hagler/hearns/leonard/duran: who was truly the best?

[elmersalsa]

Ambling alp is a Leonard's fan...The one that the public adored in his heyday. I am a fan of both fighters. I watched Duran-Leonard I and II in consucutive fights, back to back, you name it, AND THERE IS NO WAY that Leonard was better than Duran.

When BOTH were in their top shapes, in the biggest fights of their lives, Duran whupped him and there is no but about it. Every thing that Leonard did, Duran had an answer. He was totally surprised of Duran's speed, how he made him missed and how did he used his upper body strength agaisnt Leonard effectively was something INCREDIBLE.


IN THE SECOND FIGHT, Duran was not as fast as the first fight. He was not in it at all...The fight was lost before the opening bell, and it showed. If someone says that Duran was at his very best in New Orleans, then, that person got to be crazy or blind. I did not see the head movement and speed like the first fight, neither the fire. At their bery best, Duran whips Leonard 10 out 10, and it SHOWED in that fight. There was nothing that Leonard could not do in Montreal...To call that fight close, you must see it again and you will come up with different scoring. If Leonard won 5 rounds in that fight, that was too much. At least, Duran won that fight by 3 or 5 points, to say at least. He was in command in almost every round.


The fabulous 4 were great fighters. But to call Leonard that he had more "heart" than the other 3, is an ABERRATION.

[Collins2000]

Ambling alp is a Leonard's fan...The one that the public adored in his heyday. I am a fan of both fighters. I watched Duran-Leonard I and II in consucutive fights, back to back, you name it, AND THERE IS NO WAY that Leonard was better than Duran.

When BOTH were in their top shapes, in the biggest fights of their lives, Duran whupped him and there is no but about it. Every thing that Leonard did, Duran had an answer. He was totally surprised of Duran's speed, how he made him missed and how did he used his upper body strength agaisnt Leonard effectively was something INCREDIBLE.


IN THE SECOND FIGHT, Duran was not as fast as the first fight. He was not in it at all...The fight was lost before the opening bell, and it showed. If someone says that Duran was at his very best in New Orleans, then, that person got to be crazy or blind. I did not see the head movement and speed like the first fight, neither the fire. At their bery best, Duran whips Leonard 10 out 10, and it SHOWED in that fight. There was nothing that Leonard could not do in Montreal...To call that fight close, you must see it again and you will come up with different scoring. If Leonard won 5 rounds in that fight, that was too much. At least, Duran won that fight by 3 or 5 points, to say at least. He was in command in almost every round.


The fabulous 4 were great fighters. But to call Leonard that he had more "heart" than the other 3, is an ABERRATION.

Yes, we have heard your opinion ad nauseum.

You make me laugh when you pretend to be a neutral observer though...

[elmersalsa]

Ambling alp is a Leonard's fan...The one that the public adored in his heyday. I am a fan of both fighters. I watched Duran-Leonard I and II in consucutive fights, back to back, you name it, AND THERE IS NO WAY that Leonard was better than Duran.

When BOTH were in their top shapes, in the biggest fights of their lives, Duran whupped him and there is no but about it. Every thing that Leonard did, Duran had an answer. He was totally surprised of Duran's speed, how he made him missed and how did he used his upper body strength agaisnt Leonard effectively was something INCREDIBLE.


IN THE SECOND FIGHT, Duran was not as fast as the first fight. He was not in it at all...The fight was lost before the opening bell, and it showed. If someone says that Duran was at his very best in New Orleans, then, that person got to be crazy or blind. I did not see the head movement and speed like the first fight, neither the fire. At their bery best, Duran whips Leonard 10 out 10, and it SHOWED in that fight. There was nothing that Leonard could not do in Montreal...To call that fight close, you must see it again and you will come up with different scoring. If Leonard won 5 rounds in that fight, that was too much. At least, Duran won that fight by 3 or 5 points, to say at least. He was in command in almost every round.


The fabulous 4 were great fighters. But to call Leonard that he had more "heart" than the other 3, is an ABERRATION.

Yes, we have heard your opinion ad nauseum.

You make me laugh when you pretend to be a neutral observer though...

What do you mean about that? I cannot see that Leonard had more "heart' than the other 3, even though he was one of my favorite fighters...I gotta put the criticism were its due.

Now, I forgot to answer you if Leonard would have fought Hearns at 154lbs in 1984, in my opinion, HONESTLY, he would have been blasted, just like he blasted Duran. There is no way in my mind to think different. The fight might not end up in 2 rounds, but I know Hearns would have blasted him. Hearns looked like a MONSTER at 154lbs

[Collins2000]

Ambling alp is a Leonard's fan...The one that the public adored in his heyday. I am a fan of both fighters. I watched Duran-Leonard I and II in consucutive fights, back to back, you name it, AND THERE IS NO WAY that Leonard was better than Duran.

When BOTH were in their top shapes, in the biggest fights of their lives, Duran whupped him and there is no but about it. Every thing that Leonard did, Duran had an answer. He was totally surprised of Duran's speed, how he made him missed and how did he used his upper body strength agaisnt Leonard effectively was something INCREDIBLE.


IN THE SECOND FIGHT, Duran was not as fast as the first fight. He was not in it at all...The fight was lost before the opening bell, and it showed. If someone says that Duran was at his very best in New Orleans, then, that person got to be crazy or blind. I did not see the head movement and speed like the first fight, neither the fire. At their bery best, Duran whips Leonard 10 out 10, and it SHOWED in that fight. There was nothing that Leonard could not do in Montreal...To call that fight close, you must see it again and you will come up with different scoring. If Leonard won 5 rounds in that fight, that was too much. At least, Duran won that fight by 3 or 5 points, to say at least. He was in command in almost every round.


The fabulous 4 were great fighters. But to call Leonard that he had more "heart" than the other 3, is an ABERRATION.

