BoxRec

You're making excuses, elmer. Leonard probably thought he had his own reasons for not giving rematches too. He didn't fight Hearns again for a long time, for example, but he had the excuse that it was his eye. He didn't fight Duran again for a long time, but maybe that's because of how Duran fought in the second fight.

All you're doing is confirming my point. You don't automatically have to give a belt holder a rematch. And everyone can have their reasons for not giving them.

Leonard as a top 4 or 5 Welterweight is fine. But I believe that the argument for him at #3 is possible, because of who he beat. I'm not arguing where he should be, I'm arguing that the number of fights he had does not in and of itself exclude him.

Elton John wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote: Some thought Benitez beat Hearns, actually.

Dumb post.

I've also heard it said some people thought Duran beat Wilfred. We can all say what we want - doesn't mean others believe it, the same problem faced by all liars.

Liars like yourself who distort everything Leonard did?

I thought Hearns won the fight with Benitez, by the way.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Because he was great and flashy. He had style and substance. He was also a bit of a pretty boy, and many males (fight fans or otherwise) simply don't like the idea of somebody who can attract more women with their looks AND kick their ass too. That's much of my theory anyway, along with the fact that he beat 3 of the most feared fighters/brawlers/punchers ever in Duran, Hearns, and Hagler, who I would imagine more hardcore fans cling to because they were simply tough fighters and that was it, they didn't have movie star looks or especially flashy styles.

Sounds like another boxer

Because he was great and flashy. He had style and substance. He was also a bit of a pretty boy, and many males (fight fans or otherwise) simply don't like the idea of somebody who can attract more women with their looks AND kick their ass too. That's much of my theory anyway, along with the fact that he beat 3 of the most feared fighters/brawlers/punchers ever in Liston, Frazier , and Foreman, beating the last fella when he was presumably over the hill, who I would imagine more hardcore fans cling to because they were simply tough fighters and that was it, they didn't have movie star looks or especially flashy styles.

This may be the reason for some... But here's a different take on it...

Guys with the looks, the charm, the tassles on their boots are very popular. They appeal to non-boxing fans. They are the draw. They are the money. With no real governing body (not with any teeth anyway) these popular fighters are the sport for the times in which they fight.

This often gives them a disproportionate amount of power. This then seems unfair and takes away even the pretense of a level playing field.

If Norton, Young and Shavers had the fan base or appeal of Ali they'd have probably got those close decisions (whether they deserved them or not).

Leonard got his immediate rematch. Hearns didn't. Leonard also got his 2 titles for 1 fight against Lalonde.

Of course you don't have to have the looks. It's the popularity that counts. So reverse the Chavez-Taylor situation and would the fight have been stopped (this has nothing to do whetehr you think the stoppage correct or not)?

Ezzard wrote:This may be the reason for some... But here's a different take on it...

Guys with the looks, the charm, the tassles on their boots are very popular. They appeal to non-boxing fans. They are the draw. They are the money. With no real governing body (not with any teeth anyway) these popular fighters are the sport for the times in which they fight.

This often gives them a disproportionate amount of power. This then seems unfair and takes away even the pretense of a level playing field.

If Norton, Young and Shavers had the fan base or appeal of Ali they'd have probably got those close decisions (whether they deserved them or not).

Leonard got his immediate rematch. Hearns didn't. Leonard also got his 2 titles for 1 fight against Lalonde.

Of course you don't have to have the looks. It's the popularity that counts. So reverse the Chavez-Taylor situation and would the fight have been stopped (this has nothing to do whetehr you think the stoppage correct or not)?

This is the argument that is used against three of the most charismatic boxers of the modern era, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard , and The Golden Boy, Oscar De La Hoya...But if they couldn't fight lights out and didn't fight all comers they would have been exposed...Style without substance can not indefinitely be sustained...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:This may be the reason for some... But here's a different take on it...

Guys with the looks, the charm, the tassles on their boots are very popular. They appeal to non-boxing fans. They are the draw. They are the money. With no real governing body (not with any teeth anyway) these popular fighters are the sport for the times in which they fight.

This often gives them a disproportionate amount of power. This then seems unfair and takes away even the pretense of a level playing field.

If Norton, Young and Shavers had the fan base or appeal of Ali they'd have probably got those close decisions (whether they deserved them or not).

Leonard got his immediate rematch. Hearns didn't. Leonard also got his 2 titles for 1 fight against Lalonde.

