was ray leonard scared of aaron pryor???

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hearns and Leonard both had fights over the welterweight limit before they won titles. That's the flimsiest "point" I've ever read. I'm the one that brought up the retirement, now I'm missing it?

Tommy definitely wanted a rematch and Leonard definitely didn't. LOL that the public didn't want a rematch. Nothing could be more false than that. Hearns was clearly winning the fight and the stoppage was controversial to say the least. I didn't have a problem with it, but a ton of people did. You will just say anything to back up your stupid statements. I'm wrong isn't in your vocabulary. The public didn't want a rematch?

I see you nuthug Leonard as hard as you nuthug Ali. That's a shame because they were great enough that they don't need your preposterous embellishment of every detail of their careers. You're the least objective poster I've ever encountered and I wont waste another second of my life talking to you about either of your boy toys.

Edit: At least you seem to acknowledge that hearns fought more top guys than Leonard did. Ignoring a point is the closest you ever come to concession.

[Ambling Alp]

Sure they each had a few above the weight fights before winning the welterweight title. However, there was no mistake that they were both welterweights. Hearns weighed 8 pounds above the limit in a fight three months after losing to Leonard. He had no intention of fighting at welterweight again.

I see you are as biased against Leonard as you are against Ali. Hearns was clearly winning? Yes on the scorecards of the judges but not in reality. Hearns never hurt Leonard one time in the entire fight. Leonard hurt Hearns several times. He should have had at least a couple of 10-8 rounds and din't get them.

Tommy certainly wanted a rematch and Leonard did not? That is absolutley false.
Funny how you make comments about it being often false when people say that a certain fighter ducked another. And I agree with that. However, you then make completely untrue claims that Leonard wanted no part of Hearns, a guy he just stopped. And you have offered nothing to back up this claim. And I was around at the time and people were not screaming for an immediate rematch. Most seemed to accept that Leonard was the better man.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

*YAWNS*

That's the perfect example of how pathetic your nuthugging is. Leonard stops Hearns in a brilliant come from behind stoppage and to you he was in command the whole way.

You're so delusional you take away from the accomplishment, and it was a huge one.

[IKSRTFO]

IKSRTFO.......Grimm, it can't mean anything else.

The only other possibility would be the age old question:

Is Knowing sh-t really that fu--ing ostentatious?

"IKSRTFO, I'm Knocking Somebody Right The F@#k Out" Redman - Muddy Waters

[Ambling Alp]

*YAWNS*

That's the perfect example of how pathetic your nuthugging is. Leonard stops Hearns in a brilliant come from behind stoppage and to you he was in command the whole way.

You're so delusional you take away from the accomplishment, and it was a huge one.

You said you were done with me, but I guess you aren't.
I did not say Leonard was in command the whole way. I do think he should have been ahead on the judges scorecards. Hearns had the edge after 5 rounds, but Leonard was in command for most of the rest of the fight.

I guess I need to address a couple of your other comments:
-Hearns fought more top opponents than Leonard? Not counting each other, Hearns fought 3 ATG's- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran once. Those are the only ones who should be considered ATG's. Leonard fought 4- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran twice. (I won't count the 3rd Duran fight.) Those were the top guys of Leonard's era. (This isn't even taking into account that Leonard missed almost 5 years becasue of eye injuries.)

-I am not nuthugging. I have not said anything about Leonard that I would not say about another fighter in the same circumstances. Do you really think you have been impartial with "Tommy" and "Leonard"?
You make comments that too often people people say one fighter ducks another, and then you turn around and accuse Leonard of not wanting to fight Hearns and you have nothing to back it up. Nothing.
That is being biased.

I have stated several reasons why I don't think he was afraid.
1. Leonard proved over and over that he wanted to fight the best.
2. Leonard won the first fight. He would not be afraid to again fight a guy that he just stopped.
3. Follow the timeline. If Hearns had wanted to fight Leonard at 147 again so bad, he would have remained a welterweight. At most, he would have a mandatory title shot within a year. Hearns knew that. Leonard knew that. 3 months after their first fight, Hearns was already fighting well above the welterweight limit. Then in his next fight, in early 1982, Hearns again fought well above the welterweight limit. He obviously had no intention of fighting at welterweight again. Hearns was no longer in Leonard's weight class when Leonard had to retire because of the eye injury.