Yes, we have heard your opinion ad nauseum.

You make me laugh when you pretend to be a neutral observer though...

What do you mean about that? I cannot see that Leonard had more "heart' than the other 3, even though he was one of my favorite fighters...I gotta put the criticism were its due.

Now, I forgot to answer you if Leonard would have fought Hearns at 154lbs in 1984, in my opinion, HONESTLY, he would have been blasted, just like he blasted Duran. There is no way in my mind to think different. The fight might not end up in 2 rounds, but I know Hearns would have blasted him. Hearns looked like a MONSTER at 154lbs

Your funniest post this week. Congratulations.

Hearns blasts Leonard in a few rounds at 154. Hilarious. Of course, in your fantasy world that HAS to happen to explain how Tommy decapitated Roberto.

You really are a neutral observer aren't you...

[Ezzard]

Leonard fought the wrong fight

Duran was overweight and not in shape.

Both are excuses/reasons why things turned out as they did. Just depends how you look at it.

[Seamus]

Tommy Hearns had 26 rounds to do to Sugar Ray Leonard what he did to Roberto Duran in 2, and he never came close. Luigi Minchillo went the distance with Hearns at JMW the same year he annihilated Duran. So that argument makes no sense. Or maybe Kirkland Laing would have outboxed Sugar Ray Leonard also, since he outboxed Duran, or maybe the ringworn Wilfred Benitez who frustrated Duran at JMW would have done the same to Leonard.

[BoxBuzz]

Don't you mean 'just offering an opinion'?

You yourself use the word 'might'...

I was referring to the FACTS of his less than olympian behavior between fights. Should that be relegated to an opinion? I think there is enough empirical evidence to support that assertion...is there not?

If not...I will offer up that it is also my opinion that both oxygen and gravity are part of the integral dynamics of our daily living. I can only hope I'm not venturing into the "controversial" or "scantily credible" realm of ideas with these statements.

No, you have gone further than that, buzzy. You have come to the conclusion that Duran's partying means Leonard's win is somewhat less meaningful because of that.

My understanding is that Duran never lived a monastic life. Yet, when he loses that suddenly becomes the reason rather than just meeting a better man on the night.

Actually I'm good with that. Just so long as we are agreed that Ray met the better man upon their previous meeting. I will just sort of "factor" in my opinion that on that night things were more "typical" than on the night of their second encounter. Others will say it was meaningless...sort of a POTAYTO/POTAHTO sort of a thing goin' on.

If Duran hadn't screwed up the "testing environment" by his nonsensical living during that period of time it would be a lot easier to sort out. I've always thought the third fight tells us very little about either one's max potential...but it certainly settled the math aspects. Ray wins 66 2/3% of their actual encounters. No one can challenge that....can they?

[Elton John]

Well, you ducked almost every question again.

I will answer your questions even though you repeatly won't answer mine.

Leonard wasn't supposed to fight Hagler in 1982. Leonard was still a welterweight and probably wouldn't have moved up to fight as a middleweight for a tleast a couple of years.

Leonard make a comeback fight in 1984. so what? Was he supposed to move up two weight classes and fight Marvin Hagler after having eye surgery and not having fought in 2 years? Does Leonard have fight Duran,Hearns, or Hagler in every fight?
Why don't you rip Hagler for not moving up in weight and fighting Michael Spinks?

You really think that Leonard shrewdly waited 5 years for other fighters to soften up Hagler? :(
Have ever heard of ring rust? When you go a long period of time without fighting you losing your speed, timing etc. Which is why throughout history almost no one has comeback from a 3 year layoff to win a world championship, atleast not without fighting tuneup fights. Has anyone else in boxing histroy but Leonard done this?

My point about Leonard going toe to toe 15 rounds with Duran was that it was another indication showed that Leonard had heart, which you for some ridiculaus reason say he doesn't. If anyone else would have done that against Duran people would say that the guy was pretty tough. By the way, Duran wasn't a lightweight when he fought Leonard. He weighed 145. He had already 8 fights when he was atleast a welterweight. For some reason Duran is thought of forever as a lightweight by some people but he wasn't.

Do you realize that Leonard never fought as a middleweight before he beat Hagler? Why don't you say that Hagler lost to a welterweight?

Duran was tougher than Leonard becasue he took back to back fights with Hagler and Hearns? How did the "tougher" Duran do in the fight against Hearns?
Interesting that the "tougher" Duran quit against Leonard and journeyman Pat Lawlor.

As for Leonard being able to beat Norris when he was in his prime-You don't think so? Wow. It's doubtful that Terry Norris himself believes that.

Are you one of those people that thinks that Ali wouldn't have beaten Berbick on his best day?
Norris himself retired at the age of 31 after losing 3 straight fights to guys that aren't great. Leonard was 34 when he fought Norris. I will once again mention that Leonard hadn't fought in 14 months, which certainly isn't ideal, and that Norris had been active.

You keep saying Leonard was only fighting guys who were past their prime? Wrong again.

Leonard beat Benitez (who you don't think was very good but who beat Duran) who was 21.
Leonard beat Duran when Duran was 29.
Leonard beat Hearns when Hearns was 22.

You say that Hagler was "shop worn", he was 32, which is 2 years younger than Leonard was when he fought Norris. Considering that Leonard hadn't fought in 3 years and had never fought at middleweight, Hagler was a lot closer to his best than Leonard.

Terry Norris never beat anyone close to the level of these guys and lost a few times to guys that Leonard never would have lost to. Leonard in his prime had much greater hand speed and was more elusive than the Leonard that Norris beat. Leonard did virtually everything better. He was faster, had a much better chin, a more accurrate puncher, harder to hit, and had atleast as much power. The Leonard of 1979-1982 would have beat Norris 10 out of 10 times.

