BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Well, I tried.

You lost, thanks. Deal with it!

No.

gilgamesh wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Kalan wrote:elmersalsa... I don't think you considered the following: Leonard's and Hearns' fights vs Marv Hagler were ABOVE Welter... Leonard carried 3 yrs. of ring rust, but beat Hagler anyway ... Tommy Hearns??? ... He got smashed flat inside of 3 rounds.

Sugar Ray Robinson had something in common with Marv Hagler. He lost his Middleweight Title an underdog Welterweight... One named Carmen Basilio.

Yes, you are right. I ask a couple of questions to you Kalan: Do you believe that that was Marvelous in his prime against Sugar Ray? Or was he a fading champion looking for a big payday?

Put Sugar Ray in the ring in the same night, either with Marvelous or The Hitman when they fought those 3 unforgettable rounds. Do you believe that Leonard, with his ring rust beats those two monsters on that night?

The original great Sugar Ray was also a fading 36 year old champion fighting a tough all time great Carmen Basilio in his prime. A great win by Basilio, no doubt, it was a great accomplishment for a small welterweight to take the crown against a big and established middleweight great king. Both wins, Leonard and Basilio, were remarkable. But, if I had to pick which was the best win between the two, I pick Basilio's, no doubt.

Yeah because he actually won for one thing. Leonard's decision win over Hagler is very much in doubt by fans and experts alike. I personally scored that fight a draw.

Basilio's win doesn't even compare to Leonard's.
Leonard's win is in doubt? Try finding the six rounds that Hagler supposedly won to make it a draw. Leonard won that fight fair and square.
There was a lot of controversy over wheter Basilio should have got the decison against Robinson. A lot of people thought Robinson should have got the decision.
Basilio-Robinson was a closer fight than Leonard-Hagler.

Not mention that Hagler was much closer to his prime than Robinson was. Hagler had not lost a fight in about 10 years. Robinson lost earlier that year. Hagler was only 32, Robinson was 36. That is a huge difference.

Most of all, Leonard had been out of the ring for three years. In over 130 years of boxing, find another fighter who had been out of the ring for three years and beat as good of a fighter as Marvin Hagler?

Ambling Alp II wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:
Yes, you are right. I ask a couple of questions to you Kalan: Do you believe that that was Marvelous in his prime against Sugar Ray? Or was he a fading champion looking for a big payday?

Put Sugar Ray in the ring in the same night, either with Marvelous or The Hitman when they fought those 3 unforgettable rounds. Do you believe that Leonard, with his ring rust beats those two monsters on that night?

The original great Sugar Ray was also a fading 36 year old champion fighting a tough all time great Carmen Basilio in his prime. A great win by Basilio, no doubt, it was a great accomplishment for a small welterweight to take the crown against a big and established middleweight great king. Both wins, Leonard and Basilio, were remarkable. But, if I had to pick which was the best win between the two, I pick Basilio's, no doubt.

Yeah because he actually won for one thing. Leonard's decision win over Hagler is very much in doubt by fans and experts alike. I personally scored that fight a draw.

Basilio's win doesn't even compare to Leonard's.
Leonard's win is in doubt? Try finding the six rounds that Hagler supposedly won to make it a draw. Leonard won that fight fair and square.
There was a lot of controversy over wheter Basilio should have got the decison against Robinson. A lot of people thought Robinson should have got the decision.
Basilio-Robinson was a closer fight than Leonard-Hagler.

Not mention that Hagler was much closer to his prime than Robinson was. Hagler had not lost a fight in about 10 years. Robinson lost earlier that year. Hagler was only 32, Robinson was 36. That is a huge difference.

Most of all, Leonard had been out of the ring for three years. In over 130 years of boxing, find another fighter who had been out of the ring for three years and beat as good of a fighter as Marvin Hagler?

Carmen Basilio came at 153 pounds to fight Robinson. A remarkable feat in itself. He beat an ACTIVE CHAMPION who was still going in strong at 36 and that could beat any middleweight around even though he was not in his total prime.

The Leonard win was a great win. But people want to make it much more remarkable than what it was. The MAJORITY DOESN'T BUY IT. Marvelous was a FADING CHAMPION, looking for a big payday. He was not active after 1983. He only fought twice in '84, once in '85, once in '86 and once in '87. He wasn't the same and hungry champion of the early 80s decade. His skills were fading. And in the fight with Sugar Ray, he was missing at close range. And still, for many, it was a close fight. Some would have love 3 more rounds, though.

