Top 5 most overrated boxers of All Time

No, Mullings earned his ranking by upsetting Donald Stokes and then nearly upsetting titleholder Raul Marquez.

Yes you did. You claimed he was fighting "top level fighters" in that time but conveniently left out Howard and Lalonde when you listed his opponents.

The results don't show him blitzing either of them, which is the issue here.

No, Howard was a journeyman just like Mullings.

What's your excuse for the Howard fight then?

No it isn't. You can't just claim an opponent is "shot" without knowing anything about them.

No, a record is part of what determines whether a fighter is a bum or not.

No he doesn't. Who a fighter shows he is shot against is irrelevant.

Yes I did; I just spent the last 10+ plus pages explaining the same thing to redrooster.

No, you're just desperately trying to fabricate a "contradiction" to divert from your own.

His form over the first half of the fight proves otherwise.

See what I already explained to redrooster ad nauseum.

This fantasy makes no sense, because someone like Hopkins would be expected to own a Tito already acknowledged as past his prime.

Why can't you provide a realistic example instead of fabricating things like this?

Why? Why can't you just provide some examples?

 

You tell us. You just gave Norris glory for beating a fighter he was two divisions higher than.

No, he was very much noted for beating Palomino at 147.

Why do you harp on what Leonard used to be and not what he was at the moment he fought Norris? :deal

 

Apparently they do, because others had already reminded you what I had said.

:hi:

 

In many lists, people rate him just behind the original Sugar Ray, and at worst he still cracks the Top 5. That, in general, is where Hagler lands in terms of his all-time rating, so I think to say that Leonard isn't as highly rated is being a bit disingenuous on your part.

He lost a close decision to Duran in their first fight, and acquitted himself quite well in the process. He promptly defeated him in the rematch by employing a different style, and if Duran wasn't capable of adapting to it, then that's not Leonard's problem. When combined with the fact that he defeated a version of Hearns who had generally made everyone he faced look ordinary, or more often than not reduced them to a horizontal state.

Toss in a clear victory over Benitez (Premature stoppage notwithstanding, Leonard won that fight going in pretty comprehensive fashion), and that's the main reason for his high rating at welterweight.

 

Thanks for reminding me of the Taylor fight. Taylor had the fastest hand speed in the sport, speed that exceeded Norris'

Leonard never did proved he could deal with speed the way Norris could. Ray failed miserably when Norris tested him.

Norris passed the test.

leonard couldnt

Norris stopped Taylor with his fists. Leonard couldnt stop Duran

Taylor was 25. Duran was 29

Taylor was in proper fighting shape. Duran sweated off 40 pounds, ten in the last three days alone.

I can't believe SRL fans like you are so hard up that you actually brag about it

Only a self deluded, hard up leonard fan like you would make that claim which ccomes as no surprise considering Leonard's lack of accomplishments

Because according to what you sent me, he lost very little since 1980. The scorecards in uno mas reflect this. :yep:hey:smokebbb

 

What? Show me where

 

Yes he did, when he stopped Hearns and Benitez.

He passed with flying colors when he got much sterner tests from Hearns and Benitez.

That's because Norris was getting his test from a fighter TWO WEIGHT CLASSES LOWER, which YOU just said doesn't warrant any glory! :rofl

That's why he won their rematch with a TKO 8, right? atsch

So?

No, Taylor used to baloon in weight between fights just the same.

OR anyone with any regard for factual history.

No, according to what I sent you, he had lost his hand-speed, punch resistance, and his quality in general - which is more than just "very little."

Either way you didn't answer my question.

No they don't; points aren't scored for a fighter's form.

 

I showed you in the post you just quoted!! atsch

Again:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5993170&postcount=454

:roll:

 

Benitez fast?

Hearns wasnt known for his speed like Nunn or Norris who would have run off with leonard's title-easy

No sweat

Like taking candy from a baby

The test didnt arrive until Norris. Ray had never faced such a quick and multi-faceted champion such as Norris and he found it not at all to his liking. Ray was just used to past their prime plodders instead of fleetfooted boxer punchers such as Norris that could evade his combinations with ease and counter him in the blink of an eye.

Ray had never seen anything like it in his career. For this reason he wisely avoided Nunn and chased down the typical slow plodder in Lalonde. Much more to his liking.

So why do you keep heaping praise on leonard for it?

At least Taylor wasnt ancient nearing 30 ex lightweight at 25 years of age and recognized as the fastest man in boxing

Norris could handle the speed

Leonard couldnt because Ray Leonard was only a runner

Wrong.

****, you call that winning? I call that running

Sure he did. By a couple of pounds, not 40

Big difference

So in your opinion, Duran was every bit the fighter at 147 that he was at 135 during his good years.

Even ESBers wont go along with you there :nono

No, all of the quotes mention how insignificant any losses were. The words "little" were repeatedly used

Whereas with hagler the words "lost alot of speed" was used :smoke

:smoke

:smoke

What question?

the margin of victory is a reflection of the fighter's form and his was, as Tim Ryan put it, an absolutely breathtaking performance

:smoke

 

No you didn't

 

That's correct

I just showed you footage of him being touted for his speed. :roll:

No, the test had come long before that.

Yes he did, when he faced Hearns the first time.

Benitez and Hearns were past their primes and plodders? :nut

No, a bigger money offer and two more titles in higher weight classes is the reason he chose Lalonde over Nunn.

Because I'm not the one who said a fighter shouldn't get glory for beating someone two weight classes lower, remember? That was YOU.

So now "nearing 30" is ancient, but nearing 35 isn't? :nut

At least Duran had proved he was still great at 147, unlike Taylor at 154 (or ever).

He was "running" when he was pounding Hearns and Benitez into stoppages? :nut

No, RIGHT.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:598
1980-11-25 : Sugar Ray Leonard 146lbs beat Roberto Duran 146lbs by TKO in round 8 of 15
:deal

Yes, just like everyone with any powers of observation did.

That's because you're a loon.

Yes, by 40 or thereabouts.

Too bad that's not what's being discussed.

No they don't.

No, it was used only once.

You mean the same words Hagler himself used to describe Leonard in the Hearns-Leonard rematch?

Why do you keep talking about what Leonard used to be when you just said talking about what fighters used to be is wrong?

No, it's a reflection of points scored.

The same Tim Ryan who said Leonard was a far cry from what he used to be in the Hearns rematch?

 

^I know what you've been doing for the past two hours

 

Yes I did.

THIS is the post you quoted: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6003893&postcount=483

 

I didnt write that

 

Responding to post that was posted less than an hour ago?

:nut