BoxRec

Posted: **29 Nov 2017, 12:10**

Against my better judgement, I am going to respond to you.

First Benitez would not have to be an ATG great welterweight to make Leonard the best welterweight at the time. You don't necessary have to beat an ATG to be the best at the time. Marvin Haler beat Alan Minter for the middleweight title. I can come up with dozens of other examples and I would hope you could as well.

Second, Benitez is not considered an ATG welterweight only because he didn't stay there for a long time. Like many fighters in the lower weight classes, he didn't stay in one weight class for long. He won a world title in the weight below welter, then welter, then Jr. Middleweight. He was an ATG fighter.

Duran was an ATG fighter as well. He too went on to win title at even higher weight classes than welter.

At the time that Leonard fought Duran and Benitez, (and Hearns for that matter) they were better welterweights than Beau Jack, Ike Williams, Baby Arizmendi, and Pedro Montanez were at welter.
And of course much better than people like Billy Backus, Benny Paret, Gene Burton and Buster Tyler.

Posted: **29 Nov 2017, 15:23**

True... Leonard was the best Welterweight in the World at the time he beat Benitez... He wasn't the greatest 147-pounder of all time... He was good enough to stop Benitez, Duran, and Hearns -- among others.. He was never the best Middleweight in the world.. but he was smart enough to know Hagler was terribly overrated and ripe for the plucking.. SRL was a genius for selecting opponents and fighting them at the right time.

He knew if Mugabi was able to hit Hagler with big, slow, loaded swings -- he could tag Marvin up with flurries of sharp punches -- coming from every angle.. He closed most rounds with a hard flurry and put them in the bank.

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 03:51**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Nov 2017, 12:10 Against my better judgement, I am going to respond to you.

First Benitez would not have to be an ATG great welterweight to make Leonard the best welterweight at the time. You don't necessary have to beat an ATG to be the best at the time. Marvin Haler beat Alan Minter for the middleweight title. I can come up with dozens of other examples and I would hope you could as well.

Second, Benitez is not considered an ATG welterweight only because he didn't stay there for a long time. Like many fighters in the lower weight classes, he didn't stay in one weight class for long. He won a world title in the weight below welter, then welter, then Jr. Middleweight. He was an ATG fighter.

Duran was an ATG fighter as well. He too went on to win title at even higher weight classes than welter.

At the time that Leonard fought Duran and Benitez, (and Hearns for that matter) they were better welterweights than Beau Jack, Ike Williams, Baby Arizmendi, and Pedro Montanez were at welter.
And of course much better than people like Billy Backus, Benny Paret, Gene Burton and Buster Tyler.

So why Leonard ain't better than Robinson at 147lbs? Leonard beat better fighters according to your logic. Ain't he should be#1?

Or is it that the ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT GREAT he beat was the great Tommy Hearns?

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 03:52**

I don't think Benitez's greatness is beyond question. Why should he be considered an all-time great? When Benitez came up against his best contemporaries (guys like Hearns and Leonard) he was beaten fairly easily without any struggle or controversy. Donald Curry is generally not considered a great fighter but he probably would be favored to beat anyone Benitez defeated.

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 03:56**

Benitez also fought in an era with multiple titles where someone could easily win belts at multiple weights without ever being the best at any weight at which he fought.

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 04:28**

Kalan wrote: ↑28 Nov 2017, 20:05 Robinson and Armstrong don't deserve to be ranked anywhere close to the top.

Who's the best boxer-puncher Robinson ever fought??? Archie Moore fought Ezzard Charles, Charlie Burley, Muhammad Ali, Floyd Patterson, Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams, Harold Johnson, Teddy Yarosz and other skilled guys.. Moore defeated and Robinson lost to Joey Maxim---a very soft puncher and mediocre technician.. SRR beat nobody who was highly skilled.

Who's the best boxer-puncher Armstrong ever fought??? The best he fought were Beau Jack and Ray Robinson. He looked horseshitt against both.. What I saw was a guy who fouled 10 times a minute and needed to wear a glove on his head and pads on his forearms. He got away with murder.

Well, you got a point about the great Sugar Ray Robinson. Many of his opponents weren't highly skilled, but they were tough, very tough performers. The great Kid Gavilan was skilled. Not too many people at the time he fought Gavilan believed he really won both fights.

But is the volume of fights and consistency that you gotta give him his due. At one point, Robinson was 131-1-1? How many boxers have an unbelievable stretch like that?

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 04:40**

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 03:56 Benitez also fought in an era with multiple titles where someone could easily win belts at multiple weights without ever being the best at any weight at which he fought.

Do you believe that the great Sugar Ray Leonard should be #2 at welterweight all time rankings?

