top 5 pound for pound fighters ever - your opinion

[Ambling Alp]

1) I'm not using the cut to taint it. I only mention because you dismissed it so readily that it jarred with me. Every little thing does count. I have never offered it as an excuse and never would. You're right in saying the outcome was not effected, but to say it has absolutely zero impact is wrong and blatantly biased (and this is the ONLY reason I brought it up).

2) I don't agree with any of your conclusions on the 1-1 v 5-5... maths have nothing to do with it IMO. beating an all time great 5 times means a lot more to me than beating him once, and getting in the ring with him 10 times means more than getting in twice. That's how I see it.

The series was won by neither man IMO. Argue however you like. I don't care for 'embarrassing'... When it comes to it this is personal preference, some think the first fight is conclusive others don't, some think the second fight is conclusive, others don't... I think it's 50-50.

3) Duran better at 147... Those fights you mention are only considered great performances because he was older, slower, smaller and less powerful. Duran post Leonard I and II could still beat world class opponents of a certain style. Duran at 135 could take on any fighter from history and have a great chance of winning.

4) I try to be generous in my ratings (this is boxing). I look more to who people beat, IMO losing is just a part of sport especially when you fight everyone multiple times. I'd rather reward guys who fought the best over and over and over rather than guys who didn't lose many (losses are overplayed in boxing).

Ezzard,
1. Well atleast you admit that it didn't taint the win for Leonard. I dismissed it because I wouldn't give it any consideration if it was anyone else.
Have I ever brought up something this small in regard to any other fight?
Every little thing counts? How can you possibly know "everything? If a guy has a hangnail that means something?

2. As for the 1-1 and 5-5, I guess I don't really know what you are getting at. Does this have something to do with Langford and his many fights with Wills, Jeannette, McVey?

I think losses have to be factored in. Lets say fighter A was 5-5 against an opponent, and fighter B was 4-0 against the same opponent? If losses don't count, than fighter A would have a slight edge there. I can't believe that you would really think that.

3. Duran at welterweight wasn't old yet. He just turned 29 when he fought Leonard. He still had the physical attributes and had more experience than he did in say 1972 when he won the lightweight title.
He was slower, however, relatively speaking he was about the same because welterweights aren't typically as fast as lightweights.

Power-Pretty close. It's not like he knocked everyone out at lightweeight, and seldom early against anyone good. He did show power against Cuevas and Moore. I think he could give almost anyone in history a tough fight at 147 as well. People just don't think of him as much as a welterweight becasue he wasn't there as long.

Of course this is all mine and yours opinion. Look at the facts. Besides Leonard, he never came close to losing at welterweight. His lopsided win over Palomino at welterweight is as impressive as beating Buchanan or winning 2 out of 3 against DeJesus at lightweight.

4. Losses count. Of course, who they were to, how many, and how bad they were have to be taken into consideration.
And occasionally a loss is embarrassing. If you lose to a weak opponent, thats embarrassing. If you get beat badly, thats embarrassing. And if you quit easily, that's embarrassing.
Maybe "embarrassing" isn't the best word for this. Maybe a simply word like "bad is better.

I do understand that the difficulty of opponents should be considered. For example if fighter A has fights a lot of good opponents, wins about half of them and has a career record of say 50-5 should probably be rated higher than say fighter B that does have wins over great opponents, who finishes say 40-1. Fighter B would have to look a lot better on film.

[Ambling Alp]

sorry to post agian, but I think that I need to say something.
It's been said that I constantly take Leonard's side. However think of it this way:
Ezzard would accept critism of Ezzard Charles or Roberto Duran if you didn't think they were vadlid? Of course not.

Elmer wouldn't if it was about Duran or Armstrong and wasn't valid at all..

homocidehenry wouldn't if it was about Marciano if it wasn't valid at all.

However thread after thread, week after week comments are made about Leonard. Even if they were all true that would be bad enough.

Ezzard-, If I said that Ezzard Charles was very good because he lost so many time when he was old, or because he never won the lightheavyweight title, or because he lost a lot when he was old, had a well managed career, waited to fight Joe Louis when Louis was old etc.

Would you really accept any of them? Of course not. What if you got this week after week after week? Would that change your mind? Of course not. Because they aren't valid.

Yet week after week, Leonard (and Ali) get lame criticisms. Criticisms that fighters in similar situations don't get criticized for. I or someone else point this out, and sooner or later the same lames criticisms comes back as if we didn't point out the ob. Week after week after week.

There are hundreds if not thousands of fighters and fights that we could talk about but people keep coming back to Ali and Leonard.

When was the last thread that trashed Kid Gavilan? How about Barney Ross? how about Willie Pep? I'm suggesting we do that. I'm just saying that there is an obvious double standard here. It's ok to rip Ali and Leonard constantly, but not anyone else.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Plenty of threads & replies praise Ali & Leonard (both of whom are praise-worthy fighters), but God forbid someone take a shot (legitimate or otherwise) at a media darling.

Stop telling only your side of the story, Alp. When was the last thread praising Gavilan, Ross or Pep?

[Ambling Alp]

There certainly have been threads praising them. The ratio of positive comments compared to negative comments is a lot higher for them than Ali or Leonard. when was the last thread that started out praising Leonard?

