Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

[NYDominican]

Many boxing fans consider Sugar Ray Leonard one of the greatest welterweight boxers of all time. Many boxing fans consider Sugar Ray one of the greatest boxers in boxing's "Pound for Pound" category.

Leonard beat Marvin Hagler by a 12 round split decision (a controversial decision). In Sugar Ray's second fight with Thomas Hearns, Leonard drew with Thomas (another controversial decision). Sugar Ray lost to Terry Norris by a 12 round unanimous decision. Leonard lost to Hector Camacho by a 5th round technical knockout.



Do you think that Sugar Ray is really one of the greatest welterweights of all time? If so, why? If not, why not?



Do you think that Sugar Ray Leonard is really one of the greatest boxers in boxing's "Pound for Pound" category? If so, why? If not, why not?



Please explain.

[dr_devious]

SRL is easily one of the best WWs of all time, I've got him at number two behind SRR based on his skills, speed, power and resume.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Easily top 5 welter and top 20 p4p. The why is self explanatory. He probably has the best four wins of anyone. Arguably beat three other top 20 fighters.

[Counter-puncher]

Easily top 5 welter and top 20 p4p. The why is self explanatory. He probably has the best four wins of anyone. Arguably beat three other top 20 fighters.

Yup, one of the most unequivocal combinations of record and talents

[Kalan]

Leonard never met anyone like Spence, Thurman, Brook, Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Trinidad, Robinson, or Forrest.. They would pepper Ray up with punches like Hearns did -- and they didn't have the weak and super skinny bod or soft chin to bail Ray out late in the fight.

The much smaller Duran beat Leonard when he was at his best... He handed Ray the rematch for free -- and was an old man in their 3rd match.

But I think Leonard could actually beat Robinson -- because Tommy Bell decked Robbie really hard and almost beat him... He wasn't real good.

[Counter-puncher]

[Counter-puncher]

Spence, Thurman, Brook, Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Trinidad, Robinson, or Forrest..

Forrest and Trinidad and Brook would beat Leonard



You're such a joker.

None of the fighters you list ever fought a fighter like Leonard either, just for the record.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

None of them could come close to beating hearns.

[Kalan]

Spence, Thurman, Brook, Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Trinidad, Robinson, or Forrest..

Forrest and Trinidad and Brook would beat Leonard

...

You're such a joker.

None of the fighters you list ever fought a fighter like Leonard either, just for the record.

Yeah...None of them ever got wiped out on the cards -- and out-classed in every way by anyone like chinny chin chinned as Terry Norris.

Such as Leonard did ... Just for the record.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Just for the record, Tito got embarassed by winky

[Ossyrules]

Leonard never met anyone like Spence, Thurman, Brook, Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Trinidad, Robinson, or Forrest.. They would pepper Ray up with punches like Hearns did -- and they didn't have the weak and super skinny bod or soft chin to bail Ray out late in the fight.

The much smaller Duran beat Leonard when he was at his best... He handed Ray the rematch for free -- and was an old man in their 3rd match.

But I think Leonard could actually beat Robinson -- because Tommy Bell decked Robbie really hard and almost beat him... He wasn't real good.

None of them guys were around when Leonard fought FYI kalan

[Ossyrules]

Easily top 5 welter and top 20 p4p. The why is self explanatory. He probably has the best four wins of anyone. Arguably beat three other top 20 fighters.

Spot on

[elmersalsa]

To me, he was a special fighter that is a Top 5 welterweight and #18 pound per pound all time in my book. Could have had a higher ranking if he would have fought more fights, had more longevity and never retired the first half of the 1980s, where there were more fights for him in the horizon, like fights versus Aaron Pryor and Donald Curry and Marvelous in '82 instead of '87. Unfortunately, they never materialized.

[littlepug]

One of my favourite fighters, he really could do it all, deffo one of the best welters ever and right up there amongst the best fighters who ever lived, only thing that hurts him is inactivity, his time at welter and light middle could of been even better had he not been sidelined, I don't really take much notice of the fights he had when past his best because lets face it they only beat a shell of SRL

[gilgamesh]

Easily top 5 welter and top 20 p4p. The why is self explanatory. He probably has the best four wins of anyone. Arguably beat three other top 20 fighters.

Nothing to add to this

[SenorPipino]

You don't deny Ali's greatness because he was thumped by Holmes and did little against Berbick.

You don't dismiss Joe Frazier because he waddled to a draw with journeyman Jumbo Cummings.

