Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

[Ambling Alp II]

Golden Oldie. I usually don't pay attention to him. I probably should not have bothered this time.

I did want to respond to a comment you made earlier about cuts. I think that is no excuse. It's part of the game. If your defense is good enough, you don't get stopped on cuts. If your offense is good enough, you stop the other guy.
Imagine if Leonard would have lost to someone like Ranzany or Davey Boy Green on cuts. People would bring it up every time Leonard's name was mentioned.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Golden Odie. I usually don't pay attention to him.

I did want to respond to a comment you made earlier about cuts. I think that is no excuse. It's part of the game. If your defense is good enough, you don't get stopped on cuts. If your offense is good enough, you stop the other guy.
Imagine if Leonard would have lost to someone like Ranzany or Davey Boy Green on cuts. People would bring it up every time Leonard's name was mentioned.

It definitely counts, but I wouldn't call it an embarrassing loss or a result of poor defense. Any punch can cause a laceration. people will say stupid shit over any fight popular fighters lost. No need to sink to their level, but the lack of logic is annoying.

[Ossyrules]

I am 47 years old so since say about 1980 Leonard is probably THE BEST FIGHTER I HAVE EVER SEEN IN 37 YEAR'S OR SO
THE MAN WAS A FREAK SPEED/POWER/FOOTWORK/CHIN/BALANCE AND THEM COMBO'S ANYONE THAT COULD HAVE THAT LONG LAY OFF AND COME BACK AND BEAT THE ALMOST UNBEATABLE HAGLER WAS SOMETHING ELSE AND HE IN MY HONEST OPINION OUT-BOXED OUT-FOUGHT OUT-SMARTED AND OUT-GRITTED THE MARVELOUS ONE WITH OUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT AND THAT SECOND HEARNS FIGHT WAS RAZOR THIN CLOSE THE 2 KNOCK DOWN'S PROBABLEY SHOULD HAVE GOT THE WIN FOR TOMMY BUT SRL DID FIGHT HIS WAY RIGHT BACK INTO THAT FIGHT IT WAS MORE OF TOMMY LETTING THE FIGHT SLIP THEN A ROBBERY THE OTHER 2 FIGHT'S MENTIONED WAS WHEN SRL WAS NO WHERE NEAR HIS BEST............

Take caps off please clive

[Ossyrules]

Lets take a look at Leonards Welterweight career. He had 3 meaningful opponents at the weight.

1. Benitez. Brilliant win and to deny that would be beyond stupid.

2. Duran. A guy who had spent the vast majority of the first ten years of his career at 135 or less. LOST.

3. Hearns. A come from behind win against a guy with obvious weight making problems, as EVIDENCED by him fighting less than 3 months later at 10 lbs heavier than he was for Leonard, and never attempting to make Welter again. This comes under the " fair enough " category, not brilliant.

And on the strength of that people are claiming Leonard was second only to the real Sugar Ray at Welter. What utter effing drivel.

As for the rest of his smoke and mirrors career.

Kalule, the weaker title holder at 154 and Leonard ran from any chance of having to defend it.

We'll let his own words sum up the Hagler fight which was hotly disputed despite the opinions of Leonard fanboys.

"I was ringside", Leonard said. "I'm watching John 'The Beast' Mugabi fight Hagler. Of all people, John 'The Beast' Mugabi." He called Mike Trainer and said, "I can beat Hagler".

This after blatantly ducking Hagler for almost 5 years.

The debacles surrounding both Lalonde, and the Hearns rematch are simply not worth talking about, unless you want to include Norris, and Camacho in the nonsense, as all four fights have about the same REAL value.

The Hearns win is one of the best wins any fighter at 147 can ever claim in boxing history. You clearly have an agenda oldie

[Cojimar 1946]

When you fight more frequently you are more likely to be upset. In Napoles prime (1964-1973) or thereabouts he had far more fights than Leonard did in his prime and thus there is the greater likliehood of having an off-night. If Leonard had as many fights as Napoles he likely would have suffered more losses.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well yes from a mathematical standpoint, if you fight more frequently you are more likely to be upset.
However, you are looking at numbers of fights and not the quality of competition which is more important.
We can find guys with prettier records than Naploes that never beat anyone worth mentioning. Naploes deserves to be ranked ahead of them.

However, Leonard never lost to an inferior opponent. His only loss to an opponent in his prime was to Duran. He never lost to anyone like Billy Backus or Al Urbina if you are going to count Napoles lightweight career.