Basilio went toe to toe with a stronger, faster and taller great champion. He was not prime, but, still better than Marvelous at that stage of their careers.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Well, I tried.

You lost, thanks. Deal with it!

No.

Yes!

Ambling Alp II wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:
Yes, you are right. I ask a couple of questions to you Kalan: Do you believe that that was Marvelous in his prime against Sugar Ray? Or was he a fading champion looking for a big payday?

Put Sugar Ray in the ring in the same night, either with Marvelous or The Hitman when they fought those 3 unforgettable rounds. Do you believe that Leonard, with his ring rust beats those two monsters on that night?

The original great Sugar Ray was also a fading 36 year old champion fighting a tough all time great Carmen Basilio in his prime. A great win by Basilio, no doubt, it was a great accomplishment for a small welterweight to take the crown against a big and established middleweight great king. Both wins, Leonard and Basilio, were remarkable. But, if I had to pick which was the best win between the two, I pick Basilio's, no doubt.

Yeah because he actually won for one thing. Leonard's decision win over Hagler is very much in doubt by fans and experts alike. I personally scored that fight a draw.

Basilio's win doesn't even compare to Leonard's.
Leonard's win is in doubt? Try finding the six rounds that Hagler supposedly won to make it a draw. Leonard won that fight fair and square.

I thought Hagler won rounds 6 thru 11

Ambling Alp II wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:
Yes, you are right. I ask a couple of questions to you Kalan: Do you believe that that was Marvelous in his prime against Sugar Ray? Or was he a fading champion looking for a big payday?

Put Sugar Ray in the ring in the same night, either with Marvelous or The Hitman when they fought those 3 unforgettable rounds. Do you believe that Leonard, with his ring rust beats those two monsters on that night?

The original great Sugar Ray was also a fading 36 year old champion fighting a tough all time great Carmen Basilio in his prime. A great win by Basilio, no doubt, it was a great accomplishment for a small welterweight to take the crown against a big and established middleweight great king. Both wins, Leonard and Basilio, were remarkable. But, if I had to pick which was the best win between the two, I pick Basilio's, no doubt.

Yeah because he actually won for one thing. Leonard's decision win over Hagler is very much in doubt by fans and experts alike. I personally scored that fight a draw.

Basilio's win doesn't even compare to Leonard's.
Leonard's win is in doubt? Try finding the six rounds that Hagler supposedly won to make it a draw. Leonard won that fight fair and square.
There was a lot of controversy over wheter Basilio should have got the decison against Robinson. A lot of people thought Robinson should have got the decision.
Basilio-Robinson was a closer fight than Leonard-Hagler.

Not mention that Hagler was much closer to his prime than Robinson was. Hagler had not lost a fight in about 10 years. Robinson lost earlier that year. Hagler was only 32, Robinson was 36. That is a huge difference.

Most of all, Leonard had been out of the ring for three years. In over 130 years of boxing, find another fighter who had been out of the ring for three years and beat as good of a fighter as Marvin Hagler?

Ambling Alp II provided a great analysis of the comparative feats of Leonard and Basilio -- both coming from 147 to win the Middleweight Title

To sum it up..., 1. Ray Leonard had been inactive for 3 years... 2. Hagler was 32 and undefeated for over 11 years... 3. The result was a clear win for Leonard from the perspective of any clear sighted, intelligent, and unbiased observer... 4. Carmen Basilio had 11 fights in the previous 3 years... 5. Robinson was 36 and suffered his 5th loss over the previous 7 years... 6. The decision in favor of Basilio was highly questionable... So when you add up those 6 pertinent facts, Sugar Ray Leonard accomplished the more impressive victory.

gilgamesh wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Yeah because he actually won for one thing. Leonard's decision win over Hagler is very much in doubt by fans and experts alike. I personally scored that fight a draw.

Basilio's win doesn't even compare to Leonard's.
Leonard's win is in doubt? Try finding the six rounds that Hagler supposedly won to make it a draw. Leonard won that fight fair and square.

I thought Hagler won rounds 6 thru 11

I doubt even Hagler believes this.

LOL Leonard won clean Gilgamesh... Gilgamesh also thinks Austin Trout drew with Jermall Charlo... Mostly because he picked him to win.

