Sugar Ray Leonard, what if?

[NYDominican]

Sugar Ray Leonard's professional boxing career began in February, 1977. From Feb., 1977 till late September, 1981, Ray's record was 31-0, with 22 of his wins coming by way of knockout. From Feb., 1982 till mid March, 1997, Leonard's record was 6 wins and 2 losses.

Had Ray fought very actively from Feb., 1982 till mid March, 1997. -----------

1. Do you think that Leonard could have solidified his career in boxing, that his legacy would have been quite a bit higher than those of Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, and Carlos Monzon?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Please explain.

[littlepug]

I always felt that Leonard would of made a fantastic career light middle, also the thought of Leonard v Hearns at that weight is bloody mouthwatering!

[Syntax Error]

One thing's for sure, he wouldn't have been fighting in 1997 had he had a full career, instead numerous lay-offs and comebacks.

He certainly had the ability to be a top 5 ATG and he might have achieved that had he kept on fighting regularly throughout the 80s.

He could have had even more titanic fights, maybe against the likes of Curry; moving up, Hearns 2 (obviously before their '89 fight), McCallum, Jackson, Mugabi and Hagler before 1987.

Not saying he would have won them all, but it wouldn't be farcical to think he might have.

[HomicideHenry]

There's a saying in combat sports, that the moment you think about retirement then you ought to retire. With Leonard, I think he realized after Kevin Howard that he was starting to hate the grind of training and was seeing it as a job rather than something he loved.

It took Hagler & Lalonde & Hearns & Duran, basically, to reignite the passion for the sport again--- however, I believe he also knew that unless things were strategically in his favor, he wasn't going to really succeed in a comeback.

Hence why he negotiated 12 rounds instead of 15, 10 ounce gloves instead of the traditional 8 ounce gloves, and a 20' ring instead of a smaller ring for the Hagler comeback match.

Lalonde, no disrespect, was not in the same league as Hagler and others. Leonard managed to get two division's championships--- something that I don't believe has ever been replicated since, so this is certainly preferential treatment for Leonard.

As for Hearns... He was certainly robbed in that rematch, which is something Leonard has acknowledged in the years since... But because he was Leonard, the judges gave him a draw.

Duran, coming off the spectacular Barkley fight, was less than stellar in this match--- and would retire following the match, only to come back in 1991 and lose to Pat Lawlor. Duran hadn't fought Leonard in nearly a decade. Duran, ever since "No Mas" (1980) had been somewhat inconsistent, losing to Robbie Sims in 1986 & Thomas Hearns in 1984 & Kirkland Laing in 1982 & Wilfred Benitiz also in 1982. Considering he was 38 years old when Leonard (33) fought him that last time, I can only see it as Leonard taking it not because Duran was a worthy challenger but rather as "low risk & high reward".

Leonard, after this retired. Vanity & ego, driven his returns against Terry Norris and Hector Camacho. In retrospect he should have retired after Hagler. That would have been the best scenario to have left the game on a high note.

Had he never retired in 1984... I don't think he would have been able to have beaten Hagler... I don't think he would have gotten the chances to have won the SMW & LHW titles.

[APerno]

I am not sure if it is fair to judge Leonard as I am about to do but . . . he seems to have faded more than other fighters; I was shocked at how bad he looked against Camacho.

Taking Camacho as a common opponent for a faded Leonard ('97) and a faded Duran ('96), Duran seems to have aged much better. I wonder if it had to do with style?

To answer the OP's question directly I think that Leonard may not have worn well had he fought consistently after 1983, I fear his style was too depended on speed and that was going to fade, also as he moved up he didn't really have the upper body strength necessary to complete against strong middleweights.

I am not sure why but both Camacho and Duran aged better than Leonard.

[Ambling Alp II]

He had not had a fight in 6 years before he fought Camacho. It wasn't just that he was 41 years old, he had a ton of ring rust. Had been fighting during these years, he would have looked a lot better against Camacho.

It would have been great if he didn't have the eye injury. He probably has 12-15 fights instead of 1 between 1982-1987. Would have fight Hagler earlier, probably would have fought Duran, Hearns, and Benitez again. Probably would have fought McCallum and Curry as well.