You and elmer keep saying that you can hold it against Napoles that he didn't fight Leonard's competition.

Think of this way:
Lets say there were two current fighters that looked really good. Fighter A had beat three quality opponents. Fighter B had never beaten anyone at that high of a level.
Everyone would rate Fighter A higher.
It's the same with Leonardd and Naploes.
We don't know if Napoles would have beaten Benitez, Hearns, and Duran. (In fact it's very doubtful he would have been all three.)

We know Leonard would because he did.
(From a pound for pound standpoint, Napoles could have moved up and won the jr middleweight and middleweight tiles. Leonard did.)

Leonard beat much better competition than Napoles and never lost to anyone like Billy Backus. Just keep saying that to yourself until it sinks in.

[Cojimar 1946]

Napoles can only fight the best of his own era. He could have tried moving up in weight but that's not relevant to how he rates as a welterweight. Who exactly was he ducking? As far as comparing eras goes you are free to speculate on who would win but it remains speculation.

I also think you are seriously underrating Griffith. One could make a good case that he was at the same level as Leonard. He was an exceptional fighter in his prime and has a very impressive resume.
If we are comparing the two eras I would say that Emile Griffith was the Sugar Ray Leonard of that era, with Luis Rodriguez the Thomas Hearns, and Dick Tiger the Marvin Hagler. I suppose you could think of Jose Napoles as being an improved version of Donald Curry. I don't know if that helps just one way of looking at it.

[Kalan]

[

However, Leonard never lost to an inferior opponent. His only loss to an opponent in his prime was to Duran. He never lost to anyone like Billy Backus or Al Urbina if you are going to count Napoles lightweight career.

Prime Leonard beats prime Napoles... But Napoles was at least 2 divisions smaller than Leonard -- his first 11 fights were at Featherweight... Napoles fighting Carlos Monzon for the Middleweight Championship was equivalent of Leonard fighting Michael Spinks for the Light Heavyweight Title after he won the Middleweight Title -- had Spinks chosen to remain at Light Heavyweight instead of challenge Larry Holmes -- and had Leonard chosen not to conveniently "retire" again after he beat Hagler -- just when the Middleweight division was starting to look murderous.

Napoles didn't duck the top Welterweights like Leonard ducked the top Middleweights in the toughest era for Middleweights... Not many fighters would like to face Mike McCallum, Michael Nunn, James Toney, and Reggie Johnson at Middleweight, but Leonard sure didn't.. He even ducked down to the 154-pound division to escape them -- targeting the chinny Terry Norris as another seemingly beatable guy.. I have to hand it to Sugar Ray -- he was another Floyd Mayweather when it came to sizing up opponents and the perfect time to fight them.

Napoles lost to 3 boxers on cuts, who never could possibly beat him any other way.. John Stracey when he was completely washed up and done after 88 pro fights, getting badly cut again... Billy Backus, a man he completely dominated and destroyed in their rematch... and LC Morgan who he knocked out quickly in a rematch... You can throw those "stopped on cuts" fights out -- because Napoles was so much better than those 3.

Even if you include those losses Napoles has a better winning ratio than Leonard -- 92% to 90% -- despite fighting more than twice as many fights as Leonard -- because Leonard was cherry picking his opponents so judiciously -- something Napoles didn't do..

It could also be argued that Carlos Monzon, Emile Griffith, and Luis Rodriguez could beat anyone Leonard ever faced... Then you have Curtis Cokes, Ernie Lopez, Carlos Hernandez, Clyde Gray, Hedgmon Lewis, and Armando Muniz... Very tough, top caliber opponents Napoles beat.

[elmersalsa]

Lets take a look at Leonards Welterweight career. He had 3 meaningful opponents at the weight.

1. Benitez. Brilliant win and to deny that would be beyond stupid.

2. Duran. A guy who had spent the vast majority of the first ten years of his career at 135 or less. LOST.

3. Hearns. A come from behind win against a guy with obvious weight making problems, as EVIDENCED by him fighting less than 3 months later at 10 lbs heavier than he was for Leonard, and never attempting to make Welter again. This comes under the " fair enough " category, not brilliant.

And on the strength of that people are claiming Leonard was second only to the real Sugar Ray at Welter. What utter effing drivel.

As for the rest of his smoke and mirrors career.

