The most versatile boxer in history, who is it?

Yes.

The general consensus is that Robinson is the best ever, and I haven't seen footage of him at 147, but I have of Leonard. At 147, he was the most complete fighter I've ever seen, and proved it against not only the best of his era, but some of the greatest fighters that ever lived.

I'm not going to give Robinson the nod based on other peoples say.

 

Can't really think of anything. Duran at his peak (Leonard I and DeJesus III) was the best all-around fighter I've ever seen. In a strange way though, I think Leonard was more adaptable. There were styles that troubled Duran, and he never showed his ability to adapt and change tactics (even if he did beat the styles that troubled him in his prime anyway) to better suit these styles to the extent that Leonard did IMO. Whatever that means in the comparison between the two and their versatility.

 

I rank his loss to Hagler as an achievement of sorts. He was competitive with a much bigger and younger fighter, and an alltime great middleweight.

In as much as he didn't win the fight, he was not effective.

You saw **** all coming, and you got me mixed up with some other poster.

i already said Leonard legitimately won the second fight. I already told you I picked Leonard to win the second fight, and made money on it.

No need to get your knickers in a twist here.

(Third fight is largely meaningless as the age difference (38 to 33) had become way too much of a factor. It means as little to me, or any serious fan, as 35 yearold Leonard's loss to Norris.

The third fight was to generate some $$$$$ for both guys)

Opinion is split on whether he did or not. I scored the fight for Hagler at the time. I've watched it several times since, sometimes scoring it for Ray and sometimes for Marvin. All I can say for sure is that it was close.

He also lost to two of them, and arguably all three if you score the Hagler fight differently.

Using Hagler as a point of comparison:

Duran lost a 15 rounder by one, maybe two points to a 29 year old Hagler, 25 lbs North of his natural weight.

Leonard won (or maybe lost) a 12 rounder by a point at most against a 33 year old Hagler, 13 lbs North of his natural weight.


That comparison hardly hurts Duran much.

Where did I make any excuses for his loss to Hearns ?

The hitman caught him with a perfect shot right on the button and down he went.

(Just like prime Joe loius went down from a perfect shot from Schmeling)

I'm not going to address your points again, you aren't appearing to get what I'm saying in regards to which sense of the term effective I'm using the word, save to say:

If your goal is to do x, and you try to do x, and you fail to do x, then you were ineffective.

That's the definition of ineffective.


Regarding excuses, you saw coming?

The cramps story I mentioned was widely circulating around the time of the fight, and in media outlets.

It's possible it was bogus, as a lot of folks were pretty upset at Duran for quitting as he did. Not until Moore, did he regain some measure of redemption.

It's also possible that the story is true.

Neither of us know for sure.



My personal ranking of the four is

Duran
Leonard
Hearns
Hagler.

I can respect different rankings by others of different opinions.

It depends on how much emphasis is put on which aspect of their careers.


They were all superstars.

Any of them would have beaten prime Oscar, Tito, Shane or Floyd.

 

I disagree. Cotto was effective against Margarito, but that didn't stop him losing the fight. That's just one of many examples.

We'll agree to disagree.

I don't know why you got mad when I said I saw the excuses coming, but I can assure you, I did. Whenever the second fight is mentioned, the excuses come out of the woodwork. No need to get upset about it, but it's common practice around here on ESB.

Like I said, all I know is that when Leonard fought a different fight, he beat Roberto Duran. That's good enough for me, and considering Duran takes responsibility for winning against Leonard, he'll take responsibility in losing also.

I have a perfect idea of what you are saying. Duran was adaptable in his performances, and he performed very well against the big 3 considering he was a lightweight. However, just as you like his competitiveness with Hagler, his win over prime Leonard and Davey Moore for him being the best. I point to Leonard's revenge against Duran, and the victories over the other two, not including Benitez. I would say there is a case for both Ray and Duran being the best, but I say Ray.

 

The judges were drunk for Duran's fights with Benitez and Hagler.

If Hagler had lost the 15th round against Duran and lost the fight, it would've been a grand heist of Ocean's Eleven magnitude.

Duran fought pretty well given the circumstances, but those scorecards were way out of line.

 

Then we're generally on the same page here, if not on which is better, at least on the points being very debatable.:good

 

Of course. I could never downplay Duran's achievement's, he was an all time great fighter and is widely considered top 5 p4p material according to more knowledgeable posters than me. :good

 

If you want to read the ramblings of a real lunatic, and a Leonard hater, look for a guy called RedRooster.

He usually posts in the classic.

On at least two occasions, I have had to defend Leonard's record against his mad rantings.

The third time, I ignored him as a mental case.

He has the most irrational hatred for Ray of anyone I've run into.

I made a thread about a year ago on the 10 best fighters between 135 and 160 of the last 30 years.

About forty posters submitted their lists. I weighted them all and collated them to produce one single list.

Leonard came first. And Duran came second.

Leonard was somewhere on every list but one.

RedRooster's.

Leonard placed first

 

A technician like for example Mike McCallum I guess. Toney comes to mind as well, although he often chose the laziest way out.

 

Ray Leonard.

 

:rofl redRooster is a riot.

I've defended Leonard against his unreasonable ramblings also, but after awhile you begin to realise there is no point.

If he says that Leonard was in his prime against Norris and Camacho, which Rooster does, then he loses all credibility.

 

SRL,Duran

 

it's a tie for me between SRR and Duran. when motivated, both were masterful boxers or wrecking machines equally of the highest order when they chose too. it's like they were 2 or 3 different fighters in one. barrera would be a runnerup as well as leonard

 

Ali was hardly versatile, he almost exclusively fought on the outside and on the back foot. He was only effective on the front foot against the likes of Williams and a couple of others, and his inside fighting consisted of clinching and nothing else. Still, a brilliant fighter.

And Calzaghe? I'm not really sold on versatility either.

Mayweather was at the lower weights, but at 147 that seemed to disappear a bit.

My picks would be: Robinson and Duran (often considered a mere brawler, but was a master boxer). There are others, but these two were just something else.