Sugar Ray Leonard vs Sugar Ray Robinson, H2H

Saintpat, respectfully your way out of line calling some" BUM by the name of SUGAR George Costner" just because he uses the name of SUGAR..
Please read your boxing history SP before you degrade a onetime terrific welterwight George Costner...Costner flattened 43 opponents in 72 wins, and BEAT Kid Gavilan and Ike Williams just before he had to quit boxing because he was virtually blind...Costner would have been welterweight champion were it not for the great Ray Robinson, so talented a welterweight was George Sugar Costner...Would have been welterweight champ today....

 

No, he wouldn't.

The Ike Williams he beat was starting a spell that saw him lose 3 out of 4, 7 out of 16 and 9 out of his next 20 fights.

Gavilan, similarly, was in a stretch that saw him lose 4 out of 7 fights.

Good timing for Costner.

I don't see a guy who got knocked out early in the three fights against the best guys he faced (at the time he faced them) -- Robinson twice in one round and Lamotta in six -- is going over Pretty Boy Floyd or Pac-Man or even another Sugar, Shane Mosley.

Yes, he's better than a bum -- he has two wins over big names, although neither was at or near the top of his game during the time that he fought them -- but if Robinson takes him out that quickly and easily then he's not an automatic world champ today. He got knocked out in the first round four times in his career, never fought for a world title or any title more important than the California state title.

I simply don't buy the "everyone who stepped into the ring before 1960 automatically whips anyone who came along later" assessment. We have video to show us that it just ain't so.

 

Leonad could not even defend his crown , how is he beating Sugar Ray?

 

Costner was a big ,tall, rangy, dangerous offensive fighter with a vunerable chin.

Not a great figher and not a bum somewhere in between.

Robinson did to him what a great fighter does. Took him out as soon as possible.

 

....Thank God for boxrec, eh'.....

 

Leonard's speed makes it interesting, but Robinson has just a little too much of everything. SRR by lopsided decision.

 

SP,I too read boxing records besides seeing ringside the fighters we are talking about...Let me remind you that the Kid Gavilan that George Sugar Costner beat was in the PRIME years of his career and fought NINE more years...Yes Costner was beaten by an absolute prime Jake LaMotta who had about 9 pounds on him....Do you think that the fighters you cite Mayweather and Pac-Man and Mosely would have survived a bullish prime LaMotta then at the top of his game ? Spotting Jake 10 pounds ?
So Costner losing to a big MW LaMotta was no shame...
And beating Gavilan at his prime years was also an indication that George Costner was an excellent welterweight who had the misfortune to come along in the era of the best welterweight we ever had Ray Robinson.

 

I think Burt, Thistle1, Legend X & Bummy have this one right. Leonard was a great fighter, but Robinson was better in just about every way for me. Robinson wins on points or by a late tko.

In terms of resume and the sheer number and depth of quality opponents, Robinson leaves Leonard standing. Personally, I think there's no comparison between the 2, and I am a firm believer that Leonard is one of the 3 or 4 greatest fighters of the last 30 years...

 

Costner still wouldn't have been a champion in any other era, as you suggest -- that he defeats anyone in the world EXCEPT for Robinson is just not supported by the record. Gavilan hit his stride about a year later, he was up-and-down at that particular point as losing 4 out of 7 in that stretch suggests.

LaMotta had six pounds on Sugar George according to the weigh-in weights, not 10. Such weight differentials have been overcome many times, but both Sugar Rays. LaMotta lost to Robinson, of course, with a greater weight advantage -- and to Cecil Hudson and Fritzie Zivic. LaMotta is revered, but it's arguable he never even becomes a world champ if the Frenchman doesn't suffer a shoulder separation. His stint as champion is not sufficiently distinguished to make the case that he would have won the belt had it not been for that unfortunate circumstance.

Leonard knocked out Andy "Hawk" Price in one round. Price had victories over Pipino Cuevas and Carlos Palomino. There are probably champions Price could have defeated, before his time or since, if he had fought them when they had the belts but to suggest he would have been a world champ had it not been for Leonard is like you saying Costner would have been a champ had it not been for Robinson. He lost to lesser people than Robinson and LaMotta, as you well know. He's not an ATG who happened to come along at the wrong time.

As I said, Leonard and Robinson are both all-timers. You can make a reasonable argument either way. But to point to Costner as the reason Robinson wins is just kind of, well, a reach IMHO.

Yes, Robinson came along in an era when guys fought more frequently, but that doesn't mean Leonard couldn't have beaten him. I believe he could have -- not that it's a certainty or that Leonard is far superior, just that he's in that class.

 

In my best Walter Matteau voice: "Are you crazy?"
OK, here I go again; matching fighters from different eras is extremely difficult if not impossible.
A 1950 Leonard wouldn't have been as chiseled; a 1980 Robinson wouldn't have been as lean.
Hey! How about this one, and it fits the Great One's career:
Ray Leonard steals a decision in their initial scrap and?....in the rematch....The Real Sugar pounds him out inside of schedule. :bbb
Sugar Ray Robinson, the greatest fighter of all-time!

 

I think his 'relatively' low KO percentage has a lot to do with Robinson not wanting to unduly hurt his opponent, as he had said in many interviews. He only seemed to really go after someone if it was truly necessary. After all the boxing circuit was a bit more closer knit back then, than it was in the 80's.

Interesting to see people backing SRL in terms of hand speed. He flurried a lot but there wasnt a great deal of power in those flurries. I thought Robinson had more spiteful speed.

Interesting matchup all the same.

 

Interesting bout.

While there is a considerable gulf here in terms of overall greatness (resume, longevity etc.), I don't think the gap is very wide in the h2h department.

SRL certainly could beat SRR on a given night. He has the tools. But with both at their best, and in top shape, I think the betting favourite would have to be Robinson.

 

I can except that with much admiration of you the observer and Ray Leonard the great fighter, however we still forget SRR fought

a couple of dozen Ray Leonards too.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but, no, there haven't been a couple of dozen Ray Leonards, and I did pick the real sugar to win.

 

I think Leonard loses the first fight by decision to Robinson, 9 rounds to 6 over 15. Robinson scores a knockdown. Wouldn't bet against two either.

In the rematch Leonard out hustles and out-smarts Robinson to a close 8-6-1, one round even victory. Both men on the canvas once.

In the rubbermatch, Robinson stops Leonard in the 14th round, coming from behind down a couple of rounds in the scoring. Feeling the urgency, he would finish Leonard where Hearns didn't.

Sugar Ray Robinson 2 wins, Sugar Ray Leonard 1 win.