Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

[IKSRTFO]

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.

Hearns isn't severely judged. He's still looked at as one of the best welters of all time and a dangerous fighter for nearly everyone around his weight.

[IKSRTFO]

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.

If you want to count beating 38 year old fat Duran as meaning something in Leonard's career, then you have to knock his so called p4p rating to well below 30 for getting humiliated by Norris, and stopped by Camacho, at 34, and 40 respectively. Incidentally something Hector couldn't manage against Duran in 24 rounds, never mind 5.

You simply can't have your cake, and eat it, despite the protestations of Leonard fanboys.

And Leonard lasted 25 more rounds against Hearns than Duran did.

[IKSRTFO]

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.

Considering he stopped 3 of the 4 fighters, luck didn't have as much to do with it.

[elmersalsa]

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?

Leonard was not a better fighter than Duran. Explain that to me. How he was the better fighter when both at their very best, Duran whupped him. You are talking like if Duran can't box or had stationary feet. Duran was a versatile brawler and underrated technician that gave you angles and scored in openings to his best shots. The guy was a master at infighting and had great defense and counterpunching abilities. That Leonard didn't fight his fight is a BALONEY SANDWICH from the American media and fanboys club alike. Your assessment seems like Duran was a brute fighter with no skills. Did you watch Duran's footwork in the first fight? It was one of boxing's greatest performances ever. Give Duran credit for that.

[GreenShadow]

Leonard was not a better fighter than Duran. Explain that to me. How he was the better fighter when both at their very best, Duran whupped him. You are talking like if Duran can't box or had stationary feet. Duran was a versatile brawler and underrated technician that gave you angles and scored in openings to his best shots. The guy was a master at infighting and had great defense and counterpunching abilities. That Leonard didn't fight his fight is a BALONEY SANDWICH from the American media and fanboys club alike. Your assessment seems like Duran was a brute fighter with no skills. Did you watch Duran's footwork in the first fight? It was one of boxing's greatest performances ever. Give Duran credit for that.

i already explained it. lets take this logically. did duran fight the kind of fight he wanted to fight? did he dominate and dictate the fight? the answer is yes. so could he have fought any better than he did? i don't think so because he did everything he wanted to do, the fight was fought on his terms, how it best suited his skill set. you don't agree with that? would say duran did not fight using his best attributes?

regardless of how good duran's footwork was Leonard's was superior and had faster hand speed. so while Duran fought a fight that was optimal for him, Leonard did not. do you disagree with that?

so if that is the case, Duran could not improve his performance while Leonard still had room to fight a better fight.
they slugged it out toe to toe.....weren't you surprised that Leonard didn't get knocked out?
so if instead of just standing there ALL the time taking those blows he backed up a little and stayed out of Duran's range, he would have taken less punches.....that seems quite reasonable. Duran would have had to chase him down which equates to Leonard getting less punishment, Duran connecting with fewer punches while he expends energy chasing Leonard and missing more often with his punches. a more fatigued Duran against a fresher Leonard who suffered less punishment means eventually things would even out more, with Duran on his way to getting even more tired as the rounds worn on. Loenard could have dictated the fight and he didn't.

we know that not only from his skill set but also because that is exactly what he did in the 2nd fight........was duran winning that 2nd fight before he quit? wasn't he going to get even more tired as he continued to chase leonard? why didn't he cut off the ring in the second fight and trap leonard if he could?

Duran was a great fighter but he was not better than Leonard with both fighters fighting the fight that best suits each of them.

please, don't accuse me of just following some media created story line. i am not just saying "Leonard is better" and that's it with no reasoning behind it. i'm not that cheap. i have given my reasoning and it is my own original thoughts. whether you agree with it or not, give me create for thinking for myself.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't see the evidence for Leonard being more consistent than Griffith at welterweight. During his prime Griffith has three official losses at welterweight where as Leonard has only one but this is counterbalanced by the fact that Griffith had more fights at the weight than Leonard did. Moreover, the loss to Paret seems to have been a highly controversial decision in which most observers felt Griffith won. Have you actually watched the fight?

You could try to bring up fights early in Griffith's career but these appear to have been when he was still developing. Number of losses are obviously going to be analyzed differently when you are comparing fighters with vastly different numbers of bouts.

