BoxRec

Elton John wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Leonard was only 28 in 1984 & nobody KOs a 28 year old Ray Leonard IMO.

I could see Hearns winning on points, especially if the fight was over 12 rounds & Ray was making a comeback, but I just can't see him being KO'd; his chin was too sound & his stamina was too good.

Why not? can you prove it?

Was not the same thing said when Duran entered the ring against Hearns?

I distinctly remember the words "No one knocks out Duran"

Yet he was knocked out in round two.

So how can you be sure Ray Leonard would also not be given the same treatment since I and others doubt his ability to take it is in the same league as Duran

Do you think you might be mistaken?

No, I do not think I am mistaken; Sugar Ray Leonard most definitely is not Roberto Duran.

Syntax Error wrote:

Elton John wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Leonard was only 28 in 1984 & nobody KOs a 28 year old Ray Leonard IMO.

I could see Hearns winning on points, especially if the fight was over 12 rounds & Ray was making a comeback, but I just can't see him being KO'd; his chin was too sound & his stamina was too good.

Why not? can you prove it?

Was not the same thing said when Duran entered the ring against Hearns?

I distinctly remember the words "No one knocks out Duran"

Yet he was knocked out in round two.

So how can you be sure Ray Leonard would also not be given the same treatment since I and others doubt his ability to take it is in the same league as Duran

Do you think you might be mistaken?

No, I do not think I am mistaken; Sugar Ray Leonard most definitely is not Roberto Duran.

What do you mean? Do you become mum on the subject when pressed? I for one would like to hear what you have to say on the subject.

You said nobody ko's a 28 year old Leonard. Why do you say that? Duran's chin was considered as proven as well and that was over a career of 80 fights. yet he was dropped 3 times.

You said you just dont see Leonard going down and yet he was dropped just the month before by someone that could easily pass for a blown up jr welter. so how does Ray just walk away unscathed for 12 rounds?

I've seen Ray and he doesnt seem to ride very well from quick sharp blows. Anyone who has seen some of his bouts with Geraldo, Duran, Norris, Howard, lalonde, Hearns has to question the validty about his ability to take it.

Anyways, I hope your next response is significantly more substantial than your last. that is, if you have one

Mr & Mrs John after their 'wedding'.

Collins2000 wrote:Mr & Mrs John after their 'wedding'.

And I live in a castle too. You want to show a pic of that as well?

The happy couple out on a date

Collins, dont you know it's all about styles!

No, I do not think I am mistaken; Sugar Ray Leonard most definitely is not Roberto Duran.[/quote]

What do you mean? Do you become mum on the subject when pressed? I for one would like to hear what you have to say on the subject.

You said nobody ko's a 28 year old Leonard. Why do you say that? Duran's chin was considered as proven as well and that was over a career of 80 fights. yet he was dropped 3 times.

You said you just dont see Leonard going down and yet he was dropped just the month before by someone that could easily pass for a blown up jr welter. so how does Ray just walk away unscathed for 12 rounds?

I've seen Ray and he doesnt seem to ride very well from quick sharp blows. Anyone who has seen some of his bouts with Geraldo, Duran, Norris, Howard, lalonde, Hearns has to question the validty about his ability to take it.

Anyways, I hope your next response is significantly more substantial than your last. that is, if you have one[/quote]




I was being facetious because I have already answered you on another thread.

Just in case you haven't read that one, I will reiterate, this is an hypothetical situation here, pitting 2 ATGs against each other.

There is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.

We are talking about Ray Leonard, not some journeyman from some unknown gym.

It is inconceivable to me that anybody would have KOd a fit, 28 yr old Leonard, especially someone who had already landed their best punches on him & couldn't even floor him (as of 1984).

Talking about Hearns against Duran or other fighters does not mean a thing.

If you follow that logic, Muhammad Ali would never have beaten George Foreman, let alone taken his best punches & knocked him out.

I hope this response makes things clearer.

Syntax Error wrote: I was being facetious because I have already answered you on another thread.

Just in case you haven't read that one, I will reiterate, this is an hypothetical situation here, pitting 2 ATGs against each other.

There is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.

We are talking about Ray Leonard, not some journeyman from some unknown gym.

It is inconceivable to me that anybody would have KOd a fit, 28 yr old Leonard, especially someone who had already landed their best punches on him & couldn't even floor him (as of 1984).

