Sugar Ray Robinson vs. Sugar Ray Leonard, at 147

For both of your informations (Apologies if you're already aware)the rooster's a ******, apparently on several medications which he often skips, resulting in the kind of posts you see in this thread.

It's a waste of your time to talk boxing with him.

 

Both were spent at that stage, Ray would still have won had it been a more meaningful third fight years earlier I meant.

 

They like talking to me and often come to me for advice on boxing. Notice no one replies to you, lonely boy with 7500 posts. Keep in mind that most of them dont enjoy discussions over male body parts the way you do

 

I think Robinson would rise to the occasion and win....Robinson overlapped Leonards career by at least 3....Leonard fought his greats in Hearns,Duran and Hagler but Robinson had an even thicker resume...I dont want to start listing it would take too long

 

Robinson may have been very lean but his ability to take punches were better than hearns. Hearns was still physically maturing at the time of the leonard fight whereas Robinson was already mature.

 

I have never understood why people make this argument about Hearns moving beyond his weight class at 154 lbs. For decades - indeed, during the time Robinson was boxing - there was no 154 lbs weight class. Robinson fought at middleweight frequently weighing around 154 lbs. So in comparing the two, once Hearns left 147 lbs, he was effectively a middleweight. In my mind, 154 lbs is as problematic at 168 lbs. It irritates me when people try to reconceptualize boxing history in ways that pretend like 168 lbs has always existed. We see this a lot in discussions of Harry Greb. Look, Greb fought at middleweight and light heavyweight. Robinson fought at welterweight and middleweight. Hearns fought at welterweight, middleweight, and light heavyweight. Etc. Hearns was a monster at middleweight by historical standards. He happened to run into the best middleweight ever in Hagler and got careless against a tough SOB in Barkley. No small deals, of course (he should not have lost to Barkley), but look at his wins while weighing what many middleweight greats have weighed. And, yes, I know we are talking about the match at 147 lbs. I just wanted to voice my opinion that a lot of these concepts are suspect.

Personally, I think Robinson beats Hearns at any weight between 147 and 160 lbs. I think Hearns drifts for a second and gets caught. Robinson is one of the great finishers in history.

 

Ill play devils advocate here.

I pick Leonard.
To say SRRs superior power will wear Leonard down is to ignore Hearns and Durans superior punching power, Leonard was not worn down but actually coming on in the late rounds of these fights. Did Hearns jab keep Leonard away, yes for much of the fight it did, however SRL found away to beat the jab and get inside and work. Remember Leonards jab is one of his best weapons and he didnt have that asset against Tommy yet still had enough tools to get the job done. Leonard has a longer reach than SRR and as much handspeed too the battle of the jabs is even for me.
The big question for me is how does Robinson cope with someone who is as quick of hand and foot as himself and can hit near as hard too. Leonard proved against Hearns he is more than just a boxer he can adapt mid fight and has plenty of tools to turn to if his main weapon (speed) is taken away. He wont be at that disadvantage with SRR to the extent he was with Hearns.
Can SRR cope with a very similar fighter to himself?

 

Ray Leonard was a phenomenal fighter, but Robinson would win. Both have similar chracteristics, but SRR carries considerably more power punch for punch...and while SRL was a good finisher, IMO, SRR was alot rougher on the inside in the clinches, he would use vicious short punches to the flanks of an opponent, along with use of his head and shoulders. I like SRR to take a decision, about 9-6 in rounds, like some posters have already commented.
My dream fights at welter are SRL/Gavilan, and SRL/Napoles.

 

Because Hearns was brought into this and other discussions I have participated in I wrote a response that makes it sound as if the question was Hearns v. Robinson at 147. I realize it is Leonard v. Robinson.

 

I realize you are playing devil's avocate. But....

Duran was a lightweight. That he was able to push Leonard around so easily doesn't bode well for Leonard's ability to keep Robinson at bay. Robinson was much bigger and stronger than Duran.

Hearns kept Leonard away until his physical conditioning betrayed him. Leonard was doing nothing to wear Hearns down. Had Hearns not tired out he would have won. Even when Leonard stunned Hearns, he had trouble following up. Robinson would not have tired the way Hearns did. Moreover, Robinson abililty to take a shot and his recuperative powers would yield a very different outcome than the Heans-Leonard one even if Robinson faultered at the end. All Robinson would have to do is survive to win, and he was a master at surviving. The only time he ever quit in a fight was at light heavyweight under extreme conditions.

 

Robinson wouldn't have fared too much better in the prolongued inside exchanges than Leonard did IMO. That wasn't his strong-suit, especially with physical fighters like Duran (and keep in mind Duran was far more skilled in there than the others Robinson had difficulties with in the trenches). Robinson's greater success would lie in his ablity to keep Duran off him for greater stretches due to his power and combination punching. He was also a better body puncher than Leonard.

 

Dont get me wrong, Im not totally convinced with my arguement either but, Im not sure SRR was stronger than Duran either. I dont think SRR would attempt to fight SRL the way Duran did so it may be a moot point anyway.
Yes Hearns tired but Leonard had success throughout the fight not just down the stretch. Also SRR doesnt enjoy the same physical advantages that allowed Hearns to stay away. He and SRL are a very similar size, Leonard has the longer reach, something that he didnt against Hearns. I think SRL could stay with SRR
If i had to place my money on it id probably lean to Robinson, but if i was spending your money id be extremely tempted to lay it on Leonard

 

Fair comment - I think we can both see where each other is coming from.

Just to emphasize my angle - many fighters with lesser records have beaten fighters with longer/superior records - and sometimes conclusively. If /when this occurs greatness becomes harder to accurately measure.

Would SRL have beaten SRR? - no idea - but I've a feeling it would have been a fight for the ages!

 

I don't think comaprisons with Leonard's fights with Hearns yield much. I would venture that Hearns was the best range fighter ever at WW, perhaps with a clear margin. I don't think Robinson would have much joy at range with Hearns either, even though he might have it with Leonard.

But I see it as quite evenly matched both at long and close range. The difference is not great, but Robinson had the edge in power and this could make the difference.