You are now bringing up Camacho? Umm, Leonard hadn't fought for 6 years and was 40 years old. Are you going to count Duran's losses against legends like Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor against him? Oh, and by the way Duran was only 38 when Leonard slapped him around for 12 rounds in their 3rd fight.

Probably the dumbest comment that you have made about Leonard (and there have been many to choose from) is "he sucks". How insightful. How truthful.

I have answered your questions. Are you ever going to answer mine? Or is your hatred of Leonard so great that you are unable to do so?

Hell yes I'll answer your questions, they're easy.

So what if Ray took a fight in 1984? I already told you it proves his eye played no role in whether he would take a fight. It's not as though he had his license taken from him. he could fight and did.

He took one look at Hagler and concluded if Duran could take him 15 then he could do what Duran couldn't do. And he even said so.

But a year before he flatly refused a fight with Hagler because he didn't look bad as in the Duran fight. hagler didn't look safe back then so naturally Ray wouldn't take the fight. But his reasons for taking a fight becamse apparant after the Duran fight.

If Hagler looked good he would come back. If Hagler looked bad he would stay away.

This proved to be the case in every single case of Ray Leonard's comebacks.

Hagler-Mubgabi

Hearns-Kinchen

Camacho-Duran.

In these three cases, the winner put on thier absolute worst performance of their careers while at the same time just barely managing to win. Is it any wonder that in each case Ray Leonard came looking for them? It's so obvious!

Now you're right about one thing Alp which is that Ray Leonard didn't always take fights like these. There were no such thing as old men in the late 70's except for Andy Price, Tony Chiaverini, Floyd Mayweather, Armndo Muniz and the welterweight version of lalonde which is Dave Green.

Even Duran was in his late 20's and beat Ray who was the bigger man and faster. Ray should have beat him. Why didn't he?

Alp you make a poor case for everything, including the loss to Camacho. Sure leonard was old but so was Camacho so what you had was two old men in the ring-like Foreman-Holmes match scheduled for the 90's.

But Ray couldn't resist another comeback because of his "Whatever Duran can do I can do better" attitude.

Old men can make for a safe opponent as we saw in the case of hagler, Duran, Hearns, and Camacho but as we saw it can sometimes backfire. Camacho fooled us all!

You can try to justify the losses by repeating that Leonard's competition was superior to Norris' and he successfully coped with them but I should remind you that these men weren't Terry Norris.

Norris was faster, younger and had already overcame adversity that Leonard never could have.

Was Ray leonard faster? I don't see any proof of it. Norris didn't have any of the big mega fights that Leonard had but I see no reason why it should mean Norris would lose when in reality, nothing that Leonard tried worked.

You come across as very presumptuous to make that statement "Norris doubts he could have ever beat Ray Leonard"

Only a twat with no self confidence ever doubts himself in the ring. I have seen countless fights where a man comes back from the verge of defeat to overcome the opponent. I'm supposed to believe that Norris would think of himself a beaten man before the fight started?

As I said before, Norris came back from adversity 3 times before winning it all. he came back from the jackson fight to whip Mugabi in one. He went on the beat Leonard, heavily favored to win and even turned it into a one sided match, so great was the ability of Norris. he slapped down Curry and Taylor and made the highest number of defenses at that weight.

leonard made no defenses at 154 and that's another criticism I have of him. Instead of that fake retirment he should have been out there trying harder to prove himself instead of resting on this laurels. Forget the welters, just leave them behind and make two defenses at 154 before the move to middleweight and try to emulate the feats of Emile Griffith and Ray Robinson by 1983.

Ray Leonard fell far short of this in my opinion. He had a nice mini career though.

[Elton John]

I can't believe you are saying some of these things, Ezzard. It's a lot of spin and not that accurrate.

Hagler was only fighting once a year so ther was no time for him to fight Hearns again? Come on. He could have fought him immediatly after their first fight. Or he could have fought him after Mugabi and then fought Leonard.
Imagine if Leonard did this.
Hagler didn't need to fight Duran again? The fight wasn't good enough or exciting enough? Well it might not have been a great fight, but what other great options did Hagler have? He went back to fighting the ordinary type of middleweights that he had been beating-Juan Roldan and Mustapha Hamsho. Fights everyone knew he wouldn't lose.
Imagine if Leonard would win a close decision against Duran, then went two years before fighting a serious opponent?

Yet Leonard is criticized for not fighting Duran a third time right after their 2nd fight? Very few people was clamoring for 3rd fight. Most people were disgusted with Duran for quitting in their 2nd fight. There are other fighters as to think about as well. Why should guys that don't quit in fights get passed over for title shots for Duran?
If Duran really wanted a third fight, why did he move out of the welterweight class right after he quit against Leonard? He had to have known that if he bided his time and beat a couple of welterweight contenders, he would get another chance at Leonard. I have asked this several times and no one ever answers it.

Only Leonard didn't want a rematch with Hearns? Once again, if Hearns really wanted a rematch so bad, why he did he also move out of Leonard's weight class? Logically, if he had stayed a welterweight, he was going to get a chance against Leonard again.

Leonard is off for 3 years, moves up two weight classes and beat Hagler.
(If you don't think it's a big deal being off for 3 years and winning a world title without fighting any tuneups, name all of the other guys that have done it.)
If you think Hagler deserved a rematch right away, fine. I think it's a weak arguement but it is better than the other criticisms of Leonard.

Why is that excuse after excuse is made for why Duran,Hearns, and Hagler don't fight someone, but we have to pull reasons out of nowhere and say why Leonard should have fought so and so?

Leonard beat 9 Top 10 contenders before he ever fought for a title. In a period of less than 3 years, he had 4 fights against All-Time Greats.
After being off for 3 years, he moved up 2 weight classes and beats Marvin Hagler.
Yet he is the one that gets ripped for not fighting people. This makes absolutely no sense. None.

