How can any objective, sane person think Mayweather deserves to even be mentioned even in the same sentence as Leonard as far as WELTERWEIGHT achievements go?! Sharmba Mitchell, Carlos Baldomir, and Zab Judah are the only fights he's had at welterweight and none of them are even close to being all time greats. Heck, even the ordinary opponents Leonards had at welterweight could beat the welterweight Mitchell and Baldomir, and any one of Leonard's great opponents could make Zab their *****. Going strictly by accomplishments at Welterweight ,Mayweather is not even in the discussion.
You don't score any points against my argument by using distraction, tobkhan. Just because Red Rooster is right about Leonard (even if he does tend to exaggerate Leonard's faults) doesn't make me him.
Are you kidding me? Whitaker posted 8 title defenses as world welterweight champion. Among his victims were Buddy McGirt and Julio Cesar Chavez. He defeated de la Hoya, too, but was robbed. That would have been his 9th successful defense. Let's compare. Leonard only posted 4 successful title defenses, and lost his title to the former lightweight champion after his first defense! His win over Hearns was made possible by a horrible stoppage, a fight in which he was otherwise getting his ass kicked. Compare the records and Whitaker comes out way in front of Ray Leonard. Watch the tapes and you can see Whitaker was a class above Leonard. I don't see how anybody who studies their respective careers could come to the conclusion that Ray Leonard was better. It's simply not a defensible position. That people would put Leonard above Whitaker shows you that Leonard is one of the most overrated fighters ever.
those are points his fans would rather not have you bring up. As much as I like Ray Leonard, I still can't forget the way he lost all those rounds to Hearns, not to mention Norris which, makes me question whether he isn't being overrated in those departments mentioned. Not to mention he never really put Tommy away-Tommy, the anemic welterweight in the 14th round. His inability to close in on Tommy was dismal. I expect more from tip-top fighters. I'll go along with Lethal in saying that Whitaker is a much better replacement though still below Robinson.
The amazing thing about Whitaker is that he had a whole career at lightweight before moving up. For Leonard to have accomplished anything like Whitaker, he would have had to dominate the welterweight division - which he didn't - and then move up to middleweight and post eight successful title defenses there! Leonard's accomplishments are quite skinny in comparison to Whitaker's. But I agree with Red Rooster that Whitaker was not as great a welterweight as Robinson was. This shows you how so far superior Robinson was to Leonard. Can any of you imagine a prime Robinson losing to a former lightweight champion, let alone being overwhelmed by him? (Pick any of the lightweights you like.) I guess you can imagine it, but you know that, outside of luck, it's an improbability.
Whitaker wasn't robbed against De La Hoya. Well certainly not under my own definition of robbery, a word which is used far too often when it comes to controversial decisions. To use the word "robbery" when it comes to a decision that should have gone the other way your looking at the following. When a fighter wins rounds decisively, and also wins the vast majority of rounds. I'll be fair with my judgement here, 8 rounds or more. Not the case when it comes to viewing Whitaker v De La Hoya. Whitaker didn't clearly beat De La Hoya beyond dispute. Many close rounds, and a judges worst nightmare full stop. Ive viewed many fights over the years which were bad decisions, but never came to the conclusion to use the word "robbery" when airing my disagreement.
Whitaker took de la Hoya to school. I think he even knocked him down! When a man wins a fight, but the judges give the decision to the loser, or call it a draw, that is a robbery. Three robberies that stand out in recent times: Whitaker-Ramirez I, Whitaker-Chavez, and Whitaker-de la Hoya. (The other two that come immediately to mind are Hagler-Leonard and Hearns-Leonard II.) Let's face facts. The people who control boxing didn't like Whitaker. They thought he stunk up the joint. Sure, those who understand the finer points of the sport loved Pete, but you can't make bucks off the aficionado. You need a fighter with popular appeal, such as de la Hoya and Leonard, fighters the media want to get behind. Golden Boys. You know what I'm talking about. The reason Leonard is seen by the majority of people as better than Whitaker is because Leonard had popular appeal and Whitaker didn't. People go with names and smiles. I don't think it is any secret that the majority is easily deceived. They especially get distracted by commercial appeal. Like I said before, Whitaker was robbed thrice and they all went against him. Robberies where Leonard was involved all went FOR him. That tells the story right there. (This is why you can't trust records. You have to see the fights.)
Although there is a lack of footage of his days as a welterweight, I would have to put Sugar Ray Robinson ahead of Sugar Ray Leonard. From all accounts, he was much better at 147 than he was at 160 - and that is a scary thought.
SRR is hands down the greatest WW in history... As for SRL.. DLH would give him a great fight @ Welterweight!
Very understandable. How do you rate Napoles at 147 lbs? IMO clearly one of the best ever at this weight...