[Ambling Alp II]

Ok, I will tell you why Leonard was more consistent. Leonard never had a bad loss at welterweight. His only one was to Roberto Duran. So 0% of bad losses is zero. Griffith lost to Paret. He could hardly have been more consistent. It was a close fight; some people thought Griffith won, some though Paret. This should have been a relatively easy win for a great fighter. Leonard beat several fighters like this handily.

Griffith had other close calls where he got the decision as well. I do agree that losses really early in a fighters career don't matter a lot. However, if Leonard would have a lost a fight early in his career it would be mentioned every time his name came up.

Losing to Benny Paret is much worse than losing to Robert Duran. Even barely beating Paret is much worse.
Beating Duran, Benitez, and Hearns convincngly trumps what Griffith did against Rodriguez. Actually, you could make a decent argument that Rodrigues should be ahead of Griffith.
You can't make a decent case that Griffith be ahead of Leonard because there simply is nothing to justify it.

[elmersalsa]

Leonard was not a better fighter than Duran. Explain that to me. How he was the better fighter when both at their very best, Duran whupped him. You are talking like if Duran can't box or had stationary feet. Duran was a versatile brawler and underrated technician that gave you angles and scored in openings to his best shots. The guy was a master at infighting and had great defense and counterpunching abilities. That Leonard didn't fight his fight is a BALONEY SANDWICH from the American media and fanboys club alike. Your assessment seems like Duran was a brute fighter with no skills. Did you watch Duran's footwork in the first fight? It was one of boxing's greatest performances ever. Give Duran credit for that.

i already explained it. lets take this logically. did duran fight the kind of fight he wanted to fight? did he dominate and dictate the fight? the answer is yes. so could he have fought any better than he did? i don't think so because he did everything he wanted to do, the fight was fought on his terms, how it best suited his skill set. you don't agree with that? would say duran did not fight using his best attributes?

regardless of how good duran's footwork was Leonard's was superior and had faster hand speed. so while Duran fought a fight that was optimal for him, Leonard did not. do you disagree with that?

so if that is the case, Duran could not improve his performance while Leonard still had room to fight a better fight.
they slugged it out toe to toe.....weren't you surprised that Leonard didn't get knocked out?
so if instead of just standing there ALL the time taking those blows he backed up a little and stayed out of Duran's range, he would have taken less punches.....that seems quite reasonable. Duran would have had to chase him down which equates to Leonard getting less punishment, Duran connecting with fewer punches while he expends energy chasing Leonard and missing more often with his punches. a more fatigued Duran against a fresher Leonard who suffered less punishment means eventually things would even out more, with Duran on his way to getting even more tired as the rounds worn on. Loenard could have dictated the fight and he didn't.

we know that not only from his skill set but also because that is exactly what he did in the 2nd fight........was duran winning that 2nd fight before he quit? wasn't he going to get even more tired as he continued to chase leonard? why didn't he cut off the ring in the second fight and trap leonard if he could?

Duran was a great fighter but he was not better than Leonard with both fighters fighting the fight that best suits each of them.

please, don't accuse me of just following some media created story line. i am not just saying "Leonard is better" and that's it with no reasoning behind it. i'm not that cheap. i have given my reasoning and it is my own original thoughts. whether you agree with it or not, give me create for thinking for myself.

Welcome to boxrec forum, GreenShadow. I see your point. And you are looking at it in the Duran's style that that was the ONLY WAY he could have beaten the great Sugar Ray Leonard. And I totally disagree. Leonard tried everything. He lost. End of story.

Leonard was a great fighter. A great boxing strategist inside and outside the ring. No doubt about that. But, I don't believe the sayings that "he did not fight his fight" crap when he ALWAYS fought that way. How could that be against a smaller fighter in which Leonard had all the physical advantages? Duran went up 12 pounds and whupped him. With both at their very best and that is all to it. Running around and using the ring does not automatically give you the victory. The strategy is good if you are fighting, not running like Edwin Viruet did and lost twice to the Hands of Stone. Duran was a versatile brawler and great technician and counterpuncher when in great shape. He was a complete fighter. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Fight #1 and fight #2 were not the same Duran. In fight #1, Duran seemed very focused. In fight #2 the fight was lost before the opening bell. He did not had that foot speed like in the first fight. He was an easy target in the second fight, meanwhile in fight #1 he was hard to be hit cleanly. And that fight was not a close fight like the media imply. He simply got whupped!