I don't see you have to get so bent out out of shape when I respond to your comments. Sometimes people are going to challenge what you say. If someone does it in a way that is not being disrespectful, then answer in a civilized way or don't answer at all.
Anybody can say "YAWNS" or get personal. That's the easy way out.

[Grimm]

*YAWNS*

That's the perfect example of how pathetic your nuthugging is. Leonard stops Hearns in a brilliant come from behind stoppage and to you he was in command the whole way.

You're so delusional you take away from the accomplishment, and it was a huge one.

You said you were done with me, but I guess you aren't.
I did not say Leonard was in command the whole way. I do think he should have been ahead on the judges scorecards. Hearns had the edge after 5 rounds, but Leonard was in command for most of the rest of the fight.

I guess I need to address a couple of your other comments:
-Hearns fought more top opponents than Leonard? Not counting each other, Hearns fought 3 ATG's- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran once. Those are the only ones who should be considered ATG's. Leonard fought 4- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran twice. (I won't count the 3rd Duran fight.) Those were the top guys of Leonard's era. (This isn't even taking into account that Leonard missed almost 5 years becasue of eye injuries.)

-I am not nuthugging. I have not said anything about Leonard that I would not say about another fighter in the same circumstances. Do you really think you have been impartial with "Tommy" and "Leonard"?
You make comments that too often people people say one fighter ducks another, and then you turn around and accuse Leonard of not wanting to fight Hearns and you have nothing to back it up. Nothing.
That is being biased.

I have stated several reasons why I don't think he was afraid.
1. Leonard proved over and over that he wanted to fight the best.
2. Leonard won the first fight. He would not be afraid to again fight a guy that he just stopped.
3. Follow the timeline. If Hearns had wanted to fight Leonard at 147 again so bad, he would have remained a welterweight. At most, he would have a mandatory title shot within a year. Hearns knew that. Leonard knew that. 3 months after their first fight, Hearns was already fighting well above the welterweight limit. Then in his next fight, in early 1982, Hearns again fought well above the welterweight limit. He obviously had no intention of fighting at welterweight again. Hearns was no longer in Leonard's weight class when Leonard had to retire because of the eye injury.

I don't see you have to get so bent out out of shape when I respond to your comments. Sometimes people are going to challenge what you say. If someone does it in a way that is not being disrespectful, then answer in a civilized way or don't answer at all.
Anybody can say "YAWNS" or get personal. That's the easy way out.

So fighting Duran more than once makes him more than one person?

Still 3 to 3

[SaadOffTheDeck]

*YAWNS*

That's the perfect example of how pathetic your nuthugging is. Leonard stops Hearns in a brilliant come from behind stoppage and to you he was in command the whole way.

You're so delusional you take away from the accomplishment, and it was a huge one.

You said you were done with me, but I guess you aren't.
I did not say Leonard was in command the whole way. I do think he should have been ahead on the judges scorecards. Hearns had the edge after 5 rounds, but Leonard was in command for most of the rest of the fight.

I guess I need to address a couple of your other comments:
-Hearns fought more top opponents than Leonard? Not counting each other, Hearns fought 3 ATG's- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran once. Those are the only ones who should be considered ATG's. Leonard fought 4- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran twice. (I won't count the 3rd Duran fight.) Those were the top guys of Leonard's era. (This isn't even taking into account that Leonard missed almost 5 years becasue of eye injuries.)

-I am not nuthugging. I have not said anything about Leonard that I would not say about another fighter in the same circumstances. Do you really think you have been impartial with "Tommy" and "Leonard"?
You make comments that too often people people say one fighter ducks another, and then you turn around and accuse Leonard of not wanting to fight Hearns and you have nothing to back it up. Nothing.
That is being biased.

I have stated several reasons why I don't think he was afraid.
1. Leonard proved over and over that he wanted to fight the best.
2. Leonard won the first fight. He would not be afraid to again fight a guy that he just stopped.
3. Follow the timeline. If Hearns had wanted to fight Leonard at 147 again so bad, he would have remained a welterweight. At most, he would have a mandatory title shot within a year. Hearns knew that. Leonard knew that. 3 months after their first fight, Hearns was already fighting well above the welterweight limit. Then in his next fight, in early 1982, Hearns again fought well above the welterweight limit. He obviously had no intention of fighting at welterweight again. Hearns was no longer in Leonard's weight class when Leonard had to retire because of the eye injury.

