Who ranks higher on your ATG p4p list - Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Leonard? Why?

I think Leonard can be argued inside the top 10, and I personally would have him in the top 12. If someone firmly believes that he is the best all around fighter they have ever seen, which many do, I think he certainly belongs among that person's top 10. It just doesn't make much sense to place the best fighter you've ever seen outside of the top 10 imo. And if we are going by an era by era basis so that someone like Benny Leonard won't be rated below someone like Floyd Mayweather simply because he doesn't look as impressive on film, then that must also hold true for their careers. SRL may only have 4 key wins and 12 title fights, but how many in this era are more accomplished? How many in his era can boast wins over 4 legit ATG's?

I don't think straight comparisons between fighters from the 1920's and the 1980's can be made, as one fought in a more modernized era and therefore looks better on film, where as the other fought in an era where everyone had 100's of fights and is much more likely to have a deeper resume. You have to rate them as what they were for their era imo, and how well that era as a whole compares to others. In this case, both Leonard's rate as either the best H2H fighter of their respective era or at least one of the top 2 or 3, and both are among the most accomplished of their era. I think they should be rated very close to each other, Benny rating higher for me as he had a consistent run of dominace against excellent comp. where as Ray's career was split apart by a 5 year period where he had one mostly meaningless fight.

 

Why not? Those 4 key victories were over the 4 best fighters of the entire era, of all different sizes and styles. I don't care how many fights a lot of other greats had, hardly any of them proved their ability like Ray Leonard did.

 

I see what you're saying, but when I am deciding on rankings I try to stick to a set criteria so that I am assessing each man fairly and not letting personal likes/dislikes cloud my judgement. For instance, I think Sumbu Kalambay's performance in the first fight with Mike McCallum is one of the top 3 or 5 boxing performances I have ever seen. However, because Kalambay was capable of such sublime skill does not mean I am automatically going to parachute him in ahead of men who were not capable of such brilliance but achieved a whole lot more in this game. The criteria must stay the same irrespective of my own opinion on h2h ability. H2H ability is taken into account, but never ahead of resume. Thus, Kalambay will always be behind Mike McCallum (who he beat convincingly with that stellar performance, but who also had a clearly better career than Sumbu) and someone like Emile Griffith (who was perhaps not capable of sweet science performances like Kalambay-McCallum I but has a deeper stronger resume and greater longevity). Thus, Ray Leonard will always be behind Roberto Duran and Benny Leonard.

That's why I have SRL some way ahead of Hagler and Hearns. But SRL still cannot be ranked on the same level as a top 10 lock like Ali, who went to the well again and again and again over two decades.

Example:

Leonard - 4 key wins (Benitez, Duran II, Hearns I, Hagler)
Other wins of note - Kalule, Lalonde

Ali - 5 key wins (Liston I and II, Frazier II and III, Foreman)
Other wins of note - Have a field day with that resume. Every hw who mattered over 2 decades, most of the best ones twice.

And Ali did not have a 200-fight career, and most of his key fights were 5-10 years before Leonard's, so he wasn't from a radically different era. IMO these two men MUST be in clearly separate tiers, and I have Ali at 6th so I can't have Leonard top 10. There is a clear gap for me. Has to be.

Agreed. But I view Duran as a top 10 ATG because he had a dominant reign in one division, consistently beating the best the division had to offer, then moving up and giving us special wins (Leonard I, Barkley, etc). Leonard gave us the special wins, but I cannot rank him on par with someone like Duran because he could've achieved the same thing, when in reality he did not. Had Leonard been active through the 80s and beat Pryor, Curry etc, yes of course he would be top 10. But he didn't, so he can't be. That's just me though, if someone else's criteria is different to mine and they place great importance on h2h ability or place more importance on quality of best wins rather than longevity/dominance, then fair enough. My criteria is just what works for me, it's no better or worse than anyone else's. :good

 

My response to Cobra explains my point a bit better I hope.

 

Agreed. Leonard fans just dont ask for enough IMO. i never believed the whole eye injury-Hagler-second career setup anyways and 4 media fights is fine if you're going to be a general sports fan once in a while boxing fan.

But it takes much more if you expect to be an atg. Stay in the limelight instead of dropping out and popping back in again. Instead of refusing to face Pryor, Hagler, Nunn, take them all on. They're good fights to prove your mettle and all around mastery. Passing on these fights in favor of older, less talented opposition, arouses suspicions and rightfully so. and even tho he was 34 he still shouldve been able to beat Norris

 

I don't really see the comparison. Kalambay was a very good fighter who put on a masterclass against a great fighter in McCallum. One performance isn't really enough to gauge a fighter's abilities consistently against a wide range of styles. Leonard, however, did it 4 times against a variety of truly great fighters, all better than McCallum IMO. There's a difference.

It could be argued (though controversial circumstances involved in those fights could also point to the contrary) that noone has proven their skills as conclusively against such a high level of opposition as Leonard, even if they did it far more often.

 

It's admittedly rather crude, but a simple point:

Kalambay was capable of sublime brilliance, I haven't seen a Griffith fight where I thought the same thing, but I rank Griffith LIGHT YEARS ahead because he achieved so much more.

Leonard was capable of sublime brilliance, I don't believe Ali was as great in terms of all-round ability, but I rank Ali clearly ahead because he proved it more in terms of resume and longevity.


And I'm ready for the backlash on this point...