Leonard was better than Duran in hand speed. That is the ONLY ATTRIBUTE I see that he was better than Duran. I give you that. But overall technique? It was all Roberto Duran in Montreal. He even surprised me that night when he made Leonard missed most of his telling blows. In that night, Duran was unbelievable. He would have beaten any welterweight in history, including the great Sugar Ray Robinson. The second fight? Any fighter would have beaten him in an off night.

[Kalan]

You're full of it Old-n-Moldie... Duran didn't try to street fight anybody before or after the fight was called.. He quit the fight cold.

The referee tried very hard twice to get Duran to square up and fight after he quit.. I would have done the same.. The ref couldn't believe Duran was quitting.. Ray Leonard couldn't believe he was quitting.. Because it's hard to believe anybody would quit such a close, bitterly contentious, and extremely important World Title Fight -- especially the 72-1 Duran... WHY??? ... But Duran finally convinced the ref he quit.

[Cojimar 1946]

There also seems to be some circular logic employed. People argue that Leonard never lost to an inferior opponent at welterweight and cite Duran but aside from beating Leonard Duran's achievements at welterweight are rather unspectacular. There seem to be plenty of guys who achieved more at welterweight than Duran if we take out the win over Leonard. For example, Donald Curry would be favored over all Duran's opponents at welterweight aside from Leonard. Why does one win suddenly make Duran a great welterweight?

As far as Hearns goes, his wins at welterweight aside from Cuevas seem pretty unspectacular. Again, a prime Donald Curry probably beats all the guys Hearns beat at welterweight. He gets points for consistency obviously but which of his victims would you favor over Griffith, Napoles, etc?

[Cojimar 1946]

Basically if we are using the criteria that you can only become a great welterweight by beating another great welterweight I don't think Hearns would even qualify as a great welterweight given his rather average opposition.

[GreenShadow]

Welcome to boxrec forum, GreenShadow. I see your point. And you are looking at it in the Duran's style that that was the ONLY WAY he could have beaten the great Sugar Ray Leonard. And I totally disagree. Leonard tried everything. He lost. End of story.

Leonard was a great fighter. A great boxing strategist inside and outside the ring. No doubt about that. But, I don't believe the sayings that "he did not fight his fight" crap when he ALWAYS fought that way. How could that be against a smaller fighter in which Leonard had all the physical advantages? Duran went up 12 pounds and whupped him. With both at their very best and that is all to it. Running around and using the ring does not automatically give you the victory. The strategy is good if you are fighting, not running like Edwin Viruet did and lost twice to the Hands of Stone. Duran was a versatile brawler and great technician and counterpuncher when in great shape. He was a complete fighter. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Fight #1 and fight #2 were not the same Duran. In fight #1, Duran seemed very focused. In fight #2 the fight was lost before the opening bell. He did not had that foot speed like in the first fight. He was an easy target in the second fight, meanwhile in fight #1 he was hard to be hit cleanly. And that fight was not a close fight like the media imply. He simply got whupped!

Leonard was better than Duran in hand speed. That is the ONLY ATTRIBUTE I see that he was better than Duran. I give you that. But overall technique? It was all Roberto Duran in Montreal. He even surprised me that night when he made Leonard missed most of his telling blows. In that night, Duran was unbelievable. He would have beaten any welterweight in history, including the great Sugar Ray Robinson. The second fight? Any fighter would have beaten him in an off night.

thank you for the welcome elmersalsa.

i can appreciate your points. i disagree that Leonard "tried everything" in the 1st fight. clearly he did not, he did not box. if you say "he lost end of story" then that can be said for every single fight ever and so there is no point in talking about boxing results at all.

i can easily then come back with "duran lost the 2nd fight, end of story".

as i said i can appreciate your point that the duran of the 1st fight was in great shape and so perhaps even if Leonard had boxed instead of slugging maybe Duran catches up to him anyway. but that is why i mention that duran could not KO Leonard. if he could not do it when Leonard was in front of him, then odds are he would not have done it with Leonard giving him a harder target to hit.

Leonard could not have given Duran any better of a chance to KO him than he did in the first fight. does it sound reasonable that if duran could not KO leonard when he was a stationary target that he could when he was a moving target? we can be confident that the only way Duran could beat Leonard is by decision.

so what makes you think that while Duran is chasing him that leonard would not be piling up points and winning rounds? we know from history that leonard was always in shape and could easily go the distance, there is no reason to believe he would get exhausted, especially while taking less abuse. that can not be said of duran with the same certainty.

