Sugar Ray Leonard - Greatness Cut Short?

It most certainly could have led to a loss, but I'd still have to favor Ray. You're right though, an upset is very possible against McCallum. In my opinion, a prime McCallum could have potentially beaten or troubled any middleweight in history. He was simply that good, just never got the stardom of other great middleweights.

 

That was the word-that he avoided Ayala and I just got caught up in the hype.

 

Russell.

If Leonard's career had not been cut short by the detached retina injury it could only have worsened Leonard's legacy not improved it. I mean, he is considered the 2nd greatest welterweight of all time by some people - how could he possibly improve upon that? Plus, if anything, the welterweight/light middleweight scene became even more competitive as the 80's unfolded and IMO it would be unlikely that Leonard would not have been beaten again. Public demand and money would probably have created a Leonard Hearns rematch at 154lbs and I firmly believe he would have lost that fight, possibly inside the distance.

The Leonard mystique was only increased by his early 'first' retirement and Leonard definitely played on this. If he had not 'retired' he would not have been able to manipulate the 2nd part of his career as he did historically.

 

:thumbsup

 

:good :good

 

Leonard was the greatest of the last 30 years. Some stunning wins, came back from defeats and lay offs like a demon. He beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, and the much bigger Lalonde.

I never done that with smoke and mirrors.

 

Stick to being a Hopkins fan, it's more believable.

 

Yeah, Leonard probably would have lost a fight or two if hadn't had the lay-off, but he would also have some damn impressive wins. Hearns would always be a tough opponent, and a fight with Hagler, with both in their prime, would have been great. I think he would be ranked more or less as he is now. He would have more great wins on his record, but might well have suffered at least one more loss while in his prime.

A fighter with the heart and skill of Leonard would have had a great legacy no matter what. Because, not even you who obsess with finding cracks in his record do really deny that he had some extraordinary gifts, do you? I agree that his record isn't water tight, but then whose is? It's not that I'm a big fan, it's just obvious for me that he is one of the greatest fighters of the last 30 years. But he seems to have comitted the sin of beating to many of other people's favourites.

 

i thikn the retirement made him an atg...you could say he wouldnt been in his prime if he fought hagler and possibly lost more. thus dullin ghis achievments

 

I'm not a Leonard fan. It's just honesty and being unbiased. I'll stick to being a Hopkins fan, you're right on the money with that one.

Norris and Camacho :yikes

 

I feel exactly the same. Hearns had learnt clinching was part of boxing, he was a little stronger at 154 than 147 whilst i think Leonard lost a little. In short i just think Hearns was a better fighter at 154. Also it would likely have been 12 rounds. I think Hearns would have won here but noway in the world would i count Leonard out.

 

Leonard didn't fight in spurts in his prime.

 

I thinik 12 rounds is the key. Hearns would get over the finish line in 12 rounds with a small but clear points win.

I prefer 15 rounds though.

 

Then you've never watched Sugar Ray in action. Check out Leonard-Duran 1. Ray couldnt keep up with him. Leonard-Hearns 1 action was very sparse by Leonard until Hearns burnt out.

 

You might be right too.