BoxRec

I first saw Sugar Ray Leonard in 1974. He was just Ray Leonard then, but the first time you seen him you knew he was going to be great.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 May 2025, 18:44 You hit the nail on the head. How many fighters have a better "victim's list is as good or better than that? There are less than 10. Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Charles, Langford, and Ali. Thats it.

The main arguments against him usually are: His career was too short -To which I respond with, so what. He beat 4 great fighters in a relatively short time. Doesn't matter if another guy fought way longer if he didn't beat as good of competition.

The other one is that he didn't have enough fights. Again, so what? In boxing, you can always find an automatic win. Leonard could have padded his win total with wins over tomato cans that he could not possibly have lost to.
Sure, we could say that so and so won 70 or 80 fights. That would not make them better than Leonard if they didn't beat better fighters. Carnera won 89 fights and Ali won 56. Nobody thinks Carnera was better or even remotely close.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Charles, Langford, Ali and Leonard are rock solid Top 10. There should be no debate about this. Which means that there are three other guys who could comprise the Top 10. Guys like Monzon, Moore, Louis, Duran, Pep, etc. Debating between those guys is much more interesting.

I think that we have already talked about this enough.

And no. Sugar Ray Leonard is not top 10. There are other boxers that had much more longevity, fought lots of fighters, and reigned longer as champions.

Leonard's wins over 4 all-time pound per pound great boxers is huge and got a lot of weight, but that's it. It's also how you view his wins. Some of them were questionable like his win over Roberto Duran in New Orleans in the No Mas rematch.

Or the win against Marvelous when Marvelous was totally fading. That fight should have happened in 1982, not in '87.

Plus, in the last 15 years of his career, Leonard, the mighty Sugar Ray only fought 7 times? C'mon bruh! That doesn't cut the top 10. Tell me a fighter that only had 7 fights in the last 15 years of his career and is considered top ten all-time?

Plus, no fighter in history, had more help from the media, promoters and the boxing organization bodies:

Enlarge the ring.
Ask for an immediate rematch for the Duran fight behind Duran's back.
Ask Donny Lalonde to drop 7 pounds for him to win two titles in one night. Remember that?
Selection of thumbless gloves for his fights against Marvelous.
The Thomas Hearns robbery.
$40,000 dollars for his first fight?
Don't give immediate rematches.

All that manipulation you got to take into account. No other boxer in history, has manipulated the sport like he did. None!

He had a lot of help from outside sources. Not even Muhammad Ali had so much help.

What does he making $40,000 for his first fight have anything to do with how good he was? Nothing.
The usual crybaby excises for opponents. Yawn.
Loved the one that Leonard got the immediate (as in 5 months ) rematch behind Duran's back. Duran did not have to fight him so soon. That was his decision.
There is nothing questionable about Leonard's win over Duran in New Orleans. He boxed circles around Duran and Duran quit like baby. Deal with it.
Didn't give immediate rematches?
Benitez and Hearns fled the welterweight division. Hagler did not want a rematch. Who was Leonard supposedly ducking?
Name 10 fighters who beat 4 better opponents than Leonard did? You can't.

Leonard is rock solid top 10.

You are being totally phony when you claim to be a fan of Leonard's. No fan would say the crap you say about him.

You can't stand because he embarrassed your hero.
You pretend that you like him so that it makes it look like you are objective.
You are being a total phony.
At least admit you don't like him.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 19:47 What does he making $40,000 for his first fight have anything to do with how good he was? Nothing.
The usual crybaby excises for opponents. Yawn.
Loved the one that Leonard got the immediate (as in 5 months ) rematch behind Duran's back. Duran did not have to fight him so soon. That was his decision.
There is nothing questionable about Leonard's win over Duran in New Orleans. He boxed circles around Duran and Duran quit like baby. Deal with it.
Didn't give immediate rematches?
Benitez and Hearns fled the welterweight division. Hagler did not want a rematch. Who was Leonard supposedly ducking?
Name 10 fighters who beat 4 better opponents than Leonard did? You can't.

Leonard is rock solid top 10.

And again. The narrative doesn't fit your agenda because he was your favorite fighter.

No fighter in history, including the great Floyd Mayweather Jr all you want, has manipulated the sport of boxing more than Sugar Ray Leonard. He was always given the leeway and the privileges that other boxers never had.

That's why guys like Roberto Duran and Marvelous Marvin Hagler never did like him then. What fighter deserves a $40,000 dollars payday in his debut? None but Sugar Ray Leonard. Not even gold medal winners like Muhammad Ali, Pernell Whitaker, Michael Spinks, Leon Spinks, Mark Breland nor Meldrick Taylor had ever win that amount of money in a pro debut.

But, there's the saying, don't hate the player, hate the game. I don't hate Sugar Ray for that for one iota. He did things outside the ring that fit his agenda and not others. Even though his Olympic teammates won Gold medals.

The Duran fight was so dubious and phony because it had to happened in this dirty business of boxing. It was never about sportsmanship. It was all about a fix to get Leonard the title back to America.

Leonard's management team and promoter Don King flew to Panama City, Panama to negotiate for the rematch with Duran's manager Carlos Eleta. They were SO DESPERATE for the rematch to be done, behind Duran's back. Duran wasn't even around in the negotiations. And the rematch came as soon as you can read this.

