Depends on your definition of elite. He and Hearns went life and death and 2 years later Hearns was still good enough to put a clinic on a fine fighter in Virgil Hill. The fight after Hearns he basically shut out a Duran who had beaten Barkley in his previous fight. He was definitely still fighting at a high level even if that was soon to crash.
no. His first non elite bout was Lalonde. He had lost his speed n pop markedly, didnt look like the same man.
Hard question to answer. He was still elite in that he was Leonard still and could pull out a win or fight hard against his contemporaries- meaning he could still fight with his buddies Hagler,Hearns and Duran, but the interesting thing is maybe he could not have beaten Michael Nunn who was the top guy at 160 then. At least in 1989 when he fought Hearns and Duran. Hearns and Duran in 1989 also would have had a hard time beating Nunn , but somehow Hearns and Leonard and Duran also had great fights in 1989 better than any fight Nunn ever had probably. So they had the elite skills to put on a great fight and entertain. Maybe people in 1989 were upset with Leonard,Hearns and Duran getting all the attention when Nunn was the young top fighter at 160..
He should have quit after the Hagler upset. But, he was greedy. But, he did smartly choose his opposition until Norris. By 1988 Nunn was the best at 160 lbs. Ray was smart not to fight him.
I agree. But there were up and comers like Nunn and Kalambay. Ray wasn't fighting the absolute best competition available. But, I see that as smart- most $ for least risk. He could get more $ for other huge names who were also past it like Hearns and Duran. And the overrated Lalonde.
I don't know if it was greedy. More like calculating. He retied in 1982 and fought once in 1984 and once in 1987... hardly at all in the 1980s.. So he tried to make up for that and steal the decade and get titles to match Hearns without putting the work Hearns and Duran did in the decade, and he surpassed them in someways but not in others. I honestly think he came back after Hagler to get one over on Hearns and Duran, his contemporaries, but it backfired with Hearns. Yet Ray still got fighter of the decade, which I don't know if he fought enough to get that.
Nunn would have been totally different for Ray than Hearns or Duran. A young fighter he never fought and didn't know. And I think Ray knew he was declining and Nunn would never be his opponent. He knew Hearns and Duran from fighting them before, and he beat them so losing to them in 1989 he could say age and he already beat them years before. Ray wanted to fight his contemporaries and make a statement on his generation of Hagler,Hearns,Duran and Benitez. Nunn was not in the equation. If Ray says he considered fighting Nunn I think he would be lying. Hearns fighting Duran in a rematch would have been interesting also. I think those old legends fighting each other in 1989 outsells anything Nunn could have done. The names were there. I am sure it really upset Nunn at times seeing them in the news and in superfights.
he'd fight a tiired out faded hagler. he'd never fight Nunn. he took one look at the kalambay fight and said "I'm out" so he settled for retreads until the Norris fight which revealed what we all knew inside,, the young lions would always devour him he's a good fighter with talent, but just not great
We are on the same page. It all depends how we all define "elite". Leonard and Hearns were past their best for sure but still capable of beating almost everyone out there. If elite means 90% peak then no. If elite means still among the best few in a given weight division or better then yes.