People do come up with lames excuses for his opponents i.e. Benitez didn't train hard enough, Duran and the tummyache/too much partying etc. Hagler fight being 12 rounds instead of 15, size of glove, size of ring etc.

He was one of the top 10 fighters in history. There should be no question about that. The only thing he lacks is about 20-30 wins over fighters that nobody ever heard of. If his career record was 56-3-1 with 20 more wins over nobodies, he would automatically be considered one of the top 10.

He has wins over 4 different opponents who are top 50 all time. How many guys have done that? Less than 10. Pep has one. More has one. Duran has one. Monzon has two. Hagler has two. Charles has maybe two.

People say he had a short career. But he packed so much into it. That is what counts, not longevity. If a baseball player hit more homeruns in 6 years than another guy did in 20, the player who hit more in 6 would be consider the better homerun hitter.
It's what you do that counts. Not how long you did it.

[HomicideHenry]

People say he had a short career. But he packed so much into it. That is what counts, not longevity.

If a baseball player hit more homeruns in 6 years than another guy did in 20, the player who hit more in 6 would be consider the better homerun hitter.

It's what you do that counts. Not how long you did it.

I argue that w/ someone like Babe Ruth.

Hank Aaron and others beat the homerun record he set, sure, but Aaron had 3,900+ more games than Ruth. Not to mention Ruth spent a sizeable chunk of his career as a pitcher, and also played with heavier bats & larger stadiums--- Forbes Field, where #714 happened, was the first & only homerun to ever happen in that particular arena.

[elmersalsa]

He had not had a fight in 6 years before he fought Camacho. It wasn't just that he was 41 years old, he had a ton of ring rust. Had been fighting during these years, he would have looked a lot better against Camacho.

It would have been great if he didn't have the eye injury. He probably has 12-15 fights instead of 1 between 1982-1987. Would have fight Hagler earlier, probably would have fought Duran, Hearns, and Benitez again. Probably would have fought McCallum and Curry as well.

People do come up with lames excuses for his opponents i.e. Benitez didn't train hard enough, Duran and the tummyache/too much partying etc. Hagler fight being 12 rounds instead of 15, size of glove, size of ring etc.

He was one of the top 10 fighters in history. There should be no question about that. The only thing he lacks is about 20-30 wins over fighters that nobody ever heard of. If his career record was 56-3-1 with 20 more wins over nobodies, he would automatically be considered one of the top 10.

He has wins over 4 different opponents who are top 50 all time. How many guys have done that? Less than 10. Pep has one. More has one. Duran has one. Monzon has two. Hagler has two. Charles has maybe two.

People say he had a short career. But he packed so much into it. That is what counts, not longevity. If a baseball player hit more homeruns in 6 years than another guy did in 20, the player who hit more in 6 would be consider the better homerun hitter.
It's what you do that counts. Not how long you did it.

With only 40 fights does not qualify you in the top 10. His prime was very short (1979-82). Sugar Ray retired and unretired. Retired and unretired. That was something that the mainstream media and hard core boxing fans resented about him. If you're going to fight, fight. If you're staying retired, then stay retired. The manipulation lasted as long as he wanted. When finally, he took the taste of his own medicine.

If he would have fought the missing years, and beat the other great boxers that were coming by him, then of course he would have been a top 10 great. He would have had at least 60 or 70 fights. But, no, he didn't. It is what it is. He flunked the top ten pound per pound all time greats. There are many fighters that had much more longevity that deserve to be above him: Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Joe Gans, Jack Johnson, Carlos Monzon, Willie Pep, Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Tony Canzoneri, etc, etc, etc.

Greatness is seen in different ways. Not one way. Beating 4 all time great pound per pound boxers will not automatically qualify you. You gotta do more than just that.

[Ambling Alp II]

Quality trumps quantity. Beating 50 stiffs doesn't mean anything. Beating one means a lot. Beating 4 makes you one of the elite.
If Leonard would have beaten 20 more fighters that the couldn't possibly have lost to, it would not have made him a greater fighter.

[HomicideHenry]

You ain't really the man unless you beat EVERY LAST MAN OF NOTE IN YOUR ERA, as far as I'm concerned.