Talking about Hearns against Duran or other fighters does not mean a thing.

If you follow that logic, Muhammad Ali would never have beaten George Foreman, let alone taken his best punches & knocked him out.

I hope this response makes things clearer.

Actually, no. Ali was never knocked out by Frazier. And Leonard was certainly no ALi.

Why do all of Leonard's fans instinctively go to a comparison with Ali when pressed???

We're talking Hearns June 15, 1984 remember?

So because he went 33 fights without getting stopped that makes you believe Leonard was not capable of being stopped. Duran in 80 fights was never stopped..until June 15 1984.

Did you not know of Leoanrd's encounter with howard? I mentioned it three times!!!

So pitting both fighters at that time of which we have all seen both, what amkes you think Ray is going to stand up to Tommy's firepower?

Look, I remember asking a hardcore leoanrd fan the same night Hearns destroyed Duran. I asked him "what do you think? If it were Ray tonight how do you think he'd do?"

For one thing, we could all see Thomas had vastly improved his game, his speed, his power was frightening. There was no hiding the fact although now any supporter will put p their little pretense of "what are you talking about?"

My friend confessed "no, he couldnt take those punches"

So if Hearns had improved (I know for you, it's also inconcievable that Hearns had in fact progressed physically) and with some added muscle why can not Hearns who stopped Duran, not also stop Leonard whose chin is nowhere near what Duran's was?

Well, there it is. Thomas Hearns at the very peak of his powers, bigger, stronger, faster, more durable, far too lethal to be confronted by the likes of Sugar Ray Leonard, ready to go on to the bigger and better things-namely Hagler, while Leonard keeps his head where it belongs-in the sand blaming his decision to stay inactive on an eye injury

Was Howard a harder puncher than Hearns? Hagler? Hearns at Welter? Duran? Norris? Lalonde? You fail to grasp the concept that it is not only hard punchers who score knockdowns. This is boxing, where timing, mistakes, positioning as well as hard punches contribute to knockdowns.

Leonard had a better chin than Duran, basing it on your limited hypothesis. How many times was Leonard knocked cold, remind me please? And how many times was Hearns?

Hearns DID NOT knock out Leaonard on 2 occasions, but wait your gonna hide behind the issue of a few pounds arent you, Hearn's best fighting weight? 1984. Howard dropped Leonard (but got stopped once Leonard got up - facts you seem intent on omitting).

THE FACT is he did not, could not knock out Leonard - now whether you accept that or not is irrelevant because this is a FACT, you understand that part ok? Or wait does your fantasy outcome warrant more validity than reality? Not at Welter, Super Middle and no not even as Super Welter, as you boisteriously like to insist.

When Leonard got hit and dropped, he got up and, bar the re-match, Norris. and Camacho, WON.

Now compare that to Tommy who when hit hard by Barkley, Hagler, Roldan, Leonard - Can you see the difference - Leonard would get hit hard but he would take it, whether it was 1974, 1984 or 1994 - Tommy would get hit and stay hit.

You mention your friend, a 'die hard' Leonard fan who told you this and that. Utterly irrelevant. Their opinion is no different to anyone else's who posts here - Or is it because they are a friend of yours, they also, like you must be right and everyone else wrong? How pompus and immature.

If you disagree, rather than trying to be obnoxious and be mocked on these forums, take a leaf out of Goodnight Irene's book - you may illict a more dignified response to your rather emo 'I am right, I gotta be right 'cos i said so' outbursts.

And to call my post fantasy, especially after re-reading 'your view' on how the fight pans out...well all I will add is there is obviously fiction fan/writer here and it aint me

PS In Syntax's last post he makes reference to Ali - Foreman, not as you incorrectly and rather arrogantly say Ali - Frazier, just sayin'

Well said bengulnaci1.

bengulnaci1 wrote:Was Howard a harder puncher than Hearns? Hagler? Hearns at Welter? Duran? Norris? Lalonde? You fail to grasp the concept that it is not only hard punchers who score knockdowns. This is boxing, where timing, mistakes, positioning as well as hard punches contribute to knockdowns.

Leonard had a better chin than Duran, basing it on your limited hypothesis. How many times was Leonard knocked cold, remind me please? And how many times was Hearns?