In my opinion, he cannot be. Guys like the greats Henry Armstrong, Emile Griffith, and Kid Gavilan have an unbelievable resume at 147lbs. They fought TRUE WELTERWEIGHTS most of the time. Many of them could have been world champions in another era. But, the weight classes and time were so stacked of great talent, especially in the 1950s and 60s.

They had way more fights than Leonard at 147.
They had much more longevity than Leonard at 147.
They had much more time at the top as champions than Leonard at 147.
And beat a great deal of great and very tough opponents at 147 than Leonard.
They beat more TRUE WELTERWEIGHTS than Leonard at 147lbs.

Those are FACTS that no one can refuse. Am I wrong boxrec forum? Let's look it up.

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 11:35**

If that is what you are going to come up with I have no interest in discussing this with you.

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 14:29**

Hmmm.. Leonard was a top 3 Welterweights of the 20th Century.. He wouldn't be successful against a peak Mayweather, Spence, Brook, or Thurman -- but he ranks below Mickey Walker and Emile Griffith for 20th Century Welterweights... Floyd didn't move up to Welterweight until 2005.. Floyd dominated at the weight for a long time without a single defeat.. Leonard was beaten at the weight -- but not wasted and blown away like Hearns. Leonard didn't do Hearns like Barkley and Hagler did -- but he was about to when the referee saved Tommy.

Then to round out the top 5 Welters of the previous century I'd go with Jose Napoles and Luis Rodriguez.

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 16:55**

golden oldie wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017, 19:44
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑27 Nov 2017, 19:09
golden oldie wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 19:10

Try to put your adulation for Leonard to one side for a moment.

1. Do you believe for one minute that the Hagler Leonard finally found the courage to fight in 87, was anything like the Hagler, from January 81, until May 83. THAT LEONARD KEPT FUKKKING TALKING ABOUT FIGHTING?

2. How do you think Leonard would have got on, if he HAD have found the guts to get in with that version of Hagler? ( Please spare the detached retina excuse garbage, because the dates of the operations, and the clearance to fight again dates are a matter of public record. )

It is a similar situation to Clay / Liston. The difference being Clay actually had the guts to get in with " the big ugly bear " at the time he was gobbing off about him, whereas Leonard didn't.

Try and put adulation for Hagler to one side for a moment as I never said a word about him in that post.
I have no adulation for Hagler. I merely put things in perspective. What you did was make feeble excuses for Leonard's defeats. If it makes you feel better, I am acting as FEEBLY as you by making excuses for a shot Hagler losing to a cretin like Leonard who would NEVER have found the courage to get in with the version of Hagler from 81 to 83 / 4. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

Lets try and make it REALLY simple by not bothering with either your opinion or mine. Lets quote LEONARDS own words, because FANBOYS arguing with BOXING fans can become very tiresome.

"I was ringside", Leonard said. "I'm watching John 'The Beast' Mugabi fight Hagler. Of all people, John 'The Beast' Mugabi." It was then that I decided to come back and fight Hagler. I called Mike Trainer and said, "I can beat Hagler".
Those are LEONARDS own words.

So if you reserve the right to make excuses for his defeats I reserve the right to make excuses for the opponents who lost to him.

You think that being 40 years old and retired for 6 years is a "feeble" excuse for why he lost to Camacho? Or being 35 years old off for 14 months and fought only a couple times in several years was a "feeble" excuse for Norris? Leonard vs Hagler was not a case of only ONE man being past his best... It was BOTH men who's better days were behind them. Leonard had only seen one fight in the previous five years against a gate keeper who made him look like shlt, and was now competing for the first time at middleweight against a man who had lived there for a decade. Marvin of course was ring worn, aging and tired and hence declining... But let's not pretend Sugar was in his prime or anywhere close to it, or that Leonard vs Hagler had anything in common with Leonard vs Camacho or Norris.. Such an argument will make you look foolish...

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 18:42**

Leonard had fought at middle before and had more than one real fight in the gym. He obviously wasn't in his prime, you're spot on there. The seed was planted by Duran, after he fought Marvin he told Ray he could beat him.

Posted: **30 Nov 2017, 20:11**

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 16:55 being 35 years old off for 14 months and fought only a couple times in several years was a "feeble" excuse for Norris?

Look...Leonard was only 34 not 35 when Norris boxed and beat his ass off -- stop lying...

And Vitali Klitschko was off for 4 years and was 37 years old when he dominated and trashed Sam Peter to easily win back the Heavyweight Title... Ali was off for over 3 years when he quickly beat little Jerry Quarry in a tune-up fight for Frazier... George Foreman was off for 19 months and was 45 years old when he knocked out undefeated Michael Moorer and won the Heavyweight Title -- a pretty impressive showing.