I certainly would like to talk about these guys and many others. I would be generally positive about them but would point out the negatives. I wouldn't criticize them for anything that I wouldn't criticize Ali or Leonard.
I would rather talk about them than the constant Ali/Leonard stuff. However, topics on most of these guys don't bring people out of the woodwork like anything remotely to do with Ali or Leonard.

I love talking boxing from the 1880's to up until fairly recently. Thats one reason why I like to do the Hall of Fame. Feel free to look up my posts. You will see that I have talked about a lot guys and a lot of different fighters. Would like to do more of it.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Then why bite at the sight of perfectly legitimate observations of Ali or Leonard (which you undoubtedly see as criticisms)?

[Elton John]

There certainly have been threads praising them. The ratio of positive comments compared to negative comments is a lot higher for them than Ali or Leonard. when was the last thread that started out praising Leonard?

I certainly would like to talk about these guys and many others. I would be generally positive about them but would point out the negatives. I wouldn't criticize them for anything that I wouldn't criticize Ali or Leonard.
I would rather talk about them than the constant Ali/Leonard stuff. However, topics on most of these guys don't bring people out of the woodwork like anything remotely to do with Ali or Leonard.

I love talking boxing from the 1880's to up until fairly recently. Thats one reason why I like to do the Hall of Fame. Feel free to look up my posts. You will see that I have talked about a lot guys and a lot of different fighters. Would like to do more of it.

I don't think you've proven your case about Leonard at all. You say you back up your facts with facts but do you really? Leonard never won a big fight without controversy.

Let's take a closer look at what happened in these fights starting with Benitez.

IMO Leonard was comfortably ahead on points. The problem that people have is with the way he won it. In no way was that a knockout. Most leonard fans like Alp say they dont have a problem with it but to call it a fair stoppage is another injustice to the sport.

Now for the Duran rematch. It is a well known fact that Leonard's people was scoping out the Duran camp to find Duran 40 pounds overweight and then rushed him into a rematch with Duran having to shed 10 pounds in the last three days. This win is not untainted either.

Can you deal with those facts Alp?? Is it any wonder why Duran didnt win? Even Randy Gordon admitted that Duran didnt belong in the ring that night in a championship fight. That's a fact Alp. Can you deal with it?

Leonard could never beat Duran when he was in shape. Duran proved it in the first fight. Duran,a fighter who skipped two divisions, beat a natural welterweight IN HIS PRIME-and comfortably.

The hearns fight. Despite his manager bringing tommy in two pounds under the limit, Tommy gave us all an early preview of Leonard-Norris by giving Leonard a complete boxing lesson. Leonard reminded me of Mike Weaver sleepwalking through the Tate fight until Dundee told him like it was-"you're blowing it son!"

A great performance it wasn't and one I wouldnt want to put in the scrap book. So much for dominant performances in your prime. When people bring up Leonard's prime I counter with "so what about it?"

Even then he was falling behind on points.

Then came the Hagler fight five years later which was the biggest joke of them all. Leonard waiting five years because he couldnt handle a dominant champion. I still dont see why people say he couldnt fight Hagler then because he had an eye injury. Didnt he fight Kevin Howard??

In those days you couldnt get leonard in the ring with Hagler if you put a gun to his head. he'd fight Kevin Howard though. And
I dont' understand why he was taking fights with lalonde and Duran instead of McCallum and Nunn. Do you know Alp?

I asked you this in my last post from last night but you didnt reply even though you responded to everyone else. That's the problem with Leonard fans-they dont know how to respond to valid criticisms of Leonard yet they keep insisting and making outrageous claims he is #2 welter and top 5 p4p. What a pile of manure!!

What about that statement from Leonard during the fight having been quoted as saying "hagler lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on ht e slowness of Hagler". You still like to pretend you dont see it. "Slowdown? What slowdown?"

See, I back up my opinions with facts Alp but the fact is you can't bring yourself to address this problem. This proves Leonard never would have faced marvin Hagler because he knew Hagler would kill him. Leonard isnt the caliber of fighter to climb in the ring with Hagler.

I asked you before why as long as he was in the ring with Howard. he didnt gun for Hagler after that? These questions arent too hard for you I hope.

Then there's the fact that leonard lost to a 3-1 underdog in Norris and didnt even put a struggle once Norris put the hurt on him. A real fighter like Julian Jackson would have come storming back to win but leonard lacked the heart to compete. Gone was the shuffle, the bolo, and God forbid he would try sticking out that chin against Norris. As it was, Terry found his head impossible to miss.

And please stop blaming the loss on age. There was nothing wrong with him in the Duran fight-the tape shows that so why deny it? Bernard Hopkins proved a man could fight well in his mid thirties and even beyond. Why can't Ray?

Alp, in order for Ray to gain universal acceptance all he would have had to do is take the fight with Pryor once Pryor made the challenge as seen on Youtube instead of chickening out.

