Weaknesses in Sugar Ray Leonard

Seriously, I think Roberto scared and intimidated Ray. And I think, in part, was the reason why he performed like he did in Montreal.

 

Honestly, you can't really have an issue with Ray, about as complete as you can get, but his defense wasn't all the way top notch, but that's because of his style of fighting.

 

http://static.boxrec.com/e/e5/KOMag.8908.JPG

KO Mag did name him "Fighter of the Decade."

BTW: Benitez was 21, not 23. But, I get your point.

 

D'oh! Course he was. It was Ray that was 23, wasn't it? Thanks Saad.

As you say, it doesn't make my point invalid. Ray beat some real top names in their absolute primes in career 1.

 

I see what you did here, ETM. Cheeky. I like it.

I don't care what redrooster says. Hagler was bigger, had been active and had knocked out an unbeaten #1 contender in his last fight. Ray was smaller, had a retina problem and had fought once (unimpressively) in five years when he took on Hagler. That took some real courage. Maybe Marvin had slipped a bit but he was still the man and Ray must have wondered how good he could possibly be.

Come to think of it. One fight against a welterweight in five years. How the hell was this bout sanctioned?

 

Put the first loss on Benitez .
Made Duran quit .
Put the first loss on Hearns .
Put the first loss on Kalue .
Beat a Hagler who hadn't lost in years .
I can't think of too many fighters that have an impressive list of victories.

 

No he didn't. He hit him with a shot to the liver and applied the foie de gras.

 

8-figure sums of money help immensely with courage-building; vague adherence to regulations and a temporary loss of common sense.

 

He wasn't a top notch in-fighter or a defensive specialist, but I can't see anything I would term as weakness. Well, he was always a bit lazy with keeping his hands up and that will come back to haunt a quick fighter when he ages. Hearns II showed that, when Ray ate too many rights over his low left.

But that's it. Otherwise he had speed to kill, more than decent power, excellent skills, solid chin, great boxing brains and an ATG will to win. Duran might be one fighter I'd have as more complete and perhaps also SRR, but it's a short list.

Ps. I'm just rewatching Duran-Barkley now. The punishment Roberto soaks up in this fight is probably the craziest I've ever seen for a fighter who earns the decision (don't think he should have won it, though) by coming on strong in the later rounds. He just had no business doing that against a younger, bigger and stronger fighter after taking those punches. The most unreal thing I've ever seen, really. Perhaps not only in boxing but in sports in general.

 

what do I care what Ring says? the editors of Ring say what they want. Ring has sucked since Fleischer & Loubet left, and took over by a bunch of ***s who came in from KO publication

 

Like many fighters of the 70's, 80's,90's a lot of the their weakness was from a lifestyle outside the ring. Leonard was an excellent welterweight & talent wise in his prime I do not see any weakness. I think prime Leonard holds his own against any of the top 10 Welterweights of alltime. SRR was the best & also sits with the cream of the middleweights. I think career wise he did not have a long career but he has quite a thick portfolio of great fighters, Duran,Hearns,Benitez, Hagler & his metal held up pretty well with that group & I think that group would test a fellow for sure.

 

Cocaine.