What fighter has ever done that? Only Leonard. Yes, he was clever outside the ring. It was a crafty move to negotiate the rematch behind Duran's back thanks also for his greedy manager. Duran's manager sold him for $8 million dollars! $8 million! That's a lot of money folks. Eleta took the bribe and the No Mas was history.

An ill and unprepared Duran had to fight because he was going to get sued by King. Duran asked for more time to train. He was declined. If there was sportsmanship, Sugar Ray would have given more time. There should have been given the champion more time to train. But, his own manager was bribed.

It was all about Sugar Ray to look good and get the title back to America. In their eyes, a bully, with no English language, and Latin uneducated boxer, and not American, should not be the face of boxing. At least not in this great United States.

Then, the ring was enlarged for Sugar Ray's advantage. That was a dubious win. It wasn't like if Duran was the same fighter in Montreal.

Marvelous was dicked the same way. Enlarged ring. Thumbless gloves. Twelve rounds instead of 15. A Fading champion who said "fuuck this" and retired.

Everything was for Sugar Ray's advantage.


I want to ask the people in this forum. What fighter had the help of the promoters, outside sources and TV more than Leonard? I don't think of one.


Now about his four great wins. Two of them for me, were dubious. The Hearns and Benitez wins were legit. Still, those 4 wins carry a lot of weight. But, he is not the only fighter that has beaten 4 great boxers.

Muhammad Ali beat 5 top 100 pound per pound great boxers: Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Bob Foster, Sonny Liston and Archie Moore.

Sugar Ray Robinson beat 4 top 100 pound per pound great boxers: Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Jake LaMotta, Kid Gavilan and Henry Armstrong

Ezzard Charles beat 4: Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Joe Louis and Jersey Joe Walcott.

Rocky Marciano beat 4: Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore

And Jimmy McLarnin beat 5: Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Fidel La Barba, Pancho Villa and Benny Leonard.

Why McLarnin is not considered top ten? He had much more fights than Sugar Ray, right? Had much more longevity, right?

If Leonard is top 10, so it should be McLarnin according to your logic.

You don't measure all time greats just because of wins. There are other areas as well. Rating comes in degrees.

Sugar Ray Leonard is not top 10.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 19:51 You are being totally phony when you claim to be a fan of Leonard's. No fan would say the crap you say about him.

You can't stand because he embarrassed your hero.
You pretend that you like him so that it makes it look like you are objective.
You are being a total phony.
At least admit you don't like him.

You don't even know, bruh. Sugar Ray Leonard is one of my favorites. But, I called it like it is. He wasn't better than Roberto Duran.

He made more money than Duran.
He had much more privileges than Duran.
He had much more leeway and help than Duran

That doesn't make him better. Look at the rest of the all-time pound per pound rankings. Even The Ring Magazine got Duran over Leonard.

Why don't you get a fit with Ring Magazine?

I rate Sugar Ray Leonard as an all time Top 10 P4P fighter, I rate him 1 notch above Duran on the all time list. I feel like you have to because

A. He's ahead 2 fights to 1 over Duran in their trilogy

B. He beat Tommy Hearns when Duran didn't

C. He beat Marvin Hagler when Duran didn't

D. He beat Wilfred Benitez when Duran didn't

That's quite a few good reasons why he should be rated higher than Duran. Duran is one of my all time favorites. I'd rather watch a Duran fight than a Leonard fight for the most part, but objectively Leonard had the better career at least in terms of his Mountain tops were a little bit higher than Duran's.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:03 I rate Sugar Ray Leonard as an all time Top 10 P4P fighter, I rate him 1 notch above Duran on the all time list. I feel like you have to because

A. He's ahead 2 fights to 1 over Duran in their trilogy

B. He beat Tommy Hearns when Duran didn't

C. He beat Marvin Hagler when Duran didn't

D. He beat Wilfred Benitez when Duran didn't

That's quite a few good reasons why he should be rated higher than Duran. Duran is one of my all time favorites. I'd rather a Duran fight than a Leonard fight for the most part, but objectively Leonard had the better career at least in terms of his Mountain tops were a little bit higher than Duran's.

You don't measure it that way.

Duran fought Hearns, Benitez and Marvelous in their primes, at their weight classes. Twenty pounds over his best weight.

Leonard beat Benitez, Duran and Hearns AT HIS WEIGHT CLASS. At his best weight. Leonard didn't go to their weight classes. They came to his.

And Duran was the first one of them all challenging Marvelous. Hearns had the chance before Roberto. He declined by a pinky finger according to Marvelous. Benitez had the whole summer of '82 to challenge Marvelous. He didn't. And also Sugar Ray in '82 had the chance. He didn't.

The ONLY ONE to challenge Marvelous first, was an overblown lightweight named Roberto Duran in Marvin's prime. Leonard of course, did it a Marvelous fading time

Leonard had ONLY 7 fights in his last 15 years of his career. How could he be in the top 10? Why you don't put Jimmy McLarnin in the top 10? He beat 5 great ones.