Then take the fight with Don Curry followed by a few more defenses of his undisputed welterweight title, then the Duran a rematch some time in 1983. Then a unification with Thomas Hearns in 1984 followed by yet another move up to middleweight that same year to settle the question on the world's best fighter. Then win or lose, if he's still alive, make a few defenses to prove his mettle against the Micheal Nunns of the world, the Mike mcCallums and the Julian Jacksons.

If he successfully passes all these tests then he is deserving of a top five standing like you say. His career accomplishments came nothing close to this. IMO, Leonard is no better than a 35-5 record and officially 36-3-1. That's as far as it goes so his accomplishments look very meager compared with Greb, langford, Tunney, Robinson, Armstrong, Monzon. I can name a few dozen fighters i would put ahead of leonard easily.

I'm not being cruel but it's easy to see why Leonard doesnt get respect in his own decade.

[Jaclem]

...each time i open this thread i think i've made a mistake and somehow i've gotten into someone's private messages. then i look at the title as i forget what the subject was. as it stands now there are tons of verbiage about whether sugar ray leonard belongs as one of the top five p4p fighters of all time, and if he does should he be rated above or below sam langford.

maybe the thread should shift to "who was the better p4p of all time....leonard or langford," as the discussion has dropped from top 5 to top 2.

i checked the record books and they never fought each other, and the question will remain unanswered.

[Ezzard]

1) I'm not using the cut to taint it. I only mention because you dismissed it so readily that it jarred with me. Every little thing does count. I have never offered it as an excuse and never would. You're right in saying the outcome was not effected, but to say it has absolutely zero impact is wrong and blatantly biased (and this is the ONLY reason I brought it up).

2) I don't agree with any of your conclusions on the 1-1 v 5-5... maths have nothing to do with it IMO. beating an all time great 5 times means a lot more to me than beating him once, and getting in the ring with him 10 times means more than getting in twice. That's how I see it.

The series was won by neither man IMO. Argue however you like. I don't care for 'embarrassing'... When it comes to it this is personal preference, some think the first fight is conclusive others don't, some think the second fight is conclusive, others don't... I think it's 50-50.

3) Duran better at 147... Those fights you mention are only considered great performances because he was older, slower, smaller and less powerful. Duran post Leonard I and II could still beat world class opponents of a certain style. Duran at 135 could take on any fighter from history and have a great chance of winning.

4) I try to be generous in my ratings (this is boxing). I look more to who people beat, IMO losing is just a part of sport especially when you fight everyone multiple times. I'd rather reward guys who fought the best over and over and over rather than guys who didn't lose many (losses are overplayed in boxing).

Ezzard,
1. Well atleast you admit that it didn't taint the win for Leonard. I dismissed it because I wouldn't give it any consideration if it was anyone else.
Have I ever brought up something this small in regard to any other fight?
Every little thing counts? How can you possibly know "everything? If a guy has a hangnail that means something?

2. As for the 1-1 and 5-5, I guess I don't really know what you are getting at. Does this have something to do with Langford and his many fights with Wills, Jeannette, McVey?

I think losses have to be factored in. Lets say fighter A was 5-5 against an opponent, and fighter B was 4-0 against the same opponent? If losses don't count, than fighter A would have a slight edge there. I can't believe that you would really think that.

3. Duran at welterweight wasn't old yet. He just turned 29 when he fought Leonard. He still had the physical attributes and had more experience than he did in say 1972 when he won the lightweight title.
He was slower, however, relatively speaking he was about the same because welterweights aren't typically as fast as lightweights.

Power-Pretty close. It's not like he knocked everyone out at lightweeight, and seldom early against anyone good. He did show power against Cuevas and Moore. I think he could give almost anyone in history a tough fight at 147 as well. People just don't think of him as much as a welterweight becasue he wasn't there as long.

Of course this is all mine and yours opinion. Look at the facts. Besides Leonard, he never came close to losing at welterweight. His lopsided win over Palomino at welterweight is as impressive as beating Buchanan or winning 2 out of 3 against DeJesus at lightweight.

4. Losses count. Of course, who they were to, how many, and how bad they were have to be taken into consideration.
And occasionally a loss is embarrassing. If you lose to a weak opponent, thats embarrassing. If you get beat badly, thats embarrassing. And if you quit easily, that's embarrassing.
Maybe "embarrassing" isn't the best word for this. Maybe a simply word like "bad is better.

I do understand that the difficulty of opponents should be considered. For example if fighter A has fights a lot of good opponents, wins about half of them and has a career record of say 50-5 should probably be rated higher than say fighter B that does have wins over great opponents, who finishes say 40-1. Fighter B would have to look a lot better on film.

1) A bookie will tell you that any slight detail changes the odds. By how much who knows... Anyway I'm moving on.

2) I'm just trying to offer some insight into the fact that fighting lots of good fighters opens you up to off nights, whereas fighting 3 times a year does not. matchmaking plays a big part for fighters on the way up too.

3) You are saying that a guy not in the top 10 at 147 was better than a guy who may be #1 at 135...

Okay, I accept you rate your fighters differently...

[Ambling Alp]

1. Every slight detail changes the odds? First of all, bookies make their odds on public perception, not necessarily on what is relevant.

