His resume is great, his place in history is near the top. I just can't stand the man, the way he fights, or his personality. One of the biggest fakes in boxing, and the way he fought Hagler was chicken****, and he didn't deserve to win.
SRL is slightly overrated. Duran was @ his best @ lightweight and they split their 2 meaningful fights. Haglar was pretty much done as being dominant by the time they met. The Mugabi fight was brutal fight and Haglar left a lot in the ring with that win. Benitez trained about as little as any great fighter ever. That leaves the Hearns #1 fight, which was Leonards best victory and a huge accomplishment, but Hearns went on to be Ko'd by Haglar, Barkley etc. Still, I give much credit to Leonard as an all time great even though his timing was perfect to beat these 4 greats. How big was the underdog Leonard beating Haglar? As big as underdog Ali beating Liston? As big as Ali beating Foreman? Not even close.
alot of those fights were no decisions pal and i can guarantee you havent even seen 85% of those fighters actually compete.
Alot of those fighters were just contenders and he didnt win every newspaper decision hes been in. The threadstarter asked who has better top 4 wins than leonard and leonard top 4 wins are better.
He lost to Duran in first fight, second fight should be no contest. Benitez was a coke head when they fought. Hagler he may not have actually beaten, many have fight scored for Hagler. He did fight the best, meaning thsoe four, and Hearns win was legit. He should have given Hearns a rematch sooner.
Arguably, Whitaker's legacy is greater than Leonard's. But it's hard not to think in those great wins and think "he's one of the 10 greatest fighters ever". I rank Hearns as my #2 Light Middleweight. Hagler is my #2 Middleweight. Duran is my #1 Lightweight and Benitez a Top12 Light Welterweight.
No, not the best resume of all time. Greb has that honor and there are several others with overall resumes greater than Leonard's, but as far as the best 4 wins "on paper," Leonard takes it.
I think your correct that I didnt.. although thats the way the conversation took off. However, I did mention the modern era, and so that takes Greb out of the equation. I was thinking about the last 20-25 years.
This isn't a winning resume, but its a "who he fought resume": Here are the hall of famers that he fought: This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Im not arguing that he has the best resume ever. I was simply thinking of what he accomplished last night and comparing it to the fighters of today, nothing more really.
I was referring to major wins, not the overall resume. Pernell whitaker could have easily taken that honour if he would have fought hector camacho and terry noris and beat both.