Kalan wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Yeah because he actually won for one thing. Leonard's decision win over Hagler is very much in doubt by fans and experts alike. I personally scored that fight a draw.

Basilio's win doesn't even compare to Leonard's.
Leonard's win is in doubt? Try finding the six rounds that Hagler supposedly won to make it a draw. Leonard won that fight fair and square.
There was a lot of controversy over wheter Basilio should have got the decison against Robinson. A lot of people thought Robinson should have got the decision.
Basilio-Robinson was a closer fight than Leonard-Hagler.

Not mention that Hagler was much closer to his prime than Robinson was. Hagler had not lost a fight in about 10 years. Robinson lost earlier that year. Hagler was only 32, Robinson was 36. That is a huge difference.

Most of all, Leonard had been out of the ring for three years. In over 130 years of boxing, find another fighter who had been out of the ring for three years and beat as good of a fighter as Marvin Hagler?

Ambling Alp II provided a great analysis of the comparative feats of Leonard and Basilio -- both coming from 147 to win the Middleweight Title

To sum it up..., 1. Ray Leonard had been inactive for 3 years... 2. Hagler was 32 and undefeated for over 11 years... 3. The result was a clear win for Leonard from the perspective of any clear sighted, intelligent, and unbiased observer... 4. Carmen Basilio had 11 fights in the previous 3 years... 5. Robinson was 36 and suffered his 5th loss over the previous 7 years... 6. The decision in favor of Basilio was highly questionable... So when you add up those 6 pertinent facts, Sugar Ray Leonard accomplished the more impressive victory.

First of all, the decision in favor the great Carmen Basilio was questionable? I have never heard or read that it was controversial or questionable.

Second, Basilio won fair and square against a guy that was stronger, faster, taller and had at least a 5" height advantage. It was the first title fight for Basilio at 160. Sugar Ray had also a reach advantage. HE FOUGHT LIKE A MAN, TOE TO TOE WITH ROBINSON to win the title for 15 rounds in the fight of the year for 1957.

Third, Both, Marvelous and Robinson were fading champions, but still effective. Both were ready to be taken as we all saw the outcomes. That is why is a great win for both, Leonard and Basilio at the time they did it. But, to me, the Basilio win was more satisfying because he fought without stipulations of getting a larger ring, thumbless gloves and 3 less rounds.

Fourth, that Leonard was not fighting for 3 years, I remarkable. But, let's not make it as greater than what we want it to be. Marvelous was FADING BIG TIME. Robinson was much more active coming from one of his best wins of kaoying a man going backwards in 5. Big George retired 10 years and he was beating people up. Nobody says nothing about that. To me, the Basilio win was much more impressive. He did it against someone considered as the best pound per pound ever at that time of the event.

First -you never heard Basilio's win was questionable? The AP had it a draw. Only 26 of 47 ringside sportswriters scored it for Basilio. It was a very close fight that could have gone either way or been scored a draw.

Second - It was Basilio's first title fight for him at middle? Same for Leonard.

Third- Robinson was way, way further past his best than Hagler. Hagler was only 32, Robinson was 36. That is a dramtic difference. Almost every fighter is much better at 32 than 36.
Hagler had 66 fights going into the Leonard fight. Robinson had 147 fights already. Robinson had much, much more wear and tear than Hagler did.

Fourth -George Foreman did not win the title in his first fight back. It was his 30th fight back when he beat Moorer. That is simply not the same thing as Leonard doing it in his first fight after three years off.
Name one other fighter in boxing history who beat someone as good as Marvin Hagler in their first fight back after being off for three years? You can't. It is that rare.

Basilio's win doesn't compare to Leonard's. Not even close.

I have shown you the courtesy of answering each and every of your points directly, even though you seldom do the same.

The idea that Robinson was the best P4P boxer was more hype than fact. Robinson himself said Pep was the best fighter in the world. But SRR was the most charismatic ring performer of the period and that had a lot to do with descriptions of his ring prowess -- as they say in the movie business Robinson had the look.. They used Vernon Forrest to play Robinson in "Raging Bull" and everybody said "Where did that get that guy?" Who can you cast to make a realistic Robinson??? He lit up the ring. At the least they should have straightened Forrest's hair because the scene lacked authenticity.

