SugarR Leonard vs SugarS Mosley Career Matchup

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Leonard the Holy Grail of what passes as modern boxing, but Shane has been operating at top levels for the whole of his 51 fight career whereas Ray was well done in after 33 fights before he was 24.

Yes, Ray had early success against HOF legends, but Shane has come on strong since moving up from lightweight and at a much older age than Ray again taking on the top guy in his division. Ray came back here and there, but not against top prime fighters, more cherry picking conditions and/or targeting the older legends save the Norris fight.

Mosley actually sports a better title record than Leonard although he controls a smaller % of the belts overall, yet Shane is seldom mentioned as being in the same class of fighter.

Had that been SShane in there stepping up against SRay instead of Duran or Hearns, he would've had as good at chance as they did at winning.

I say Ray is overrated and Shane underrated and an equalization should start to put them closer.

Where do you see them ranked?

[slappy]

Their best wins don't really compare. Hearns and Duran are way ahead of Oscar. He may have matched up well against Duran, Benitez, etc. or any of Leonard's contemporaries but without fighting them we'll never know. It's unfortunate but he'll be ranked for the time he fought in.

Lots of fighters dealt with that but it just is what it is. Ask Roy, Lennox, whoever. Them's the breaks.

[glittermonkey]

Leonard the Holy Grail of what passes as modern boxing, but Shane has been operating at top levels for the whole of his 51 fight career whereas Ray was well done in after 33 fights before he was 24.

Yes, Ray had early success against HOF legends, but Shane has come on strong since moving up from lightweight and at a much older age than Ray again taking on the top guy in his division. Ray came back here and there, but not against top prime fighters, more cherry picking conditions and/or targeting the older legends save the Norris fight.

Mosley actually sports a better title record than Leonard although he controls a smaller % of the belts overall, yet Shane is seldom mentioned as being in the same class of fighter.

Had that been SShane in there stepping up against SRay instead of Duran or Hearns, he would've had as good at chance as they did at winning.

I say Ray is overrated and Shane underrated and an equalization should start to put them closer.

Where do you see them ranked?

Like you, I agree that (in his lightweight pomp, rather than at welter) Mosley was a fantastic fighter who would have given massive problems to anybody throughout the history of the sport. Blurring handspeed, good movement, variation, a cracking boxing brain, solid chin, great workrate, and plenty of heart are enough to convince me of his greatness.

However, his problem, as already mentioned, is the era in which he boxed. While Leonard had greats like Duran, Hearns, Benitez, and Hagler, for us to judge him against, Mosley simply didn't have that level of class to mix in. We can only judge the man based on who he faced, and his record can't stand any sort of comparison with Leonard's. Certainly one of the best of this era though.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Smaller, lesser men (with inferior resumes, no less) rarely find a way to beat bigger, better men in the latter's natural weightclass, & I see no reason to imagine this bout as an exception.

Leonard 8-4, 116-112. Mosley's best rounds may be late, as Leonard does some showboating, & his opponent tries to rein in a points deficit.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Their best wins don't really compare. Hearns and Duran are way ahead of Oscar. He may have matched up well against Duran, Benitez, etc. or any of Leonard's contemporaries but without fighting them we'll never know. It's unfortunate but he'll be ranked for the time he fought in.

Lots of fighters dealt with that but it just is what it is. Ask Roy, Lennox, whoever. Them's the breaks.

--- Like I stated, operating at a much higher level late in a longer career would tend to even them out.

Ray was pretty well done by age 24 from the punishment he took. Duran is not ahead of Oscar since Ray never showed any real class over him. Hearns was nice, but showed Ray the boxer could be outboxed. Ray never showed any class like what Shane showed last night over a bigger, stronger prime fighter at the top of his weight class, much less at age 37.

Something to consider.

[Sweet P]

I think in 20 years this generation of fighters will be looked back on favorably.

The last decade is going to be a decent era in the lighter weights

PBF, Tszyu, Mosely, Oscar, Trinidad, Pac, Barrera, Morales, Castillo, Corrales, Then guys like Hopkins, Jones, Calzaghe, etc

I think this era is going to be up there in the future except for the Heavies.

[Syntax Error]

Leonard the Holy Grail of what passes as modern boxing, but Shane has been operating at top levels for the whole of his 51 fight career whereas Ray was well done in after 33 fights before he was 24.

Yes, Ray had early success against HOF legends, but Shane has come on strong since moving up from lightweight and at a much older age than Ray again taking on the top guy in his division. Ray came back here and there, but not against top prime fighters, more cherry picking conditions and/or targeting the older legends save the Norris fight.

Mosley actually sports a better title record than Leonard although he controls a smaller % of the belts overall, yet Shane is seldom mentioned as being in the same class of fighter.

Had that been SShane in there stepping up against SRay instead of Duran or Hearns, he would've had as good at chance as they did at winning.