Of course you don't have to have the looks. It's the popularity that counts. So reverse the Chavez-Taylor situation and would the fight have been stopped (this has nothing to do whetehr you think the stoppage correct or not)?

This is the argument that is used against three of the most charismatic boxers of the modern era, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard , and The Golden Boy, Oscar De La Hoya...But if they couldn't fight lights out and didn't fight all comers they would have been exposed...Style without substance can not indefinitely be sustained...

Agree 100% When that happens you get the Gerry Cooney situation. I actually think Cooney was a decent contender. Could have given anyone a test, but all that adulation without the talent made it hard for him psychologically IMO.

Ezzard wrote:This may be the reason for some... But here's a different take on it...

Guys with the looks, the charm, the tassles on their boots are very popular. They appeal to non-boxing fans. They are the draw. They are the money. With no real governing body (not with any teeth anyway) these popular fighters are the sport for the times in which they fight.

This often gives them a disproportionate amount of power. This then seems unfair and takes away even the pretense of a level playing field.

If Norton, Young and Shavers had the fan base or appeal of Ali they'd have probably got those close decisions (whether they deserved them or not).

Leonard got his immediate rematch. Hearns didn't. Leonard also got his 2 titles for 1 fight against Lalonde.

Of course you don't have to have the looks. It's the popularity that counts. So reverse the Chavez-Taylor situation and would the fight have been stopped (this has nothing to do whetehr you think the stoppage correct or not)?

It's no secret that in boxing that sometimes that the "big names" get the breaks. (Of course this happens in other sports as well.)

However not all of the time.
Consider Ali:
-Got stripped of the WBA title in 1965 for no legitimate reason.
-In 1966, was snubbed by Ring Magazine for Fighter of the Year when he was the clear choice. (They didn't name a winner that year.)
-In 1967, got stripped of his title again later and lost his license.
-1971 lost a decision to Frazier
-1972 fight with Quarry. Quarry immediatley grabbed Ali and lifted him up. No penalty for Quarry. If the situation was reversed, we would be hearing constantly how the referee favored Ali.
-1973 lost a decision to Norton
-1974 ,2nd fight with Frazier. Ali has Frazier hurt in the 2nd round but the referee somehow thinks he heard the bell ring (it hadn't) and jumps and breaks up the fighters.
If the situation was reversed and the referre had saved Ali like that, you would hear about that on this Forum on a daily basis.
-1978 lost a decision to Spinks
-1981 lost a decision to Berbick

Btw-After Ali beat Shavers in 1977, there was little outcry of a bad decision. There still hasn't been outside of this Forum.

I'm not arguing that ali should have got the decisions, just pointing out that he did lose some.
The other points just show that Ali didn't always get the breaks. He got screwed more than his share of times.

As for Leonard;
"Leonard got his immediate rematch. Hearns didn't."

Again with the rematch BS? Come on.

If Hearns wouldn't have moved up to Jr Middleweight immediately, he would have got a rematch, there is no question about that. No one was screaming that Leonard was ducking Hearns after beating him once. You don't get a rematch by moving out of the weight class. If anything, you can argue that Hearns was ducking Leonard.

The 60s Ali wasn't the money making machine at that point.

Ali lost to Fraizer because he was beaten fair and square...
Same for Norton, Spinks and Berbick.
Shavers... Well, my point was not the one you are jumping in on. My point is that a close verdict will more than likely go to the money maker... As an unrelated aside I scored the fight for Shavers but seeings as Ali had him out on his feet at the end. In a remarkable comeback by Ali I don't think that much of it.

That leaves you with 2 points to make 72 Quarry and 74 Frazier... Both are legitimate (though I think you've had to dig deep for the Quarry example). Frazier 74 is a fair comment.

The rematches are not BS. Hearns asks for a rematch immediately after the fight. Leonard declines. In an interview in 1987 with McIlvanney Leonard states he doesn't grant rematches.

Again, nobody is saying the word 'ducking' other than you. It's a shame your mind is closed on these issues. If you were to conceed that sometimes Leonard acted in a way that was less than spotless, or that he was the one holding all the finacial cards, then your defence of him would get my support.

Now I'm back to being cast as some kind of anti-boxing fan because I'm prepared to criticise a great fighter. This doesn't have to be a black and white, yes or no, subject...

-Ali wasn't a money making machine by 1966 when he got ripped off of the Fighter of The Year award? By 1967 when they stripped his title again and took away his boxing license? Who was a bigger draw than him?
-As I said, I am not criticizing the decisons in the first Frazier,Norton,Spinks fights and the Berbick fights. I'm just pointing out that he didn't always get a break just because of his name.