With the Basilio loss, Robinson went down to his 5th defeat in the previous 7 years .. SRR wasn't a model of consistency in Middleweight title fights. And BTW, Robinson wasn't "at least 5 inches taller" than Basilio either.

Leonard had only 1 fight in the previous 5 years.. And after the way Hagler smashed Hearns out in 3, some people were writing Leonard off entirely.. The spectacular Hagler-Hearns fight was sill fresh in people's minds.. Only a few people saw slippage in the Mugabi fight, which in the end Hagler won by KO as usual.. Robinson had been beaten a few times in the previous years ... so the shock waves were quite a bit less in that one.

Kalan wrote:The idea that Robinson was the best P4P boxer was more hype than fact. Robinson himself said Pep was the best fighter in the world. But SRR was the most charismatic ring performer of the period and that had a lot to do with descriptions of his ring prowess -- as they say in the movie business Robinson had the look.. They used Vernon Forrest to play Robinson in "Raging Bull" and everybody said "Where did that get that guy?" Who can you cast to make a realistic Robinson??? He lit up the ring. At the least they should have straightened Forrest's hair because the scene lacked authenticity.

With the Basilio loss, Robinson went down to his 5th defeat in the previous 7 years .. SRR wasn't a model of consistency in Middleweight title fights. And BTW, Robinson wasn't "at least 5 inches taller" than Basilio either.

Leonard had only 1 fight in the previous 5 years.. And after the way Hagler smashed Hearns out in 3, some people were writing Leonard off entirely.. The spectacular Hagler-Hearns fight was sill fresh in people's minds.. Only a few people saw slippage in the Mugabi fight, which in the end Hagler won by KO as usual.. Robinson had been beaten a few times in the previous years ... so the shock waves were quite a bit less in that one.

Vernon Forrest would've been 9 years old when Raging Bull was made.

Johnny Barnes played Sugar Ray Robinson in that movie.

Whoever it was who played Robinson, they didn't straighten his hair out from what I remember... I haven't watched it in about 30 years and forgot just how long ago it was made... It's possible Forrest played Robinson in another movie I'm thinking of... I do remember Coley Wallace played Joe Louis in Raging Bull. He was a 1950's Heavyweight who looked amazingly like Louis.

Ambling Alp II wrote:First -you never heard Basilio's win was questionable? The AP had it a draw. Only 26 of 47 ringside sportswriters scored it for Basilio. It was a very close fight that could have gone either way or been scored a draw.

Second - It was Basilio's first title fight for him at middle? Same for Leonard.

Third- Robinson was way, way further past his best than Hagler. Hagler was only 32, Robinson was 36. That is a dramtic difference. Almost every fighter is much better at 32 than 36.
Hagler had 66 fights going into the Leonard fight. Robinson had 147 fights already. Robinson had much, much more wear and tear than Hagler did.

Fourth -George Foreman did not win the title in his first fight back. It was his 30th fight back when he beat Moorer. That is simply not the same thing as Leonard doing it in his first fight after three years off.
Name one other fighter in boxing history who beat someone as good as Marvin Hagler in their first fight back after being off for three years? You can't. It is that rare.

Basilio's win doesn't compare to Leonard's. Not even close.

I have shown you the courtesy of answering each and every of your points directly, even though you seldom do the same.

Nobody booed the decision at ringside. As a matter of fact, The Ring Magazine's Nat Fleischer agreed that it was a extraordinary win by Basilio, who came at 153lbs.

People forgot that Robinson was almost 6'0" tall. He had advantages of height, weight and reach. Basilio had advantage in age. He was 31, just like Leonard when he challenged Marvelous. Leonard had physical advantages and age advantages over Marvelous. That he didn't fight in 3 years? Let's not make it something extraordinary Big George came from retirement after 10 years. Nobody said nothing. The great Mike Tyson came back from prison and won the heavyweight title after 3 years of inactivity. The same with the great Muhammad Ali. He won two big fights against two top contenders of Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena.

Just like I had said before: Neither Marvelous nor Sugar Ray were in their primes when they lost their titles to Leonard and Basilio, respectively. You may say Marvelous was closer to his prime than Robinson. I may give you that, maybe not. But Robinson was still formidable. That's the bottom line. Robinson was more active than Marvelous. Even at 36. And he was still with the same speed of hands in my view.