So if one fighter has a hangnail, the odds change? Leonard had hand problems throughout his career. Is that taken into consideration for all of his fights? How about his eye problems? Do people consider that when they talk about Leonard's comeback?
You can't possibly take into consideration every little detail that a fighter has to contend with. Everyone has personal problems. Every fighter has small injuries in fights and in training. You could make take the luster off of anyones win if you wanted to. A cut on the forehead that doesn't affect a fighters vision is about the lamest thing I have heard of on this forum.


2. I do agree with you that if you fight hundreds of fights in your career (like Langford for example) you are going to have more "off nights or bad results" than if you have say 40 fights.
Obviously mathematically you are prone to; and of course it's harder to get up for fights when you fighting once a month, taking fights on short notice etc.

However, here are some things to take into consideration:
-You still have to count the losses. They did happen. Maybe it's not as bad of a loss or draw, but it's still happened. It has to count for something.

-In Langford's case, I pointed out several losses and draws to ordinary fighters. Not just one.

-Just because one fighter has more fights than another, doesn't necessarily mean he was better.

-I'm not saying that you can't make a strong case Langford being better than Leonard and/or being in the Top 5 of all time. I am just saying it's not a slamdunk.

3.Obviously Duran didn't have nearly the amount of fights at welterweight as he did at lightweight. So of course he isn't going to be rated as highly. That doesn't mean that he didn't perform as well at welterweight.

Gene Tunney performed as well in the fights that he had at heavyweight as he did at lightheavyweight. (He had 14 or so fights at heavyweight.) However, he had far more fights at lightheavyweight and is almost always rated much higher at lightheavyweight than he is at heavyweight.


Performances is the key here, because people are trying to dismiss Leonard for losing to Duran. As I have pointed out, each of the other welterweights mentioned (Gavilan,Ross,Armstrong,Griffith,Walcott,Napoles) had atleast one loss to a fighter that wasn't as good as welterweight Roberto Duran.
Even if you think Duran declined since being a lightweight, you have to agree that opponents that I mentioned that they lost to weren't as good as welterweight Roberto Duran.

[Ezzard]

I don't downgrade Leonard for losing to Duran. he lost to a great fighter in a great performance. No shame in that

[dr_devious]

Leonard was 34 years old, and really only fighting part time from 1982 onwards. Of course he wasnt the same fighter he was in the early 80s

Then Hagler was a part time fighter from 1984 on because he fought once a year like Leonard.

But do you think Leonard was anywhere near his best in 1990? If so, why?
And yes, Hagler was a shell of his former self when he fought Leonard. This doesnt make Norris' victory over Leonard any better. Whats your point?

[Elton John]

Leonard was 34 years old, and really only fighting part time from 1982 onwards. Of course he wasnt the same fighter he was in the early 80s

Then Hagler was a part time fighter from 1984 on because he fought once a year like Leonard.

But do you think Leonard was anywhere near his best in 1990? If so, why?
And yes, Hagler was a shell of his former self when he fought Leonard. This doesnt make Norris' victory over Leonard any better. Whats your point?

Yes, but at least Hagler made it close or rather, leonard made it close. But I didnt see the same wear on leonard as with Hagler and Norris-Leonard was nowhere near close. Even if Leonard was shot as Alp mistakenly claimed, he had much more experience and he was by no means useless judging from the Duran fight - Steve Farhood called it the perfect performance, so he should have beat Norris regardless of all the excuses. It's all pretense on their part, pretending Leonard suddenly couldnt put two punches together.

It's only after the fight that his fans were calling "foul". Before the fight however, they were all certain Leonard was headed for an easy knockout win.

In his prime?

It's very hard to tell. His ring appearances were so erratic it's hard to make a comparison of performances.

And by the way, why do you people always refer to Leonard's prime as though he were some unbeatable monster? He was never dominant to begin with. One guy just said "I don't fault leonard for losing to Duran" but he lost, not won. And losing isnt the same as winning. He didnt dominate hearns or kalule. Davey Moore knocked him out just as fast with only ten fights.

What was so special about his prime? Someone tell me what was the big deal about Leonard's prime! I keep asking yet no one can answer ths seemingly simple question. Alp won't respond to me because he's scared shitless now yet he goes on with "Leonard's prime, Leonard's prime" as though never to question it and putting it on the same level as universal law.

Leonard was never able to handle a fast boxer to begin with. He looked great in Uno Mas because he hand picked his opponent Duran who lacked the mobility to compete. But Leonard failed because he's never faced anyone like Norris in his career.

[bjermaine]

elton, you've made your points on leonard but the first hearns fight was one of the greatest performances in the history of the sport on one of its biggest stages. leonard was being beaten by a monster of a welter in hearns and he found a way to pull it out. most great fighters don't get a chance to face another great fighter when they're both in their primes. it happened here and it was special.

also you said something about leonard not getting respect in the decade of the 80s. leonard was the fighter of the decade in the 80s. that is a serious award only given to an all-time great imo.

[Elton John]

elton, you've made your points on leonard but the first hearns fight was one of the greatest performances in the history of the sport on one of its biggest stages. leonard was being beaten by a monster of a welter in hearns and he found a way to pull it out. most great fighters don't get a chance to face another great fighter when they're both in their primes. it happened here and it was special.

also you said something about leonard not getting respect in the decade of the 80s. leonard was the fighter of the decade in the 80s. that is a serious award only given to an all-time great imo.