Kalule, the weaker title holder at 154 and Leonard ran from any chance of having to defend it.

We'll let his own words sum up the Hagler fight which was hotly disputed despite the opinions of Leonard fanboys.



This after blatantly ducking Hagler for almost 5 years.

The debacles surrounding both Lalonde, and the Hearns rematch are simply not worth talking about, unless you want to include Norris, and Camacho in the nonsense, as all four fights have about the same REAL value.

The Hearns win is one of the best wins any fighter at 147 can ever claim in boxing history. You clearly have an agenda oldie

The only people with an agenda are those seriously misguided fools who try to convince others that Leonard deserves to be rated as the 2nd best Welterweight ever on the strength of him beating Tommy Hearns who was severely weight drained. He ran from a rematch at 154 from Tommy, and only found the courage to get back in with him 8 years later in a catchweight fight.

But muck like Tyson fanboys, the excuses continue to poor out for Leonard's blatant ducking, and manipulating fights, from his freakier fans.

Anybody that thinks that the great Sugar Ray Leonard should be #2 in the all time welterweight rankings is either delusional or biased. His best days were at welterweight, and still, his career in that weight was WAY TOO SHORT. The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT HE BEAT was the great Thomas Hearns if you look at it, really.

[Ambling Alp II]

Napoles can only fight the best of his own era. He could have tried moving up in weight but that's not relevant to how he rates as a welterweight. Who exactly was he ducking? As far as comparing eras goes you are free to speculate on who would win but it remains speculation.

I also think you are seriously underrating Griffith. One could make a good case that he was at the same level as Leonard. He was an exceptional fighter in his prime and has a very impressive resume.
If we are comparing the two eras I would say that Emile Griffith was the Sugar Ray Leonard of that era, with Luis Rodriguez the Thomas Hearns, and Dick Tiger the Marvin Hagler. I suppose you could think of Jose Napoles as being an improved version of Donald Curry. I don't know if that helps just one way of looking at it.

I didn't say that Napoles was ducking anyone. You are bringing up speculation. Well you are speculating that Napoles would have beaten great welterweights. You could speculate that other Donald Curry or many other fighters would have as well.
Leonard actually did. And he did it against three different opponents. And he never lost to anyone like Billy Backus.
Griifith did beat Luis Rodriguez. (and no great fighters at welter) He had four extremely close fights with him and got the decision three times. He just as easily could have been 1-3 or 0-4 vs Rodriguez. And he lost to Benny Paret. Leonard never lost to anyone like that Paret.
Backus and Paret are two of the worst welterweight champions of all time.

There was nothing Griffith did better than Leonard and he wasn't close to Leonard's power. And he was nowhere near as consistent.
Rodriguez was nothing like Thomas Hearns, stylewise anyway. You could argue that he was as good.
Tiger was not similar to Hagler and clearly was not as good.
Napoles was better than Curry. He wasn't as good Leonard.

[Ossyrules]

Lets take a look at Leonards Welterweight career. He had 3 meaningful opponents at the weight.

1. Benitez. Brilliant win and to deny that would be beyond stupid.

2. Duran. A guy who had spent the vast majority of the first ten years of his career at 135 or less. LOST.

3. Hearns. A come from behind win against a guy with obvious weight making problems, as EVIDENCED by him fighting less than 3 months later at 10 lbs heavier than he was for Leonard, and never attempting to make Welter again. This comes under the " fair enough " category, not brilliant.

And on the strength of that people are claiming Leonard was second only to the real Sugar Ray at Welter. What utter effing drivel.

As for the rest of his smoke and mirrors career.

Kalule, the weaker title holder at 154 and Leonard ran from any chance of having to defend it.

We'll let his own words sum up the Hagler fight which was hotly disputed despite the opinions of Leonard fanboys.



This after blatantly ducking Hagler for almost 5 years.

The debacles surrounding both Lalonde, and the Hearns rematch are simply not worth talking about, unless you want to include Norris, and Camacho in the nonsense, as all four fights have about the same REAL value.

The Hearns win is one of the best wins any fighter at 147 can ever claim in boxing history. You clearly have an agenda oldie

The only people with an agenda are those seriously misguided fools who try to convince others that Leonard deserves to be rated as the 2nd best Welterweight ever on the strength of him beating Tommy Hearns who was severely weight drained. He ran from a rematch at 154 from Tommy, and only found the courage to get back in with him 8 years later in a catchweight fight.