In his entire career, he really only had two controversial decisions go his way. (The 3rd Norton and fight and the Young fight.) In both cases you can at least make a case that he won. In both cases he was past his best and the losses wouldn't have hurt his legacy very much anyway. Virtually any other big name fighter has these break go for them well.
Why do we so rarely talk about them as compared to Ali?

-The rematches are BS. so what if Hearns said that he wanted to fight Leonard again? Means absolutley nothing. Talk is cheap. What did Hearns actually do? He was fighting at Jr Middleweight less than 3 months after the Leonard fight. He never fought at 147 again.

If Hearns would have stayed at 147, he would have got a rematch against Leonard in 1982. Hearns would have been the #1 challenger. Even if Leonard didn't want to fight him, he would have had to within a year or his title would have stripped.

Hearns had to have known that if he would have stayed at 147 he would have got a rematch.

You aren't using the word ducking but that is really what you are saying. If a guy won't give a rematch to someone who deserves it, it's ducking.
I'm not being closed minded. There a legitimate criticisms of Ali and Leonard that I do accept. However I'm not going to accept the BS criticisms that other fighters don't get in similar situations.

Leonard held all of the financial cards? Well your right he was the biggest draw. However it was in his own best financial interest to fight the best (Benitez,Hearns,Duran, Hagler) and he did.

Did he always act spotless? No. However neither did Benitez,Hearns,Duran, Hagler or anyone else.


I am casting you as an anti-boxing fan? How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
I know that you are a boxing fan and more knowledgable than most. However when it comes to Ali and Leonard you seem to throw out the logic that you usually use for others. (any excuse will do for why there was no Duran-Hearns II, Hearns-Hagler II, Duran-Hagler II, Benitez-Hearns II, Benitez-Duran II etc. )

Why do I have to keep bringing up the obvious? Despite missing almost 5 years of his prime, Leonard still had more fights involving Duran,Hearns,Hagler,Benitez, and himself than any of the other four. Yet it's always Leonard getting ripped for not fighting so and so.

It's fine that you are willing to criticize a fighter. No fighter was perfect and even the best deserve some criticism. However it should be for a legitimate reason. You also shouldn't single out Leonard and Ali so much. It's ridiculaus.

How about criticizing Willie Pep, Barney Ross,Joe Louis, Sam Langford,Ezzard Charles etc. once in a while? It shouldn't be Ali and Leonard over and over and over.

In his entire career, he really only had two controversial decisions go his way. (The 3rd Norton and fight and the Young fight.) In both cases you can at least make a case that he won. In both cases he was past his best and the losses wouldn't have hurt his legacy very much anyway. Virtually any other big name fighter has these break go for them well.
Why do we so rarely talk about them as compared to Ali?

Thank you...

Ken Norton was at ringside doing commentary for the Ali-Young fight...Even he questioned if Young did enough to beat the champ... That fight was scored by points and not by rounds so Young could have lost two points each time he stuck his head out the ring to avoid punsishment...Plus, Ali was ridiculously out of shape and past his prime...I think Ali could have been in better shape in his post Manilla career....The only time he showed up in excellent shape was for Spinks Two but by then he was too old as a boxer to take advantage of the shape he was in...

There were a panel of experts assembled on The Wide World Of Sports to score Ali-Norton lll round by round...Even they called it a draw and a draw as we all know goes to the champion...

BTW- What was the point of Quarry lifting Ali up? No disrepect to a dead man but what was he thinking? Did he think he would intimidate Ali?

Oh, and a 236 1/2 pound Ali looked sad against Berbick but at least he went out on his feet...

He must have been cash strapped to take his last two fights; f-ing leeches that surrounded him....

Elton John wrote:Your name is Kym? It's no wonder you taken a liking to him. Me? I'm a man and know that you should never put a boy in battle with a man. Unless it's a real old man.

You are not a man ...I have deemed you DameEltonJohn, my internet girlfriend...You are here to serve at my command, my beck and call if you will...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Elton John wrote:Your name is Kym? It's no wonder you taken a liking to him. Me? I'm a man and know that you should never put a boy in battle with a man. Unless it's a real old man.

You are not a man ...I have deemed you DameEltonJohn, my internet girlfriend...You are here to serve at my command, my beck and call if you will...

Not likely. I am Sir Elton John, most powerful man on the internet. :P