Hearns DID NOT knock out Leaonard on 2 occasions, but wait your gonna hide behind the issue of a few pounds arent you, Hearn's best fighting weight? 1984. Howard dropped Leonard (but got stopped once Leonard got up - facts you seem intent on omitting).

THE FACT is he did not, could not knock out Leonard - now whether you accept that or not is irrelevant because this is a FACT, you understand that part ok? Or wait does your fantasy outcome warrant more validity than reality? Not at Welter, Super Middle and no not even as Super Welter, as you boisteriously like to insist.

When Leonard got hit and dropped, he got up and, bar the re-match, Norris. and Camacho, WON.

Now compare that to Tommy who when hit hard by Barkley, Hagler, Roldan, Leonard - Can you see the difference - Leonard would get hit hard but he would take it, whether it was 1974, 1984 or 1994 - Tommy would get hit and stay hit.

You mention your friend, a 'die hard' Leonard fan who told you this and that. Utterly irrelevant. Their opinion is no different to anyone else's who posts here - Or is it because they are a friend of yours, they also, like you must be right and everyone else wrong? How pompus and immature.

If you disagree, rather than trying to be obnoxious and be mocked on these forums, take a leaf out of Goodnight Irene's book - you may illict a more dignified response to your rather emo 'I am right, I gotta be right 'cos i said so' outbursts.

And to call my post fantasy, especially after re-reading 'your view' on how the fight pans out...well all I will add is there is obviously fiction fan/writer here and it aint me

PS In Syntax's last post he makes reference to Ali - Foreman, not as you incorrectly and rather arrogantly say Ali - Frazier, just sayin'

Excellent post.

You have save me a lot of typing.

Elton John just cannot seem to grasp that there are no right or wrong answers when discussing hypotheticals, just opinions.

I just cannot understand why someone would be so shocked at me for daring to suggest that Leonard would unlikely be KOd by a man he'd taken flush punches from less than 3 years earlier.

Of course, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Leonard would have been starched by Hearns in '84, but judging by the way his career panned out, it seems unlikely to me.

Elton John seems to think that Tommy Hearns could have KOd Superman, Iron Man, the Cloverfield monster & The Incredible Hulk with ONE punch in 1984, so it's probably not worth trying to put an alternative viewpoint across.

Also, thankyou for pointing out that I never mentioned Ali -v- Frazier; at least someone was paying attention to what I wrote.

Elton John wrote:

Syntax Error wrote: I was being facetious because I have already answered you on another thread.

Just in case you haven't read that one, I will reiterate, this is an hypothetical situation here, pitting 2 ATGs against each other.

There is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.

We are talking about Ray Leonard, not some journeyman from some unknown gym.

It is inconceivable to me that anybody would have KOd a fit, 28 yr old Leonard, especially someone who had already landed their best punches on him & couldn't even floor him (as of 1984).

Talking about Hearns against Duran or other fighters does not mean a thing.

If you follow that logic, Muhammad Ali would never have beaten George Foreman, let alone taken his best punches & knocked him out.

I hope this response makes things clearer.

Actually, no. Ali was never knocked out by Frazier. And Leonard was certainly no ALi.

Why do all of Leonard's fans instinctively go to a comparison with Ali when pressed???

We're talking Hearns June 15, 1984 remember?

So because he went 33 fights without getting stopped that makes you believe Leonard was not capable of being stopped. Duran in 80 fights was never stopped..until June 15 1984.

Did you not know of Leoanrd's encounter with howard? I mentioned it three times!!!

So pitting both fighters at that time of which we have all seen both, what amkes you think Ray is going to stand up to Tommy's firepower?

Look, I remember asking a hardcore leoanrd fan the same night Hearns destroyed Duran. I asked him "what do you think? If it were Ray tonight how do you think he'd do?"

For one thing, we could all see Thomas had vastly improved his game, his speed, his power was frightening. There was no hiding the fact although now any supporter will put p their little pretense of "what are you talking about?"

My friend confessed "no, he couldnt take those punches"

So if Hearns had improved (I know for you, it's also inconcievable that Hearns had in fact progressed physically) and with some added muscle why can not Hearns who stopped Duran, not also stop Leonard whose chin is nowhere near what Duran's was?

