The second fight was at supermiddleweight and hearns was considered a shot fighter. He was coming off a horrible performance against James Kinchen and thats the only reason Leonard even took the fight. Hearns around 1984ish would beat Leonard at 154. He had filled out better and his body had more meat to absorb body shots. Hearns wasn't drained at that point. Back on the topic SRL's first win against Hearns and the 1st Duran fight are his greatest performances. Even though he lost against Duran he showed the world he had the right stuff and wasn't just a pretty face with fast hands.
When Leonard rematched Hearns he was also coming off of VERY weak performances. I hate the morons who try to justify SRLs career as one big fluke. It doesn't matter how you slice it, you don't best the greatest 135, 140, 154 and 160 by accident.
He didnt beat the greatest 154 pound fighter at 154, and crediting a natural welterweight for beating a natural lightweight, although it may have been the best ever is a little absurd, especially considering that lightweight had already beaten him. Still, Hearns was his greatest win.
It doesn't matter. The 135, 140 and 154 fighter he beat were multi division champs. The 160 champ he beat wasn't but he moved up to face him. Hearns was still a great 147 pounder, as was Duran and Benitez. All four of his wins were legendary. You couldn't really set them apart. They each asked for something different and he rose to the challenge.
i dont think he was the best at 160. i think he could have been if he was younger. but the guy was such a beast in his prime.
Again, he lost to the best version of Duran he faced. He fought both Duran and Benitez at their heaviest weights to date, where SRL himself was the naturally bigger man. He never fought a peak Hearns, who was his best at 154, and Ray waited until Hagler had severely slown down before he attempted to fight him. Theres a reason he stood up at the Mugabi fight and said he could beat Marvin. That being said I've always felt that his best win was either Hearns or Benitez at 147 though neither were at their most comfortable and most successful weights.
It is clear that Hearns looked like **** against Kinchen and many people were picking a KO SRL victory. Anyhow i have not heard one person in this thread claim SRL's career to be one big fluke. You have to look at things objectively. His competition is top notch and yeah he is top 10 p4p #2 welter all time str8 up great fighter. But you have to look at things even if its your hero objectively.
It is clear that SRL looked like **** against Lalonde. Your point doesn't stand. Its like the revisionists saying Hatton picked Castillo because he was shot to ****. They forget Hatton also looked like ****. This thread amazingly hasn't turned into a flame Leonard thread. Probably the first ever. I look at everything objectively, it doesn't matter if hes my dad. Leonards record speaks for itself. I can take apart anyones record - doesn't matter if its Ali or Robinson.
he beat a prime undefeated hearns Dont forget ray had 1 fight in 5 years during that time hagler was tearing through his opponents and had to MOVE UP IN WEIGHT!! you are going out of your way to discredit the man.
Duran similarly lost to the best version of Leonard he faced. Your point doesn't stand. It doesn't matter if he fought Duran and Benitez at their heaviest. We are assessing him historically and hindsight tells us Duran and Benitez were ALREADY major players at 147 and went on to be players at 154 and 160. It doesn't matter that SRL was the naturally bigger man, he showed this v Hagler and Hearns. What you say are merely excuses. FACTS - Hearns was a great welter who'd sparked Cuevas. Hagler was a great middleweight who was the favourite. It doesn't matter if Leonard chose Hagler because of so and so. Leonard had fought ONE fight in FIVE YEARS and looked BAD. I reiterate, all 4 wins were legendary. You can' set them apart.
Well obviously not, because you want them to all count the same. God forbid I apply some logic to it. So it is what you want it to be Achilles. And please tell me what I am excusing? Why would I be applying excuses? Please let me know ASAP.
In terms of legacy, you can't definitively set his great wins apart. You haven't applied logic. You are making excuses for Leonards wins. This can be done to all fighters.