No doubt McLarnin beat 5 great ones, but Leonard's biggest wins are all over all time greats. Like Duran and Hagler are both Top 20 all time kinda fighters, and Hearns is probably Top 50. Duran is Top 10 in my opinion.

Duran taking on Hagler first is commendable, and he gave Hagler a hell of a close fight too. No doubt Duran is a great fighter, and you're splitting hairs between him and Leonard.

Leonard and Hearns always were in the same weight class. Benitez was a Champion in the weight class when Leonard was an up and comer. You can't say he "came to Leonard", Leonard challenged him for HIS title. Benitez still had many big wins in his future so he was still on top of his game for that fight.

Let me be clear. I don't think it's outrageous to have Duran over Leonard on an all time P4P list, but the difference between them can't be more than a spot or 2 at worst, and if you're rating Duran over Leonard you're doing so strictly on the amount of fights he had, and the longevity of his career, because objectively Leonard's biggest achievements are bigger than Duran's.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:20 No doubt McLarnin beat 5 great ones, but Leonard's biggest wins are all over all time greats. Like Duran and Hagler are both Top 20 all time kinda fighters, and Hearns is probably Top 50. Duran is Top 10 in my opinion.

Duran taking on Hagler first is commendable, and he gave Hagler a hell of a close fight too. No doubt Duran is a great fighter, and you're splitting hairs between him and Leonard.

Leonard and Hearns always were in the same weight class. Benitez was a Champion in the weight class when Leonard was an up and comer. You can't say he "came to Leonard", Leonard challenged him for HIS title. Benitez still had many big wins in his future so he was still on top of his game for that fight.

Let me be clear. I don't think it's outrageous to have Duran over Leonard on an all time P4P list, but the difference between them can't be more than a spot or 2 at worst, and if you're rating Duran over Leonard you're doing so strictly on the amount of fights he had, and the longevity of his career, because objectively Leonard's biggest achievements are bigger than Duran's.

He just beat better fighters and made much more money than Duran. At his welterweight class he beat those guys.

Nobody came up to lightweight when Duran was champion.

That's like Alexis Arguello and Wilfredo Gomez jumping to lightweight and Duran beats them. That ain't nothing to be awed about.

Duran jumped 12 pounds to beat someone bigger, faster, younger and taller than he. He whupped him at his best weight class.

I didn't see a featherweight or a Jr lightweight beating Duran. Did we?

Who had more longevity? Duran
Who was the better champion? Duran
Who went up on weight classes much higher than his natural weight? Duran
Who reigned longer? Duran
Who had more title defenses? Duran
Who had much more fights? Duran
Who challenged Marvelous first at Marvelous prime? Duran
Who had a bigger winning streak? Duran.
When Duran was washed up and finished, he beat someone bigger, stronger, taller and younger in and in his prime in Iran Barkley who beat Tommy Hearns twice.

When had Leonard beaten someone bigger, younger, taller and stronger than he and in his prime?

When?

And because Sugar Ray got these wins AT HIS WEIGHT CLASS is better than Duran?

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:20 No doubt McLarnin beat 5 great ones, but Leonard's biggest wins are all over all time greats. Like Duran and Hagler are both Top 20 all time kinda fighters, and Hearns is probably Top 50. Duran is Top 10 in my opinion.

Duran taking on Hagler first is commendable, and he gave Hagler a hell of a close fight too. No doubt Duran is a great fighter, and you're splitting hairs between him and Leonard.

Leonard and Hearns always were in the same weight class. Benitez was a Champion in the weight class when Leonard was an up and comer. You can't say he "came to Leonard", Leonard challenged him for HIS title. Benitez still had many big wins in his future so he was still on top of his game for that fight.

Let me be clear. I don't think it's outrageous to have Duran over Leonard on an all time P4P list, but the difference between them can't be more than a spot or 2 at worst, and if you're rating Duran over Leonard you're doing so strictly on the amount of fights he had, and the longevity of his career, because objectively Leonard's biggest achievements are bigger than Duran's.

You are using logic and common sense. Using things that we normally use when rating fighters.
Common opponents if applicable. Big advantage for Leonard.
Head-to-head if applicable. Favors Leonard
Who beat better opponents.
I would even through in who had less bad losses? Again Leonard.

But elmer is making excuses that most people don't use. Somehow, Leonard has the advantage when fighting Hagler.
He is also trying to confuse the debate with all this crap about Leonard getting breaks. total BS.

I agree that Duran had a longer career. and o what? If Leonard would have spent several years fighting tomato cans would that have meant that he was a better fighter? Of course not.

Let's say one baseball player played 10 years and hit 500 homeruns and another played 20 and hit 400. Who was the better homeruns hitter? The guy who only played 10 years but hit more homeruns.
i.e. Leonard was the better homerun hitter.

Leonard beat Duran. Leonard beat Duran. Aft.er that, it's clearly Leonard

Who is the 2nd best, third, fourth best guys Duran ever beat? Buchanan, Palomino, DeJesus.
By legendary fighter standards, it's not really that impressive.

Hagler was clearly better than Buchanan
Hearns was clearly better than Palomino
Benitez was clearly better than DeJesus

Leonard > Duran.
Leonard is a rock solid top 10.