I don't think Leonard was particularly good in the first Hearns fight. He showed lethal finishing skills. But over the course of the fight, I thought he was languid, lethargic, and... limited.

I rank it some way behind Benitez and Duran II. I even rank it behind Hagler, even though the Hearns fight was a far better version of Leonard. I rank it some way behind many, many performances by many fighters.

But isn't the "often-ness" so important in itself? Leonard had great peaks, but he did not have a great plateau. I think a balance between peaks and plateau are more important than peaks themselves, even if those peaks are great. Consistency, longevity, dominance, these things have to be important. Don't they??

 

Of fighters of the same era, such as Kalambay and McCallum, sure, but my point was regarding comparisons that cross eras. Benny Leonard should not rate ahead of Ray Leonard for the lone reason that he has a better resume. It's an unfair comparison between a man with 40 fights in an era where that was more or less typical to a man with 100's of fights in an era where that was typical. The point being that you have to take into account the eras when comparing the fighters. Benny shouldn't be rated lower simply because Ray shows more impressive abilities as it was a different era, and Ray shouldn't be rated lower simply because Benny has a deeper resume for the same reason - most top fighters of that time have a deeper resume than Ray Leonard, but that doesn't make them greater. SRL's resume rates as highly in his time as Benny's does in his, the same is true for their H2H abilities, but I think Benny did more in his era than Ray did due to the early retirement, and that's the difference I see between them.

In other words, I don't think Kid Gavilan can rate higher than Ray Leonard, despite his deeper resume - a lot more has to be considered when comparing fighters of different eras than when comparing fighters of the same era.

I agree, but again, this is easier do to as you're comparing fighters from the same era. Ali and Duran accomplished more in that era, so it's pretty simple. Deciding if Benny Leonard accomplished more in his era than Ray Leonard did in his is a bit more difficult imo. You can't just go by who has the better list of wins, as that is most likely going to be the guy with 6 times as many fights.

 

I disagree. That probably had more to do with his opponent than anything. The fact that he could so significantly change his style to a stalking power puncher, all the while absorbing everything a monster puncher like Hearns could dish out, is very impressive to me. He did whatever he needed to do to get the win, and to be able to do so against such a stylistic foil for him is even more impressive. Brilliant performance IMO.

He certainly looked better against Benitez, probably moreso than any other fight of his, IMO. I wouldn't say it was a better performance all things considered, though. In fact, the Hearns fight was probably his most significant win for me.

I barely even rate it.

Aesthetically, I understand. But considering the level of difficulty and the perseverance he displayed, few performances match it IMO.

He was consistent and dominant for my money, and he proved himself against the very best fighters in one of the best ever eras. I don't know what other way to say it. That doesn't get done very often.

 

I see your point more clearly now. I agree. Perhaps 'resume' was the wrong word to use in my initial post.

Compared to others from the same (or neighbouring) era such as Ali or Duran, Leonard's top wins were comparably great, but notably fewer and therefore in my eyes he does not deserve to be ranked in the same tier/level/whatever (which is the all-time top 10-12).

Compared to others from the same (or neighbouring) era such as Greb, Jack Dempsey, Ross, Canzoneri and Walker, Benny Leonard's ability and achievements are on par with any of them (Greb & Walker) and greater than most (Ross, Canzoneri, Dempsey), so he deserves to be ranked accordingly (behind Greb, equal or greater than Walker - top 10-12).

 

I used it in mine as well

Yeah. Benny Leonard is somewhere around #8 for me, I'd have SRL just outside my top 10, probably at 12.

 

I just didn't see it like that. I don't think he did change his style to a stalking power puncher, I thought he was comfortably outboxed and was inhibited by this. The rare occasions where he exploded into action, he had success, but was quickly inhibited again by his inability to compete on a boxing level with Hearns. He seemed inhibited and discouraged, not so much stalking as plodding and absorbing. Though as I said, he did show lethal finishing skills when he had to, and great resilience. So of course there were great things about that performance, but all in all I don't think it was brilliant.

Hearns may indeed have been his most significant win, but it was not his most significant performance IMO. The Hearns win proved one aspect of Leonard's game - finishing/power. It is not a good exhibition of his ability in any other way I don't think. The Benitez fight is.

I understand where you're coming from, but irrespective of how that fight went, Leonard performed. But I wouldn't argue that point, I am in agreement to an extent.

(However, if you barely rate it, this diminishes the pool of Leonard's great wins to a mere three in your eyes. Doesn't this affect your ranking of him then?? So, so few.)

Different strokes. I think many, many performances better it, from that era and outwith it. I just saw that one a different way.

3 or 4 great wins, 12 world title fights. Great fighter? Unquestionably. Consistent and dominant? Not to a top 10 of all-time extent for my money, no. JMHO.

 

More or less on the same page then.

 

Yes, but Leonard CAN be reasonably placed inside the top 10.That was my one, little reason for typing all of that out.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree because we don't see eye to eye on his tactics during the Hearns fight.

I barely rate it based not only on Duran's condition, but Leonard's performance. He showed very good movement and ring generalship, but not much else IMO. He just seemed content with clowning Duran and limiting his effectiveness while doing little in the way of effective offense himself. Still, he adapted accordingly.

And I did mention that certain controversial circumstances in his fights could potentially hinder their value. This fight being the primary one.

Fair enough, we may as well just agree to disagree on this whole topic. I still respect your views highly.:good