I say Ray is overrated and Shane underrated and an equalization should start to put them closer.

Where do you see them ranked?

Interesting question you pose.

IMO, both are great fighters, but I think it's a tad unfair to say that SRL is overrated.

OK, he didn't have many fights & that was down to his eye problems, numerous retirements & comebacks, plus don't forget that he did indulge in illegal drugs during one of his many retirements, so that must have diminished him somewhat.

For Leonard to achieve what he did, despite all this is truly remarkable.

In short, both are great, but I can't have Mosley ranked ahead of SRL just yet.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

For Leonard to achieve what he did, despite all this is truly remarkable.

In short, both are great, but I can't have Mosley ranked ahead of SRL just yet.

--- Nobody doubts Leonard is truly remarkable, thing is in 100+ years of incredibly remarkable fighters, just how remarkable is Leonard really?

I'm just noting that if Shane's latest win holds, that at very least is as remarkable if not more remarkable than any single thing Ray accomplished added onto a much longer career at the top against stiffer competition overall.

[Ambling Alp]

How remarkable was Leonard? Very remarkable. In the over 100 years of boxing, how many fighters have been retired for 3 years, and win the title (and not just lame WBS belt)?

And he he did it against an alltime great, Marvin Hagler. And he did it in his first fight at that weight class.

Mosley beat better overall competition? Absolutley ridiculaus.
It's not even remotely close.
Duran was far better than anyone Mosley ever beat.
Hearns was far better than anyone Mosley ever beat.
Hagler was far better than anyone Mosley ever beat.
Benitez may have better than anyone Mosley ever beat.

Mosley couldn't even beat Vernon Forrest in two tries. Leonard only had one loss in his prime and that was to Duran.

Btw, Mosley didn't have a better title record. He is 16-5, Leonard was 10-2-1.
Yes, Mosley won more career fights. That means nothing. There are guys that won many more fights than Mosley that weren't nearly as good. There are always opponents around to find that are easy wins.
There are literally dozens of fighter better than Mosley and not as good as Leonard.
If you simply are objective and rate the fighters in an unbiased and knowledgeable way, it's not even close.
However, if you hate Leonard so much that you can't be objective or use common sense, than you can say that Mosley (or anyone that ever fought) is better than Leonard.

[elmersalsa]

Losing to Winky Wright and Vernon Forrest in your prime could never qualify you be better than the great Sugar Ray Leonard. If Mosley would have dominated the welterweight division, then, he would have had a case to be mentioned in Leonard's class. Mosley better than Sugar Ray? Not even close.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

However, if you hate Leonard so much that you can't be objective or use common sense

--- However, if you silly up the conversation so much that you can't be obliged to use common sense, ain't that more the question?

I'm comparing the two most recent Sugars who happened to compete in mostly the same weight classes. It's not like putting a fatwa on Leonard for being overrated or calling him bad names.

Who said Leonard cleaned out the division? Guy was barely in the division 2 yrs and had a spontaneous retirement in the middle of that in reaction to the beating Duran gave him. Nobody ever beat Shane into retirement. You say Shane never beat anyone as good as Duran, well, when did Leonard ever jump two divisions to beat a prime HOF great like Oscar?

Someone points out losses to Forrest and Wright, but when did Leonard ever jump up two divisions to face a possible prime HOFer twice consecutively, and follow that up against a former champ 3 divisions above his original division, plus 3 more consecutive fights against prime HOFers?

This on top of Shane coming back to beat the prime Ring Champ ranked in his division going on 8 straight years now at an age Leonard was busy practicing climbing the ring steps so as to save his teetering for inside the ring?

Way I see it, Shane in fights that involved at least 17 past, current or future champs compared to Ray's 11. That on top of more wins, almost as many KOs as Leonard managed fights, as well as 30% more fights than Leonard.

Lots of different ways you can spin a career.

[dempseyfire]

How remarkable was Leonard? Very remarkable. In the over 100 years of boxing, how many fighters have been retired for 3 years, and win the title (and not just lame WBS belt)?

And he he did it against an alltime great, Marvin Hagler. And he did it in his first fight at that weight class.

Mosley beat better overall competition? Absolutley ridiculaus.
It's not even remotely close.
Duran was far better than anyone Mosley ever beat.
Hearns was far better than anyone Mosley ever beat.
Hagler was far better than anyone Mosley ever beat.
Benitez may have better than anyone Mosley ever beat.

Mosley couldn't even beat Vernon Forrest in two tries. Leonard only had one loss in his prime and that was to Duran.