Hearns wasn't in his prime until the Duran fight three years later. he was much stronger and faster. It was even discussed in various magazines saying "Why has the match between Hagler and Hearns gone from a being an initial steamroller win to a pick 'em fight?". The reasons being several but one of the main reasons was the physical progression of the Hitman to what you saw in the Duran and Hagler fights. Obviously, Tommy was a much improved fighter from the Leonard and Cuevas days.

You see bjermaine, unlike Alp, I back up everything I say with facts and have all my bases covered. Anyone who doesnt like it-tough shit. Or in Alp's case, they just keep quiet and take a back seat.

Leonard would have been beat to a bloody pulp by the reborn hitman and that's why he stayed retired after seeing Tommy and Hagler in action. The heat was too great for him to re-enter the game. And the first fight was nothing special either. I got my copy of the tape at a local 99 cent store. Pryor-Arguello and Hagler-Hearns were much better. So was mancini-Kim for that matter and even Sanchez-Gomez. I'm just telling it like it is.

Leonard is only given fighter of the decade award by some people in the media but was far from given universal recognition. You can't expect me to give Leonard credit for beating a useless hagler. Even Leonard himself admitted this guy was damaged goods "Leonard said marvin lost a lot of speed and was counting on the slowness of Hagler".

This is someting you can't get away from. Everytine somebody brings up Leonard as the fighter of the decade bullshit, I throw that famous line by Tim Ryan and watch them quiet down.

Alp won't comment on this. Ringsider won't comment on it. You won't comment on it, yet you expect me to believe Leonard should be accepted as fighter of the decade? Ringsider's a flake and a troll anyways but for the most ardent leonard supporter like Alp to remain silent on this matter speaks volumes to me.

Seriously, what was Leonard doing in the years 1982-1985? Nothing. What was he doing from 1987-1989? Facing men he should have been facing no less than five years earlier, giving us garbage like Leonard-Hagler, Leonard-hearns 2 and uno mas in which everyone was booing for 12 rounds of non stop running. No defense of his belt. No Micheal Nunn. No Julian Jackson. No Mike McCallum.

Doesn't boxing deserve better than Uno Mas and Don lalonde-Ray Leonard, or Ray Leonard-kevin Howard? I'll be honest with you: I never wanted to see Ray Leonard-Kevin Howard or Leonard-Lalonde.

You can't expect me to give leonard an award for doing nothing most of the decade do you? Maybe if he had been an active fighter instead of hiding his head in the sand waiting for Hagler and Hearns to digress but I can't give Leonard fighter of the decade just because I like him or I think he's cute when he smiles. Liking has got nothing to do with it. You got to earn the title-fighter of the decade.


Hagler won p4p fighter award 4 consecutive times to Leonard's one. Hagler beat 1984's fighter of the year, made 12 defenses to Leonard's 4, fought and beat Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi, Sibson, Hearns in 3, while Leonard just barely beat Hearns in 14, and Leonard ducked Hagler for 5 years. That means he feared him.

Moreover, Hagler was champ for 6 years while Leonard was at longest just two years. How anyone can even compare Leonard to a lethal killer like Hagler is beyond me. Marvin was much more active, skilled, mentally and physically tougher than Ray Leonard and 100% more professional.

I've made a much better case for Hagler being fighter of the decade -much better than the case you made for Leonard. That's why he'll never gain acceptance by serious fans who know the score.

[Jaclem]

..this one has gone for so long i checked back to see what started it....and was taken aback when i read that someone had put ray leonard into the TOP PFP FIGHTERS OF ALL TIME!!!! no kidding!!! now leonard was an okay fighter...and i won't argue with those who even think he was a great one....but come on....top 5 pfp of all time???

this explains where there are only a few posters still going back and forth on this thread. thr premise is nuts.

[elmersalsa]

elton, you've made your points on leonard but the first hearns fight was one of the greatest performances in the history of the sport on one of its biggest stages. leonard was being beaten by a monster of a welter in hearns and he found a way to pull it out. most great fighters don't get a chance to face another great fighter when they're both in their primes. it happened here and it was special.

also you said something about leonard not getting respect in the decade of the 80s. leonard was the fighter of the decade in the 80s. that is a serious award only given to an all-time great imo.

Hearns wasn't in his prime until the Duran fight three years later. he was much stronger and faster. It was even discussed in various magazines saying "Why has the match between Hagler and Hearns gone from a being an initial steamroller win to a pick 'em fight?". The reasons being several but one of the main reasons was the physical progression of the Hitman to what you saw in the Duran and Hagler fights. Obviously, Tommy was a much improved fighter from the Leonard and Cuevas days.

You see bjermaine, unlike Alp, I back up everything I say with facts and have all my bases covered. Anyone who doesnt like it-tough shit. Or in Alp's case, they just keep quiet and take a back seat.

Leonard would have been beat to a bloody pulp by the reborn hitman and that's why he stayed retired after seeing Tommy and Hagler in action. The heat was too great for him to re-enter the game. And the first fight was nothing special either. I got my copy of the tape at a local 99 cent store. Pryor-Arguello and Hagler-Hearns were much better. So was mancini-Kim for that matter and even Sanchez-Gomez. I'm just telling it like it is.