"fighting one's fight" means what is best suited for the fighter regardless of what he decides to do in the ring that night. everyone has a plan, doesn't mean it was the plan best suited to his skill set.

plain and simple, leonard could out box duran, their careers show that. so if duran cannot win by KO and he can not out box leonard, then his only hope was for leonard to stand there exactly as he did so duran could hit him at will and win on points. take that away from duran and there is no other way for him to win.

leonard lost because he employed the wrong strategy that night. when he did employ the correct approach to beating duran, duran quit because he knew he was going to get KO'd, regardless of his shape.

[GreenShadow]

???????? 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.

Ffs man, can't you see how indoctrinated you are?

Why the F&&k should the Lightweight Duran be EXPECTED to take the Welterweight Leonard out, just to win?

Where the F,UCK do these Leonard fans come from? What are we saying here? If you challenge Leonard, you have to KO him to be the winner?


Fine. Hector Camacho is the GREATEST FIGHTER WHO EVER LIVED.

Leonard fanboys, or retards please sign up below.

i understand reading comprehension is not your strong suit. but please read my reply to elmersalsa for the answer to your question.

and while you're at it take note of how men speak.

[elmersalsa]

Welcome to boxrec forum, GreenShadow. I see your point. And you are looking at it in the Duran's style that that was the ONLY WAY he could have beaten the great Sugar Ray Leonard. And I totally disagree. Leonard tried everything. He lost. End of story.

Leonard was a great fighter. A great boxing strategist inside and outside the ring. No doubt about that. But, I don't believe the sayings that "he did not fight his fight" crap when he ALWAYS fought that way. How could that be against a smaller fighter in which Leonard had all the physical advantages? Duran went up 12 pounds and whupped him. With both at their very best and that is all to it. Running around and using the ring does not automatically give you the victory. The strategy is good if you are fighting, not running like Edwin Viruet did and lost twice to the Hands of Stone. Duran was a versatile brawler and great technician and counterpuncher when in great shape. He was a complete fighter. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Fight #1 and fight #2 were not the same Duran. In fight #1, Duran seemed very focused. In fight #2 the fight was lost before the opening bell. He did not had that foot speed like in the first fight. He was an easy target in the second fight, meanwhile in fight #1 he was hard to be hit cleanly. And that fight was not a close fight like the media imply. He simply got whupped!

Leonard was better than Duran in hand speed. That is the ONLY ATTRIBUTE I see that he was better than Duran. I give you that. But overall technique? It was all Roberto Duran in Montreal. He even surprised me that night when he made Leonard missed most of his telling blows. In that night, Duran was unbelievable. He would have beaten any welterweight in history, including the great Sugar Ray Robinson. The second fight? Any fighter would have beaten him in an off night.

thank you for the welcome elmersalsa.

i can appreciate your points. i disagree that Leonard "tried everything" in the 1st fight. clearly he did not, he did not box. if you say "he lost end of story" then that can be said for every single fight ever and so there is no point in talking about boxing results at all.

i can easily then come back with "duran lost the 2nd fight, end of story".

as i said i can appreciate your point that the duran of the 1st fight was in great shape and so perhaps even if Leonard had boxed instead of slugging maybe Duran catches up to him anyway. but that is why i mention that duran could not KO Leonard. if he could not do it when Leonard was in front of him, then odds are he would not have done it with Leonard giving him a harder target to hit.

Leonard could not have given Duran any better of a chance to KO him than he did in the first fight. does it sound reasonable that if duran could not KO leonard when he was a stationary target that he could when he was a moving target? we can be confident that the only way Duran could beat Leonard is by decision.

so what makes you think that while Duran is chasing him that leonard would not be piling up points and winning rounds? we know from history that leonard was always in shape and could easily go the distance, there is no reason to believe he would get exhausted, especially while taking less abuse. that can not be said of duran with the same certainty.