Kalan wrote:The idea that Robinson was the best P4P boxer was more hype than fact. Robinson himself said Pep was the best fighter in the world. But SRR was the most charismatic ring performer of the period and that had a lot to do with descriptions of his ring prowess -- as they say in the movie business Robinson had the look.. They used Vernon Forrest to play Robinson in "Raging Bull" and everybody said "Where did that get that guy?" Who can you cast to make a realistic Robinson??? He lit up the ring. At the least they should have straightened Forrest's hair because the scene lacked authenticity.

With the Basilio loss, Robinson went down to his 5th defeat in the previous 7 years .. SRR wasn't a model of consistency in Middleweight title fights. And BTW, Robinson wasn't "at least 5 inches taller" than Basilio either.

Leonard had only 1 fight in the previous 5 years.. And after the way Hagler smashed Hearns out in 3, some people were writing Leonard off entirely.. The spectacular Hagler-Hearns fight was sill fresh in people's minds.. Only a few people saw slippage in the Mugabi fight, which in the end Hagler won by KO as usual.. Robinson had been beaten a few times in the previous years ... so the shock waves were quite a bit less in that one.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson was The Fighter of the whole Damn 1950s decade! What are you talking about? He fought gallantly the whole decade. That wasn't a hype.

The great Carmen Basilio was 5'6" at most tale of the tapes. SRR was at least 5'11". Some tale of the tapes had him at 5'113/4" or 6'0" depending on the source. That is a 5" difference at least. Robinson had weight, reach, height, speed and strength advantages over Basilio. He came off from an extraordinary win against the great Gene Fullmer with a punch going backwards. So, that means he was still formidable even though he was slipping. It was just like Marvelous. He was slipping. He had to concede SRL stipulations of larger ring, thumbless gloves and lesser rounds. If the stipulations were not met, no fight. And Marvelous was not going to miss a $10 million dollar payday at that point of his career. He waited too long for this. The fight went on.

You want to mention that Robinson had lost 5 in 7 years? Of course, he was fighting outta prime, against top notch foes like Fullmer and Basilio. Those guys were better than John Mugabi and Thomas Hearns at 160. What do we expect?

That Leonard fought once in five years is remarkable, but let's not get over ourselves here. Let's not make it as big and great like you want it to be. There are some examples of guys leaving and coming back. Eder Jofre did. Muhammad Ali did it. Mike Tyson did it. George Foreman did it. It's not a big deal, really.

elmersalsa wrote:

Kalan wrote:The idea that Robinson was the best P4P boxer was more hype than fact. Robinson himself said Pep was the best fighter in the world. But SRR was the most charismatic ring performer of the period and that had a lot to do with descriptions of his ring prowess -- as they say in the movie business Robinson had the look.. They used Vernon Forrest to play Robinson in "Raging Bull" and everybody said "Where did that get that guy?" Who can you cast to make a realistic Robinson??? He lit up the ring. At the least they should have straightened Forrest's hair because the scene lacked authenticity.

With the Basilio loss, Robinson went down to his 5th defeat in the previous 7 years .. SRR wasn't a model of consistency in Middleweight title fights. And BTW, Robinson wasn't "at least 5 inches taller" than Basilio either.

Leonard had only 1 fight in the previous 5 years.. And after the way Hagler smashed Hearns out in 3, some people were writing Leonard off entirely.. The spectacular Hagler-Hearns fight was sill fresh in people's minds.. Only a few people saw slippage in the Mugabi fight, which in the end Hagler won by KO as usual.. Robinson had been beaten a few times in the previous years ... so the shock waves were quite a bit less in that one.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson was The Fighter of the whole Damn 1950s decade! What are you talking about? He fought gallantly the whole decade. That wasn't a hype.

The great Carmen Basilio was 5'6" at most tale of the tapes. SRR was at least 5'11". Some tale of the tapes had him at 5'113/4" or 6'0" depending on the source. That is a 5" difference at least. Robinson had weight, reach, height, speed and strength advantages over Basilio. He came off from an extraordinary win against the great Gene Fullmer with a punch going backwards. So, that means he was still formidable even though he was slipping. It was just like Marvelous. He was slipping. He had to concede SRL stipulations of larger ring, thumbless gloves and lesser rounds. If the stipulations were not met, no fight. And Marvelous was not going to miss a $10 million dollar payday at that point of his career. He waited too long for this. The fight went on.