The difference between Leonard and someone like Ezzard Charles is not just volume, but consecutive victories over the quality opponents. Sure, Leonard beat Hearns once as well as Duran twice and Hagler as well as Benitez--- but is that really as impressive as Charles beating Archie Moore three times (once by kayo), beating Joey Maxim five times, beating Jimmy Bivins four times, beating Charley Burley twice, Lloyd Marshall twice, as well as Gus Lesnevich, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, and engaging in two of the best heavyweight title fights of all time with Rocky Marciano? I think not.


The difference between a man like Charles and a man like Leonard is that Charles is universally accepted as the greatest light heavyweight of all time despite never winning the title--- Leonard on the other hand isn't considered the greatest welterweight, junior middleweight, middleweight, super middleweight. He's just simply, in so many words, the guy who took the mantle following Muhammad Ali's retirement. He was a box-office star. He was good, damned good. But he wasn't the best boxer of his time, let alone the best of his weight divisions in any all-time sense.

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard beat the top 4 four fighters of his era. Lost to only one of them.

Charles is not universally considered the best light heavyweight ever. There are plenty of argument for other light heavyweights. I rate Spinks ahead of him. You certainly could argue for Tunney, Moore, or Foster.

Leonard is the #2 welterweight of all time.
Leonard sure as hell was the best fighter of his time.
And I do have Charles in my top 10 All-Time. I certainly have no problem with someone rating Charles ahead of Leonard. My point is that there aren't 9 other guys that should be.

[Nile4000]

Sugar Ray Leonard's professional boxing career began in February, 1977. From Feb., 1977 till late September, 1981, Ray's record was 31-0, with 22 of his wins coming by way of knockout. From Feb., 1982 till mid March, 1997, Leonard's record was 6 wins and 2 losses.

Had Ray fought very actively from Feb., 1982 till mid March, 1997. -----------

1. Do you think that Leonard could have solidified his career in boxing, that his legacy would have been quite a bit higher than those of Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, and Carlos Monzon?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Please explain.

Personally, I think he could have solidified his legacy,not higher than those others greats, maybe Pep and Monzon, but that's somewhat debatable. I could see him beating Pryor and Stafford in 1982, McCrory, Starling, and Curry in 1983, moving up and fighting Hearns, Moore, and possibly McCallum in the 1984-1985 time period, and beating 2-3 middle contenders on his way to upsetting Hagler in 1987. But his heart would have to be 100% in it, and to be personally truthful, that might not be possible, being the 80's and whatnot.

[HomicideHenry]

There isn't 9 others overall better retrospectively than Leonard?

If Charles is ahead of him, then certainly Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Langford, Pacquiao, Duran, Napoles, Gavilan, Ross, etc--- arguably are ahead of him also.

And even though I don't like him, Floyd Mayweather arguably is up there too. It's hard to argue with a man undefeated from lightweight to junior middleweight who made the current middleweight champion look like a complete chump.

[APerno]

You ain't really the man unless you beat EVERY LAST MAN OF NOTE IN YOUR ERA, as far as I'm concerned.

The difference between Leonard and someone like Ezzard Charles is not just volume, but consecutive victories over the quality opponents. Sure, Leonard beat Hearns once as well as Duran twice and Hagler as well as Benitez--- but is that really as impressive as Charles beating Archie Moore three times (once by kayo), beating Joey Maxim five times, beating Jimmy Bivins four times, beating Charley Burley twice, Lloyd Marshall twice, as well as Gus Lesnevich, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, and engaging in two of the best heavyweight title fights of all time with Rocky Marciano? I think not.


The difference between a man like Charles and a man like Leonard is that Charles is universally accepted as the greatest light heavyweight of all time despite never winning the title--- Leonard on the other hand isn't considered the greatest welterweight, junior middleweight, middleweight, super middleweight. He's just simply, in so many words, the guy who took the mantle following Muhammad Ali's retirement. He was a box-office star. He was good, damned good. But he wasn't the best boxer of his time, let alone the best of his weight divisions in any all-time sense.

Agree with most, respect all of what you said except . . . "universally accepted" -- Na, there is at least one who disagrees with you, me! Tunney stops him before 15 rounds.

