Sugar Ray Leonard On April 6 1987

After admitting that Hagler was FAR more removed from his prime than Leonard was, you go back to claiming that they were both past prime.
It is like comparing 1996 Tyson with 2004 Holyfield and claiming that if '96 Tyson beat '04 Holyfield then it would have been "on the level" due to both of them being past prime.

"Loudon" being exposed once again.
I know that you lied even when you wrote that you were done here, but come back for more embarrassment, just to show who you are to everyone whom is still unfamiliar with your ESB persona.

 

Look everyone, heads up!
I found z1 whom counts Lalonde @ 168 2 Leonard's credit as a DOUBLE TITLE (168 & 175)
How impressing!
Now you convinced me after all this time!

 

Lalonde actually weighed in at 167, however the weight stip from Leonard was that he couldn't weigh more than 169 even though his 175 title was up for grabs.

In fairness it should be pointed out Donny had weighed in in the 160's 6 times before out of 33 fights.

 

What the f*ck are you rambling on about you lunatic?

READ CAREFULLY:

In 1987, Ray Leonard was NOT near his prime.

Go and find me one person who agrees with you. He'd only fought once in 5 years, and he looked like sh*t against Howard. His peak was around 7 years earlier.

If you want to claim he was a lot fresher than Marvin, that's fine. Both guys were faded. But Ray still deserves credit for the win.

It's you who's exaggerated, and you're now inventing an*logies to try and cover yourself.

I must have been stupid to have debated with you in the first place.

 

Sure, more people thought Hagler was going to win than Leonard. But as I said quite a few prominent people in boxing did pick Leonard.

 

Whatever he looked like against Howard was him. You now suggest that he was past prime in 1982.
Still you repeat your admission that he was far fresher than Hagler was @ 1987, which is what we agreed upon, but you try to make it seem "on the level" by claiming just that they were both faded in 1987 . If Hagler was far mre faded (agreed twice, did not we?) in 1987, why does Leonard deserve credit for it?
And I repeated myself and others for what? only 3 times in this thread alone already that Leonard had much more to his advantage than just being the fresher man by far (youth, ring, gloves, duration, judges, who knows what more).

 

Do we really need to take this any further?

The only thing I've ever disagreed with, was when you said that Leonard was near his prime. Now we both know that you exaggerated there. But it's cool.

Yes, Ray still deserves credit for the win. Despite not fighting as many fights as Marvin and being fresher, he was still a big underdog. How can you not give him any credit? He'd fought once in 5 years, and he was at his peak at WW. He'd also never fought at MW before.

 

it took you enough time to finally admit that.

 

Already explained a sufficient amount of times why he deserves no credit.
His youth advantage was only 1 out of at least 4 advantages which I already enumerated.
I did not exaggerate about Leonard being nearly prime unless you compare him to how he was before his retinal problems began, which may be well before his prime.
"Prime" Leonard had the same if not worse retinal problems than his 1987 version had. At least by 1987 he was already past surgeries that partially (even if only temporarily) succeeded to improve his condition. During his "prime" (or well before it if you have his retinal problem as an excuse to your disagreement to him being even NEARLY prime) he might have been unaware of his problem or unable to do anything against it.

 

In fairness Lalonde never made 168 or below after his fight against Leonard, and he did fight on. His lowest since was 174. Wonder why.
Making 167 must have had no effect on his performance and Leonard demanded it just for the lols.
Just like his WW unification fight vs Hearns was a catchweight as was his rematch with Hearns and just like Benitez and Duran happened to never make 147 after fighting him there for their last times all in coincidence.
Even Kalule is known to having problem making his weight limit even before Leonard fought him.
In fairness the last time before Lalonde's fight against Leonard that he weighed inside the 168lbs limit was exactly 2 years and a day before it when he was 26 years old. While most people probably do not grow past this age, almost every fighter still gains weight past it and keeps "outgrowing" weight limits.
Anyone in disagreement with this statement Give me 10 counter examples for it, because I have at least 50 examples for it.
Just for the fairness of it.

 

Read Frankenfranks reply above duck's minge. Even he makes you look the moron you are, and his first language is not English.

Every time you post you prove your level of idiocy has no bounds. Anyway, as you are a self proclaimed racist, 3 questions.

1. Have you always been a racist?

2. Do you intend to remain a racist for the rest of your miserable life?

if yes,

3. Do you think you might ever see the error of your ways, or will your moronic arrogance always get the better of you?:nut

 

I totally agree frank. I was merely throwing the Leonard fanboys a bone, and sure enough the idiot duck minge went straight for it.:rofl:rofl

 

Perception is not reality. Hagler may have been thought as being still in his prime by the media and the writers.

In retrospect they were completely wrong.

IMO, 80-85 Hagler would have stopped Leonard.

 

I think Leonard is great, but he never really fought any other fab 4 at their best.

Hearn's filled out 154 and 160 better than 147 and just didn't have the optimal frame at 147.

Duran got fat and complacent after reaching the mountain top after the first Leonard fight and made Duran take rematch on short notice.

Hagler had been through too many wars and was no longer what he was previously.

 

i liked franken's post, what is your confused point this time Foxy?