This is sheer ignorance on display. Hamsho an ordinary middleweight?

You don't know who Hamsho beat to keep his #1 ranking. In fact, you know little of the division itself and it shows otherwise you wouldn't be flaunting your ignorance.

Indeed your lack of knowledge is quite apparant to somelone like myself who is very familiar and so you naturally come across as quite laughable to say these things.

For instance, you keep bringing up why Hagler rematch with Hearns in those two years?

Fact: he was set to retire after the Mugabi fight in which hearns fought on the undercard to establish himself as a leading contender. When Tommy aced Shuler, he established a number one ranking. However, Marvin was inclined to retire which we all know he stayed with that decision.

What delayed the retirement? Ray Leonard and a 20 million dollars. Marvin just took the fight that offered that most money.

[Syntax Error]

I can't believe that you guys are still arguing about this.

I think the only other fighter who can generate this level of intensity on this forum is Mike Tyson.

One thing that cannot be denied about Leonard is his significance.

He's often accused of ducking people, being scared, not having rematches etc, but for a man who had a mere 40 fights & was last in his pomp a staggering 25 years ago, he has the ability to blow up a thread almost like no other.

[Elton John]

Leonard KNEW that he was not in proper prime to fight the monsters in Hagler and Hearns in 1982 and 1984 respectively. He fought them because he saw they were slipping their fighting qualities.

I imagine Hagler vs Leonard in 1982 and Hearns vs Leonard in 1984 at 154lbs...What a massacre!!! different stories.

Do you seriously believe that Leonard would have been 'massacred' had the above fights occurred?

Why do you think that Tommy Hearns could have massacred him in 1984, yet he couldn't do it in 1981?

What could Hagler have done to massacre a still peak Leonard in 1982, a man blessed with brilliant speed, footwork & a titanium chin (at that time) to boot?

It's not as if Leonard was old or anything, he would still in his prime (a considerable prime btw).

OK, I can accept that he might have lost, but not massacred.

Leonard was too good a fighter to be massacred by anybody in 1982 or 1984.

It's obvious Leonard was having trouble with Kevin Howard as he struggled to put away the much smaller man. Kevin was large on the bottom small on top which is why he was chosen as an opponent. I felt leonard could have done better than taking a fight with some owning 4 losses, all of them recent.

having said that, I find it difficult to believe that Leonard would survive Tommy whom I saw the following month considering the way he was dropped by Kevin. Leonard just has trouble with live opposition, even if it's someone like Kevin Howard.

Thomas was at his peak no doubt about that and his form had filled out very impressively. Much more impressive as he now filled out his frame and very fit and muscular. Not that sick, skeletal version we all saw from September 1981. Indeed, Tommy was shaking off the inactivity over the last two years because of the recurring hand problems but once the rust came off, look out!

Indeed, it was look out Duran, the man with the chin of stone. Look out Fred Hutchins. Look out James Shuler, the new #1 middleweight contender. Ray was smart for waiting until after the results of Hearns-Kinchen when it was obvious to all that Tommy was as described in that bout "A four round fighter" by Al Bernstein.

And a fight with Hagler at this point (as late as 1985) was out of the question. The Hagler who levelled Tommy, facing Leonard is a frightening thought to me as I'm sure it was to everyone else (I don't recall any leonard fans crying for one) and leonard himself knew it was legalized murder.

Had this fight taken place, why Leonard wouldn't have a head left atop his shoulders. The poor boy would already be petrified upon looking across the ring and there's no doubt the boy would have to be pushed out of the corner for the first round.

A few good knocks and socks and leonard would go into his customary shell as we watched in the Norris fight but he wouldn't stay around. No, Hagler would mercifully put him out of his misery. Right jab-right hook- left hook-right hook and it's over in the first with leonard's corner throwing in the towel as Leonard awaits the count of ten.

[Elton John]

I think you touched on the reasons so many people hate Leonard. Even though I'm a fan myself, I've come to the conclusion that after following the sport for more than 35 yrs, most boxing fans are idiots. What made so many people hate Leonard in particular ? He smiled for the cameras, and was polite and personable in interviews, and when he spoke he didn't talk like he had brain damage. Plenty of people hated Leonard before he even fought Duran in Montreal, because he allegedly got special treatment for winning a Gold Medal in the Olympics and then got his smiling face on a Wheaties cereal box. So called real fight fans prefer their heroes to have a vicious killer persona both in and outside the ring, because afterall this isn't badminton we're watching. Speak articulately, read a book, and act like a gentleman, and immediately some guys will conclude you don't have what it takes for the sport (think I'm exaggerating just ask yourself who was more popular, Tunney or Dempsey)

In some guys estimation, Leonard was actually soft, a coward and a pretty boy, BECAUSE of how he behaved outside the ring ! And that always manifested itself in how his particular fights went. After Leonard v Duran I, I heard Leonard haters turn a close decision into a one sided beating and even a near stoppage. But after No Mas in the Superdome, Leonard would never ever be viewed objectively because he committed the ultimate sacrilege by taunting and tormenting one of boxing's icons till he quit in humiliation. For that I actually heard guys say they hope Hearns put's Leonard in a coma etc. Yet I've never heard anyone wish the same on Duran for what he did to Buchanan, Moore or said about Lampkin. For that reason, I absolutely enjoy watching No Mas.

i hate to be the one to tell you this but seeing leonard's face on the cover of a wheaties box is hardly enough to inspire jealosy.

[Elton John]

So what your saying is...that all Ray really needed was two chances?
I think that was my point. A bit short of perfect.

All things being even.....first time out....Duran got it right Not Ray.

Correct.

He learnt from his mistakes and in the rematch he fought a great fight to make Duran do the unimaginable and quit.