Well, there it is. Thomas Hearns at the very peak of his powers, bigger, stronger, faster, more durable, far too lethal to be confronted by the likes of Sugar Ray Leonard, ready to go on to the bigger and better things-namely Hagler, while Leonard keeps his head where it belongs-in the sand blaming his decision to stay inactive on an eye injury

Thankyou for pointing out that Leonard is not Ali; it's taken me all these years to realise that.

Also, I suppose it's similar to the fact that Leonard is not Duran also?

Yes, I am aware of the Howard fight: what about it, as you love mentioning it so much?

At what point in Hearns' career was he more durable than Leonard?

I never saw a young Leonard getting decimated by Hagler, wobbled by Roldan, clinging to Kinchen like Kinchen was his wife or getting slaughtered by the slow handed Iran Barkley & before you say that they all happened after 1984, yes I know, but they serve to illustrate the vulnerability of Tommy which Leonard himself had exposed in 1981.

Leonard was floored numerous times & virtually always got back up, so why not in a mythical 1984 match against Godzilla; oops sorry, I meant Tommy Hearns?

The only time this didn't happen was when he was almost 41 years old & totally shot as a fighter.

Also, please note, I never mentioned Frazier, I said Foreman & it was an analogy I was using, whereby someone like yourself uses a fighter's performances against other opponents & then comes to a conclusion that this or that would have happened because of those results.

The basic premise with some here, is supposed to be that because Duran was flattened in 2 rounds by Hearns, that the same would be done to Leonard. Realistically that's a theory based more on emotion and disdain for SRL than anything else. The Hitman had 26 rounds to do to Leonard what he did to Duran in 2 and he never came close. And before we go further with the Leonard get's KO'd early scenarios, let's remember that Luigi Minchillo took Hearns the distance in his previous outting to the Duran Massacre.

bengulnaci1 wrote:Was Howard a harder puncher than Hearns? Hagler? Hearns at Welter? Duran? Norris? Lalonde? You fail to grasp the concept that it is not only hard punchers who score knockdowns. This is boxing, where timing, mistakes, positioning as well as hard punches contribute to knockdowns.

Leonard had a better chin than Duran, basing it on your limited hypothesis. How many times was Leonard knocked cold, remind me please? And how many times was Hearns?

Hearns DID NOT knock out Leaonard on 2 occasions, but wait your gonna hide behind the issue of a few pounds arent you, Hearn's best fighting weight? 1984. Howard dropped Leonard (but got stopped once Leonard got up - facts you seem intent on omitting).

THE FACT is he did not, could not knock out Leonard - now whether you accept that or not is irrelevant because this is a FACT, you understand that part ok? Or wait does your fantasy outcome warrant more validity than reality? Not at Welter, Super Middle and no not even as Super Welter, as you boisteriously like to insist.

When Leonard got hit and dropped, he got up and, bar the re-match, Norris. and Camacho, WON.

Now compare that to Tommy who when hit hard by Barkley, Hagler, Roldan, Leonard - Can you see the difference - Leonard would get hit hard but he would take it, whether it was 1974, 1984 or 1994 - Tommy would get hit and stay hit.

You mention your friend, a 'die hard' Leonard fan who told you this and that. Utterly irrelevant. Their opinion is no different to anyone else's who posts here - Or is it because they are a friend of yours, they also, like you must be right and everyone else wrong? How pompus and immature.

If you disagree, rather than trying to be obnoxious and be mocked on these forums, take a leaf out of Goodnight Irene's book - you may illict a more dignified response to your rather emo 'I am right, I gotta be right 'cos i said so' outbursts.

And to call my post fantasy, especially after re-reading 'your view' on how the fight pans out...well all I will add is there is obviously fiction fan/writer here and it aint me

PS In Syntax's last post he makes reference to Ali - Foreman, not as you incorrectly and rather arrogantly say Ali - Frazier, just sayin'

No Leonard DID NOT have a better chin according to (hypothesis?)

Where do you get MY Hypothesis from? Can't you read?? And don't get uppity with me! I'm ELton John!!!

Face the facts, Leonard drops too often to the canvas. Had his record been clean of knockdowns and false retirements with him hiding behind a Doctor's note, it might be concievable he could last with Tommy but the scenario you laid out when you entered into the conversation is not.

Why is that you ask? We've seen Ray at 154, three times. We know what he can do more or less. But has he been in with the best?