You can't describe Roberto Duran as a tomato can because he was pounded out by William Joppy, beaten by non-entity Omar Gonzalez, and made to look impotent against club fighter Pat Lawler.

They were all old and for all intents and purposes, at the end of the line.

Similarly, you don't judge Sugar Ray Leonard for his one-sided losses to Norris and Camacho.

As Leonard himself said after the 12 round embarrassment to Norris at MSG, "I am not of the 90s."

But he was of the 70s and an integral part of the 80s.

At his best, an incredible blend of power, speed, ring smarts and heart.

To suggest that fighters of the ilk of Thurman, Spence, Brook (Brook????) and the powerful (but oft-times one dimensional) Tito Trinidad would have their way with prime SRL is simply blind insanity.

The guy who beheaded Dave Green was pretty much fistic perfection, even if Green wasn't.

An ATG at welter without question.

No welterweight in history would find Ray Leonard to be a piece of cake.

[Kalan]

Forrest and Trinidad and Brook would beat Leonard

...

You're such a joker.

None of the fighters you list ever fought a fighter like Leonard either, just for the record.

Yeah...None of them ever got wiped out on the cards -- and out-classed in every way by anyone like chinny chin chinned as Terry Norris.

Such as Leonard did ... Just for the record.

Leonard was 34 and hadn't fought in over a year. Norris was 23.

Leonard hadn't fought at light middle in 7 years.

Either you don't know this, or you don't understand boxing.

I know all the excuses for all of Leonard's losses... They've been repeated so many times.

Would somebody make excuses for Vitali Klitschko if he lost to 30-1 Sam Peter, at 37 years of age, after coming off a 4-year-layoff??? No, because he dominated.. 34 is not old kid.. And a year isn't a real long layoff.. Leonard could fight when, where, and who he wanted anyway.. He was in an enviable position.. Nobody would excuse Golovkin if Mayweather accepted his challenge to fight at 154 and won -- because GGG issued the challenge though he had NEVER fought as light as 154, and Floyd fought there several times.. Floyd just knew it was a terrible idea..

But Ray Leonard thought the chinny Norris was his "get-out-of-jail-free" ticket... Michael Nunn, Mike, McCallum and Julian Jackson held the 3 Middleweight Championships when Leonard fought Norris.. Promoters were trying their asses off to match Leonard with one of them.. James Toney was breaking through at that time as well... That was the toughest the Middleweight Division ever was---at any time.

Leonard wanted nothing to do with the top Middleweights... You certainly can't blame him for going to 154 and Norris -- except that he lost.

[elmersalsa]

The great Sugar Ray Leonard's time frame between 1979-82, was his best. After that, there was nothing to be awed about. He had a very short prime due to the retina injury. I wanted to see much more. Well, the boxing world wanted more. His ranking would have been greater if he had much more fights. He only had 40.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You don't deny Ali's greatness because he was thumped by Holmes and did little against Berbick.

You don't dismiss Joe Frazier because he waddled to a draw with journeyman Jumbo Cummings.

You can't describe Roberto Duran as a tomato can because he was pounded out by William Joppy, beaten by non-entity Omar Gonzalez, and made to look impotent against club fighter Pat Lawler.

They were all old and for all intents and purposes, at the end of the line.

Similarly, you don't judge Sugar Ray Leonard for his one-sided losses to Norris and Camacho.

As Leonard himself said after the 12 round embarrassment to Norris at MSG, "I am not of the 90s."

But he was of the 70s and an integral part of the 80s.

At his best, an incredible blend of power, speed, ring smarts and heart.

To suggest that fighters of the ilk of Thurman, Spence, Brook (Brook????) and the powerful (but oft-times one dimensional) Tito Trinidad would have their way with prime SRL is simply blind insanity.

The guy who beheaded Dave Green was pretty much fistic perfection, even if Green wasn't.

An ATG at welter without question.

No welterweight in history would find Ray Leonard to be a piece of cake.

Kalan shows times of understanding this when he's glossing about a fighter he likes. That's quite a short list. Tito Trinidad wouldn't win a round against Leonard or Hearns.

[IKSRTFO]

Many boxing fans consider Sugar Ray Leonard one of the greatest welterweight boxers of all time. Many boxing fans consider Sugar Ray one of the greatest boxers in boxing's "Pound for Pound" category.

Leonard beat Marvin Hagler by a 12 round split decision (a controversial decision). In Sugar Ray's second fight with Thomas Hearns, Leonard drew with Thomas (another controversial decision). Sugar Ray lost to Terry Norris by a 12 round unanimous decision. Leonard lost to Hector Camacho by a 5th round technical knockout.