It's also annoying when people diminish someone's accomplishment through hindsight.

Leonard beat Hagler because Hagler was old. Well...leading into the fight Leonard was making one of the biggest mistakes of his life, and everyone was in fear for his health because Hagler was gonna destroy him.

Similar to Pac vs De La Hoya. De La Hoya was believed to be too big, and too strong for Pacquiao until everyone saw it, and that wasn't the case.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 11:30

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:20 No doubt McLarnin beat 5 great ones, but Leonard's biggest wins are all over all time greats. Like Duran and Hagler are both Top 20 all time kinda fighters, and Hearns is probably Top 50. Duran is Top 10 in my opinion.

Duran taking on Hagler first is commendable, and he gave Hagler a hell of a close fight too. No doubt Duran is a great fighter, and you're splitting hairs between him and Leonard.

Leonard and Hearns always were in the same weight class. Benitez was a Champion in the weight class when Leonard was an up and comer. You can't say he "came to Leonard", Leonard challenged him for HIS title. Benitez still had many big wins in his future so he was still on top of his game for that fight.

Let me be clear. I don't think it's outrageous to have Duran over Leonard on an all time P4P list, but the difference between them can't be more than a spot or 2 at worst, and if you're rating Duran over Leonard you're doing so strictly on the amount of fights he had, and the longevity of his career, because objectively Leonard's biggest achievements are bigger than Duran's.

You are using logic and common sense. Using things that we normally use when rating fighters.
Common opponents if applicable. Big advantage for Leonard.
Head-to-head if applicable. Favors Leonard
Who beat better opponents.
I would even through in who had less bad losses? Again Leonard.

But elmer is making excuses that most people don't use. Somehow, Leonard has the advantage when fighting Hagler.
He is also trying to confuse the debate with all this crap about Leonard getting breaks. total BS.

I agree that Duran had a longer career. and o what? If Leonard would have spent several years fighting tomato cans would that have meant that he was a better fighter? Of course not.

Let's say one baseball player played 10 years and hit 500 homeruns and another played 20 and hit 400. Who was the better homeruns hitter? The guy who only played 10 years but hit more homeruns.
i.e. Leonard was the better homerun hitter.

Leonard beat Duran. Leonard beat Duran. Aft.er that, it's clearly Leonard

Who is the 2nd best, third, fourth best guys Duran ever beat? Buchanan, Palomino, DeJesus.
By legendary fighter standards, it's not really that impressive.

Hagler was clearly better than Buchanan
Hearns was clearly better than Palomino
Benitez was clearly better than DeJesus

Leonard > Duran.
Leonard is a rock solid top 10.

Leonard is not solid top 10. There are other fighters that deserve to be top ten better than Sugar Ray Leonard:

Archie Moore
Benny Leonard
Joe Gans
Bob Fitzsimmons
Tony Canzoneri
Carlos Monzon

They were all clearly better than Leonard. Because Sugar Ray beat 4 all-time pound per pound great boxers, now he is better than Roberto Duran?

Jimmy McLarnin beat 5 great ones. Why he is not better than Leonard for example? According to YOUR LOGIC AGAIN, McLarnin should be better than Leonard. He beat more all time greats than Leonard. He beat more hall of fame boxers. Why he is not solid top 10?

Battling Battalino beat 4 great ones in the top 100: Battalino beat Freddie Miller, Panama Al Brown, Kid Chocolate and Fidel La Barba. Why then Battalino is not top 10?

And the answer is, you just don't measure just by wins. There were other factors of greatness.

That logic of a player had a shorter career than the other does not fit the argument. Sandy Koufax is not better than Nolan Ryan. Koufax's career was too short. Jackie Robinson can't be better than Willie Mays. Robinson's career was too short compared to Mays.

Leonard's career should be measured overall. Not just 4 great wins.

Where was his longevity?
Where was his championship reign dominance? He couldn't help a title for more than a year.
Where are his title defenses? How many were they?
Where does he ranks in historical impact? Not above Duran's. Duran is considered as the greatest lightweight in history. Leonard? The best welterweight? Nope!

And Leonard should be top ten with only 40 fights? Let's not overrate him. Forty fights don't cut it.

Worse is that, he only fought 7 times in the last 15 years? Do we have to admire that?

You the English men, do you see my point?
Dear Americans, do you see my point?

This is ridiculous! Archie Moore in 15 years made about 70 fights. And he is not better than Leonard because he didn't beat 4 great ones? What kind of justice is that for Archie Moore?

No, Ambling Alp. No Gilgamesh. Forty fights don't cut top ten. Seven fights in his last 15 years don't cut the top 10 either. That would be UNFAIR for other deserving fighters.

No everyone thinks you are nuts.
Longevity by itself doesn't mean anything. It's what you actually do that counts. Yes Duran and others beat more tomato cans; guys that Leonard would never have lost to.
Monzon beat Griffith, Benvenuti. Napoles trying to move up. Pretty impressive. Not as good as what Leonard did. Neither did Gans, Benny Leonard, and the others. Moore, McLarnin, Battalino had some big wins but too many losses.

Plus, remember you have stated that guys fighting 80 ago had primitive skills. So you can't count Gans, Benny Leonard, McLarnin, and Battalino. Unless you are going to change your criteria for the one millionth time.