Well in 1981, Ayub Kaule was all they had. A southpaw with no punch, and limited skills-made to order for Leonard who picked up some chump change on his way to the Hearns fight

The problem with your analysis is that it's all over the place, using versions of Tommy from 1988, clearly on the way out, in order to back your view. So if you can do it, I'm using your hypothesis to strengthen my point. Remember, it's YOUR hypothesis!

Hector Camacho KO 5 Ray Leonard

CAN YOU SEE THE POINT? Whether it's 1997, 1987, or 1977, leonard would get hit and stay hit!

And no, what my friend said to me is not irrelevent! It's proof of his integrity, that even tho he was a Leonard fan like yourself, he didnt let personal bias interfere with his judgement. The world needs more people like him

Good day to you sir!!

EMO-RANT !!

Seamus wrote:The basic premise with some here, is supposed to be that because Duran was flattened in 2 rounds by Hearns, that the same would be done to Leonard. Realistically that's a theory based more on emotion and disdain for SRL than anything else. The Hitman had 26 rounds to do to Leonard what he did to Duran in 2 and he never came close. And before we go further with the Leonard get's KO'd early scenarios, let's remember that Luigi Minchillo took Hearns the distance in his previous outting to the Duran Massacre.

Hear hear.

Some more sense written on this thread.

I just can't understand why someone cannot see why another person might think that SRL could go 12 with Thomas Hearns in 1984.

Did I miss something back then: was Tommy Hearns some sort of boxing super alien being, just for the calendar year of 1984 that could KO every thing he tapped with his fists (powers that mysteriously disappeared once the bell chimed for 1985)?

If Tommy Hearns was THAT awesome, why give Ray 9 rounds?

Why couldn't Tommy do him in 1 round or something?

Seamus wrote:The basic premise with some here, is supposed to be that because Duran was flattened in 2 rounds by Hearns, that the same would be done to Leonard. Realistically that's a theory based more on emotion and disdain for SRL than anything else. The Hitman had 26 rounds to do to Leonard what he did to Duran in 2 and he never came close. And before we go further with the Leonard get's KO'd early scenarios, let's remember that Luigi Minchillo took Hearns the distance in his previous outting to the Duran Massacre.

Hey Elton....read that - You read it??

Summoned up beeatufiully. Or do you still want to emo-rant?

bengulnaci1 wrote:

Seamus wrote:The basic premise with some here, is supposed to be that because Duran was flattened in 2 rounds by Hearns, that the same would be done to Leonard. Realistically that's a theory based more on emotion and disdain for SRL than anything else. The Hitman had 26 rounds to do to Leonard what he did to Duran in 2 and he never came close. And before we go further with the Leonard get's KO'd early scenarios, let's remember that Luigi Minchillo took Hearns the distance in his previous outting to the Duran Massacre.

Hey Elton....read that - You read it??

Summoned up beeatufiully. Or do you still want to emo-rant?

yes, the writer assumes that emotion is affecting my reasoning when in fact it is a lack of faith in srl and his abilities based upon past performances. DD

Using the case of Thomas from 1989 was not every smart, How does the 89 version come close to the 84 version as he was just reaching his peak??

The 1989 version I recall, was slow, pathetic, fragile, no longer freared but rather pitied, and had never looked more vulnerable.

No speed. No reflexes. No resiliency. He looked like another case of Parkinsons on the way

The mention of Michillo however was perfectly valid however as it had taken place close to his upcoming fight 5 months later. Why couldnt YOU have come up with it??

The only problem with it is that tho is Leonard's performance the month before. You said "he got up".

He got up? He wasnt supposed to be down!

And therin lies the problem! Things like this bring up questions,,doubt. let's face it, he doesnt take shots well and one shot from the greatly improved hitman would have scrambled his brains. It would have been similar to Louis gaining revenge on a quivering and helpless Schemling.

So off that performance It's too much to expect Ray Leonard, struggling with little Kevin Howard, short armed Kevin Howard, small upper body, shoulders and arms Kevin Howard, 20-4 Kevin Howard, would have lasted long with sleek, well muscled, no longer inactive Thomas Hearns and in peak condition.

Thomas was the new breed of athlete-bigger, faster, harder hitting. The Hearns we saw in 81 was a mere babe and who was compared with a young colt in an issue of World boxing following the Benitez fight--yet to gain full strength and reach maturity. THIS was that Thomas Hearns who hit it on that afternnon on June 15, 1984 In Las Vegas

Elton John wrote: let's face it, he doesnt take shots well and one shot from the greatly improved hitman would have scrambled his brains.