And yet couldn't fit in a rematch.

[Collins2000]

I was referring to the FACTS of his less than olympian behavior between fights. Should that be relegated to an opinion? I think there is enough empirical evidence to support that assertion...is there not?

If not...I will offer up that it is also my opinion that both oxygen and gravity are part of the integral dynamics of our daily living. I can only hope I'm not venturing into the "controversial" or "scantily credible" realm of ideas with these statements.

No, you have gone further than that, buzzy. You have come to the conclusion that Duran's partying means Leonard's win is somewhat less meaningful because of that.

My understanding is that Duran never lived a monastic life. Yet, when he loses that suddenly becomes the reason rather than just meeting a better man on the night.

Actually I'm good with that. Just so long as we are agreed that Ray met the better man upon their previous meeting. I will just sort of "factor" in my opinion that on that night things were more "typical" than on the night of their second encounter. Others will say it was meaningless...sort of a POTAYTO/POTAHTO sort of a thing goin' on.

If Duran hadn't screwed up the "testing environment" by his nonsensical living during that period of time it would be a lot easier to sort out. I've always thought the third fight tells us very little about either one's max potential...but it certainly settled the math aspects. Ray wins 66 2/3% of their actual encounters. No one can challenge that....can they?

Have I ever said otherwise? Duran was the better man in the 1st fight; Leonard was the better man in the 2nd fight. The third 'fight' was of no interest to me.

[elmersalsa]

I cannot accept that Leonard was "better" in the second fight when Duran was not at his very best, and then did not give a rematch to Duran while Duran gave him a rematch to redeem himself. That is not a sign of a REAL FIGHTER to me. Real fighters give rematches at any cost, any time.

When both were at their peak condition, who won? Duran simply whupped him. I guess the Leonard Fans do not want to accept that, though.

Now, Collins2000, you do not think that that same Hearns that blasted Duran at 154 in 1984 would have not blast Leonard? Watch the fight of Leonard vs Kevin Howard for example. If Hearns was in the opposite corner? Hmmmmmmmm


Leonard NEVER looked good above 147lbs...At 154lbs he looked awful just like Duran, but a little better. Hearns at 154lbs was PERFECT...There, he was stronger, faster and hit harder and looked more like a light-heavyweight than an actual 154 pounder. The way he demolished Duran, and Fred Hutchings at that weight was very frightening for me to see.

AT 147lbs, Leonard had a terrible and hard time to beat Hearns. He gave Hearns a rematch, 8 years later thinking that Hearns was washed up, and true, he was washed up and gave Leonard a sound beating just to be SCREWED by the judges.

If Leonard would have come back to fight Hearns at 154lbs, I put my money on Tommy....and by knockout!!!

[Collins2000]

I cannot accept that Leonard was "better" in the second fight when Duran was not at his very best, and then did not give a rematch to Duran while Duran gave him a rematch to redeem himself. That is not a sign of a REAL FIGHTER to me. Real fighters give rematches at any cost, any time.

When both were at their peak condition, who won? Duran simply whupped him. I guess the Leonard Fans do not want to accept that, though.

Now, Collins2000, you do not think that that same Hearns that blasted Duran at 154 in 1984 would have not blast Leonard? Watch the fight of Leonard vs Kevin Howard for example. If Hearns was in the opposite corner? Hmmmmmmmm


Leonard NEVER looked good above 147lbs...At 154lbs he looked awful just like Duran, but a little better. Hearns at 154lbs was PERFECT...There, he was stronger, faster and hit harder and looked more like a light-heavyweight than an actual 154 pounder. The way he demolished Duran, and Fred Hutchings at that weight was very frightening for me to see.

AT 147lbs, Leonard had a terrible and hard time to beat Hearns. He gave Hearns a rematch, 8 years later thinking that Hearns was washed up, and true, he was washed up and gave Leonard a sound beating just to be SCREWED by the judges.

If Leonard would have come back to fight Hearns at 154lbs, I put my money on Tommy....and by knockout!!!

Mate, you live in a fantasy world.

Leonard showed his heart and skill and stopped Hearns at 147. Did you see that one?

The rematch was close and both men had their moments; I wouldn't have argued with a close points victory for Tommy but no way did Hearns administer a sound beating. In the real world, I mean. In your Alice in Wonderland world I guess it was a KO win for Hearns.

You need to sit down with someone who knows something about boxing and get them to explain what is happening.

And stop that shite about being a Leonard fan. It's become very stale very quickly. Just admit you hate him cos he made your hero Duran do the unthinkable and QUIT.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, you ducked almost every question again.

I will answer your questions even though you repeatly won't answer mine.

Leonard wasn't supposed to fight Hagler in 1982. Leonard was still a welterweight and probably wouldn't have moved up to fight as a middleweight for a tleast a couple of years.

Leonard make a comeback fight in 1984. so what? Was he supposed to move up two weight classes and fight Marvin Hagler after having eye surgery and not having fought in 2 years? Does Leonard have fight Duran,Hearns, or Hagler in every fight?
Why don't you rip Hagler for not moving up in weight and fighting Michael Spinks?

You really think that Leonard shrewdly waited 5 years for other fighters to soften up Hagler? :(
Have ever heard of ring rust? When you go a long period of time without fighting you losing your speed, timing etc. Which is why throughout history almost no one has comeback from a 3 year layoff to win a world championship, atleast not without fighting tuneup fights. Has anyone else in boxing histroy but Leonard done this?

My point about Leonard going toe to toe 15 rounds with Duran was that it was another indication showed that Leonard had heart, which you for some ridiculaus reason say he doesn't. If anyone else would have done that against Duran people would say that the guy was pretty tough. By the way, Duran wasn't a lightweight when he fought Leonard. He weighed 145. He had already 8 fights when he was atleast a welterweight. For some reason Duran is thought of forever as a lightweight by some people but he wasn't.