And Sandy Koufax was certainly better than Nolan Ryan. Thank you for that example.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 21:07 No everyone thinks you are nuts.
Longevity by itself doesn't mean anything. It's what you actually do that counts. Yes Duran and others beat more tomato cans; guys that Leonard would never have lost to.
Monzon beat Griffith, Benvenuti. Napoles trying to move up. Pretty impressive. Not as good as what Leonard did. Neither did Gans, Benny Leonard, and the others. Moore, McLarnin, Battalino had some big wins but too many losses.

Plus, remember you have stated that guys fighting 80 ago had primitive skills. So you can't count Gans, Benny Leonard, McLarnin, and Battalino. Unless you are going to change your criteria for the one millionth time.

And Sandy Koufax was certainly better than Nolan Ryan. Thank you for that example.

Joe Gans and Bob Fitzsimmons were definitely too old and primitive for the more modern Sugar Ray Leonard

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 18:04

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 11:30

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:20 No doubt McLarnin beat 5 great ones, but Leonard's biggest wins are all over all time greats. Like Duran and Hagler are both Top 20 all time kinda fighters, and Hearns is probably Top 50. Duran is Top 10 in my opinion.

Duran taking on Hagler first is commendable, and he gave Hagler a hell of a close fight too. No doubt Duran is a great fighter, and you're splitting hairs between him and Leonard.

Leonard and Hearns always were in the same weight class. Benitez was a Champion in the weight class when Leonard was an up and comer. You can't say he "came to Leonard", Leonard challenged him for HIS title. Benitez still had many big wins in his future so he was still on top of his game for that fight.

Let me be clear. I don't think it's outrageous to have Duran over Leonard on an all time P4P list, but the difference between them can't be more than a spot or 2 at worst, and if you're rating Duran over Leonard you're doing so strictly on the amount of fights he had, and the longevity of his career, because objectively Leonard's biggest achievements are bigger than Duran's.

You are using logic and common sense. Using things that we normally use when rating fighters.
Common opponents if applicable. Big advantage for Leonard.
Head-to-head if applicable. Favors Leonard
Who beat better opponents.
I would even through in who had less bad losses? Again Leonard.

But elmer is making excuses that most people don't use. Somehow, Leonard has the advantage when fighting Hagler.
He is also trying to confuse the debate with all this crap about Leonard getting breaks. total BS.

I agree that Duran had a longer career. and o what? If Leonard would have spent several years fighting tomato cans would that have meant that he was a better fighter? Of course not.

Let's say one baseball player played 10 years and hit 500 homeruns and another played 20 and hit 400. Who was the better homeruns hitter? The guy who only played 10 years but hit more homeruns.
i.e. Leonard was the better homerun hitter.

Leonard beat Duran. Leonard beat Duran. Aft.er that, it's clearly Leonard

Who is the 2nd best, third, fourth best guys Duran ever beat? Buchanan, Palomino, DeJesus.
By legendary fighter standards, it's not really that impressive.

Hagler was clearly better than Buchanan
Hearns was clearly better than Palomino
Benitez was clearly better than DeJesus

Leonard > Duran.
Leonard is a rock solid top 10.

Leonard is not solid top 10. There are other fighters that deserve to be top ten better than Sugar Ray Leonard:

Archie Moore
Benny Leonard
Joe Gans
Bob Fitzsimmons
Tony Canzoneri
Carlos Monzon

They were all clearly better than Leonard. Because Sugar Ray beat 4 all-time pound per pound great boxers, now he is better than Roberto Duran?

Jimmy McLarnin beat 5 great ones. Why he is not better than Leonard for example? According to YOUR LOGIC AGAIN, McLarnin should be better than Leonard. He beat more all time greats than Leonard. He beat more hall of fame boxers. Why he is not solid top 10?

Battling Battalino beat 4 great ones in the top 100: Battalino beat Freddie Miller, Panama Al Brown, Kid Chocolate and Fidel La Barba. Why then Battalino is not top 10?

And the answer is, you just don't measure just by wins. There were other factors of greatness.

That logic of a player had a shorter career than the other does not fit the argument. Sandy Koufax is not better than Nolan Ryan. Koufax's career was too short. Jackie Robinson can't be better than Willie Mays. Robinson's career was too short compared to Mays.

Leonard's career should be measured overall. Not just 4 great wins.

Where was his longevity?
Where was his championship reign dominance? He couldn't help a title for more than a year.
Where are his title defenses? How many were they?
Where does he ranks in historical impact? Not above Duran's. Duran is considered as the greatest lightweight in history. Leonard? The best welterweight? Nope!

And Leonard should be top ten with only 40 fights? Let's not overrate him. Forty fights don't cut it.

Worse is that, he only fought 7 times in the last 15 years? Do we have to admire that?

You the English men, do you see my point?
Dear Americans, do you see my point?

This is ridiculous! Archie Moore in 15 years made about 70 fights. And he is not better than Leonard because he didn't beat 4 great ones? What kind of justice is that for Archie Moore?