I don't see you have to get so bent out out of shape when I respond to your comments. Sometimes people are going to challenge what you say. If someone does it in a way that is not being disrespectful, then answer in a civilized way or don't answer at all.
Anybody can say "YAWNS" or get personal. That's the easy way out.

So fighting Duran more than once makes him more than one person?

Still 3 to 3

I wouldn't bother trying to reason with Rambling Alp, he is a lost cause. I'd consider Cuevas & Hill top fighters too. Of course in typical fashion he has now changed top fighters to all time greats.

But it's all irrelevant, this dude has powerful blinders on. It's a case of someone so delusional that they actually believe their own BS. Not worth the effort.

[BoxBuzz]

IKSRTFO.......Grimm, it can't mean anything else.

The only other possibility would be the age old question:

Is Knowing sh-t really that fu--ing ostentatious?

"IKSRTFO, I'm Knocking Somebody Right The F@#k Out" Redman - Muddy Waters

If it's Muddy Waters, I'm likin' it!

[Jaywheel]

IKSRTFO.......Grimm, it can't mean anything else.

The only other possibility would be the age old question:

Is Knowing sh-t really that fu--ing ostentatious?

"IKSRTFO, I'm Knocking Somebody Right The F@#k Out" Redman - Muddy Waters

If it's Muddy Waters, I'm likin' it!

It's the album name, not a duet.

[Ambling Alp]

You said you were done with me, but I guess you aren't.
I did not say Leonard was in command the whole way. I do think he should have been ahead on the judges scorecards. Hearns had the edge after 5 rounds, but Leonard was in command for most of the rest of the fight.

I guess I need to address a couple of your other comments:
-Hearns fought more top opponents than Leonard? Not counting each other, Hearns fought 3 ATG's- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran once. Those are the only ones who should be considered ATG's. Leonard fought 4- Hagler, Benitez, and Duran twice. (I won't count the 3rd Duran fight.) Those were the top guys of Leonard's era. (This isn't even taking into account that Leonard missed almost 5 years becasue of eye injuries.)

-I am not nuthugging. I have not said anything about Leonard that I would not say about another fighter in the same circumstances. Do you really think you have been impartial with "Tommy" and "Leonard"?
You make comments that too often people people say one fighter ducks another, and then you turn around and accuse Leonard of not wanting to fight Hearns and you have nothing to back it up. Nothing.
That is being biased.

I have stated several reasons why I don't think he was afraid.
1. Leonard proved over and over that he wanted to fight the best.
2. Leonard won the first fight. He would not be afraid to again fight a guy that he just stopped.
3. Follow the timeline. If Hearns had wanted to fight Leonard at 147 again so bad, he would have remained a welterweight. At most, he would have a mandatory title shot within a year. Hearns knew that. Leonard knew that. 3 months after their first fight, Hearns was already fighting well above the welterweight limit. Then in his next fight, in early 1982, Hearns again fought well above the welterweight limit. He obviously had no intention of fighting at welterweight again. Hearns was no longer in Leonard's weight class when Leonard had to retire because of the eye injury.

I don't see you have to get so bent out out of shape when I respond to your comments. Sometimes people are going to challenge what you say. If someone does it in a way that is not being disrespectful, then answer in a civilized way or don't answer at all.
Anybody can say "YAWNS" or get personal. That's the easy way out.

So fighting Duran more than once makes him more than one person?

Still 3 to 3

I wouldn't bother trying to reason with Rambling Alp, he is a lost cause. I'd consider Cuevas & Hill top fighters too. Of course in typical fashion he has now changed top fighters to all time greats.

But it's all irrelevant, this dude has powerful blinders on. It's a case of someone so delusional that they actually believe their own BS. Not worth the effort.

Ok fine. We can call it 3 to 3. Thats a tie. Saying that Leonard would still have fought the most top contneders would still be techinically true if you want to call it a tie.. As far as top, depends on what you consider a top fighter to be. I took it to mean the best since that is what top means. Cuevas and Hill were clearly not at their level. If you want to lower the standards and count Cuevas and Hill, fine. Then of course you would need to count Camacho and Norris for Leonard.

