I've got Tiger by decision. I just think he was a lot more proven at the weight and Leonard got Hagler at his twilight. Thoughts?
Too close to call for me. Although i'd probably lean towards Leonard. Tiger could have lots of problems with Rays great speed, movement and jab. As those were the things that seemed to always give him the most trouble through his career. Ray could get hurt or slowed down at the end. But he game-planned well and he often just found ways to win. He was great at that. Ray was older when he went to middle but he didnt look outsized there and performed well against an end of career Hagler. Add that another all time great welterweight in Griffith was able to step up and grab the middleweight title from Tiger too. I feel Rays there to hypothetically do it.
Dont disagree with either really. I was making the point that Leonard moving up wouldnt be outsized. Griffith did look stronger. But I think Leonards movement, jab and speed would be more of a deciding factor than strength. Like I said he gameplanned well, and I think when fighting a bigger heavier stronger but slower fighter at Middle like he did with Hagler, hed fight in a similar manner strategically to not fall into fighting their fight (something he learnt the hard way early on with Roberto, but had to learn and implement when fighting up too). Tiger was a great fighter, but I remember somebody once saying it looked like his boxing boots weighed 10 pounds or something to that effect. I havent checked in a long time but if im remembering correctly Griffith did well in winning the belt from Tiger and alot of his other middleweight wins were against very good fighters and he constantly gave greats trouble. Leonard was barely there except for a fight with a downslide Hagler, still the middleweight champ in his title reign and an ATG though. And a better middleweight than Tiger for my money overall and prime vs prime. Skill for skill as a fighter. I don't see Griffith as clearly better than Leonard though. Even if Griffiths middleweight career is longer. Leonard proved he could hang at middleweight with one of the best like Griffith did. But he was also older there and so was Hagler to be fair. I just don't see Leonards lack of strength compared to Griffith being an ultimate downfall for him considering what else he had. His record being better than Leonards at Middleweight doesnt sway my opinion either, as I think styles make fights rather than who was better overall at the weight. With both being All Time Greats who went to different weight classes with success against other greats, the gap between them in real life is as close as it can be in my opinion. I just feel like looking at both guys in each area that matters for these matchups. Leonard has a very good shot.
SRL by decision in an uneventful fight that he wins based solely on his far superior speed and movement.
Tiger was a natural middle. Leonard was a natural welter. Leonard was far past it at MW. Honestly dont know why Leonard keeps getting put into these fantasy fights at MW when he was so far past it by then and above his natural weight.
Leonard would box Tiger's ears off. Tiger looked unbeatable if you came to him but if you boxed him he could look pretty ordinary. Leonard would make this fight look easy and thats coming from a big fan of Tigers.
Agreed Robert U. And I will add if Leonard was past it than what does that make Hagler? He had twice the fights as Leonard and was 2 years older …. Leonard simply didn't have the wear and tear as Marvin had, especially after what Marv just went through … It's like when people try and say well Valdez was past it when he fought Monzon even though Monzon was 3 1/2 years older and had 20 plus more fights … I mean who was the shopworn fighter? Leonard has 1 fight at MW so that makes him a great Middle??? Not to me either