Btw, Mosley didn't have a better title record. He is 16-5, Leonard was 10-2-1.
Yes, Mosley won more career fights. That means nothing. There are guys that won many more fights than Mosley that weren't nearly as good. There are always opponents around to find that are easy wins.
There are literally dozens of fighter better than Mosley and not as good as Leonard.
If you simply are objective and rate the fighters in an unbiased and knowledgeable way, it's not even close.
However, if you hate Leonard so much that you can't be objective or use common sense, than you can say that Mosley (or anyone that ever fought) is better than Leonard.

Nice post.

Broughton: Leonard showed no class vs Duran? He gave Duran a very close fight in a classic in their first fight, and frustrated Roberto to the point of quitting in the rematch. Hearns was only 'nice' but showed the boxer could be outboxed? What the hell were the two losses to the similar but inferior Forrest then?

When did Leonard jump two weight divisions to beat a HOF great??? Does the name Marvin Hagler ring a bell?

Then you say Mosley should be getting such higher accolades b/c he's still competing at a high level at 37, but Ray was done at the same time. But in the Tyson thread anything Mike did after 25 years of age is dismissable and excused.

Your cherry-picking of facts and constant pumping up of meaningless number of 'title defenses' or
champions' in a watered down ABC era is ridiculous and anyone with a brain can see through the paper-thin arguments.

[harrygreb]

ray decisions shane. the more complete, more adaptable fighter with a wonderful way of knowing how to win against just about anybody.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

When did Leonard jump two weight divisions to beat a HOF great??? Does the name Marvin Hagler ring a bell?

Then you say Mosley should be getting such higher accolades b/c he's still competing at a high level at 37, but Ray was done at the same time. But in the Tyson thread anything Mike did after 25 years of age is dismissable and excused.

Your cherry-picking of facts and constant pumping up of meaningless number of 'title defenses' or
champions' in a watered down ABC era is ridiculous and anyone with a brain can see through the paper-thin arguments.

--- Time to reread for content.

Jumped two divisions to beat a "prime'' HOF great. Marv had been talkin' retirement for two years and was finishing a hard stretch of tough fights in a long career in his last fight. Didn't have to be Marv's last fight but Leonard ducked the most lucrative fight of his career, the rematch and "retired" again.

Never said Shane should receive higher accolades, I'm noting his accomplishments that Leonard can't match that might even them them up.

As far as Tyson/Ray comparison, good one in they are comparable in a fashion. Both shooting stars that electrified the people. Big difference is that a physical injury did Ray in where as Tyson had a mental defect and criminal predilections that sinks his career into the abyss of ignominy, so Ray retires relatively unscathed compared to Tyson's walking open sore.

Nobody officially putting Tyson in any tip top lists of greats like they do Leonard for that reason. However, that small window of his peak when Mike was considered to be the finest fighter ever seen cannot be matched by any fighter save the great Robby since precious few fighters are ever accorded that level of respect when they were still fighting.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Leonard showed no class vs Duran? He gave Duran a very close fight in a classic in their first fight, and frustrated Roberto to the point of quitting in the rematch. Hearns was only 'nice' but showed the boxer could be outboxed? What the hell were the two losses to the similar but inferior Forrest then?

--- Feel like a guide dog leading the blind here.

The close fight you credit Leonard with against Duran was followed by Leonard's retirement announcement. Duran merely dismissed Leonard as not being worthy in the rematch. How was he to know the outcry and penalty he paid from the macho backwater culture he came from. You call it quitting, but it wasn't like Leonard outclassed him. He made some faces, threw a bolo and ran around the ring. Duran hurt Duran far more than Leonard ever did.

Shane stepped up against a fringe HOFer in his prime against Forrest. Again. read for content. When did Leonard ever go up 2 divisions against the prime Ring champ once, much less consectutively, and no, Shane was not outboxed in the 2nd fight. Should have been declared an NC since the clinches outnumbered the punches, no boxing seen period.

[Cojimar 1945]

The issue with Mosley is inconsistancy. While the win over Margarito seems very impressive to me the losses to Vernon Forrest especially look pretty bad. Forrest was beaten twice by Ricardo Mayorga who in turn lost to Cory Spinks who was beaten by Zab Judah? Nobody talks about Forrest as if he is a legend as far as I can tell.

[Seamus]

Shane Mosley will deservedly make it into the IBHOF, but he's already been beaten by fighters Sugar Ray Leonard would never have lost to. And of course Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Benitez were better than anyone Mosley ever faced.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

The issue with Mosley is inconsistancy. While the win over Margarito seems very impressive to me the losses to Vernon Forrest especially look pretty bad. Forrest was beaten twice by Ricardo Mayorga who in turn lost to Cory Spinks who was beaten by Zab Judah? Nobody talks about Forrest as if he is a legend as far as I can tell.

--- How can you say Shane was inconsistent when he was a perfect 35-0 going into that series against a prime undefeated Ring p4per 2 divisions above his original weight?

