Who was better?

Everybody knows why Leonard lost the Norris fight, including you. He was finished, shot. He hadn't fought in over a year before Norris, even more inactivity, coupled with the fact that he was shot way before 91. Don't give me that crap about Leonard looking better than ever against Duran, he was tailor made for Leonard during that point in his career.

Leonard was finished, and Norris would be a fool himself to tell his grandchildren that he once beat Ray Leonard. He only beat the name.

 

you really need to read things in context. you said that leonard had been in atcive for 3 yrs so he had ring rust. that point can be taken but if you dismiss the fact that hagler had tough fight in between that time period that put wear and tear on his body, then you're the one being ridiculous. did you know that leonard fought hagler because of how is fight with mugabi. leonard deserves credit but if you're gonna point out leonard not being at his best, you have to do the same with hagler if your calling it down the middle.

 

Leonard
The version of Hearns that Leonard beat in their first match up was in my opinion a little bit better than the Hearns that Hagler beat. I think Noris is a HOFer but if he and Leonard were to have meet prime 4 prime Leonard would have won.
Hagler's victory over Hearns is very impresive, but keep in mind he was fighting a 154 lbs champion who despite enjoying a hight and reach advantage was not used to the biger weight.
Hagler should have Leonard he didn't. It was close and it should not have been regaurdless of the demands of length of bout and ring size that Leonard made and got. Hagler was the heavy favorite to win.

 

I read everything in perfect context. I don't buy that whole, "Hagler had it hard to because he was coming off tough fights". Ask any professional fighter, or any trainers, a fighter coming off a long lay off is in worse shape than a fighter who's been active.

Leonard's motifs for fighting Hagler are completely irrelevant. Hagler didn't need to be in his prime for it to be a great upset. Everybody picked Hagler, and Leonard overcame the odds, despite various disadvantages, to pull out the victory. Hagler was past his best, Leonard was also, coupled with the fact he hadn't fought in three years, and had never fought at Middleweight in his life. What a great effort from a hell of a fighter.

 

Exactly why it was an unbelievable effort, but you know as well as anbody RedRooster, fighters can only go on for so long. Ray had no business being competitive with Hagler all things considered, but he defied the odds. Had he lost in that fight, people would have said he was past his best (as he was), but people would have acknowleged that at Middlewight, Hagler always gets the best of Leonard. I think 7/10, he probably does, but that night it was Leonard's night.

I don't need to justify my notions to you because the general consensus is that Leonard was past his prime for the Norris fight.

 

The burden now rests on you to provide a 5 year old that not only CAN do better, but actually DOES better.

 

This content is protected

 

Leonard undoubtably. I'd put Hearns above him tho.

 

i would have to say the determining factor for putting one ahead of the other was their fight

their fight was close but i had hagler winning by 1 point but the judges gave it to leonard and i cant argue it was a close fight

 

Actually see Hagler - Leonard and Leonard - Benitez.

Oh and last time i looked Ray beat Thomas

Now it's closed