Do you think that Sugar Ray is really one of the greatest welterweights of all time? If so, why? If not, why not?



Do you think that Sugar Ray Leonard is really one of the greatest boxers in boxing's "Pound for Pound" category? If so, why? If not, why not?



Please explain.

For starters, none of the fights you mentioned were at welterweight so you answered the first question yourself. He only has 1 loss at welter.....to another all time great and it wasn't a domination.

[IKSRTFO]

Leonard never met anyone like Spence, Thurman, Brook, Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Trinidad, Robinson, or Forrest.. They would pepper Ray up with punches like Hearns did -- and they didn't have the weak and super skinny bod or soft chin to bail Ray out late in the fight.

The much smaller Duran beat Leonard when he was at his best... He handed Ray the rematch for free -- and was an old man in their 3rd match.

But I think Leonard could actually beat Robinson -- because Tommy Bell decked Robbie really hard and almost beat him... He wasn't real good.

Duran and Hearns are better than most of those guys. Hagler would wipe the floor with a lot of them.

[IKSRTFO]

Leonard was without doubt one of the best Welterweights ever. I am happy that in most sensible all time p4p lists Leonard is in between 10 and 20 whilst Duran is always in the top 10. However much like Tyson, Leonards fanboys make feeble excuses for his career, and simply deny or ignore what doesn't suit their agenda's.

Leonards resume is lacking because he CHOSE to retire for long spells to avoid certain fighters who he perceived as dangerous. This in itself isn't too bad when you take into account he was an egotistical La La. The problem of course is he constantly talked about fighting these guys before announcing yet another retirement. As for Hagler, Leonard would rather have eaten his own leg, than face Hagler in 82 - 83, despite habitually talking about fighting Marvin.

Dude didn't choose to retire, he had a detached retina.

[Tony1244]

A great amateur.

A great pro.

Top 20-25 P4P of all time. Regardless of whether you "like" him.

[Ambling Alp II]

For whatever reason, there has long been a lot of anti-Leonard comments on this Forum. If you look back at the posts overs the years, Ali had got the most criticism, then either Leonard or Tyson. (Some of Tyson's is justified) His name even gets mention and very quickly you get somebody ripping him.

We still have people bring up the Camacho fight. He was 40 and had not fought for 6 years. Anybody who knows anything about the sport should knows that fights is meaningless; as it would be for anyone in that situation.

Have never heard anyone call him the best welterweight ever; but he is right up there. Calling him a Top 5 welterweight is like calling Joe Louis a Top 5 heavyweight. Leonard is the clear #2; only Robinson is ahead of him. There really should be no serious argument for anyone else being ahead of him.
If you objectively take a look at the quality of his wins compared to the quality of his losses, nobody beside Robinson surpasses him. Armstrong, Ross, Gavilan, Napoles, Griffith nor anyone else can match him.

As for all time, he usually gets underrated there as well. Make a list of the Top 50. Leonard has wins over four different opponents in the Top 50. How many others can match that? Just one loss and that fighter is easily in the Top 50 as well. Less than 10. That's right, Ray Leonard was one of the Top 10 fighters of all time. There is no gray area here. He clearly belongs.

[elmersalsa]

For whatever reason, there has long been a lot of anti-Leonard comments on this Forum. If you look back at the posts overs the years, Ali had got the most criticism, then either Leonard or Tyson. (Some of Tyson's is justified) His name even gets mention and very quickly you get somebody ripping him.

We still have people bring up the Camacho fight. He was 40 and had not fought for 6 years. Anybody who knows anything about the sport should knows that fights is meaningless; as it would be for anyone in that situation.

Have never heard anyone call him the best welterweight ever; but he is right up there. Calling him a Top 5 welterweight is like calling Joe Louis a Top 5 heavyweight. Leonard is the clear #2; only Robinson is ahead of him. There really should be no serious argument for anyone else being ahead of him.
If you objectively take a look at the quality of his wins compared to the quality of his losses, nobody beside Robinson surpasses him. Armstrong, Ross, Gavilan, Napoles, Griffith nor anyone else can match him.

As for all time, he usually gets underrated there as well. Make a list of the Top 50. Leonard has wins over four different opponents in the Top 50. How many others can match that? Just one loss and that fighter is easily in the Top 50 as well. Less than 10. That's right, Ray Leonard was one of the Top 10 fighters of all time. There is no gray area here. He clearly belongs.

His career was too short to be in the top 10.