No, Ambling Alp. No Gilgamesh. Forty fights don't cut top ten. Seven fights in his last 15 years don't cut the top 10 either. That would be UNFAIR for other deserving fighters.

elmer, do you not think there's a chance that you're biased towards Duran?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 04:32

elmersalsa wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 18:04

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 11:30
You are using logic and common sense. Using things that we normally use when rating fighters.
Common opponents if applicable. Big advantage for Leonard.
Head-to-head if applicable. Favors Leonard
Who beat better opponents.
I would even through in who had less bad losses? Again Leonard.

But elmer is making excuses that most people don't use. Somehow, Leonard has the advantage when fighting Hagler.
He is also trying to confuse the debate with all this crap about Leonard getting breaks. total BS.

I agree that Duran had a longer career. and o what? If Leonard would have spent several years fighting tomato cans would that have meant that he was a better fighter? Of course not.

Let's say one baseball player played 10 years and hit 500 homeruns and another played 20 and hit 400. Who was the better homeruns hitter? The guy who only played 10 years but hit more homeruns.
i.e. Leonard was the better homerun hitter.

Leonard beat Duran. Leonard beat Duran. Aft.er that, it's clearly Leonard

Who is the 2nd best, third, fourth best guys Duran ever beat? Buchanan, Palomino, DeJesus.
By legendary fighter standards, it's not really that impressive.

Hagler was clearly better than Buchanan
Hearns was clearly better than Palomino
Benitez was clearly better than DeJesus

Leonard > Duran.
Leonard is a rock solid top 10.

Leonard is not solid top 10. There are other fighters that deserve to be top ten better than Sugar Ray Leonard:

Archie Moore
Benny Leonard
Joe Gans
Bob Fitzsimmons
Tony Canzoneri
Carlos Monzon

They were all clearly better than Leonard. Because Sugar Ray beat 4 all-time pound per pound great boxers, now he is better than Roberto Duran?

Jimmy McLarnin beat 5 great ones. Why he is not better than Leonard for example? According to YOUR LOGIC AGAIN, McLarnin should be better than Leonard. He beat more all time greats than Leonard. He beat more hall of fame boxers. Why he is not solid top 10?

Battling Battalino beat 4 great ones in the top 100: Battalino beat Freddie Miller, Panama Al Brown, Kid Chocolate and Fidel La Barba. Why then Battalino is not top 10?

And the answer is, you just don't measure just by wins. There were other factors of greatness.

That logic of a player had a shorter career than the other does not fit the argument. Sandy Koufax is not better than Nolan Ryan. Koufax's career was too short. Jackie Robinson can't be better than Willie Mays. Robinson's career was too short compared to Mays.

Leonard's career should be measured overall. Not just 4 great wins.

Where was his longevity?
Where was his championship reign dominance? He couldn't help a title for more than a year.
Where are his title defenses? How many were they?
Where does he ranks in historical impact? Not above Duran's. Duran is considered as the greatest lightweight in history. Leonard? The best welterweight? Nope!

And Leonard should be top ten with only 40 fights? Let's not overrate him. Forty fights don't cut it.

Worse is that, he only fought 7 times in the last 15 years? Do we have to admire that?

You the English men, do you see my point?
Dear Americans, do you see my point?

This is ridiculous! Archie Moore in 15 years made about 70 fights. And he is not better than Leonard because he didn't beat 4 great ones? What kind of justice is that for Archie Moore?

No, Ambling Alp. No Gilgamesh. Forty fights don't cut top ten. Seven fights in his last 15 years don't cut the top 10 either. That would be UNFAIR for other deserving fighters.

elmer, do you not think there's a chance that you're biased towards Duran?

Oh, so I got to be biased? Why don't you ask the same question to Ambling Alp as being biased with Sugar Ray Leonard?

Why I got to be the biased one?


He, Ambling Alp, claims that because Leonard beat 4 great ones, he should be top ten. And I am saying that you don't rate fighters by only that criteria.

There are other factors to greatness.

Sugar Ray Leonard only fought 7 times in his last 15 years as a boxer. Only 7 times! That's not good at all. The consistency was not there.

Archie Moore fought 50 times of that in 15 years. He is not top 10. But, he was clearly better than Leonard. Take Leonard's 4 great wins and what does he have? Nothing.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 00:59

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 21:07 No everyone thinks you are nuts.
Longevity by itself doesn't mean anything. It's what you actually do that counts. Yes Duran and others beat more tomato cans; guys that Leonard would never have lost to.
Monzon beat Griffith, Benvenuti. Napoles trying to move up. Pretty impressive. Not as good as what Leonard did. Neither did Gans, Benny Leonard, and the others. Moore, McLarnin, Battalino had some big wins but too many losses.

Plus, remember you have stated that guys fighting 80 ago had primitive skills. So you can't count Gans, Benny Leonard, McLarnin, and Battalino. Unless you are going to change your criteria for the one millionth time.

And Sandy Koufax was certainly better than Nolan Ryan. Thank you for that example.

Joe Gans and Bob Fitzsimmons were definitely too old and primitive for the more modern Sugar Ray Leonard

Is that a stupid comment on your part?

Joe Gans and Bob Fitzsimmons, historically, were greater than Sugar Ray Leonard. Having primitive skills doesn't mean that you can't be great.