About the main point-Saad claims that Leonard did not want to fight Hearns again. He never says what evidence there is that Leonard. After all this time, we are still waiting.

Instead he keeps up the juvenile comments.
lol, YAWN, personal attacks, name calling. How impressive.

[Ezzard]

In an interview with Hugh McIlvaney (when Ray had retired after the Hagler victory) Leonard states that he “couldn’t get up” for rematches…

He felt he’d be at a psychological disadvantage in a rematch with a man he had already beaten. He gave this as an excuse for not granting Hagler, Hearns or Duran rematches.

It’s a good interview. McIlvaney says how despite the defeat to Duran Leonard made his point. Leonard seems to intimate that he found Hearns dislikeable. The interview ends when Ray takes umbrage to Hugh saying that he thought Hagler won their fight.

This was the high point of Leonard’s career and the moment where he secured the most fans and admirers. I must have watched that interview a dozen times. I was in awe of him around that time.

Can’t help thinking now that you can’t compare the records of a man who openly admits he wouldn’t grant rematches, (because he feared defeat) and didn’t have to because of his wealth, with other greats who granted many rematches from close bouts (and had no choice).

Back to topic. Leonard wasn’t scared of any fighter and in the early 80s would have been on par with any fighter between 154 and 140. Pryor would have been beaten up (though a lot richer – for a while at least!)

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He didn't mind granting a rematch when the opponent looked to be completely finished. Hearns was supposed to be shot, that's why the public finally got the rematch they wanted for 8 years. Even then he demanded a catch weight to try and get as much of an advantage as he could. He was a very smart businessman and a great fighter,can't say anything different. But a lot of his actions leave a bad taste. The not getting up for a rematch sounds like a code for I didn't want to endure that punishment again.

Guys like Hearns & Hagler were what made Leonard the greatest fighter of his generation, not including Duran, a loss in a rematch puts those guys even or possibly ahead of him. Very dangerous fights for a guy who could make a fortune fighting anybody.

He would have destroyed Pryor.

[Ambling Alp]

Ezzard,
I can't really say much about the interview you are referring to since I have not seen it. However, anyone that has played sports knows that its easier to get up for an opponent who beat you previously than it is for an opponent that you already beat. However, that does not mean that Leonard would not have defended the welterweight title against Hearns if Hearns would have stayed a welterweight and he would not have had the eye problems. They would have fought again in 1982.

You can't seriously believe that if Leonard didn't miss those 5 years that he wouldn't have fought Hearns and Duran again. Leonard was way too competitive to be fighting nothing but nobodies. The rematches would have happened, probably at 154, probably in 1983 or 1984.

It's really a moot point with fighting Hearns right a way again anyway. One of the few good things about governing bodies is that they have the mandatory title defenses against #1 challengers. All Hearns had to do was bide his time, beat one nobody at welterweight and he still would have been the #1 contender. At most he would have had a title shot in 12 months. Leonard would have had to have fought him or lose his welterweight title.
Hearns knew that and still chose to fight his next two fights at Jr Middleweight. (The first was less than 3 months after fighting Leonard.) He was then no longer ranked as a welterweight.

As for an immediate rematch with Duran-there is no way that was going to happen. Duran was not going to get a title shot after quitting like that. The public was not going go for that. Duran's reputation was in the toilet after that fight.
As for Hagler-I know revisionist history has it that Hagler was screaming for a rematch and that Leonard refused. That's not really what happened. I saw several interviews after their fight and Hagler was asked about a rematch. He never gave a clear answer.

I guess I will go back to a question that never seems to get answered: Why is it Leonard that is singled out for supposedely not giving rematches?
Hagler never had a rematch with Hearns or Duran.
Hearns never had a rematch with Duran.
Duran never had a rematch with Buchanan, Moore, or Barkley.

These guys didn't miss almost 5 years of their prime. They had much more time to do it. Yet you don't hear complaints that they didn't give rematches.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Ezzard,
I can't really say much about the interview you are referring to since I have not seen it. However, anyone that has played sports knows that its easier to get up for an opponent who beat you previously than it is for an opponent that you already beat. However, that does not mean that Leonard would not have defended the welterweight title against Hearns if Hearns would have stayed a welterweight and he would not have had the eye problems. They would have fought again in 1982.

