chicken he might destroy me if I ever step over the 154pound limit"

 

Who on earth is "[my] man?"

Actually, the collective opinion of the ratings board IS evidence, just like the opinion of the writer you cited is evidence. What it isn't is what you claimed it to be - proof.

There's a world of difference between Leonard - an ATG - thinking that he could beat Hagler, on the one hand, and Hagler being "shot," on the other.

 

"your man" - Leonard, the guy you INSIST is an "ATG" yet failed to win a round from Norris

better you should address the words of Vito Antuofuermo "any challenger to Hagler's title could beat him"

yeah, i'm sure you know who THAT is

better you should address the words of Ray leonard as quoted by Tim Ryan instead of trying to play it down "Sugar Ray said Hagler had lost a lot of speed. he said he was counting on the slowness of Hagler"

well friend (do you mind if I call you friend?), that pretty much settles the argument. call it what you like but any way you look at it, it's still proof and you are **** out of luck

the ratings dont take into account Hagler's digrssion and never have, whilst on the other hand, the observation of Hagler's performance DOES

see? Everything I say makes sense. yours is mere jibberish. sounds good but lacks any truth to it. as you can see, realism and truth are very important to me


btw, prove Leonard was shot when he lost to Norris. i didnt see anything in his domination of Duran that suggest a real decline

 

that's the problem with people like that. they're used to making claims without being challenged and once theyre backed up, they dont have an intelligent reply waiting

they have alot of talking points "Hagler never dances unless he knows he lost"

but they dont' have any critical thinking skills

 

I suppose it depends what you mean by "all-time great," but I imagine that Leonard qualifies in the opinion of almost every widely accepted boxing historian/authority, e.g. Bert Sugar, Herb Goldman, Teddy Atlas who ranked him as the #5, #2, and #7 all-time welterweight, respectively. He was also in everybody's top 2 or 3 pound for pound, in his prime. I guess I could construct an argument that he isn't an all-time great if I wanted to, but why would I deliberately try to look ridiculous?

As for Norris, he was a great fighter who was pushing 24 and pretty much in his prime when he fought Leonard, and Leonard was pushing 35. The fact that Leonard looked good against a 38-year old Duran - more than a year before the Norris fight - doesn't mean that he wasn't in decline. When you rely primarily on speed - particularly at the lower weight classes - it's hard to do in your 30s what you could do in your 20s. But don't take my word for it...just fast forward from the Leonard fight eight years, when Norris was markedly younger than Leonard had been at the time of the Norris fight, and watch Norris start losing to people like Keith Mullings, Dana Rosenblatt, and Laurent Boudouani. Is it your position that a prime Norris beats a prime Leonard?

Moving on to Antuofermo, a couple of possibilities suggest themselves:
1) Maybe he was bitter that his glory days were behind him while a man almost the same age was still in the ring winning title defenses -something Antuofermo was never able to do - and enjoying a career that far eclipsed his own.

2) Maybe Antuofermo was just wrong. Retired athletes don't make infallible - or even particularly good - handicappers. The fact that Leonard DID beat Hagler - barely, on a disputed decision - doesn't mean that "any challenger" could have.

As for Leonard, he came up with a fight plan, and it worked. That fact that Leonard thought he could beat Hagler didn't mean that Hagler was "shot."

Other than Duran, nobody was even going the distance with Hagler, let alone coming close to bearing him. You offer as *evidence* (which is not proof) the opinions of three people - Leonard, Antuofermo, and an anonymous writer for KO. Leonard didn't say Hagler was shot. Antuofermo was biased. And your third witness...well, we don't even know who that is. On the other hand, we have pretty much everybody who was rating boxers. Who on earth didn't have Hagler as a top 5 P4P fighter at the time? And we have his knockout of the unanimous #1 challenger in his most recent fight.

As for critical thinking skills...well, sometimes LOL just doesn't say it. But do feel free to call me friend.

 

I recall a 1980 issue of KO reviewing the Minter fight in which Vito is interviewed. I never once read a hint of harshness towards Hagler

In fact, Vito gave Hagler advice on mentally drowning out the crowd having fought there himself and attended the fight that night

your "maybes" dont add up to Vito having bias in which his assessment should be discounted

if you're going to rely on opinions of those in the fight game then u shouldnt dsicriminate against someone who would best be able to assess Hagler's abilities, Vito who faced him not once but twice. and since, I've never seen evidence of bitterness or jealousy on Vito's part

i'll take Vito's word over yours anyday

as for Ray being an ATG, that CAN be disputed. Did we see any problems in his previous bout? you were reluctant to give a definite answer. that implies you have doubt and must rephrase the question to your liking.

a fair question would be,, were his legs failing him? did he have problems using them? did they resemble lead weights? was he limited to throwing one or two at a time or did we see 6-8 punch combos?

Did Ray tire throughout? was he getting hit repeatedly, like say Hagler in his last few bouts?