This guy sounds like a nutter to me.

Leonard had a first class chin. No-one stops him anywhere near his prime at 154, even Tommy Hearns

dr_devious wrote:Leonard had a first class chin. No-one stops him anywhere near his prime at 154, even Tommy Hearns

Neither will endorsements matter. Going spaghetti legs, getting dropped repeatedly-that's evidence

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I believe this would always be a 50-50 fight. Both men would always raise their game against one another.

The Duran blow out was spectacular and possibly the most thrilling sporting moment of my youth. BUT Duran was so inconsistent in the 1980s. He was way above his best weight, not in the best of shape and seemed uninterested in trying to execute a fight plan that might actually work. At his best Duran had a great defence, could slip a lead, counter to the body and make the ring seem like a phone booth. In many ways the prototype to beat Hearns. He didn’t even get close on that night. I guess he played into Tommy’s hands just as Tommy would play into Marvin’s.

Ray never looked totally convincing above 147 (by his own high standards). The Kalule win is underrated but beyond that he rarely shut anyone out as he had been doing at 147 and was surprisingly easy to reach… actually no, he was never easy to reach just easier to reach for a guy who was so good. Sometimes though I think people get the wrong idea about Leonard. They remember all the movement against Duran and Hagler but Leonard fought most of his fights flat-footed (Duran I, Hearns I and II and to some extent Benitez). Also whilst there is some milling on the retreat, Leonard often moved away, drew his opponent to him and then planted his feet to unload (essentially what he did to Hagler). He was slick, but he was also an offensive fighter.

I agree . .very even matchup. Leonard getting stopped in 4 rounds? No way.

Hearns was robbed big time in the 1989 rematch but that fight doesn't really mean much.

I think the second fight is important. They were both past their best (I thought Hearns was shot and had no chance). But it was two greats meeting one another at a similar time in their career.

What's your take?

Leonard in 1989 was a part-time fighter like Oscar of recent years. His career really ended after the Hagler fight. Having a war with Donny Lalond tells you the party's over.

Hearns shot? You may have thought so at the time but he'd remained a world class fighter, beating Roldan, Kinchen right before and afterwards beating an undefeated Virgil Hill. Hearns clearly had more left in the tank at that point of his career than Ray, who was simply fighting to make benjamins.

Elton John, your irrational contempt of Leonard's abilities almost comes close to Broughton's irrational hatred of Holyfield. Give it a rest . . Leonard had no chin? Go over to ESB to spout off that nonsense.

and lets not forget what happened between srl and washed up Camacho. it's not as if Hector were 22 and Leonard was 40 but in the same elderly range. I am so grateful for that fight even if the rest of you can't appreciate genius when it comes from another fighter.

Hector did what someone else here had said Monzon must do with Roy Jones: rough him up on the inside and that's where the streetfighter in Hector came into play.

I used to watch Hector perform as a jr light back when he was coming up. I could see the street fighter in him.This kid just loved to fight

Known only as a runner, people here dont have enough background knowledge to realize his background in the martial arts. But as a boxer, here too he excelled winning 4 world championships-the last one I give as much credit as Leonard's last two

Still, in the 80s, his speed led him to overwhelming victory after overwhelming victory. DOMINANCE

"This kid!!" they yelled, "is going to the top!"

Anyone could see this extraordinary talent could out-Ali Ali himself. His lightning jab landing unimpeded from the opponent's blind side with a loud thud. With his unparralled speed, he could always stay a step ahead. There was just no defense against his attack.

As for his chin, something his critics thought he never had, now HE has a first rate chin.

You see that Dr_Devious? This is what a first rate chin is

Never been stopped and SELDOM dropped.

In their showdown of the ex speed demons, Hector took leonard's best shot flush on the chin and came back.

Supporters can always brag Hector was able to take SRL's best but leonard couldnt take Hector's.

It was supposedly Leoanrd's size and experience that would win the day. But in fact, whatever Ray Leonard did was irrelevent. While Ray posed, Hector pitched.

Hector showed not only had he the better chin and more heart but that he had the know how to fight on the inside which many people were shocked to learn. Hector would do what Monzon did; holding then taking his free hand and pounding the temple. By the end of the forth, you could see it in Ray's eyes-he didnt want it anymore.