On the other hand, Sugar Ray Robinson was off for 2 weeks when he was dominated, beaten up, and embarrassed by huge underdog Ralph Jones, a journeyman who came off 5 straight losses to kick Robinson's ass -- Hmmm...

We can't all be successful -- but we can all have excuses...

BTW, you don't have real fights in the gym.. You can can have really tough sparring sessions with any size gloves and no headgear -- but you'd be stupid to have a knockout fight in the gym.. It won't make you sharper.. It will just put knots on your head and disrupt your training schedule.

Posted: **01 Dec 2017, 13:39**

Kalan wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 20:11
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 16:55 being 35 years old off for 14 months and fought only a couple times in several years was a "feeble" excuse for Norris?
Look...Leonard was only 34 not 35 when Norris boxed and beat his ass off -- stop lying...

Yeah 34 years and 9 months... You've totally exposed me as a liar...

Posted: **01 Dec 2017, 15:02**

drunkenpiper, you must stop with the fake news. Saying someone was 35 when they were just 34 and 9 months... then you act as if that is no big deal. For shame on you sir, for shame...

It's almost as if being 34 years old (and 9 months) and moving down in weight is not an ideal situation. btw, who all did Norris beat at that age ?

Posted: **01 Dec 2017, 15:04**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 15:02 drunkenpiper, you must stop with the fake news. Saying someone was 35 when they were just 34 and 9 months... then you act as if that is no big deal. For shame on you sir, for shame...

It's almost as if being 34 years old (and 9 months) and moving down in weight is not an ideal situation. And it's not like he was fighting a legend like say Samuel Peter.

Posted: **01 Dec 2017, 15:08**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 18:42 Leonard had fought at middle before and had more than one real fight in the gym. He obviously wasn't in his prime, you're spot on there. The seed was planted by Duran, after he fought Marvin he told Ray he could beat him.

Yes Leonard had a fight back in 1979 at middleweight. And he had "real fights" in the gym. Unlike Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran who was completely inexperienced at welterweight with only had 10 fights at welterweight before fighting Leonard.

Posted: **01 Dec 2017, 15:09**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 15:08
SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 18:42 Leonard had fought at middle before and had more than one real fight in the gym. He obviously wasn't in his prime, you're spot on there. The seed was planted by Duran, after he fought Marvin he told Ray he could beat him.
Yes Leonard had a fight back in 1979 at middleweight. And he had "real fights" in the gym. Unlike Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran who was completely inexperienced at welterweight with only had 10 fights at welterweight before fighting Leonard.

I never said Duran wasn't a full fledged welter. I think that was his absolute prime. Including no mas.

Posted: **01 Dec 2017, 16:46**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 15:02 drunkenpiper, you must stop with the fake news. Saying someone was 35 when they were just 34 and 9 months... then you act as if that is no big deal. For shame on you sir, for shame...

It's almost as if being 34 years old (and 9 months) and moving down in weight is not an ideal situation. btw, who all did Norris beat at that age ?

I just get tired of the excuses, lies, and exaggerations for Ray Leonard.. He moved to 154 to fight Norris for "business" reasons.. Two of which where: Norris had been brutally knocked out by Julian Jackson a couple fights earlier---and 160 was loaded at that time---which included Julian Jackson, Mike McCallum, Michael Nunn, and James Toney.. Promoters tried vigorously to match Leonard with them.. Fat chance.

I admired some of Leonard's "business" moves.. He was clever at creating his image and selecting and timing his fights -- like the 2nd coming of George Foreman and Floyd Mayweather---who never made 1 false move.. But in my heart I wish it were more of a sport than a business.

Posted: **02 Dec 2017, 04:20**

Duran is an interesting case because although he wasn't at welterweight for long he has an impressive win over Leonard. On the other hand, as I have noted guys like Benitez and Hearns don't have especially impressive records at welterweight and Hearns especially seems to be based highly there based on who people think he could beat rather than based on actually beating anyone great at that weight.

Posted: **04 Dec 2017, 15:35**

Bottom line.. Norris was in the ring with a guy who was pushing 35, had only seen five fights within a nine year period and was slimming down to a weight he hadn't competed at in ages.. If that isn't a reason ( or excuse ) for defeat, then why was Norris finished by age 30 and losing to second raters? why don't we just rate Trevor Berbick as being a better fighter than Muhammad Ali solely based on their actual meeting? Forget all this nonsense about age, inactivity, etc, etc.. Hell, maybe at 43 I can still become a great fighter as all that other stuff seems to be irrelevant.

Posted: **04 Dec 2017, 16:48**

This is usually the part where a rare exception of an older fighter doing well or coming off a layoff and doing well is brought up.

Posted: **04 Dec 2017, 16:58**

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 04:20 Duran is an interesting case because although he wasn't at welterweight for long he has an impressive win over Leonard. On the other hand, as I have noted guys like Benitez and Hearns don't have especially impressive records at welterweight and Hearns especially seems to be based highly there based on who people think he could beat rather than based on actually beating anyone great at that weight.