As a matter of fact, they got more longevity, more accomplishments and longer winning streaks than Leonard.

Bob Fitzsimmons was the first Middleweight to win the Heavyweight crown. That feat alone is way better than anything that Leonard did.

Also, Fitzsimmons was the first triple crown boxing world champion. That is a great historical achievement when the sport only had 8 divisions. If Leonard is top 10, why not Fitzsimmons?

Joe Gans was the first Black American boxer to win a world championship. Had over 170 fights. He didn't beat 4 great ones like Leonard. But, look at his winning streaks and durability. He beat the very best of his era. He lost to the great Sam Langford, who was bigger than he. No shame on that. And he also drew with the great Barbados Joe Walcott. Many of his fights were 20 rounds. To sustain that type of durability in boxing is incredible. He was better than Leonard, too.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 11:36

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 00:59

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 21:07 No everyone thinks you are nuts.
Longevity by itself doesn't mean anything. It's what you actually do that counts. Yes Duran and others beat more tomato cans; guys that Leonard would never have lost to.
Monzon beat Griffith, Benvenuti. Napoles trying to move up. Pretty impressive. Not as good as what Leonard did. Neither did Gans, Benny Leonard, and the others. Moore, McLarnin, Battalino had some big wins but too many losses.

Plus, remember you have stated that guys fighting 80 ago had primitive skills. So you can't count Gans, Benny Leonard, McLarnin, and Battalino. Unless you are going to change your criteria for the one millionth time.

And Sandy Koufax was certainly better than Nolan Ryan. Thank you for that example.

Joe Gans and Bob Fitzsimmons were definitely too old and primitive for the more modern Sugar Ray Leonard

Is that a stupid comment on your part?

Joe Gans and Bob Fitzsimmons, historically, were greater than Sugar Ray Leonard. Having primitive skills doesn't mean that you can't be great.

As a matter of fact, they got more longevity, more accomplishments and longer winning streaks than Leonard.

Bob Fitzsimmons was the first Middleweight to win the Heavyweight crown. That feat alone is way better than anything that Leonard did.

Also, Fitzsimmons was the first triple crown boxing world champion. That is a great historical achievement when the sport only had 8 divisions. If Leonard is top 10, why not Fitzsimmons?

Joe Gans was the first Black American boxer to win a world championship. Had over 170 fights. He didn't beat 4 great ones like Leonard. But, look at his winning streaks and durability. He beat the very best of his era. He lost to the great Sam Langford, who was bigger than he. No shame on that. And he also drew with the great Barbados Joe Walcott. Many of his fights were 20 rounds. To sustain that type of durability in boxing is incredible. He was better than Leonard, too.

So when you're in favor of the Older fighter your argument completely flip flops?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 21:07 No everyone thinks you are nuts.
Longevity by itself doesn't mean anything. It's what you actually do that counts. Yes Duran and others beat more tomato cans; guys that Leonard would never have lost to.
Monzon beat Griffith, Benvenuti. Napoles trying to move up. Pretty impressive. Not as good as what Leonard did. Neither did Gans, Benny Leonard, and the others. Moore, McLarnin, Battalino had some big wins but too many losses.

Plus, remember you have stated that guys fighting 80 ago had primitive skills. So you can't count Gans, Benny Leonard, McLarnin, and Battalino. Unless you are going to change your criteria for the one millionth time.

And Sandy Koufax was certainly better than Nolan Ryan. Thank you for that example.

First, make a list of the people in this forum who thinks that I am nuts in this subject. I think that you are nuts.

And let the people say, why they think that I am nuts when I am clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, is giving the information.

You will surprised how many people you got on your corner.

Second, longevity means something. And that is in every sport. I am talking the longevity that any sportsman could do for a very long period of time. That could sustain greatness for a long period of time.

Sugar Ray Leonard, as great as he was, didn't had longevity. Didn't had the durability to sustain greatness for a long period of time. Roberto Duran did. Muhammad Ali did. Ezzard Charles did. Even Joe Louis.

Not only in boxing. Pele in football had a long career and sustained greatness for a long period of time. So, did Lionel Messi. So did Cristiano Ronaldo.

Just like in the NBA. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Jabbar sustained greatness for a long period of time. So did LeBron James. So did Michael Jordan. So did Larry Bird. So did Magic, Kobe, or any great athletic sportsman.

Third, I have never said that a person with limited skills or that is primitive in skills cannot be great. That came out of your stupid mouth. All I have said that guys with those primitive skills like Tony Zale could not beat a guy that was as great as Mike McCallum.

Joe Louis as great that he was, cannot win today with those primitive skills now. Heavyweights today are way much bigger, stronger, taller, better nutrition supplements, better conditioned according to science, and talented. They may not be as talented as Ali or Riddick Bowe or Larry Holmes, but they were much more talented than the Primo Carneras, Abe Simons and Buddy Baers of the world. I could tell you that.

Louis is #2 ranked at heavyweight and top 10 in pound per pound all-time not because of only talent. He is there because of accomplishments, historical impact and world records that has not being broken.


Let the rest of this forum read that and see if I am nuts. Let the boxrec posters decide.