You want to mention that Robinson had lost 5 in 7 years? Of course, he was fighting outta prime, against top notch foes like Fullmer and Basilio. Those guys were better than John Mugabi and Thomas Hearns at 160. What do we expect?

That Leonard fought once in five years is remarkable, but let's not get over ourselves here. Let's not make it as big and great like you want it to be. There are some examples of guys leaving and coming back. Eder Jofre did. Muhammad Ali did it. Mike Tyson did it. George Foreman did it. It's not a big deal, really.

IT IS if you fight no tune-ups.. Muhammad Ali fought 2 tune-up fights when he came back.. Mike Tyson fought tune-ups as well.. George Foreman fought dozens of tune-ups.. About the only guy who was out for longer than Leonard with no tune-up fights was Vitali Klitschko.. And Basilio was 5'6.5" at least... And Ray Robinson was no taller than 5'11" I promise you.. I met him and I make him no taller than 5'11" with shoes on.

And don't tell me how great Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio were... I saw them fight... They were almost as crude as John Mugabi and even slower.. I'm pretty certain Thomas Hearns could outbox them both and win decisions.. I'm not convinced Robinson would beat Hearns, although I'd give him an edge - because his chin was so much stronger and he was a good attacker.. If they started clipping each other there's only one guy going out - and it was hard to keep Hearns from trading punches when he should be boxing.. I would favor the Mugabi who fought Hagler over Basilio, but favor Fullmer to stop him in a slugfest.

Kalan wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Kalan wrote:The idea that Robinson was the best P4P boxer was more hype than fact. Robinson himself said Pep was the best fighter in the world. But SRR was the most charismatic ring performer of the period and that had a lot to do with descriptions of his ring prowess -- as they say in the movie business Robinson had the look.. They used Vernon Forrest to play Robinson in "Raging Bull" and everybody said "Where did that get that guy?" Who can you cast to make a realistic Robinson??? He lit up the ring. At the least they should have straightened Forrest's hair because the scene lacked authenticity.

With the Basilio loss, Robinson went down to his 5th defeat in the previous 7 years .. SRR wasn't a model of consistency in Middleweight title fights. And BTW, Robinson wasn't "at least 5 inches taller" than Basilio either.

Leonard had only 1 fight in the previous 5 years.. And after the way Hagler smashed Hearns out in 3, some people were writing Leonard off entirely.. The spectacular Hagler-Hearns fight was sill fresh in people's minds.. Only a few people saw slippage in the Mugabi fight, which in the end Hagler won by KO as usual.. Robinson had been beaten a few times in the previous years ... so the shock waves were quite a bit less in that one.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson was The Fighter of the whole Damn 1950s decade! What are you talking about? He fought gallantly the whole decade. That wasn't a hype.

The great Carmen Basilio was 5'6" at most tale of the tapes. SRR was at least 5'11". Some tale of the tapes had him at 5'113/4" or 6'0" depending on the source. That is a 5" difference at least. Robinson had weight, reach, height, speed and strength advantages over Basilio. He came off from an extraordinary win against the great Gene Fullmer with a punch going backwards. So, that means he was still formidable even though he was slipping. It was just like Marvelous. He was slipping. He had to concede SRL stipulations of larger ring, thumbless gloves and lesser rounds. If the stipulations were not met, no fight. And Marvelous was not going to miss a $10 million dollar payday at that point of his career. He waited too long for this. The fight went on.

You want to mention that Robinson had lost 5 in 7 years? Of course, he was fighting outta prime, against top notch foes like Fullmer and Basilio. Those guys were better than John Mugabi and Thomas Hearns at 160. What do we expect?

That Leonard fought once in five years is remarkable, but let's not get over ourselves here. Let's not make it as big and great like you want it to be. There are some examples of guys leaving and coming back. Eder Jofre did. Muhammad Ali did it. Mike Tyson did it. George Foreman did it. It's not a big deal, really.

IT IS if you fight no tune-ups.. Muhammad Ali fought 2 tune-up fights when he came back.. Mike Tyson fought tune-ups as well.. George Foreman fought dozens of tune-ups.. About the only guy who was out for longer than Leonard with no tune-up fights was Vitali Klitschko.. And Basilio was 5'6.5" at least... And Ray Robinson was no taller than 5'11" I promise you.. I met him and I make him no taller than 5'11" with shoes on.