Some people have actually seen Benitez and Hearns (and Duran for that matter) fight at welterweight and know how good they are. Crazy, isn't it?

Benitez won the title below and higher than this weight, as did Duran. Both beat Palomino who was a respected champion (he had a lot title defenses which automatically makes him great, right?) Hearns blew out Cuevas who had racked up all those title defenses.

But since they didn't stay at welterweight for that long and didn't have a lot of meaningless title defenses against no names we are supposed to pretend that they weren't that good. That is just stupid.
Leonard beat three great fighters at welterweight. There are people I don't like that I rate highly and don't make crybaby excuses for their opponents. That's the way it is sometimes. Deal with it.

Posted: **04 Dec 2017, 18:28**

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 15:35 Bottom line.. Norris was in the ring with a guy who was pushing 35, had only seen five fights within a nine year period and was slimming down to a weight he hadn't competed at in ages.. If that isn't a reason ( or excuse ) for defeat, then why was Norris finished by age 30 and losing to second raters? why don't we just rate Trevor Berbick as being a better fighter than Muhammad Ali solely based on their actual meeting? Forget all this nonsense about age, inactivity, etc, etc.. Hell, maybe at 43 I can still become a great fighter as all that other stuff seems to be irrelevant

Well... If you're 43 you better get started -- cuz even guys like Holmes and Hopkins decided to call it quits when they were 52..

Norris was a special case.. He boxed very intelligently against Leonard and used his speed and skills brilliantly -- but he allowed powerful hitters Julian Jackson and Simon Brown to line him up for right hands. They tore his head off. Those 2 brutal KO losses came before and after Leonard, but they diminished his chin by tons.. Too bad, because if he could have beaten Keith Mullings he would have gotten Trinidad or De La Hoya next -- but the green kid walked right through Terry and knocked him out.. The damage had already been done and he never won another fight.

Leonard, suffered no previous KO losses and had just beaten Duran.. SRL was favored to beat Norris -- he just lacked the skills and speed.

Posted: **06 Dec 2017, 16:16**

Kalan wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 18:28
drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 15:35 Bottom line.. Norris was in the ring with a guy who was pushing 35, had only seen five fights within a nine year period and was slimming down to a weight he hadn't competed at in ages.. If that isn't a reason ( or excuse ) for defeat, then why was Norris finished by age 30 and losing to second raters? why don't we just rate Trevor Berbick as being a better fighter than Muhammad Ali solely based on their actual meeting? Forget all this nonsense about age, inactivity, etc, etc.. Hell, maybe at 43 I can still become a great fighter as all that other stuff seems to be irrelevant
Well... If you're 43 you better get started -- cuz even guys like Holmes and Hopkins decided to call it quits when they were 52..

Norris was a special case.. He boxed very intelligently against Leonard and used his speed and skills brilliantly -- but he allowed powerful hitters Julian Jackson and Simon Brown to line him up for right hands. They tore his head off. Those 2 brutal KO losses came before and after Leonard, but they diminished his chin by tons.. Too bad, because if he could have beaten Keith Mullings he would have gotten Trinidad or De La Hoya next -- but the green kid walked right through Terry and knocked him out.. The damage had already been done and he never won another fight.

Leonard, suffered no previous KO losses and had just beaten Duran.. SRL was favored to beat Norris -- he just lacked the skills and speed.

He lacked the " speed and skills " because he was a diminished fighter.. That happens through the passage of time, age and inactivity. fourteen months earlier he narrowly beat a 37 year old Duran and went inactive again until dropping down in weight to fight Norris. Losing to Terry at this stage in his career meant nothing to about 90% of the boxing community and to anyone with reasonable standards it shouldn't effect his overall rating historically.

Posted: **06 Dec 2017, 18:50**

drunkenpiper36 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2017, 16:16 He lacked the " speed and skills " because he was a diminished fighter.. That happens through the passage of time, age and inactivity. fourteen months earlier he narrowly beat a 37 year old Duran and went inactive again until dropping down in weight to fight Norris. Losing to Terry at this stage in his career meant nothing to about 90% of the boxing community and to anyone with reasonable standards it shouldn't effect his overall rating historically

What do you mean "narrowly" beat and "old" Duran.. One judge gave Leonard 11 of 12 rounds and another scored it 120-110... NOT narrow.

And the Norris fight meant something to the 10% of the Boxing community who have any cognitive ability... And it raises the rating of Mayweather, who sometimes took more than 14 months off and didn't lose anything to inactivity -- and fought to age 40 while retaining skills.

BoxRec

Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?

Re: Is Sugar Ray Leonard?