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

You're not excused! You are reframing my statements inaccurately and then addressing those. That's fallacious argumentation.

Where did I say that Leonard did not deserve credit for the win? I said it was controversial -and that is a fact. I do credit him for the win and have called it a well-suited cap to a brilliant career. But that win warrants an asterisk.

I said was that Ray was obsessed with beating Hagler, but I also said that this went beyond mere feeling -he put it into action with strategy and serious training for months. That's not "speculation based on the opinion that he was obsessed." He was in excellent condition in every way and it is simply wrong to assert that he was in "worse shape" than Hagler.

Your overriding point is nothing more than your overriding point. And if it were the "end of story", we wouldn't be debating it now.

It's clear to me that you are far more of an apologist for Leonard than I am a detractor. I'm a fan of both Hagler and Leonard -but an honest one who looks at the total picture without closing my eyes to facts and factors that may be uncomfortable.

 

This is lifted from an article in the "Sweet Science" by George Kimball:

The aftermath of Hagler’s devastating win [over Hearns] produced an immediate guessing game of “Who’s Next?”

The most likely suspect immediately took himself out of the running.

“If I ever needed a reason to stay retired, that was it,” said Ray Charles Leonard.

...so there you go.

 

Whar do you make of the comments between Ryan and Clancy heard in Round 6 when commentator Ryan quoted him as saying "Sugar Ray said Marvin had lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of Hagler". It's right there on the tape which only proves my point all along so there's no use denying it any further.

I saw Marvin training for this fight and watched as Marvin spent the evening in an exercise in futility reaching his sparring partners-more proof Marvin should not have been in the ring at all.

I saw him in training and you didnt so please refrain from saying the rest of us are uneducated. It is you who need enlightenment on the subject.


I also remember many people I ran into telling how RAY was going to beat him so the phrase "everybody thought Hagler would win" is utterly false.

When you say the word "everybody" please keep in mind this only applies in the case of Terry Norris. It was Norris that defied the odds when everybody (but myself) picked Ray to win. Sugar had much the greater experience but none of that mattered to Terry.

Was leonard past it as all his supporters like to say? Far from it! After his last fight concluded, Tim Ryan congradulated him saying "that was an absolutely masterful performance" and which Ray very much agreed.

Regarding Hagler, just remember Leonard was inactive because he CHOSE to be during the prime of MMH obviously he continued his career which was suppossed to be for one fight only but we know it really wasn't.

In effect, admitting that you are waiting for Hagler to slow and continuing your career after Hagler retires tells you that Leonard didnt want any part of him but for his fans beating his shell is as good as the real thing.

 

Thats when Leonard was retired, but that doesn't squash my take on it when it was due to happen in 1982.

 

SRL was actually joking about trhe catchweight, as well as building the fight up and catching some attention on the matter. He had intentions of facing Hagler at 160 and had already tested the water at 154 as a possible precursor. The retina is of course a true story, Leonard was at his peak and not about to release his grasp of higher greatness for no small reason.

 

He said he was joking about the catchweight due to all the flack he'd been getting. Leonard had never been the subject of ridicule until after Norris finished with him. I doubt he would put Larry Merchant in front of Hagler on HBO to ask, only to say it was all a joke.


Did Leonard ever make good on his promise to meet a champion at a catchweight? Yes. Being that he wasn't as strong as past champions, he needed more help to compete and less demanding opposition, such as Donny Lalonde.

The retina of course was a cover up. Tackling Hagler & Hearns when he did made his career look much better than actually was. But we have Terry Norris to thank for exposing just how inept Ray Leonard really was in a fight. This fight revealed why SRL was so choosy with opponents.

 

I wrote this: "* Leonard's refusal to meet Hagler earlier."

... you response to it began with this: "this is a myth."

"Earlier" means before 1987. That last rebuttal solidly illustrates that Leonard was not willing to meet Hagler until Leonard was convinced that Hagler had slowed down. Leonard's apologists continue to run from Leonard's own words and admissions in their insistance on glorifying his career. See selfkill's posts for an example.

In my book, Leonard's unwillingness to meet Hagler earlier as well as the several other hard-line negotiations that Trainer insisted on taints the victory. Which is why I continue to assert and believe that Duran's 1983 loss was more impressive than Leonard's 1987 win because 1. Duran was in there for 15 rounds. If Hagler insisted on 15, there would have been no fight. 2. Duran challenged a younger and therefore more dangerous version of Hagler. 3. Duran fought him inside the perimeter.

 

Marvin Hagler agreed to get in the ring with Leonard and then he lost on points.

 

The majority of Boxing fans and experts believed Sugar Ray Leonard would lose. It's only in victory that he is scrutinized.

 

You say in your last post that "my only point is that Leonard deserves credit." Okay, I agree.

However, in a preceding post you say that "Overriding point is, Leonard deserves nothing but credit for beating a man nobody thought he could beat. End of story."

And that I don't agree with. So, which is it...?

 

Accrding to who? That wasn't the impression I had. and why didnt you address the rest of my post? Hell, you must be scared shitless to address it.

 

They are both exactly the same. Leonard deserves nothing but credit for the victory. It isn't hard to comprehend. The man beat a world class fighter above his natural weight when he himself was on the slide. Give the man a break.

 

You are notorious for being anti-Leonard so not a lot you will say on him holds much ground as far as I'm concerned.

 

They are both not exactly the same. I never disagreed that Leonard "deserves credit". But to say that he deserves "nothing but credit" is a poor attempt to ignore the legitimate criticisms that question the purity of that victory. I tell you that someone who says that Leonard deserves nothing but credit for the Hagler win is either a. an apologist or b. naive or c. BOTH.

In addition, if you see no difference in the competing meanings of your 2 phrases about credit, then I'd question your education.

 

Nevermind. :huh