The animosity, and sometimes hatred, that many on this board express towards Sugar Ray Leonard continues to baffle me. Personally, I have no bias against or for him in any way, I just see him as great fighter like Pep, Robinson, Louis, Ali, Hearns, Armstrong, Whitaker, Greb, Hagler, Moore, Jones, Charles, Hopkins and many others. He is one of the fighters I enjoy watching the most, though. But why is he so disliked? He made the bigggest fights happen and he perfomed well in just about all of them. Sure, like just about every fighter who's ever lived he made some allowances for risk/reward etc, but he still took on more dangerous opponents than most champions have. So what is it? Is it that he beat too many fan's favourite fighters, is it that his image isn't "bad boy" or "blue collared" enough? What? That there is some resentment towards a guy like Ali, that is so elevated in many's mind, is understandable, but for some reason there's much more bad blood concerning Leonard (at least on this board), and I just don't get it. Ps. Rooster, I can't of course stop you from posting here, but since you are after all raving mad I won't discuss with you.
I like Sugar Ray Leonard he is the first true superstar of boxing i liked as my Dad was a big fan of Leonard but as i grew and watched more boxing i appreciated his skills but didnt like the way he adopted th Sugar ringname.i didnt likthe way he stole a win from hagler i respect teh guy and he is near the top of my top 100, top 20 actually. hes a good fighter but not my favourite but i shouldnt let my dad hear that.
Because he was not what the fans want on several levels, and he beat the guys who were what the fans wanted their heros to be.
I hate Leonard. Mainly because he beat Hagler and I'm a huge Marvin fan. To be honest, Leonard is the ONLY fighter I allow that sorta thing to cloud my judgement over. He should probably be top ten or five all-time, but he only scrapes into my top 20 because people would ask me why he wasn't there otherwise? From a less biased point of view; I don't like the fact he waited for Hagler to go past peak before fighting him. Ducking him whilst fighting other guys is fine as long as you eventually fighting him. But playing tennis and taking years off whilst you watched the champ go through a series of ardous battles, then pick-pocketing rounds from him? No doubt Hagler did himself a disservice by boxing mainly orthodox for the first few rounds. Leonard's clowning in the Duran rematch was annoying too. However, wins over probably 'Peak' Hearns, as well as Benitez, Duran in the 2nd fight (regardless of the way he won it, he still furstrated Duran enough to make him quit, even I have to say well done) and Hagler, regardless of what I think, he still did enough to win in most people's eyes (and the eyes that count, The Judges) and also holds a very impressive win over Donny Lalonde (also tainted due to Leonard's insistence he weigh-in twice so as also to make the SMW limit) There are fighters with deeper resumes, but Leonard has some fantastic wins over ATG's when they were at/near their peak. He is one of the 'Icon's' of boxing, and had fantastic skills which rate him highly H2H. I don't like him though.
Good of you to admit your bias, but you still say things that doesn't make sense. 1. Sure, he probably waited until the right moment before calling Hagler out, but he still went up against a dominant ATG MW champion, himself being a natural WW and coming out of a long retirement. You REALLY have to twist things around to make Leonard seem like a coward here. There is a wide gulf many times between being smart and realistic and being cowardly. And, yes, he fought smart to "steal" rounds and there's definitely a case to be made that the decision could as well have gone to Hagler. But it was a good fight and his physical inferiority made it necissary for him to fight a tactical fight. And no matter what you think of the decision, it was no robbery and was down to the judges, not Leonard. 2. How can you seriously knock him for taunting Duran? Duran, who acted badly towards many opponents, taunted him in the closing stages of their first fight, besides insulting his wife. So he did a bit of clowning against the guy who said he would fukk his wife right after fukking him up? Big deal.
I despise leonard because of the fact that he waited 8 years to give hearns a rematch (which he lost imo) and he waited untill hagler started slipping before fighting him instead of fighting him in his prime (i had him losing that fight also). He didn't give benitez the rematch that he deserved, and if he'd beat duran the first time he wouldn't have given him a rematch either. Leonard may have been a great fighter skill wise but a true champion he was not. A true champion doesn't wait untill he feels that someone is washed up before he fights them.
But for almost 5 of the 8 years between the fights with Hearns he was retired, and when they did meat the second time he was 33 and clearly past his prime. I agree that Hearns should have won the rematch, but, again, it's the judges's fault not Leonard's. I don't know the story behind Benitez not getting a rematch, but it was a clear victory the first time around. Hearns won by a smaller margin and didn't give Benitez a rematch. Hagler didn't give Duran and Hearns rematches. Duran didn't give Buchanan a rematch, nor Barkley. The simple fact is that Leonard had more fights against these guys (Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler) than anyone else, but still he's the one who gets the short end of the stick. It just doesn't make sense.
I don't see myself as biased towards Leonard in terms of rating him H2H, his skills or overall how high I rate him as a fighter. A thread was done a while back regarding to mention a poster and the fighter who springs to mind first. Someone said, Robbi - Sugar Ray Leonard. Obviously that poster thought I was a fan. I actually dislike Leonard outwith his ability inside the ring. It really annoys me that he won two titles in one fight against Lalonde. Outright cheating IMO. If I was Leonard I'd be embarrassed with those two titles in one fight. His tactics with the Hagler negotiatons were also sneaky.
I've often wondered over this as well. For someone with such a good list of top quality wins in his resume people just don't seem to be able to warm to him. I've even questioned myself as to why I find it particularly difficult to like him. I think beating Hearns and Hagler may have something to do with it.....but surely it must be more than that? Maybe it's the fact that the general public fawned over him so much from the start coupled with his attitude. I rewatched Leonard and Hagler about two days ago and I actually began to really respect the heart, skills and especially footwork of Leonard. I think if Hagler had been given the decision, which he deserved in my opinion, then I would have appreciated Leonard so much more in his losing attempt.
