Sugar Ray Leonard: best P4P since Robinson, best welterweight ever, or neither??

That's about it for me too, sir.

 

I would put Gavilan and maybe Griffith ahead of Leonard at 147 post 1950. But that means he still tops the Napoles... And no one pre Robinson tops him either IMO.

Now pound for pound; Ali, Monzon, Duran and Chavez top him post 1960.

 

Yeah, ahead of both.

 

A few places ahead of Benny and just behind Barney.

 

Negative. Definitely not Chavez, and I rate him above Monzon.

 

Leonard was a smart fighter!

 

Leonard is a controvertial figure on this forum for many reasons and pasions can run high. Many people do not like what he represented and he beat a lot of peoples favourite fighters which some people can never forgive him for.

If you cut through the politics and sh1t then, yes he is one of the greatest welterweights and pound for pound fighters of all time. From a historical perspective there is simply no other way you can slice it.

I could not say that he is the best pound for pound fighter since Robinson because there have been so many great fighters in diferent weight classes since then.

Among the great historic welterweights his only peers are Tommy Ryan, Joe Walcott, Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray himself.

 

Both men accomplished so much that to me in the all time rankings it's Robinson's 92 fight undefeated streak that absolutely seals the deal. SRL can't touch that! In a head to head match up it's a tough call; one I can't make. As far as all time great fighters from 147-160 I see no problem putting SRL in the top 3.

 

I'd say that this is the stand-out post here.

When Ray too the WW title from Benitez, he made one defense, then lost it to Duran. He reclaimed it from Duran, and then made 3 defenses. Three. Then he retired. He had 40 career fights. 40. Gavilan and Robinson had 40 fights before they were 22 years old.

What makes Leonard great is that he had high profile fights against other great fighters. I think that he showed brilliance in a close fight with Benitez, sealed his status as a great in the loss against Duran and then, with that fight giving him the experience and juice he absolutely needed for Hearns, Leonard propelled himself into ATG greatness against Hearns. Faded, jaded Hagler was a nice coup de grace, although I don't like his little tricks in gaining every conceivable advantage before and during the fight -it taints the purity of the non-win. I'd also agree that Duran showed more brilliance against a younger Hagler 4 years earlier.

Head-to-head, he's a tough one to beat. I'm frickin' positive that Robinson takes him. I'm not at all sure about anyone else, ever.

Leonard is a top 3 all-time WW. Top 15 p4p. He is above neither Duran or Ali.

 

The biggest difference between Leonard and Robinson is power. Leonard had plenty of it but Robinson might just have hit harder than even Hearns.

Griffith would make it a 50-50 fight and it would be a split decision. Emile definitely rates higher in a p4p sense.

Ryan is a good call too...

 

Thanks Stonehands, great post by you also, i too agree that Rbinson beats him, i dont wanna sound like someone who just thinks Robinson beats everyone (although possibly!!), but i do think he would get the win there.

 

By every conceivable advantage you mean a smaller ring and a 12 round fight. Wow, the deck was sure stacked against Hagler, who was the naturally bigger fighter, had 2 previous fights that were 12 round affairs, and he was the reigning middleweight champ with 12 title defences.

Its simple, Leonard should not have beaten Hagler, who was the bigger fighter and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time. Hagler may have been past his best but to bring that up allows us to also factor in that Leonard had only 1 fight in 5 years. Even if it was a split decision, history and logic tells us Leonard shouldn't have won that fight, much the same way that Duran shouldn't have beaten Leonard first time around but he did. Please don't go discrediting Leonard's win there and saying Duran's close (but clear) losing effort was a better accomplishment.

 

Sugar Ray Leonard doesn't get the credit he deserves. Probably has the greatest top 4 wins in the history of boxing and won titles at multiple weights. He is top 5 P4P for me, and the greatest welterweight ever, in my opinion.

 

Two things stand out in my mind that will forever mar Leonard's rank as a fighter.

One is that he never fought the best of Marvin Hagler (by choice) and two, he was brutally outclassed by Norris.

It's simple, Norris should not have beaten Leonard who, was a five time champion and arguably the greatest welterweight of his time. Remember, Norris was at a severe disadvantage in terms of overall experience and was faced with a living legend on the heels of a most brutal knockout loss to Julian Jackson.

Inactivity was not a factor here since Sugar Ray had been relatively busy over the last four years and showed little or no signs of slippage from his earlier years. Leonard also had not recieved a loss in years and was on an astounding 11 year win streak.

Even if it were a split decision in favor of Norris, history and logic tells us Norris shouldn't have won the fight, let alone turn it into a one sided win the way he did. The important thing to remember is not what should have happend in the fight but rather what actually happened in comparison with what was expected to happen that makes this all the more an impressive achievement for Terry.

This was a major accomplishment that went down in the annals of sports history that musn't be ignored. This was every bit as great an accomplishment as was Buster Douglas' miracle win over Tyson and Antuofuermo's miracle draw against Hagler in '79.

Let's please not downplay the significance of this important victory. I can understand all the hate Terry recieves because of it (destroying one of boxing's most beloved idols) but let's be honest and give proper credit to the man who made Ray Leonard bow in acknowledgement of fistic superiority.