You can't seriously believe that if Leonard didn't miss those 5 years that he wouldn't have fought Hearns and Duran again. Leonard was way too competitive to be fighting nothing but nobodies. The rematches would have happened, probably at 154, probably in 1983 or 1984.

It's really a moot point with fighting Hearns right a way again anyway. One of the few good things about governing bodies is that they have the mandatory title defenses against #1 challengers. All Hearns had to do was bide his time, beat one nobody at welterweight and he still would have been the #1 contender. At most he would have had a title shot in 12 months. Leonard would have had to have fought him or lose his welterweight title.
Hearns knew that and still chose to fight his next two fights at Jr Middleweight. (The first was less than 3 months after fighting Leonard.) He was then no longer ranked as a welterweight.

As for an immediate rematch with Duran-there is no way that was going to happen. Duran was not going to get a title shot after quitting like that. The public was not going go for that. Duran's reputation was in the toilet after that fight.
As for Hagler-I know revisionist history has it that Hagler was screaming for a rematch and that Leonard refused. That's not really what happened. I saw several interviews after their fight and Hagler was asked about a rematch. He never gave a clear answer.

I guess I will go back to a question that never seems to get answered: Why is it Leonard that is singled out for supposedely not giving rematches?
Hagler never had a rematch with Hearns or Duran.
Hearns never had a rematch with Duran.
Duran never had a rematch with Buchanan, Moore, or Barkley.

These guys didn't miss almost 5 years of their prime. They had much more time to do it. Yet you don't hear complaints that they didn't give rematches.

Regarding the opening paragraph, didn't you say the same thing about Leonard rematching Benitez, until it was exposed Benitez asked for a return fight & was denied?

Seems there is often something where Leonard is concerned. He fought superb opposition & achieved many great things, but he was trash as a human being, Alp, & this manifested itself in his approach at the negotiating table, as much as it did anywhere beyond the ropes.

[Ezzard]

I'm only relaying what Leonard said in the interview. I then think to myself that other fighters didn't have the luxury of saying no to rematches.

I don't think people criticise Leonard for his ability. I think it pains people that he held all the bargaining chips and loaded the dice in his favour. Like Saad said, it left a bad taste. When Hearns looked finished and he then granted a rematch, despite what he had said, it just seemed cheap.

Retiring, waiting for Hagler to retire and then fighting Lalonde...

I'll have a go at your questions...

Hagler was set to rematch Hearns but Leonard got preferential treatment and jumped the queue.

He should perhaps have rematched Duran but the fight itself proved that Duran's advanced age and the size discrepancy were too much for him to overcome. IMO Duran made his point in that fight.

Hearns-Duran? I'd have liked to have seen it because I'm one of the few who thinks an in-shape and focused Duran could have made it a different fight. BUT Duran spent two years the size of a house. He wouldn't even allow TV cameras on him during Hagler-Hearns because he was so huge. He didn't really deserve a rematch and people wouldn't have paid for it.

Duran didn't rematch Buchanan and should have. But he went on to fight bigger and more dangerous opponents. If Leonard had gone on to fight Michael Spinks nobody would be saying he should have rematched Hearns or Hagler but he didn't, he fought Lalonde.

Moore? Duran dominated him.

Barkley? I wouldn't hold that against him at his age but yes, why not...

I'm not sure I agree that Leonard is trash as Irene says. Maybe there are things I don't know.

If teh Fab 4 and the rest had been fighting one another in the 50s they'd have probably fought one another 4 times each and had more defeats but I'd rank them higher than I do already...

[Ambling Alp]

To me it just seems that people can't put their personal feeling toward Leonard aside. There is always an excuse why the others guys didn't have rematches, but Leonard was supposed to fight every one them atleast twice in a prime that was cut short.
I don't really like Hagler much and find Duran a despicable human being. I try to put those things a side when rating them and treat them no better or worse than anyone else.