And don't tell me how great Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio were... I saw them fight... They were almost as crude as John Mugabi and even slower.. I'm pretty certain Thomas Hearns could outbox them both and win decisions.. I'm not convinced Robinson would beat Hearns, although I'd give him an edge - because his chin was so much stronger and he was a good attacker.. If they started clipping each other there's only one guy going out - and it was hard to keep Hearns from trading punches when he should be boxing.. I would favor the Mugabi who fought Hagler over Basilio, but favor Fullmer to stop him in a slugfest.

First of all, are you that old? How old were you when SRR and Fullmer were in their heyday?

That John Mugabi doesn't beat The Upstate Onion Farmer. Not the one that gave Robinson and Fullmer big fights. Thomas Hearns was a monster at 154lbs. But, at middleweight, nothing special. He got stopped by Marvelous. He got stopped by Iran Barkley.

If you claim that you met the original Sugar Man, that is good to know and power to you. The question now is to believe you about his height or the tale of the tape. He looked pretty tall on tv to me.

Speaking of tune ups. What Leonard did was remarkable, no doubt. But people don't put into consideration that Marvelous was slipping and fading. Marvelous had to obey the stipulations: Larger ring, thumbless gloves, lesser rounds and any other advantages that favored Sugar Ray.

Basilio didn't had none of those stipulations. Let's fight like two macho men and that's it! I don't care if you're bigger, taller, stronger and faster than me, I am going to kick your ass!

elmer, elmer, elmer. What are we going to do with you?
"That Leonard fought once in five years is remarkable, but let's not get over ourselves here. Let's not make it as big and great like you want it to be. There are some examples of guys leaving and coming back. Eder Jofre did. Muhammad Ali did it. Mike Tyson did it. George Foreman did it. It's not a big deal, really."


Yes they came back to win a title. none of them did it in their first fight back. You don't just drop a sport for three years and and come back in and pick up right where you left off. Anybody who has played a sport knows this. You need to get rid of the ring rust.

Ali came back. His fight was against Jerry Quarry. It took him several fights and almost four years before he won the title back.

Eder Jofre's first fight back was against someone named Rudy Corona. It was not until his 15th fight back that he was a version of the title back in a controversial decision.

Foreman's first fight back was against the legendary Steve Zouski. He had 24 comeback fights before he took on Holyfield, and lost. He had several more fights before beating Moorer,

Tyson's first fight back was against frikkin Peter McNeeley. He won the title against Frank Bruno. Not the same as beating Marvin Hagler.

Beating Rudy Corona, Steve Zouski, and Peter McNeeley is light years away from beating Marvin Hagler.
there are countless fighters who tried to comeback after a layoff and failed. Do we really need to start naming some?

And stop saying Hagler had not fought enough. He had 9 fights in the previous 5 years in which Leonard had one. That is almost ideal. He was fighting enough so that he would not get too rusty but not too much where he was taking a ton of punishment. (Unlike Robinson who took much more punishment in his career.)

Nobody in the history of boxing has beaten a fighter as good as Marvin Halger in their first fight back after three years or more. Nobody. That's why it's a big deal. Stop ignoring this.

How on earth can you not understand this?

With your horrible posts, you have now won your title back. Congratulations.

gilgamesh wrote:

Kalan wrote:The idea that Robinson was the best P4P boxer was more hype than fact. Robinson himself said Pep was the best fighter in the world. But SRR was the most charismatic ring performer of the period and that had a lot to do with descriptions of his ring prowess -- as they say in the movie business Robinson had the look.. They used Vernon Forrest to play Robinson in "Raging Bull" and everybody said "Where did that get that guy?" Who can you cast to make a realistic Robinson??? He lit up the ring. At the least they should have straightened Forrest's hair because the scene lacked authenticity.

With the Basilio loss, Robinson went down to his 5th defeat in the previous 7 years .. SRR wasn't a model of consistency in Middleweight title fights. And BTW, Robinson wasn't "at least 5 inches taller" than Basilio either.

Leonard had only 1 fight in the previous 5 years.. And after the way Hagler smashed Hearns out in 3, some people were writing Leonard off entirely.. The spectacular Hagler-Hearns fight was sill fresh in people's minds.. Only a few people saw slippage in the Mugabi fight, which in the end Hagler won by KO as usual.. Robinson had been beaten a few times in the previous years ... so the shock waves were quite a bit less in that one.

Vernon Forrest would've been 9 years old when Raging Bull was made.