Ah, Nolan Ryan was better than Sandy Koufax. You cannot see no one today with 7 no-hitters and with more than 5,000 strikeouts.

But, the silly thing was, you never mentioned Jackie Robinson compared to Willie Mays.

How great you can move the posts. It's laughable.

Maybe not full blown nuts, but you're most certainly a Hypocrite on how you rate boxers. Your criteria changes for each fighter.

My response that Gans and Fitzsimmons were "too primitive for Leonard" was me being a smartass, and mocking your logic.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 11:44

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 11:36

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 00:59

Joe Gans and Bob Fitzsimmons were definitely too old and primitive for the more modern Sugar Ray Leonard

Is that a stupid comment on your part?

Joe Gans and Bob Fitzsimmons, historically, were greater than Sugar Ray Leonard. Having primitive skills doesn't mean that you can't be great.

As a matter of fact, they got more longevity, more accomplishments and longer winning streaks than Leonard.

Bob Fitzsimmons was the first Middleweight to win the Heavyweight crown. That feat alone is way better than anything that Leonard did.

Also, Fitzsimmons was the first triple crown boxing world champion. That is a great historical achievement when the sport only had 8 divisions. If Leonard is top 10, why not Fitzsimmons?

Joe Gans was the first Black American boxer to win a world championship. Had over 170 fights. He didn't beat 4 great ones like Leonard. But, look at his winning streaks and durability. He beat the very best of his era. He lost to the great Sam Langford, who was bigger than he. No shame on that. And he also drew with the great Barbados Joe Walcott. Many of his fights were 20 rounds. To sustain that type of durability in boxing is incredible. He was better than Leonard, too.

So when you're in favor of the Older fighter your argument completely flip flops?

I guess that you are missing the point. Study Joe Gans. Study Bob Fitzsimmons. Make a highlight of their accomplishments. You will be surprised that not only you beat great boxers, but also do things unheard of in boxing.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 12:17 Maybe not full blown nuts, but you're most certainly a Hypocrite on how you rate boxers. Your criteria changes for each fighter.

My response that Gans and Fitzsimmons were "too primitive for Leonard" was me being a smartass, and mocking your logic.

As I have said before. Joe Louis technical skills, for today's boxing standards in fighting were primitive. That doesn't mean that the guy was great. You're intelligent. You're smart. I think that the hypocrisy comes from your part.

Joe Louis, as great that he was, can't compete in today's heavyweight game. Too small. And his chin was very questionable. I don't care how talented you are, you are not beating these giants with those primitive skills.

When it comes to boxing accomplishments, then Louis was way better than today's giants. But, in a fight with an Anthony Joshua, for example, he will be thrown out of the ring and counted out to 1000.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 11:21 Oh, so I got to be biased?

It's not a competition. Duran's your favourite boxer ever and here you find yourself in a disagreement where pretty much everyone else doesn't share your opinion. That should tell you something.

Stanley Ketchel is my favourite fighter ever. I rate him in the top 3 middleweights ever. I know I'm biased, because unless Nat Fleischer rises from the dead, I'm the only person who thinks that. I admit, I'm biased.

Are you too old and stubborn to admit your own bias?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 12:36

elmersalsa wrote: ↑24 May 2025, 11:21 Oh, so I got to be biased?

It's not a competition. Duran's your favourite boxer ever and here you find yourself in a disagreement where pretty much everyone else doesn't share your opinion. That should tell you something.

Stanley Ketchel is my favourite fighter ever. I rate him in the top 3 middleweights ever. I know I'm biased, because unless Nat Fleischer rises from the dead, I'm the only person who thinks that. I admit, I'm biased.

Are you too old and stubborn to admit your own bias?

First, not everybody disagreed with me. That is a lie. Only you and two more people disagree with me. Three people doesn't make THE MAJORITY.

IF I AM BIASED, why don't you ask Ambling Alp the same question?

I am not a biased fan of the great Roberto Duran. He had his flaws like any human being. For example, he wasn't a good sportsman like Sugar Ray Leonard. He never gave credit to the opposition when he lost.

But, if we are talking about one of the most INCREDIBLE, COMPLETE and AMAZING fighter of the last 60 years, I got to give it to the Hands of Stone. It just happened that he was my favorite fighter like Sugar Ray Leonard.

I got to be just in ranking fighters. If I were biased, then Duran should have been #1 of all-time pound per pound in my book. He isn't and he wasn't. And he will never be in my mind, the best fighter pound per pound ever. That belongs to the great Henry Armstrong.


But, Sugar Ray Leonard?
Was he great? Yes
Talented? Yes
Complete boxer? Yes
Could he beat Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight? Absolutely. I will put my money on Leonard at 147lbs. But, at middleweight, it's a different story. Robinson wins in my estimation. He was the stronger fighter at that weight.

Is Leonard top 10? No way! He had only 7 fights in the last 15 years of his career. That means that his longevity and durability was questionable. He is at least top 20. He beat 4 all-time pound per pound great boxers. But, that's it. Take those 4 wins, and what he got? Nothing.

Of those 4 great wins, 2 were dubious. And most of those great wins were at his weight class. He didn't go to their weight classes. They came to his.