Believe me if Leonard would ahve fought Michael Spinks he still would have been criticized for not fighting someone else.
If Leonard would have fought Hagler again 6-12 months later, he would have been accused of ducking Hearns.
He does fight Hearns, and gets accused of only fighting him becasue he thought Hearns was washed up. Never mind that Hearns was younger than Leonard. Never mind that the agreed upon weight (164) was closer to Heanr sideal weight than Leonard's.

Duran should have fought Buchanan, Moore, and Barkley. They were all controversial fights. The Moore fight was controversial as well, with all of the thumbing accusations. Barkley lost a decison that could have gone either way.

As for as the negoitiating thing-That is part of the deal. What advantage did Leonard really get against Hagler? Thumbless gloves? They ahd to fight with them. Ring size? That was pretty standard. 12 rounds instead of 15? So what. Hardly anyone thought it would go 5 rounds, much less 12. Hagler didn't have a gun to his head.

Leonard fought Donny Lalonde 15 months later. So what. People act as Lalonde was such a stiff. He was good enought to win a WBS title and defend it a couple of times. If Hagler really wanted a rematch, why not keep fighting and forced Leonard's hand?

I think there is a lot to like about Leonard. Before he ever fought for a world title, he took on a lot of very good fighters. He fought 4 major fights in less than 3 years. He did not make excuses when he lost to Duran.
The guy has a detached retna and comes back; risking going blind. (He takes on Marvin Hagler of all people.) He could have contiuned to make easy money announcing and endorsements etc. He didn't owe Halger, or Hearns or Duran anything.
He gaves credit to his opponents. That includes Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.
I have seen him in countless interviews ( and remember him announcing fights) and he always seemed like a good guy.
How he portrayed as the bad guy in mindboggling.

Thake a look at Hagler. He only gets a draw against a far less talented fighter (Antuofermo) because he dogged it the last few rounds, then cries about the judges.
He does nothing in the first 4 rounds against Leonard and then cries about the decision.
Did you ever see the Pizza Hut commercial after he beat Hearns? He said that Hearns is probably eating soup. What class.

Where do you begin with Duran?
He was a dirty fighter. To you that means nothing but to me it does. He often punched on the break, he would hit low, he would thumb.
He said that was going to send Ray Lampkin to the morgue.
How about the despicable things he said about Leonard's wife?
He gave Leonard no credit after their first fight; he continued to mock him.
In one of the biggest fights of his life, he quits. The fans and the sport were cheated when he did that.
Then he makes excuses for why he lost to Leonard. (They have changed over time.)

[jaclem2]

.....how long is this thread going to continue. the question " was ray leonard scared of aaron pryor??" is so ridiculous that it requires a simple one word answer - NO! there is no way pryor would even have gotten into the ring with a fighter of leonard's abilities (which i think are a bit overrated..though they were enough to keep pryor awake at night)..and here i am...using too many words myself..when i should just stick to "NO!...next question."

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Rambling Alp can carry it on for another 4 pages on hot wind alone. Nuthugging is a powerful aid for stamina.

[BoxBuzz]

.....how long is this thread going to continue. the question " was ray leonard scared of aaron pryor??" is so ridiculous that it requires a simple one word answer - NO! there is no way pryor would even have gotten into the ring with a fighter of leonard's abilities (which i think are a bit overrated..though they were enough to keep pryor awake at night)..and here i am...using too many words myself..when i should just stick to "NO!...next question."

jaclem, your protests are directly responsible for Pryor's over inflated reputation. The more you reveal facts, the more others will assume you are pulling another "magician's deception".
Being is that is your discipline in life.

So you have no one to blame but yourself.

The only answer is to bring a magician of top reputation to the forum. Someone the people can trust to give us "straight talk".

Perhaps the "Amazing Randy" could set this crew straight about both the Charleton Uri Gellar AND Aaron Pryor......by the way....Could AP bend spoons?

[BoxBuzz]

[Princemanspopa]

HBO legendary nights continues to be a more reliable source than Pryor himself apparently.


Never mind the fact that both Pryor and his manager admitted to turning down a career high purse to fight Leonard.


Seems like that it was Pryor was more "scared" than anyone else.

[kidbazooka1]

Leonard took ona prime Hearns i highly doubt he was ever scared of Pryor. I like Pryor but Ray would be too much for him IMO.

Leonard would take a comfortable UD.