.

another one to go in the kalan book of FACTS

Ambling Alp II wrote:elmer, elmer, elmer. What are we going to do with you?
"That Leonard fought once in five years is remarkable, but let's not get over ourselves here. Let's not make it as big and great like you want it to be. There are some examples of guys leaving and coming back. Eder Jofre did. Muhammad Ali did it. Mike Tyson did it. George Foreman did it. It's not a big deal, really."


Yes they came back to win a title. none of them did it in their first fight back. You don't just drop a sport for three years and and come back in and pick up right where you left off. Anybody who has played a sport knows this. You need to get rid of the ring rust.

Ali came back. His fight was against Jerry Quarry. It took him several fights and almost four years before he won the title back.

Eder Jofre's first fight back was against someone named Rudy Corona. It was not until his 15th fight back that he was a version of the title back in a controversial decision.

Foreman's first fight back was against the legendary Steve Zouski. He had 24 comeback fights before he took on Holyfield, and lost. He had several more fights before beating Moorer,

Tyson's first fight back was against frikkin Peter McNeeley. He won the title against Frank Bruno. Not the same as beating Marvin Hagler.

Beating Rudy Corona, Steve Zouski, and Peter McNeeley is light years away from beating Marvin Hagler.
there are countless fighters who tried to comeback after a layoff and failed. Do we really need to start naming some?

And stop saying Hagler had not fought enough. He had 9 fights in the previous 5 years in which Leonard had one. That is almost ideal. He was fighting enough so that he would not get too rusty but not too much where he was taking a ton of punishment. (Unlike Robinson who took much more punishment in his career.)

Nobody in the history of boxing has beaten a fighter as good as Marvin Halger in their first fight back after three years or more. Nobody. That's why it's a big deal. Stop ignoring this.

How on earth can you not understand this?

With your horrible posts, you have now won your title back. Congratulations.

No. You don't understand that that was a FADING MARVELOUS! Marvelous was fighting one fight a year since 1985. Put Sugar Ray in the ring with Marvelous when he destroyed The Hitman and it's a different story. Like I have said: "Let's not get over ourselves here" . It was a great win, no doubt about it. But, that one fight in five years mumbo jumbo, NOBODY OUTSIDE THE Sugar Ray Leonard's supporters buy that at all. Leonard can't insult people's intelligence. That was something manufactured years before the fight. It's clear as water that wasn't PRIME MARVELOUS. It was a FADING MARVELOUS!

The fight was supposed to be in '82 or '83. We know why it didn't happened. Leonard had to see how The Hitman and The Hands of Stone feared against Marvelous. The question was, why he didn't challenged Marvelous then?

That three year layoff doesn't fool me. Basilio's win to me was much more impressive against a FADING ROBINSON.

This is like watching blind men play ping pong. NEVER talk Leonard or Ali with alp. Knowledgeable poster, when it comes to those two he's such a fanboy his posts are no better than kalan.

Oh yeah, two tremendous wins. Neither greater than the other. Leonard had several real gym fights. Quincy Taylor was one of them. He was far from rusty.

Quincy Taylor? So is that the same thing as fighting a real fight? Were there judges, did it count on his record? Was there the same pressure as fighting in front of several thousand people in attendance and millions more on Pay Per Per View?
That is much more like sparring.
You hate Leonard. You would not bring this up if it was someone you did not hate.

I am a fanboy? So are you a fanboy when you talk about Thomas Hearns or Pernell Whitaker?
Please give some examples of where I said something about Leonard and Ali which contradicts what I have said about someone else in similar situations.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Quincy Taylor? So is that the same thing as fighting a real fight? Were there judges, did it count on his record? Was there the same pressure as fighting in front of several thousand people in attendance and millions more on Pay Per Per View?
That is much more like sparring.
You hate Leonard. You would not bring this up if it was someone you did not hate.

I am a fanboy? So are you a fanboy when you talk about Thomas Hearns or Pernell Whitaker?
Please give some examples of where I said something about Leonard and Ali which contradicts what I have said about someone else in similar situations.

Leonard certainly was immune to big fight atmosphere. Yes, there were judges, doesn't diminish his accomplishment at all. He just wasn't straight off of his couch.

I love Hearns, not to the point of being unreasonable. Whitaker isn't near one of my favorite fighters. Leonard was greater than both of them.