Leonard is only given fighter of the decade award by some people in the media but was far from given universal recognition. You can't expect me to give Leonard credit for beating a useless hagler. Even Leonard himself admitted this guy was damaged goods "Leonard said marvin lost a lot of speed and was counting on the slowness of Hagler".

This is someting you can't get away from. Everytine somebody brings up Leonard as the fighter of the decade bullshit, I throw that famous line by Tim Ryan and watch them quiet down.

Alp won't comment on this. Ringsider won't comment on it. You won't comment on it, yet you expect me to believe Leonard should be accepted as fighter of the decade? Ringsider's a flake and a troll anyways but for the most ardent leonard supporter like Alp to remain silent on this matter speaks volumes to me.

Seriously, what was Leonard doing in the years 1982-1985? Nothing. What was he doing from 1987-1989? Facing men he should have been facing no less than five years earlier, giving us garbage like Leonard-Hagler, Leonard-hearns 2 and uno mas in which everyone was booing for 12 rounds of non stop running. No defense of his belt. No Micheal Nunn. No Julian Jackson. No Mike McCallum.

Doesn't boxing deserve better than Uno Mas and Don lalonde-Ray Leonard, or Ray Leonard-kevin Howard? I'll be honest with you: I never wanted to see Ray Leonard-Kevin Howard or Leonard-Lalonde.

You can't expect me to give leonard an award for doing nothing most of the decade do you? Maybe if he had been an active fighter instead of hiding his head in the sand waiting for Hagler and Hearns to digress but I can't give Leonard fighter of the decade just because I like him or I think he's cute when he smiles. Liking has got nothing to do with it. You got to earn the title-fighter of the decade.


Hagler won p4p fighter award 4 consecutive times to Leonard's one. Hagler beat 1984's fighter of the year, made 12 defenses to Leonard's 4, fought and beat Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi, Sibson, Hearns in 3, while Leonard just barely beat Hearns in 14, and Leonard ducked Hagler for 5 years. That means he feared him.

Moreover, Hagler was champ for 6 years while Leonard was at longest just two years. How anyone can even compare Leonard to a lethal killer like Hagler is beyond me. Marvin was much more active, skilled, mentally and physically tougher than Ray Leonard and 100% more professional.

I've made a much better case for Hagler being fighter of the decade -much better than the case you made for Leonard. That's why he'll never gain acceptance by serious fans who know the score.

you hurt my feelings, Ezzard...You hurt my feelings...I am a Leonard fan, and I think he is the fighter of the decade, BUT since you came with this post, I got to reconsider that. Maybe Hagler was the fighter of the 80s decade. Maybe Mike Tyson or maybe Julio Cesar Chavez.

I got to reconsider this.

[elmersalsa]

Ampling Alp must be NUTS to put Leonard in the top 5 pound per pound. He BARELY was a top 3 or top 5 welterweight.... I don't get it!!!

[HomicideHenry]

homocidehenry wouldn't if it was about Marciano if it wasn't valid at all.

TBH, I dont know if I would even still think Marciano could be on that p4p list even if it wasnt valid....Ezzard Charles, as mentioned earlier in the thread, you genuinely could make a solid argument for being on that p4p list. As a middleweight he was great, but as a light heavyweight he was absoloutely phenomenal, excellent even, the greatest of all time; and as a heavyweight [champion or not] he is vastly under-rated. His achievements at those three weights make him an all-star p4p fighter.

But Marciano? No. Though he is my idol and my favorite Heavyweight champion outside of Dempsey, Foreman, Louis, Jeffries, Tyson; I can only rate Marciano as a heavyweight and by the strengths of his era and what he accomplished in his era...but it doesnt apply to an all-time 'greatest' fighter listing...Marciano didn't go from some smaller weight class to a higher one, he didn't go down in weight, etc.

I guess these greatest p4p lists basically comes down to the age old conception that it is unfair to lighter weight fighters, because for as long as the sport has been the heavyweight title has been considered ACE over all other titles...so, therefore, the P4P lists are property of the lighter weight fighters, and I don't blame or disagree with that whatsoever.

As "great" as Louis and his combinations were, it's still no comparison to what Henry Armstrong could do in a ring. As "great" as Ali and his speed was, he's no Sugar Ray Robinson [hell Robinson is the only fighter I've ever seen who could hurt a guy while fighting backwards, not even a Heavyweight in Ali could do that]. As "great" as Gene Tunney was, Jimmy Wilde was practically the best stylist I've ever read about.

I hope you get the jist of what I mean here.

[Elton John]

Ampling Alp must be NUTS to put Leonard in the top 5 pound per pound. He BARELY was a top 3 or top 5 welterweight.... I don't get it!!!

Not only nuts but a closet fanatic! Anyone claiming they are not really biased towards leonard but spins the way he does is a closet fanatic. They act neutral so as not to give themselves away. Notice how he refuses to reply yet still tries giving the impressions he's an authority on the subject.