But muck like Tyson fanboys, the excuses continue to poor out for Leonard's blatant ducking, and manipulating fights, from his freakier fans.

He’s top 5 welter I said

You’re too emotional when discussing these things

[cfang]

Never liked Leonard. Hagler was my boyhood hero so hated that Leonard won that fight. Liked hearns too, couldn’t stand Leonard. However, he’s top 3 welter of all time and top ten p4p maybe too. A legendary fighter who had everything you’d ever want. He could have beaten anyone in history around his class.

[cfang]

He beat hearns, Duran, Benitez and hagler.

[elmersalsa]

Never liked Leonard. Hagler was my boyhood hero so hated that Leonard won that fight. Liked hearns too, couldn’t stand Leonard. However, he’s top 3 welter of all time and top ten p4p maybe too. A legendary fighter who had everything you’d ever want. He could have beaten anyone in history around his class.

Not enough fights to be in the top 10 p4p atgs.

[elmersalsa]

I'm far from emotional, the emotional freaks are the ones who grossly over rate Leonard. Just check the thread, there are those claiming he is 2nd only to the REAL Sugar Ray at 147. Such a claim is pure unadulterated garbage.

[Ambling Alp II]

Never liked Leonard. Hagler was my boyhood hero so hated that Leonard won that fight. Liked hearns too, couldn’t stand Leonard. However, he’s top 3 welter of all time and top ten p4p maybe too. A legendary fighter who had everything you’d ever want. He could have beaten anyone in history around his class.

Well you are being honest. You don't like him but you still realize how good he was. Other people can't do this.
(There are guys I don't like that I rank highly as well.)
Some people just can't get past it. They don't like Leonard so they won't rate highly. They go to ridiculous reasons to rip him which they don't do other fighters in the same situations.
They have no real argument against him. They come up with crybaby excuses for his opponents. Meanwhile they ignore other fighters losses to Benny Paret and Billy Backus as if they never happened.

It is too bad that we can't get past this kind of crap.
I like a real argument where there is a lot of gray area; ie who was a better middleweight Fullmer or Benvenuti? Who was a better, Sam Langford or Harry Greb? Something like that.

[dr_devious]

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.

I totally agree, same conclusions as my reply but better reasoned

[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.

None of them guys were around when Leonard fought FYI kalan

Yup.. But going from his record of 10 losses, to that point, for their "vacant Welterweight Title Fight" Tommy Bell was not an outstanding boxer or puncher... Yet he fought Robinson very tough all the way and decked him hard... The 2nd fight in a row where SRR hit the deck hard.

Here's a question. "Who's the most skilled boxer Ray Robinson ever beat???" ... Leonard beat Hearns, Benitez, and Duran.

[elmersalsa]

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

Yup.. But going from his record of 10 losses, to that point, for their "vacant Welterweight Title Fight" Tommy Bell was not an outstanding boxer or puncher... Yet he fought Robinson very tough all the way and decked him hard... The 2nd fight in a row where SRR hit the deck hard.

Here's a question. "Who's the most skilled boxer Ray Robinson ever beat???" ... Leonard beat Hearns, Benitez, and Duran.

Then, why SRR is ranked #1 at welterweight all time? According to some people, SRL beat 3 great fighters at welterweight. Then, why he is not above SRR?

I need the answers.

[elmersalsa]

He beat hearns, Duran, Benitez and hagler.

He LOST to Duran too at his favoured weight, in his absolute prime. It never ceases to amaze me how Hearns is judged severely for losing to Leonard but Leonard's defeat to the naturally smaller Duran gets a pass.

Duran whupped him. But, the American media said it was a close and brutal fight. Which now, looking on the fight, it's pure baloney. Duran whupped that ass!