Do you realize that Leonard never fought as a middleweight before he beat Hagler? Why don't you say that Hagler lost to a welterweight?

Duran was tougher than Leonard becasue he took back to back fights with Hagler and Hearns? How did the "tougher" Duran do in the fight against Hearns?
Interesting that the "tougher" Duran quit against Leonard and journeyman Pat Lawlor.

As for Leonard being able to beat Norris when he was in his prime-You don't think so? Wow. It's doubtful that Terry Norris himself believes that.

Are you one of those people that thinks that Ali wouldn't have beaten Berbick on his best day?
Norris himself retired at the age of 31 after losing 3 straight fights to guys that aren't great. Leonard was 34 when he fought Norris. I will once again mention that Leonard hadn't fought in 14 months, which certainly isn't ideal, and that Norris had been active.

You keep saying Leonard was only fighting guys who were past their prime? Wrong again.

Leonard beat Benitez (who you don't think was very good but who beat Duran) who was 21.
Leonard beat Duran when Duran was 29.
Leonard beat Hearns when Hearns was 22.

You say that Hagler was "shop worn", he was 32, which is 2 years younger than Leonard was when he fought Norris. Considering that Leonard hadn't fought in 3 years and had never fought at middleweight, Hagler was a lot closer to his best than Leonard.

Terry Norris never beat anyone close to the level of these guys and lost a few times to guys that Leonard never would have lost to. Leonard in his prime had much greater hand speed and was more elusive than the Leonard that Norris beat. Leonard did virtually everything better. He was faster, had a much better chin, a more accurrate puncher, harder to hit, and had atleast as much power. The Leonard of 1979-1982 would have beat Norris 10 out of 10 times.

You are now bringing up Camacho? Umm, Leonard hadn't fought for 6 years and was 40 years old. Are you going to count Duran's losses against legends like Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor against him? Oh, and by the way Duran was only 38 when Leonard slapped him around for 12 rounds in their 3rd fight.

Probably the dumbest comment that you have made about Leonard (and there have been many to choose from) is "he sucks". How insightful. How truthful.

I have answered your questions. Are you ever going to answer mine? Or is your hatred of Leonard so great that you are unable to do so?

Hell yes I'll answer your questions, they're easy.

So what if Ray took a fight in 1984? I already told you it proves his eye played no role in whether he would take a fight. It's not as though he had his license taken from him. he could fight and did.

He took one look at Hagler and concluded if Duran could take him 15 then he could do what Duran couldn't do. And he even said so.

But a year before he flatly refused a fight with Hagler because he didn't look bad as in the Duran fight. hagler didn't look safe back then so naturally Ray wouldn't take the fight. But his reasons for taking a fight becamse apparant after the Duran fight.

If Hagler looked good he would come back. If Hagler looked bad he would stay away.

This proved to be the case in every single case of Ray Leonard's comebacks.

Hagler-Mubgabi

Hearns-Kinchen

Camacho-Duran.

In these three cases, the winner put on thier absolute worst performance of their careers while at the same time just barely managing to win. Is it any wonder that in each case Ray Leonard came looking for them? It's so obvious!

Now you're right about one thing Alp which is that Ray Leonard didn't always take fights like these. There were no such thing as old men in the late 70's except for Andy Price, Tony Chiaverini, Floyd Mayweather, Armndo Muniz and the welterweight version of lalonde which is Dave Green.

Even Duran was in his late 20's and beat Ray who was the bigger man and faster. Ray should have beat him. Why didn't he?

Alp you make a poor case for everything, including the loss to Camacho. Sure leonard was old but so was Camacho so what you had was two old men in the ring-like Foreman-Holmes match scheduled for the 90's.

But Ray couldn't resist another comeback because of his "Whatever Duran can do I can do better" attitude.

Old men can make for a safe opponent as we saw in the case of hagler, Duran, Hearns, and Camacho but as we saw it can sometimes backfire. Camacho fooled us all!

You can try to justify the losses by repeating that Leonard's competition was superior to Norris' and he successfully coped with them but I should remind you that these men weren't Terry Norris.

Norris was faster, younger and had already overcame adversity that Leonard never could have.

Was Ray leonard faster? I don't see any proof of it. Norris didn't have any of the big mega fights that Leonard had but I see no reason why it should mean Norris would lose when in reality, nothing that Leonard tried worked.

You come across as very presumptuous to make that statement "Norris doubts he could have ever beat Ray Leonard"

Only a twat with no self confidence ever doubts himself in the ring. I have seen countless fights where a man comes back from the verge of defeat to overcome the opponent. I'm supposed to believe that Norris would think of himself a beaten man before the fight started?

As I said before, Norris came back from adversity 3 times before winning it all. he came back from the jackson fight to whip Mugabi in one. He went on the beat Leonard, heavily favored to win and even turned it into a one sided match, so great was the ability of Norris. he slapped down Curry and Taylor and made the highest number of defenses at that weight.

leonard made no defenses at 154 and that's another criticism I have of him. Instead of that fake retirment he should have been out there trying harder to prove himself instead of resting on this laurels. Forget the welters, just leave them behind and make two defenses at 154 before the move to middleweight and try to emulate the feats of Emile Griffith and Ray Robinson by 1983.

Ray Leonard fell far short of this in my opinion. He had a nice mini career though.

Still waiting for you to answer my questions. Almost all have been ducked.