"fighting one's fight" means what is best suited for the fighter regardless of what he decides to do in the ring that night. everyone has a plan, doesn't mean it was the plan best suited to his skill set.

plain and simple, leonard could out box duran, their careers show that. so if duran cannot win by KO and he can not out box leonard, then his only hope was for leonard to stand there exactly as he did so duran could hit him at will and win on points. take that away from duran and there is no other way for him to win.

leonard lost because he employed the wrong strategy that night. when he did employ the correct approach to beating duran, duran quit because he knew he was going to get KO'd, regardless of his shape.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=214835&start=50#p4800352 the only way that Duran could win. The man came to the fight with the greatest of shape. He was prepared that night in Montreal. No matter what kind of strategy Sugar Ray would come, he seemed ready. Focused. He was ready to win by knockout or decision, and he trained his ass off. To say that Leonard didn't fight his fight and didn't try everything is to say that he was SUPERIOR or WAY SUPERIOR than the Hands of Stone. Like if Duran was a total brute, or not a guy that was good enough to win anyway. Leonard simply got whupped fighting his own style. He used his speed and power and Duran nullified it. Duran was the better technician. He made Leonard miss. That is not a sign of a guy that is just a brawler. He had to be doing something that Leonard could not cope and connect cleanly.

These are the same experts that say that the great Muhammad Ali was ring rust or underestimated the great Joe Frazier. How could that be? Smokin' Joe trained his ass off. He fought the fight of his life beating one of the greatest champions in history at any weight class. Both were undefeated. But, the best man win, and that was Smokin' Joe Frazier.

Saying that Leonard didn't fight his fight is like a BIG DISRESPECT to Duran and his fans. Leonard got whupped from post to post, bell to bell. Duran fought the fight of his life. He won. End of story.

[GreenShadow]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=214835&start=50#p4800352 the only way that Duran could win. The man came to the fight with the greatest of shape. He was prepared that night in Montreal. No matter what kind of strategy Sugar Ray would come, he seemed ready. Focused. He was ready to win by knockout or decision, and he trained his ass off. To say that Leonard didn't fight his fight and didn't try everything is to say that he was SUPERIOR or WAY SUPERIOR than the Hands of Stone. Like if Duran was a total brute, or not a guy that was good enough to win anyway. Leonard simply got whupped fighting his own style. He used his speed and power and Duran nullified it. Duran was the better technician. He made Leonard miss. That is not a sign of a guy that is just a brawler. He had to be doing something that Leonard could not cope and connect cleanly.

These are the same experts that say that the great Muhammad Ali was ring rust or underestimated the great Joe Frazier. How could that be? Smokin' Joe trained his ass off. He fought the fight of his life beating one of the greatest champions in history at any weight class. Both were undefeated. But, the best man win, and that was Smokin' Joe Frazier.

Saying that Leonard didn't fight his fight is like a BIG DISRESPECT to Duran and his fans. Leonard got whupped from post to post, bell to bell. Duran fought the fight of his life. He won. End of story.

i don't buy what you're saying, but i give you credit for presenting your case. Frazier and Ali 1 is an interesting comparison, it really is, i didn't think of it that way. but still we all know what happened in 2 and 3 when Ali adjusted his approach.

i respect your point of view though.

[GreenShadow]

Do you really want to get into an argument about reading skills or comprehension? I'll tell you what I'll do. I will highlight key words in Nack's report, so even the dumbest Leonard fan might, just might be able to grasp the meaning of them. Though I strongly doubt it.



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

oh i didn't know Nack was the final authority on the subject. thanks for pointing out where your brain is located.
maybe i should just be arguing with Nack then.

[GreenShadow]

Do you really want to get into an argument about reading skills or comprehension? I'll tell you what I'll do. I will highlight key words in Nack's report, so even the dumbest Leonard fan might, just might be able to grasp the meaning of them. Though I strongly doubt it.



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

oh i didn't know Nack was the final authority on the subject. thanks for pointing out where your brain is located.
maybe i should just be arguing with Nack then.

No, he was just ringside for the fight, so his report is far more credible than some Leonard fanboy's. Does your pea sized brain understand that?

no it doesn't. something has to make sense before it can be understood.

[GreenShadow]

No, he was just ringside for the fight, so his report is far more credible than some Leonard fanboy's. Does your pea sized brain understand that?

no it doesn't. something has to make sense before it can be understood.

For the likes of you that is understandable. But don't flatter yourself, you are far from the only smug mug on this board, merely the latest.

By the way just love your conspiracy theory garbage, that every fighter who gains muscle " must " be on PED's. You'll sit well with Kolon, he's got thousands of them.

now you have to resort to making stuff up.