[GreenShadow]

i began following Ray Leonard during the 76 Olympics. when people think of Loenard they have this image of a slick golden pretty boy, shuffling and dancing like he copied ali, more style than substance. but for all the accolades and hype he got, he was and still is underrated as a legitimate tough guy with a great chin and a tremendous finisher, if he got you in trouble he would redline his engine throwing bomb after bomb, he never let anyone off the hook.

look at his early fights to get an idea of his boxing ability and style. then look how he dominated Benitez to get a really good handle on what he could do. then watch the first Duran fight and you'll realize he could have dominated duran if he just would have dance only a little bit, not a lot, just a little. he went toe to toe round after round, he took everything duran could delivery to any fighter, duran could not have fought any better and loenard stood there and ate it up and gave duran a beating right back.

if he had just stepped aside once in a while, dance a little and then come in when he felt it favored him, he would have won a lopsided decision if not crush duran. he already showed he could stand right in front of duran and take his best shots and not go down, can you imagine if he also used his superior footwork in addition to slugging it out? Duran used everything he had while leonard still had other abilities he left on the shelf for that fight, he fought on duran's terms and just about beat him.

while he lost that fight, it showed his mettle. the second fight he danced too much IMO. if he had danced just half that much in the first fight he wins easily. but then duran quit and it seemed like he got lucky, he won by fluke. in reality duran knew from the 1st fight he couldn't take out leonard and knew how much damage leonard could dish out. he realized that as the late rounds came around leonard would KO him. he lost heart and was scared to be embarrassed.

leonard's fights with Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler define and show what kind of fighter he was. you can get lucky but you can't get lucky agaist all those guys and have a better record against all of them than they had against him.


his fights against Norris,Camacho, Hearns II, duran III mean nothing. all those fighters as well as him were well past their prime. in assessing the legacy of those fighters i would not hold those fights against them as i don't against Leonard. they were just money fights.

he was as tough as anyone, could take anyone's punch and always came to fight. he faced serious adversity against Hearns and Duran and rose to the occasion.

there is nothing about leonard that is untested. if he is not the best welterweight ever, he is one of the best ever. less of him can not be said.

[Kalan]

He beat hearns, Duran, Benitez and hagler.

He LOST to Duran too at his favoured weight, in his absolute prime. It never ceases to amaze me how Hearns is judged severely for losing to Leonard but Leonard's defeat to the naturally smaller Duran gets a pass.

Duran whupped him. But, the American media said it was a close and brutal fight. Which now, looking on the fight, it's pure baloney. Duran whupped that ass!

Leonard won the rematch and rubbermatch with Duran -- which means Leonard won the trilogy..

If you win the World Series it doesn't matter if you won 4 of 7 games or won in 4 straight.. Everyone loses if they fight ATG's.

Robinson lost to Fullmer, Basilio, Jones, Maxim, and Turpin... Those 5 weren't ATG's, but they whoooped that ass... No trilogies there.

[elmersalsa]

He LOST to Duran too at his favoured weight, in his absolute prime. It never ceases to amaze me how Hearns is judged severely for losing to Leonard but Leonard's defeat to the naturally smaller Duran gets a pass.

Duran whupped him. But, the American media said it was a close and brutal fight. Which now, looking on the fight, it's pure baloney. Duran whupped that ass!

Leonard won the rematch and rubbermatch with Duran -- which means Leonard won the trilogy..

If you win the World Series it doesn't matter if you won 4 of 7 games or won in 4 straight.. Everyone loses if they fight ATG's.

Robinson lost to Fullmer, Basilio, Jones, Maxim, and Turpin... Those 5 weren't ATG's, but they whoooped that ass... No trilogies there.

Duran won the fight that mattered the most. When both were at their absolute best, Duran whupped him.

[GreenShadow]

i began following Ray Leonard during the 76 Olympics. when people think of Loenard they have this image of a slick golden pretty boy, shuffling and dancing like he copied ali, more style than substance. but for all the accolades and hype he got, he was and still is underrated as a legitimate tough guy with a great chin and a tremendous finisher, if he got you in trouble he would redline his engine throwing bomb after bomb, he never let anyone off the hook.

look at his early fights to get an idea of his boxing ability and style. then look how he dominated Benitez to get a really good handle on what he could do. then watch the first Duran fight and you'll realize he could have dominated duran if he just would have dance only a little bit, not a lot, just a little. he went toe to toe round after round, he took everything duran could delivery to any fighter, duran could not have fought any better and loenard stood there and ate it up and gave duran a beating right back.

if he had just stepped aside once in a while, dance a little and then come in when he felt it favored him, he would have won a lopsided decision if not crush duran. he already showed he could stand right in front of duran and take his best shots and not go down, can you imagine if he also used his superior footwork in addition to slugging it out? Duran used everything he had while leonard still had other abilities he left on the shelf for that fight, he fought on duran's terms and just about beat him.