[Seamus]

Some myths that need to be dispelled. 1. Leonard improved as a fighter after his NARROW loss to Duran 2.Leonard KO'd slick southpaw Ayub Kalule for the JMW's WBA title, Kalule was 36-0. 3.Tommy Hearns was not robbed in his rematch with Leonard. True Leonard was down twice, but Hearns was beaten pillar to post in rd 5, and held on for dear life in the 12th when Leonard had him ready to go. 6.How the hell could Leonard v Duran III be a meaningless fight, when Duran was coming off his supposedly amazing victory over Iran Barkley ? Did he lose it all in one single fight ? All the articles and stories I heard back then was that this was Duran's chance to avenge No Mas. The fight only became meaningless after Leonard took a one sided decision. Does anyone honestly believe this fight would now be called meaningless if Duran had won ?

[Ambling Alp]

Seamus-I am sure that everyone will take a hard look at your points and either accept them or respond to them in a fair manner.

Seamus, I don't know what your problem is. It's almost like you think Leonard isn't judged just like everyone else.
Obviously fighters rountinely retire for 3 years, and come back without tune up fights, moved up in weight and win a world title. It's just that no one can name anyone else who has ever been able to do this.

In fact a current trainer would be smart to keep his fighter out of the ring until atleast the end of 2010. Ring rust is a huge advantage.

Fighter rountinely beat 9 Top Ten opponents before fighting a world title like Leonard did. Therefore it's no big deal that Leonard did it. It's jut that no one can actually name anyone else in the last 50 years who has done it.

Obviously, fighters are constantly criticized for not fighting an immediate rematch against someone they beat who moved up in weight like Leonard is for not fighting Duran and Hearns. The champion is of course expected to move up in weight to fight this opponent that they already beat. It's just that no one can can actually name any other fighter who gets criticized for this.

Obviously Duran is for enternity a lightweight, because the weight a fighter starts at is his best weight. (Just ignore that Duran himself started at bantamweight.) You must ignore that Duran never fought at lightweight after the age of 26. You must ignore that Duran was stronger and more experienced when he fought Leonard at 147 than he when was as a lightweight.
However, don't bring up the notion that Leonard wasn't a "natural middleweight" when he beat Hagler. That isn't to be mentioned.

Obviously It's also not to be mentioned that Leonard wasn't at a natural weight for the 2nd Hearns-Leonard fight.

It's also fair that Duran's win over Leonard proves without a question that Duran was better. Obviously that was the best fight Leonard ever fought. Of course Leonard's win in the 2nd fight isn't legitimate.
And of course it's worse to lose a tough 15 round decision like Leonard than get outboxed and quit in 8 rounds like Duran did.
Obviously if Leonard had partied too hard or had a tummy ache, that would be an acceptable excuse.

Obviously Leonard should have made title defenses at 154 after beating Kalue. Of course that no one would have criticized him for not going back to 147 for a unification fight at welterweight against Tommy Hearns. Obviously Leonard took the easy way out by fighting Hearns instead of all the great contenders at 154 at the time like umm, well I'm sure there was someone.

Obviously Leonard should be criticized for fighting so many old men during his prime. It's just that no one can actually name an opponent that that was old that a prime Leonard fought.

Gee, Seamus, I don't know what your problem is. Leonard is judged just like everyone else is.

[Elton John]

Still waiting for you to answer my questions. Almost all have been ducked.

On the contrary, you've ducked my questions by playing dumb "So what if he fought in '84?"

But I thought you said Ray Leonard's prime was shortened because he didn't want to risk his eye anymore yet here he is taking and giving blows.

Again, what was he doing in the ring with some guy named Howard when he was supposed to be out from an eye injury? Ray was supposed to have one fight for Hagler only yet here he was with some other guy who no one knows anything about. Leonard couldn't fight you said becuse his eye injury shortened his prime. That's what you keep telling me. How do you explain it? Explain why he couldn't face Hagler 5 years sooner but he was able to lace on the gloves for Howard.

You'd better have a good explanation for this if you want your man to save face.

Explain it to me.

And one other thing,, why do you go about as though other readers on this forum know less than yourself.

First you ignorantly proclaim that Ray Leonard had "miles more quality wins than Hagler". Then you crticise Marvin for losing to Watts who you've never seen before. I know you've never seen the fight. you didn't even realize it was closer a fight than Leonard-Duran 1. No, you just went on how Hagler was the least of the four because he lost to some guy you never heard of.

You criticize Hamsho and Vito without knowing anything other than that they were simply Hagler victims. you're almost as bad as that dimwit Ringsider who's seen one Hagler fight in his whole life-his last one.

The best line you came out with was last week as you boldly stated "What, are you crazy. Norris whip Leonard in his prime?" "I doubt even Norris believes he could beat prime leonard"

And why would that be Alp, because it took him nine rounds to stop the anonymous kalule, the slowest man on Earth? The same man stopped the following year to Davey Moore, a man with ten pro fights? You didn't know that either did you? You didn't know later that same year Ayub was agsin stopped by prospect Mike McCallum. There's a lot you don't know Bumbling Alp and from where I sit that's exactly what you come across as--bumbling.

Perhaps it was that grueling 1984 match with a miniscule Howard that would cause Norris to think this way.

All I saw was a man who just a step above those two sub par opponents.
That's all you have is two references to justify your claims that Terry Norris would come into the ring and automatically take a back seat to "prime leonard".

You must have Ray Leonard confused with Ray Robinson.

The fact is, all you know about is Ray Leonard Ray Leonard Ray Leonard but nothing else. Perhaps you should look into other fighters' careers.

[elmersalsa]

I cannot accept that Leonard was "better" in the second fight when Duran was not at his very best, and then did not give a rematch to Duran while Duran gave him a rematch to redeem himself. That is not a sign of a REAL FIGHTER to me. Real fighters give rematches at any cost, any time.

When both were at their peak condition, who won? Duran simply whupped him. I guess the Leonard Fans do not want to accept that, though.