Ray was never close to 35-0 and never defended upper division belts but twice and that against older past prime legends. If fact, that is my point, he was no longer fighting prime contender/champs in their divisions at all save for Norris, a disaster for him. He was cherry picking faded legend big purse type fights. The only prime upper division champ he beat in his division was Kalule, a good win roughly equivalent to Shane beating undefeated Shannon Taylor.

You guys keep acting like the win over the weight drained Duran was something special, but all but one of his 16 losses start from that point and he was never in the welt division again.

Look, Ray's first 2 yrs as a champ was great, better than Shane's in spite of the Duran loss because of the stiff comp. After that, poof, he joins the cherry picker's union and only shows up for work the first blue moon of every other year or so. Why isn't Sal Sanchez rated up with Ray? More wins, only one loss, perfect 10-0 title record including wins in 4 HOF fights.

What elevates Ray over Mosley and Sanchez?

[Tantum]

Hearns and Forrest don't posses a huge amount of similarities. To say that... Forrest is not just an "inferior" version of Hearns.

They're both tall, skinny, and have good power (Hearns power being better due to his commitment to it), and that's about where that ends.


Vernon Forrest had a boxer-puncher style, where he would try to break you down slowly, and go in for the kill. (Much more like a Larry Holmes)

Tommy Hearns however, while possessing great boxing ability, seemed to never use it unless he absolutely had to. Which was his downfall in the first Leonard fight. If Tommy Hearns went into that fight jabbing and moving from the get go... He would have tore the shit out of Leonard by the later rounds. And I suppose that could be said of many of Tommy's losses.


So in short - Forrest had the right game plan for Mosley, and won. Hearns had the wrong game plan for Leonard and lost. So you guys are comparing apples and oranges with this one.

[Cojimar 1945]

Leonard is hurt a bit by the small number of fights that he had. However, fighters like Roberto Duran and Pernell Whittaker showed consistancy for long periods of time against top-level foes in a way that Mosley has failed to do. The loss to Forrest looks particularly bad to me because Forrest went on to lose to Mayorga soon afterwards so it is not as if he was some unbeatable monster.

[Tantum]

I happen to recall Thomas Hearns losing twice to a fellow named Iran Barkley.

[Elton John]

i remember a couple weeks back at Eastside, I was engaged in talks over a Mosely-Marlon Starling match and got ridiculed for selecting Mosely. I wised up and recently dumped those knucklehead posters and ESB altogether. What a waste of time that was. Four years down the drain.

Anyways, they have probably changed their tune over Shane after witnessing last night's exhibition because who would ever be dumb enough to pick someone like Starling over Sugar Shane. Sugar was and is the real thing.

[Tantum]

I'm probably one of the lucky few to have never posted on ESB.

[dempseyfire]

Hearns and Forrest don't posses a huge amount of similarities. To say that... Forrest is not just an "inferior" version of Hearns.

They're both tall, skinny, and have good power (Hearns power being better due to his commitment to it), and that's about where that ends.


Vernon Forrest had a boxer-puncher style, where he would try to break you down slowly, and go in for the kill. (Much more like a Larry Holmes)

Tommy Hearns however, while possessing great boxing ability, seemed to never use it unless he absolutely had to. Which was his downfall in the first Leonard fight. If Tommy Hearns went into that fight jabbing and moving from the get go... He would have tore the shit out of Leonard by the later rounds. And I suppose that could be said of many of Tommy's losses.


So in short - Forrest had the right game plan for Mosley, and won. Hearns had the wrong game plan for Leonard and lost. So you guys are comparing apples and oranges with this one.

They were both tall and lanky for 147, both of their styles relied upon the strong snappy left jab, both of their money punches were the straight right hand. Both had excellent boxing skills . . .yes Vernon was more cautious but that's b/c he did/doesn't possess the freakish KO power Hearns had, which allows you to take more chances. To imply Forrest has the power of Hearns if he sits down on his punches is simply wrong . . .Hearns was just as fast as Forrest and had much greater power. Both equal in skillset with Forrest having the slight edge in slickness. I would argue similar chins although it's a little hard to tell with Vernon as he hasn't faced many big punchers in his career like Hearns did. I do know that Mayorga was not the puncher that Barkely was.
Bottom-line, it's not an apples and oranges comparison.

Broughton bringing up the fact that Leonard was never 35-0 is so stupid it's not even funny. Let's compare. In his first 33 fights, Ray had fought and beaten Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Ayub Kalule, and Tommy Hearns.

In Mosley's first 33, his best wins were against Jesse James Leija, Phillip Holiday (who never was a fighter on the level of Kalule)and Golden Johnson.

That tells you everything you need to know right there.

[Tantum]

I didn't say Forrest has the same power if he sits on his punches, but he was a big puncher who relied more on his skill in a conservative approach.

I think if Vernon Forrest fought the same dumb fight that Hearns did against Leonard, that he would have lost to Mosley.