He still won't tell, me why as long as Leonard was back in the ring, he didnt face Hagler along with Kevin Howard... OR...... why he didn't face off with Nunn, McCallum, or Jackson as long as he was back in the ring facing stiffs like Duran and Lalonde.

To get the credit he claims Leonard deserves, the competition can't be yesterdays news. The reason he fell Terry Norris because he was fighting a lot of repeats and taking easy fights. leonard just can't beat the young talent out there so he avoided them the way he ducked Hagler.

He could have done more with his career but he did it his way - like he said, he is a non conformist. To me all that means is that he waisted his most talent. I don't know exactly where I'd rate him but I've a pretty good idea it's not top 20 or 30 or even 40.

[bjermaine]

elton, you've made your points on leonard but the first hearns fight was one of the greatest performances in the history of the sport on one of its biggest stages. leonard was being beaten by a monster of a welter in hearns and he found a way to pull it out. most great fighters don't get a chance to face another great fighter when they're both in their primes. it happened here and it was special.

also you said something about leonard not getting respect in the decade of the 80s. leonard was the fighter of the decade in the 80s. that is a serious award only given to an all-time great imo.

Hearns wasn't in his prime until the Duran fight three years later. he was much stronger and faster. It was even discussed in various magazines saying "Why has the match between Hagler and Hearns gone from a being an initial steamroller win to a pick 'em fight?". The reasons being several but one of the main reasons was the physical progression of the Hitman to what you saw in the Duran and Hagler fights. Obviously, Tommy was a much improved fighter from the Leonard and Cuevas days.

You see bjermaine, unlike Alp, I back up everything I say with facts and have all my bases covered. Anyone who doesnt like it-tough shit. Or in Alp's case, they just keep quiet and take a back seat.

Leonard would have been beat to a bloody pulp by the reborn hitman and that's why he stayed retired after seeing Tommy and Hagler in action. The heat was too great for him to re-enter the game. And the first fight was nothing special either. I got my copy of the tape at a local 99 cent store. Pryor-Arguello and Hagler-Hearns were much better. So was mancini-Kim for that matter and even Sanchez-Gomez. I'm just telling it like it is.

Leonard is only given fighter of the decade award by some people in the media but was far from given universal recognition. You can't expect me to give Leonard credit for beating a useless hagler. Even Leonard himself admitted this guy was damaged goods "Leonard said marvin lost a lot of speed and was counting on the slowness of Hagler".

This is someting you can't get away from. Everytine somebody brings up Leonard as the fighter of the decade bullshit, I throw that famous line by Tim Ryan and watch them quiet down.

Alp won't comment on this. Ringsider won't comment on it. You won't comment on it, yet you expect me to believe Leonard should be accepted as fighter of the decade? Ringsider's a flake and a troll anyways but for the most ardent leonard supporter like Alp to remain silent on this matter speaks volumes to me.

Seriously, what was Leonard doing in the years 1982-1985? Nothing. What was he doing from 1987-1989? Facing men he should have been facing no less than five years earlier, giving us garbage like Leonard-Hagler, Leonard-hearns 2 and uno mas in which everyone was booing for 12 rounds of non stop running. No defense of his belt. No Micheal Nunn. No Julian Jackson. No Mike McCallum.

Doesn't boxing deserve better than Uno Mas and Don lalonde-Ray Leonard, or Ray Leonard-kevin Howard? I'll be honest with you: I never wanted to see Ray Leonard-Kevin Howard or Leonard-Lalonde.

You can't expect me to give leonard an award for doing nothing most of the decade do you? Maybe if he had been an active fighter instead of hiding his head in the sand waiting for Hagler and Hearns to digress but I can't give Leonard fighter of the decade just because I like him or I think he's cute when he smiles. Liking has got nothing to do with it. You got to earn the title-fighter of the decade.


Hagler won p4p fighter award 4 consecutive times to Leonard's one. Hagler beat 1984's fighter of the year, made 12 defenses to Leonard's 4, fought and beat Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi, Sibson, Hearns in 3, while Leonard just barely beat Hearns in 14, and Leonard ducked Hagler for 5 years. That means he feared him.

Moreover, Hagler was champ for 6 years while Leonard was at longest just two years. How anyone can even compare Leonard to a lethal killer like Hagler is beyond me. Marvin was much more active, skilled, mentally and physically tougher than Ray Leonard and 100% more professional.

I've made a much better case for Hagler being fighter of the decade -much better than the case you made for Leonard. That's why he'll never gain acceptance by serious fans who know the score.

elton, you really need to look up the word "fact" in the dictionary. you make some good points but they are mostly opinions. every time you reply to a post you have to write another dissertation to get your point across. i'll leave it at this. i like to look at results in the ring rather than what ifs. leonard has wins over benitez, hearns, duran, and hagler (very close) and that is incredible for any fighter in any era.

[Elton John]

elton, you've made your points on leonard but the first hearns fight was one of the greatest performances in the history of the sport on one of its biggest stages. leonard was being beaten by a monster of a welter in hearns and he found a way to pull it out. most great fighters don't get a chance to face another great fighter when they're both in their primes. it happened here and it was special.

also you said something about leonard not getting respect in the decade of the 80s. leonard was the fighter of the decade in the 80s. that is a serious award only given to an all-time great imo.