Now, Collins2000, you do not think that that same Hearns that blasted Duran at 154 in 1984 would have not blast Leonard? Watch the fight of Leonard vs Kevin Howard for example. If Hearns was in the opposite corner? Hmmmmmmmm


Leonard NEVER looked good above 147lbs...At 154lbs he looked awful just like Duran, but a little better. Hearns at 154lbs was PERFECT...There, he was stronger, faster and hit harder and looked more like a light-heavyweight than an actual 154 pounder. The way he demolished Duran, and Fred Hutchings at that weight was very frightening for me to see.

AT 147lbs, Leonard had a terrible and hard time to beat Hearns. He gave Hearns a rematch, 8 years later thinking that Hearns was washed up, and true, he was washed up and gave Leonard a sound beating just to be SCREWED by the judges.

If Leonard would have come back to fight Hearns at 154lbs, I put my money on Tommy....and by knockout!!!

Mate, you live in a fantasy world.

Leonard showed his heart and skill and stopped Hearns at 147. Did you see that one?

The rematch was close and both men had their moments; I wouldn't have argued with a close points victory for Tommy but no way did Hearns administer a sound beating. In the real world, I mean. In your Alice in Wonderland world I guess it was a KO win for Hearns.

You need to sit down with someone who knows something about boxing and get them to explain what is happening.

And stop that shite about being a Leonard fan. It's become very stale very quickly. Just admit you hate him cos he made your hero Duran do the unthinkable and QUIT.

Mate, the truth is the truth...Accept the fact that Duran was better than Leonard on that magical night of June 20, 1980 in Montreal. If the same guy would have come up in New Orleans would have been a different story. C'mon...How can a guy that made you missed so many punches the first fight cannot do the same in the second time around? Oh, Leonard fought his fight. And Duran? did he fought his? NO.

The Hearns rematch was not even close. Neither deserved a draw. It was a clear win for Tommy. He was a washed up fighter that dropped the pretty boy twice on the floor eating dust on the canvas. Now imagine if he was in his prime like 1984? Different story. Right now we would have different views about Hearns. Hearns of 1984? I cannot see Leonard beating him, even if Leonard was one of my favorites. I give credit were its due...Just like Esteban DeJesus beat Duran...No excuses on that fight. Esteban won clearly. Duran lost to an excellent fighter that night. No shame about that.

But to call me that I am in Alice Wonderland? Well, go head...You saw the results of the rematch 8 years later...NO way it was a draw.

[Ambling Alp]

Still waiting for you to answer my questions. Almost all have been ducked.

On the contrary, you've ducked my questions by playing dumb "So what if he fought in '84?"

But I thought you said Ray Leonard's prime was shortened because he didn't want to risk his eye anymore yet here he is taking and giving blows.

Again, what was he doing in the ring with some guy named Howard when he was supposed to be out from an eye injury? Ray was supposed to have one fight for Hagler only yet here he was with some other guy who no one knows anything about. Leonard couldn't fight you said becuse his eye injury shortened his prime. That's what you keep telling me. How do you explain it? Explain why he couldn't face Hagler 5 years sooner but he was able to lace on the gloves for Howard.

You'd better have a good explanation for this if you want your man to save face.

Explain it to me.

And one other thing,, why do you go about as though other readers on this forum know less than yourself.

First you ignorantly proclaim that Ray Leonard had "miles more quality wins than Hagler". Then you crticise Marvin for losing to Watts who you've never seen before. I know you've never seen the fight. you didn't even realize it was closer a fight than Leonard-Duran 1. No, you just went on how Hagler was the least of the four because he lost to some guy you never heard of.

You criticize Hamsho and Vito without knowing anything other than that they were simply Hagler victims. you're almost as bad as that dimwit Ringsider who's seen one Hagler fight in his whole life-his last one.

The best line you came out with was last week as you boldly stated "What, are you crazy. Norris whip Leonard in his prime?" "I doubt even Norris believes he could beat prime leonard"

And why would that be Alp, because it took him nine rounds to stop the anonymous kalule, the slowest man on Earth? The same man stopped the following year to Davey Moore, a man with ten pro fights? You didn't know that either did you? You didn't know later that same year Ayub was agsin stopped by prospect Mike McCallum. There's a lot you don't know Bumbling Alp and from where I sit that's exactly what you come across as--bumbling.

Perhaps it was that grueling 1984 match with a miniscule Howard that would cause Norris to think this way.

All I saw was a man who just a step above those two sub par opponents.
That's all you have is two references to justify your claims that Terry Norris would come into the ring and automatically take a back seat to "prime leonard".

You must have Ray Leonard confused with Ray Robinson.

The fact is, all you know about is Ray Leonard Ray Leonard Ray Leonard but nothing else. Perhaps you should look into other fighters' careers.

You still haven't answered my questions. I will continue to answer your questions when you have answered them.

[Ezzard]

I've read this guy Elton John's stuff on other sites. He is quite amusing but he won't give up on his attack of Leonard.

I think with retrosepct some of the claims around Leonard's retirement are valid, that's not to say 100% correct, simply that it's a fair argument whether you agree with it or not.

But you'll get nowhere with him on the Leonard debate.

[Elton John]

^There's one thing that can be said which is that Alp is filled with irrational exuberance for this guy leonard. To think that he would make statements like "I doubt that Norris himself thinks he would beat prime leonard" based upon two fights which he looked average at best.

I didn't notice Leonard bowling over either one of them yet here is Alp giving the impression that he held a series of impressive defenses and snuffing each one out in the style of Joe Louis. Was there anyone else that I missed?

Geraldo maybe. Ray outspeed him easily but even in so doing there was something that took the lustre off his performance. I must say Leonard didn't take punches well in that fight nearly falling over his heels during that 3rd round.

So Alp is going to refuse to comment further. He finally realized he was cornered and to avoid further embarrassment, found a way out of it

[Ambling Alp]

No, I just ask that you answer my questions. Then I will continue to answer yours.