[IKSRTFO]

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.

Considering he stopped 3 of the 4 fighters, luck didn't have as much to do with it.

He stopped, Benitez. He stopped, Tommy Hearns.

HE LOST TO THE LIGHTWEIGHT DURAN.

NOW for the benefit of Leonard fanboys.

REMATCH, AFTER LOOOOOOSSIIIINGGGG.

Duran, turned and walked away from the dancing. Leonard,,,,,, seeing the natural muggers opportunity, hit Duran in the BACK of his head and body. Duran then turns back and wants to street fight the mugger. By this time it is called off.

And lets not forget even Benitez NEVER started out his career as a full blown Welter like the wife beating coke snorting ALL AMERICAN HERO DID.

Oh, and PLEASE do not kid your selves. Crooked judges and promoters aside. If the lowlife Leonard, hit Hagler as hard as he could with a baseball bat, NOTHING would happen, other than Marvin would keep walking forwards, and Leonard would look for the kind of crooks that protected him all of his life for their percentage.

I think he would have been known in the 60's as an Uncle Tom. Without a doubt, a guy who sold out to the WHITE establishment, less than 10 years after the race riots.

You said he was lucky in his fight. I gave you three greats he beat without luck and you mention the one fight he lost. Even though I thought Hagler edged it, he has no one to blame for that loss but himself.

So how was Leonard lucky again?

[Kalan]

You're full of it Old-n-Moldie... Duran didn't try to street fight anybody before or after the fight was called.. He quit the fight cold.

The referee tried very hard twice to get Duran to square up and fight after he quit.. I would have done the same.. The ref couldn't believe Duran was quitting.. Ray Leonard couldn't believe he was quitting.. Because it's hard to believe anybody would quit such a close, bitterly contentious, and extremely important World Title Fight -- especially the 72-1 Duran... WHY??? ... But Duran finally convinced the ref he quit.

4.34 onwards.

https://youtu.be/HZGbERQLc_A?t=305

And why the hell would anyone claim Duran was a great Welter? Even Boxrec has him listed as a Lightweight, at which he was without doubt " great " However also without doubt he BEAT a so called great Welter in Leonard. Subsequent rematches don't mean shite. He came up from Lightweight and beat what was considered to be the top guy in the division at the time. No amount of squirming, and whinging from Leonard fans can alter that fact.

That video has part of the stoppage cut out, but it still proves what I said... Duran didn't try to "street fight" Leonard after Ray hit him with his back turned.. You're seeing things that aren't there as usual.. Duran kept waving the fight off and saying "no mas." The ref finally believed him.

[ewenhay]

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.

Hearns isn't severely judged. He's still looked at as one of the best welters of all time and a dangerous fighter for nearly everyone around his weight.

I thought Hearns was best at Light middleweight.

Interesting that although they all fought each other they were probably at their best at different weights.

Duran, lightweight
Leonard, welterweight
Hearns, light middleweight
Hagler, middleweight

[Kalan]

Yes...that's their best weights all right... You expect the smallest guy to LOSE the most fights in those match-ups... and Duran sure did with 4.

But Leonard won the most fights... Beating Duran twice -- beating Hearns, and beating Hagler -- so 4 wins.

Duran and Hearns each had 1 win -- and Hearns suffered 2 losses while Leonard and Hagler each suffered a loss.

[Cojimar 1946]

If we exclude the highly controversial decision against Paret Griffith's only prime losses at welter are to Rodriguez and Napoles. He also has plenty of good wins at the weight such as Rodriguez, Stan Harrington, Jorge Fernandez, Denny Moyer, etc. At middlweight he was more inconsistent.

[ewenhay]

Yes...that's their best weights all right... You expect the smallest guy to LOSE the most fights in those match-ups... and Duran sure did with 4.

But Leonard won the most fights... Beating Duran twice -- beating Hearns, and beating Hagler -- so 4 wins.

Duran and Hearns each had 1 win -- and Hearns suffered 2 losses while Leonard and Hagler each suffered a loss.

Yeah Leonard came out on top overall although the decision against Hagler was razor thin. Saying that though it was fought at Hagler's optimum weight. They all went up in weight to meet Hagler which needs to be a factor.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hearns was the greatest, Duran or Leonard were the most accomplished.