[APerno]

Personally, I think he could have solidified his legacy,not higher than those others greats, maybe Pep and Monzon, but that's somewhat debatable. I could see him beating Pryor and Stafford in 1982, McCrory, Starling, and Curry in 1983, moving up and fighting Hearns, Moore, and possibly McCallum in the 1984-1985 time period, and beating 2-3 middle contenders on his way to upsetting Hagler in 1987. But his heart would have to be 100% in it, and to be personally truthful, that might not be possible, being the 80's and whatnot.

The only one I don't agree with is the one you hesitated on: Mike McCallum. McCallum would prove to be all the problems Hearns was except McCallum did not have a dimple in his chin and there would be no late round KO to bail Leonard out. McCallum UD over 15, maybe even a KO.

For what it is worth: I agree Leonard beats the rest you mentioned him beating.

P.S. It is only because McCallum, like Hearns was the bigger man. As I said in an earlier post I think Leonard has a strength problem moving up.

[Ambling Alp II]

Don't see why Leonard have a strength problem moving up. If Sumbu Kalambay could outbox McCallum, Leonard should be able to.

[Ambling Alp II]

There isn't 9 others overall better retrospectively than Leonard?

If Charles is ahead of him, then certainly Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Langford, Pacquiao, Duran, Napoles, Gavilan, Ross, etc--- arguably are ahead of him also.

And even though I don't like him, Floyd Mayweather arguably is up there too. It's hard to argue with a man undefeated from lightweight to junior middleweight who made the current middleweight champion look like a complete chump.

No, there's not 9 more. Pacquiao, Duran, Napoles, Ross, Mayweather didn't do as much in their career's as Leonard did.

[elmersalsa]

No, there's not 9 more. Pacquiao, Duran, Napoles, Ross, Mayweather didn't do as much in their career's as Leonard did.

Roberto Duran did much more than Sugar Ray Leonard. Also the great Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Had a longer career and achievements.

[elmersalsa]

Don't see why Leonard have a strength problem moving up. If Sumbu Kalambay could outbox McCallum, Leonard should be able to.

Anybody could have an off night. Sumbu Kalambay won the first time. Mike McCallum won the second time. Kalambay was a natural middleweight, something that Sugar Ray Leonard wasn't.

[Ambling Alp II]

Kalambay lost a past it Kalue. Leonard beat a prime Kalue. Leonard fought jr. Middleweights and middleweights on his way up before he even won the welterweight title. He would have no problem at middleweight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Roberto Duran did much more than Sugar Ray Leonard. Also the great Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Had a longer career and achievements.

They had longer careers who cares? Maybe you when it favors your guy. Neither can match Leonard's best wins. Leonard's fourth best win is more unimpressive than Mayweather's best win. And Leonard didn't need judges to give him a BS decision against people like Castillo.
Beating great fighter's is an achievement than is 10x more important than anything Mayweather ever did.

[HomicideHenry]

Agree with most, respect all of what you said except . . . "universally accepted" -- Na, there is at least one who disagrees with you, me! Tunney stops him before 15 rounds.

I like Gene. He could have been LHW champion at any time he wanted. Siki, McTigue, Berlenbach, etc sure as hell wasn't going to stop him. That being said--- Charles in my view was a better heavyweight than Tunney. I'll take the Walcott fights, Marciano fights, etc over the two ten rounders Gene had with Dempsey.

Also, I can't see Charles exactly struggling with middleweight Harry Greb--- when tbh Gene lost more than once to Greb, though the record books show just the one loss. If Charles on the decline had two wars with prime Marciano, there's no way Greb beats prime Charles even once.

[HomicideHenry]

They had longer careers who cares? Maybe you when it favors your guy. Neither can match Leonard's best wins. Leonard's fourth best win is more unimpressive than Mayweather's best win. And Leonard didn't need judges to give him a BS decision against people like Castillo.
Beating great fighter's is an achievement than is 10x more important than anything Mayweather ever did.

You must be forgetting the GIFT draw he had with Hearns. That's just as bad as Castillo (which Mayweather won rather easily the second go around), and even Leonard admits he lost that thing.

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard landed more punches and hurt Hearns more often than Hearns hurt him. Can you give me one other example in the history of boxing where a guy did that, got a draw and it was considered a gift for him?
Please I would love to hear about it.

[HomicideHenry]