I recall the booing protesting for excessive movement which does not point to a downturn in his speed and movement! Further, he won every round, leaving Roberto in the dust and wasnt breathing hard by the conclusion

the combinations, the accolades from Tim Ryan (what an absolutely brilliant performance!) and Steve Farhood (Ray fought the perfect fight)


how does one fight the perfect fight if one is faded?

so far, your case is getting weaker and weaker with each reply while mine grows stronger

and to add to the strength is the lopsidedness of his loss to Norris. Having gone from dominating to BEING dominated in one fight points to a glraing weakness in handling younger more mobile fighters

If the opponent is Dave Green, and other flatfooted straight ahead fighters, he excels. but once faced with speed & mobility, Ray just doesnt have the first clue. Like I said, if your guy were half the fighter you and yours say he is, he wouldve had no problem with this guy. but now all we see are excuses from the apologists

I repeat, he wouldve had no problems. Just lookit Julian Jackson!

although, you could make a strong case for Ray being ranked 7th welter of all time for what that's worth. I have no problem with that

 

He went 5-1-1 (3) vs. Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler. Sure, a case can be made that he lost the rematch to Hearns (it was a 12 round draw) and some even feel that he lost a 12 round decision to Hagler but regardless of the outcomes he was a great fighter... as were they.

Benitez lost to Leonard by KO, beat Duran by decision, lost to Hearns by decision, and never fought Hagler.

Duran beat Leonard by close 15 round decision, lost to Leonard by TKO, lost to Leonard by 12 round decision, lost to Benitez by decision, lost to Hearns by a crushing 2nd round KO, and lost to Hagler by 15 round decision.

Hearns lost to Leonard by KO, drew with Leonard, beat Benitez by 15 round decision, beat Duran by KO, and lost to Hagler by KO.

Hagler beat Duran by decision, beat Hearns by KO, and lost by 12 round split-decision to Leonard.

He has to be ranked above these guys in my opinion.

 

So maybe Vito wasn't biased; maybe he was just wrong. What was he basing his comment on, watching sparring sessions? Surely not the Mugabi fight, because one wouldn't say that "any" contender could have beaten him when the TOP contender had just been outboard and knocked out?

One can certainly fight the perfect fate if one is faded, and if the opponent is MORE faded (or stylistically tailor-made), it may be enough. As an example, who would dispute that the Ali who fought Foreman was faded? Yet he fought the perfect fight, and one.

Again, there's a difference in one's 20s vs. one's 30s, and you only have to look at Norris's own record to see that. What happens when a Leonard in his 20s fights someone with speed and mobility? Ask Wilfredo Benitez.

As for Leonard-Duran III, let me add the accolades of Barry Hugman to those of Ryan and Farhood (though saying that he fought the perfect fight is merely a stamp of approval on his ring intelligence - the flight plan - and is no evidence in support of your claim that he hadn't faded):

" In one of the most disappointing contests between once great fighters Leonard (160) was content to stay on the outside, scoring whenever he could, while the ponderous Duran (158) followed after him... [in] the 11th... the Panamanian inflicted a bad cut on his left eye. With Leonard’s corner unable to stem the flow of blood it was surprising that Duran failed to take advantage of the situation, seemingly happy to plod along to the final bell"

I agree wholeheartedly with Hugman's take on the fight.

The "ATG" aspect of our discussion, as I expected, simply comes down to what you mean by the term, if you have no problem with Leonard being rated #7 at 147; I think that anyone who is one of the seven best in history at his weight class can be fairly considered an all-time great (I guess with the possible exception of a fairly new weight class or one that has a real historic dearth of talent, neither of which applies to the welterweight division).

My initial post that spun this off had nothing to do with bolstering Leonard; I was simply calling out the claim that Hagler was "shot."

I think Leonard won this fight at the negotiating table as much as in the ring. They had differences over the size of the ring (Leonard wanted bigger), the size of the gloves (Leonard wanted heavier), and the distance of the fight (Leonard wanted 12 rounds; Hagler 15). Haggler, who needed the fight more than Leonard, conceded every point, and all three worked to Leonard's advantage

 

What are you dribbling on about, spunk breath? I was referring to Benitez, whom you mocked for being roughed up by a bigger, stronger fighter. But no, you've managed to spin it around to Leonard like you always do. You're as one dimensional a troll as the contenders Hagler feasted on during his puffed up reign.



Here's one thing you need to comprehend, little red rooster: I could not give a flying f*ck about Leonard being slapped around like a ***** by Camacho and Norris. Besides seeing those fights for exactly what they were, I'm not so emotionally attached to a grown man that continued references to his lowest points would actually bother me, which is more than can be said for you and your bizarre, everlasting man crush on some chump who ran home crying like a school girl over a loss, became a recluse and forced his wife to file a restraining order against him.



The reason you responded to me in the first place is because I took a dig at Hagler's achievements, for f*ck sake. You are so utterly and completely in love with the man.

 

Were you born thick and slow or was it a concerted effort on your part?

 

Speaking of comments made by Vito Antuofermo:

As it happens, I can actually provide a legitimate source for this particular quote. No need to rely on some unverified, warped remembrance from some crazed, middle aged loon.

 

LOL looks like I missed a third possible explanation for the Antuofermo quote - Rooster just made it up.

 

Little red roosters next line of spin: Antuofermo was actually predicting Leonard to stop the decrepit, fragile Hagler inside of three rounds and Vito's advice was his way of looking out for Hagler as he feared Leonard would seriously hurt the old man.



By the way, don't expect that absolute fruit to be able to see the flaws behind disputing Leonard as an ATG while acknowledging that an argument for him being ranked among the seven greatest welterweights in history - a division universally considered to be among the deepest and richest in the sports history - is perfectly reasonable.