while he lost that fight, it showed his mettle. the second fight he danced too much IMO. if he had danced just half that much in the first fight he wins easily. but then duran quit and it seemed like he got lucky, he won by fluke. in reality duran knew from the 1st fight he couldn't take out leonard and knew how much damage leonard could dish out. he realized that as the late rounds came around leonard would KO him. he lost heart and was scared to be embarrassed.

leonard's fights with Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler define and show what kind of fighter he was. you can get lucky but you can't get lucky agaist all those guys and have a better record against all of them than they had against him.


his fights against Norris,Camacho, Hearns II, duran III mean nothing. all those fighters as well as him were well past their prime. in assessing the legacy of those fighters i would not hold those fights against them as i don't against Leonard. they were just money fights.

he was as tough as anyone, could take anyone's punch and always came to fight. he faced serious adversity against Hearns and Duran and rose to the occasion.

there is nothing about leonard that is untested. if he is not the best welterweight ever, he is one of the best ever. less of him can not be said.

You see it is a case of simple choice. I can either take the opinion of a self confessed Leonard fan ( above ) seriously.

Or I can go with this guy who was obviously ringside.

According to Bill Nack:

It was, from almost the opening salvo, a fight that belonged to Durán. The Panamanian seized the evening and gave it what shape and momentum it had. He took control, attacking and driving Leonard against the ropes, bulling him back, hitting him with lefts and rights to the body as he maneuvered the champion against the ropes from corner to corner. Always moving forward, he mauled and wrestled Leonard, scoring inside with hooks and rights. For three rounds Durán drove at Sugar Ray with a fury, and there were moments when it seemed the fight could not last five. Unable to get away, unable to counter and unable to slide away to open up the ring, Leonard seemed almost helpless under the assault. Now and then he got loose and countered—left-right-left to Durán's bobbing head—but he missed punches and could not work inside, could not jab, could not mount an offense to keep Durán at bay

Again it is a no brainer, seeing as Nack's report tends to support what I saw with my own eyes at the time.

???????? i don't understand, what did i say that disagrees with that? i think that assessment is a little one sided but yeah duran dictated the fight, yeah duran pounded him and going by that assessment it means that leonard did in fact stand in front of him and took everything duran had to offer. could duran have fought any better than that glowing assessment? it means duran could not have fought any better a fight than he did.

nack is saying he dominated right? so he dominated and still could not take leonard out. and leonard did show heart and did gave back some punishment. i'm not sure what you object to.

i just said i followed leonard from the olympics not that i was a fan of his, you sound like you are saying i'm just some fan boy of his. it's true i was a fan of his, but i was also a fan of hearns and haggler. i'm sure even nack had fighters he fancied over others, because of their skills. i'm not a fan boy, i'm objective. leonard lost the fight. now when leonard dictated the fight what happened? that result doesn't count? leonard was a better fighter than duran period. leonard fought the wrong fight and that is why he lost. if ali had fought the wrong fight against many, like shavers, he also would have lost. what exactly are you asking of leonard that he didn't have?

[GreenShadow]

leonard's fights with Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler define and show what kind of fighter he was. you can get lucky but you can't get lucky agaist all those guys and have a better record against all of them than they had against him.

I can't let that bit go without reply.

Yes you can get lucky, particularly with judges, and even more especially if you are a good looking black kid, with a cherubic face, and a ready smile who keeps his counsel about suffering discrimination, race riots, and everything else America wanted to forget about itself at the time.

There are plenty of posters here who are ALWAYS whinging on this forum about judges, refs, and scoring. Don't tell me those results in the Hagler fight, and Hearns 2, were legitimate, and then talk about Leonard NOT being lucky.

i've in lived in america all my life, the culture of the day had nothing to with anything, that's just some crap pulled out of no where, just like "hearns having trouble making weight" total BS.....hagler and hearns were both black too you know, as were most of the fighters leonard fought. and hearns and hagler were both well spoken with working class ethics, america was not out to make leonard a hero because of some racial guilt it felt.
judges had nothing to do with hearns and duran losing. hagler was a middleweight.

i personally don't think leonard did enough to take hagler's title, to me that fight was either a draw or it could have gone to hagler in a close decision but leonard did not beat him. but the subject is was he the best welterweight, not the best middleweight.

i'm sorry if you don't like leonard, but you can't go through a career like his by just faking it, he didn't bribe or hypnotize hearns or duran into losing. if you could fake it then boxing is akin to pro wrestling and if that's the case then what's the point talking about anything.