This is quite close I think. Resumé wise Leonard had the slightly better top 5 wins, but Ali had more solid championship reigns and more fights. Skillwise they're very close. P4p Ali's speed was better, but Leonards technique was more textbook and he had the better punch p4p (at least at WW). When it comes to durability, will to win and boxing brain they're very close IMO. So who do you have the highest of the two p4p?
I rate Ali higher based on overall resume and dominance, whereas I believe Leonard was the more skilled of the two.
Agreed. Leonard was a more powerful welterweight than Ali at heavyweight, a much better bodypuncher, more versatile, etc... Smaller guys tend to be more skilled and complete than HWs anyway.
Ali for me, we can debate all day, but for i would always come to the conclusion that Ali is over Leonard. Skillwise Leonard may be above him, but that would only be if we were to debate that by the book in terms of the tru definition of 'skill', but in terms of effectiveness in a fighters prime it doesnt get much better than Ali in his prime. The man is a h2h mammoth wether people like it or not. And legacy-wise this can be looked at for both guys, but again Ali wins out there more clearly than in the skill respect imo. ALI
SSR was a far better overall fighter, Power in both hands, fast and good feet, I dont think Ali fits in LB 4 LB
Yeah, that's why you have to try and see it in a p4p sense. I would say that Ali never met anyone of comparable skill when remotely close to his prime (well, maybe Norton), whereas for example Duran and especially Hearns were quite close skill wise to Leonard when they met.
in the 60's Ali was said to be a Sugar Ray Robinson in heavyweight form, plus he was basically unhittable. Sugar Ray Leonard was not Sugar Ray Robinson as a welterweight.
Leonard fought more like Robinson than Ali did, who basically fought nothing like Robinson, regardless of how much he idolized him. Those comparisons are ridiculous. And Ali was far from unhittable, he really was very flawed technically, and it showed quite a few times against less than stellar opposition early in his career.
Technically yes, but most of that was post-exhile, where he'd lost the athleticism that originally kept him out of harm's way(for the most part). However, the Ali just pre-exhile was quite impressive.
When Ali was on his tour in the mid-sixties to get in as many fights as possible after he was drafted, he just toyed with his opponents. Folley, Williams, Terrell (unification), Mildenberger, London, Cooper. Then Ali had to leave for awhile so the courts could do their thing.
Ali way ahead on this one. We are talking about the saviour of boxing and a true warrior. IMO it's really no contest. What we have here is the real thing vs. the copycat. Original vs new coke which we all know bombed like Leonard bombed in the ring with Norris and Camacho. And personality wise? Let's not even go there! Ali was the greatest showman in ANY sports-period. Ali had more social charm than all other sports figures put together. Everyone tried to borrow from his act, not just leonard. You had Saad Muhammud, Riddick Bowe, all the way down to kids just learning to box. Everybody imitated him because they wanted to be associated with a winner. Ali was to be copied. People who werent around then dont realize it but everyone back then stole from some part of Ali's act. In fact, Larry Holmes had the opposite problem and was careful not to try to imitate Muhammud. That's how strong an impact he had on the sport. If not for Ali the sport would never have had the mega million dollar paydays you saw passed onto Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Holmes and so on. I'm not a big Ali fan but I need to inform people that there's never been anyone like him before or since.