Why the love for Sugar Ray Leonard but not Floyd Mayweather?

1 - He retired because of an eye injury, and retired again when he lost his hunger having beaten everyone. This wasn't really the case with Mayweather.

2- Ray fought every great available to him, most at their peak. He truly wanted to be great, and fought the necessary names to be considered a true great.

Ray did **** around with Hagler, but Marvin was a beast Middleweight, wereas Ray was at his best as a Welter. It's a huge difference. Plus, Leonard had been out of the ring for what, 3 years? Imagine Floyd doing that, then coming back to fight Serigo, rather than Marquez

 

I think boxing was just different back then, compared to how it is now

People perceive it differently. SRL was loved. He was really appreciated for who he was as a fighter, people liked him as a person, and he had that it factor

Floyd is the opposite....he fought in a way that not everybody loved....then as he got older....he fell out with Arum and fought who he wanted to fight....back then you fought who was put in front of you.

So in short, one guy is the ideal boxer, other is an *******.

 

As far as I'm aware, the partying, drugs and women were all behind the scenes, so it's easy for people not to be aware of them.

I wouldn't say his antics were questionable to be honest, he fought everyone, and was a bit of a lad at the after party.

Some things you didn't mention which **** me off is the '5 weight world champion' (I think it was 5 off the top of my head), even tho he won the LHW title when BOTH fighters weighed 168. Pretty bull**** IMO. But then again, I don't take any notice of titles to be honest.

Im not a Ray nuthugger either. Duran is my favourite ever fighter, and Hearns is up there, so I don't really like ray all that much. I just think he deserves a **** load more credit than Floyd.

 

Having a 'nice guy' persona allows you to get away with all kinda of business antics.

Simple as. If you look at the arguments people have about K2, it is largely ignored because of all the other good that they do.

Leonard had that 'nice guy' persona, to do what he wanted behind the scenes.

Also legacies are viewed a hell of a lot differently once a fighter has retired, or died.

 

I wasn't watching the sport back when Leonard was active, but from what I've heard, he did have quite a few people who disliked him. (Hell, that Rooster guy in the Classic forum has been criticising him for years, and probably continues to do so.) What changed the tide was apparently his first match with Duran, in which he dug down and went to war. He lost, but earned respect for his toughness. Losing probably made him more sympathetic, more human to the people watching. (I think the same thing happened with Ali/Frazier 1.)

Floyd is still undefeated, and constantly bragging about it. It's hard to sympathise with him in any way, as he keeps doing or saying things that put him in a negative light -- the racism against Pac, the trashtalking of his opponents, the sucker punch KO against an overmatched Ortiz, his talk about how money is more important than legacy, etc. Not exactly likable. Leonard has much more warmth and friendliness (at least outwardly) and his speaking skills are also better. He recently did an interview on Ringside that was more engaging than anything Floyd has done in 24/7 or any Floyd interview.

He has a much more crowd pleasing style than Floyd -- he took risks and constantly threw combinations, an offensive boxer-puncher rather than a defensive specialist like Floyd. Also, unlike Floyd, Leonard can't be accused of taking the path of least resistance...fighting monsters like Duran, Hearns and Hagler, along with the defensive master Benitez. His resume commands respect, even when you consider his sly tactics and maneuvering.

 

So many of these reasons are emotionally driven and female-like. You're absolutely right, but it's still wrong.

 

Not sure where the idea that Leonard is "untouchable" comes from. He's one of the most polarizing figures in the modern history of the sport.

The main difference between the two is the thug persona Mayweather portrays versus the slick, polished Park Avenue thing Leonard had going, and the fact that Leonard was willing to fight the guys who were really threats. Bark at that if you will, but he did go after Benitez, Hearns, Duran, and Hagler.

And none of this revisionist bull**** either, about "Hagler was past it." He may well have been, but that wasn't too widely known at the time. He was still an overwhelmning favorite to beat Ray. Virtually everyone thought Leonard would have his head ripped off.

Mayweather picks the "less risk, comparatively moderate reward" path.

 

maybe because he actually did fight everyone out there.

 

Well put..
I also think that Leonard has a more crowd pleasing style

 

He WAS technically within his rights, but it still looked bad. Imagine what would have happened if Floyd simply went on with business, resumed his boxing, and stopped Ortiz after a few minutes. (Much like how he was badly fouled by Judah, then simply continued to box him and won.) He would have come out of that fight looking like a classy sportsman -- he would be the victim, and all the cricitism would go to Ortiz. His suckerpunch complicated matters and made him look bad, and his explosion at Merchant in the post-fight interview sealed the deal.

I understand why Floyd did it -- he'd just been headbutted, he was in pain, and he was angry at Ortiz's cheating. It just didn't look good, though -- one of those cases where it's legal but still disappointing.

 

Because SRL was a gentleman and Floyd is a racist, gangasta-wannabe, bling and crack wife beater.

 

Sugary Ray would have never ever ask for OSDT vs and Asian midget .