Hearns wasn't in his prime until the Duran fight three years later. he was much stronger and faster. It was even discussed in various magazines saying "Why has the match between Hagler and Hearns gone from a being an initial steamroller win to a pick 'em fight?". The reasons being several but one of the main reasons was the physical progression of the Hitman to what you saw in the Duran and Hagler fights. Obviously, Tommy was a much improved fighter from the Leonard and Cuevas days.

You see bjermaine, unlike Alp, I back up everything I say with facts and have all my bases covered. Anyone who doesnt like it-tough shit. Or in Alp's case, they just keep quiet and take a back seat.

Leonard would have been beat to a bloody pulp by the reborn hitman and that's why he stayed retired after seeing Tommy and Hagler in action. The heat was too great for him to re-enter the game. And the first fight was nothing special either. I got my copy of the tape at a local 99 cent store. Pryor-Arguello and Hagler-Hearns were much better. So was mancini-Kim for that matter and even Sanchez-Gomez. I'm just telling it like it is.

Leonard is only given fighter of the decade award by some people in the media but was far from given universal recognition. You can't expect me to give Leonard credit for beating a useless hagler. Even Leonard himself admitted this guy was damaged goods "Leonard said marvin lost a lot of speed and was counting on the slowness of Hagler".

This is someting you can't get away from. Everytine somebody brings up Leonard as the fighter of the decade bullshit, I throw that famous line by Tim Ryan and watch them quiet down.

Alp won't comment on this. Ringsider won't comment on it. You won't comment on it, yet you expect me to believe Leonard should be accepted as fighter of the decade? Ringsider's a flake and a troll anyways but for the most ardent leonard supporter like Alp to remain silent on this matter speaks volumes to me.

Seriously, what was Leonard doing in the years 1982-1985? Nothing. What was he doing from 1987-1989? Facing men he should have been facing no less than five years earlier, giving us garbage like Leonard-Hagler, Leonard-hearns 2 and uno mas in which everyone was booing for 12 rounds of non stop running. No defense of his belt. No Micheal Nunn. No Julian Jackson. No Mike McCallum.

Doesn't boxing deserve better than Uno Mas and Don lalonde-Ray Leonard, or Ray Leonard-kevin Howard? I'll be honest with you: I never wanted to see Ray Leonard-Kevin Howard or Leonard-Lalonde.

You can't expect me to give leonard an award for doing nothing most of the decade do you? Maybe if he had been an active fighter instead of hiding his head in the sand waiting for Hagler and Hearns to digress but I can't give Leonard fighter of the decade just because I like him or I think he's cute when he smiles. Liking has got nothing to do with it. You got to earn the title-fighter of the decade.


Hagler won p4p fighter award 4 consecutive times to Leonard's one. Hagler beat 1984's fighter of the year, made 12 defenses to Leonard's 4, fought and beat Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi, Sibson, Hearns in 3, while Leonard just barely beat Hearns in 14, and Leonard ducked Hagler for 5 years. That means he feared him.

Moreover, Hagler was champ for 6 years while Leonard was at longest just two years. How anyone can even compare Leonard to a lethal killer like Hagler is beyond me. Marvin was much more active, skilled, mentally and physically tougher than Ray Leonard and 100% more professional.

I've made a much better case for Hagler being fighter of the decade -much better than the case you made for Leonard. That's why he'll never gain acceptance by serious fans who know the score.

elton, you really need to look up the word "fact" in the dictionary. you make some good points but they are mostly opinions. every time you reply to a post you have to write another dissertation to get your point across. i'll leave it at this. i like to look at results in the ring rather than what ifs. leonard has wins over benitez, hearns, duran, and hagler (very close) and that is incredible for any fighter in any era.

You want to know about facts bjermaine? Do you?? here are some facts for you to chew on and I'll make it short just for you:

Thomas Hearns D 12 Ray Leonard

Terry Norris W 12 Ray Leonard

Hector Camacho KO 5 Ray Leonard

Roberto Duran W 15 Ray Leonard

Is that what you were looking for?

[bjermaine]

much better elton. those are definitely facts. it should actually be 4 losses because hearns got jobbed in the second fight. good luck with all your efforts on proving ray leonard was really a shitty fighter all along and had us all fooled.

[I Feel Fine]

As "great" as Ali and his speed was, he's no Sugar Ray Robinson [hell Robinson is the only fighter I've ever seen who could hurt a guy while fighting backwards, not even a Heavyweight in Ali could do that].

Firstly, you took this line from Bert Sugar. Secondly, Ali could hurt a fighter moving backwards, he knocked out George Foreman going backwards. Thirdly, there are a lot of reasons why Robinson is greater than Ali; this wouldn't be one of them.

[Elton John]

much better elton. those are definitely facts. it should actually be 4 losses because hearns got jobbed in the second fight. good luck with all your efforts on proving ray leonard was really a shitty fighter all along and had us all fooled.

Terry Norris proved that. And it should be 5 losses; you forgot to include the Hagler fight.

[butterfly1964]

My top5 p4p is

Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Arstrong
Joe Gans
Willie Pep