Coming out for the fifth, he resembled a man that knew what was coming as Hector just grinned from across the ring "your long overdue demise - this round!"

SRL came out like a man headed for the gallows as Hector came in to greet him, slamming two hard lefts to the face. Leonard looking to get away didnt know where to turn and Hector decided not to give him the rest he was given in previous fights, following up with a hook & uppercut to the head. Truly this was Ray's most anxious moment.

Hector, displaying fistic brilliance, dropped him with a right-left and then chasing after him like a doberman after raw meat. Groaning from his mortal wounds, Leonard gave up the ghost while simultaneously leaving the audience in tears

"I thought Ray leonard couldnt be knocked out!" could be read on their lips.

But Hector dispelled all the myths-that he couldnt punch, that he had no heart, that Leonard could not be knocked out-especially by Camacho

You see everyone? It CAN be done if carried out properly and forcefully enough. Hit him fast and hard and he folds up like a deck of cheap cards

dempseyfire wrote:
Leonard in 1989 was a part-time fighter like Oscar of recent years. His career really ended after the Hagler fight. Having a war with Donny Lalond tells you the party's over.

Hearns shot? You may have thought so at the time but he'd remained a world class fighter, beating Roldan, Kinchen right before and afterwards beating an undefeated Virgil Hill. Hearns clearly had more left in the tank at that point of his career than Ray, who was simply fighting to make benjamins.

Elton John, your irrational contempt of Leonard's abilities almost comes close to Broughton's irrational hatred of Holyfield. Give it a rest . . Leonard had no chin? Go over to ESB to spout off that nonsense.

So your view that Ray struggling with a man he CHOSE to face over Nunn doesnt add up to the fact he's overrated? He's overrated

because if he weren't, he would have gone straight for Micheal and other stern challenges instead of a remedial boxing tour and putting Hagler on hold for 5 years with his Doctor's note.

Someone's got to tell you the truth. No hate involved, just facts.

I dont see why you're putting on this pretense "Thomas Hearns isn't shot. JUST BECAUSE HE HAD THREE STRAIGHT SHAKY PERFORMANCES!"

Oh of course not! The fact that he was just flattened had no effect on him in his next fight either or the fact that Ray would call him out immediately after.

"Stop saying that ELTON!! You're biased!"

Also, how do you define part time? Once a year? Twice a year? Because that would mean Hagler became a part time fighter after 1981

and why was leonard even fighting? I thought his eye prevented him from taking fights in the first place. Surely you can see why I view him with a more critcal eye than would yourself. I don't lower the bar for him as you gladly do.

Elton John wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:
Leonard in 1989 was a part-time fighter like Oscar of recent years. His career really ended after the Hagler fight. Having a war with Donny Lalond tells you the party's over.

Hearns shot? You may have thought so at the time but he'd remained a world class fighter, beating Roldan, Kinchen right before and afterwards beating an undefeated Virgil Hill. Hearns clearly had more left in the tank at that point of his career than Ray, who was simply fighting to make benjamins.

Elton John, your irrational contempt of Leonard's abilities almost comes close to Broughton's irrational hatred of Holyfield. Give it a rest . . Leonard had no chin? Go over to ESB to spout off that nonsense.

So your view that Ray struggling with a man he CHOSE to face over Nunn doesnt add up to the fact he's overrated? He's overrated

because if he weren't, he would have gone straight for Micheal and other stern challenges instead of a remedial boxing tour and putting Hagler on hold for 5 years with his Doctor's note.

Someone's got to tell you the truth. No hate involved, just facts.

I dont see why you're putting on this pretense "Thomas Hearns isn't shot. JUST BECAUSE HE HAD THREE STRAIGHT SHAKY PERFORMANCES!"

Oh of course not! The fact that he was just flattened had no effect on him in his next fight either or the fact that Ray would call him out immediately after.

"Stop saying that ELTON!! You're biased!"

Also, how do you define part time? Once a year? Twice a year? Because that would mean Hagler became a part time fighter after 1981

and why was leonard even fighting? I thought his eye prevented him from taking fights in the first place. Surely you can see why I view him with a more critcal eye than would yourself. I don't lower the bar for him as you gladly do.

Mr John, I think you need to quit while you're behind.

You're getting well & truly wasted on this thread.

It's funny how you say that people are overrating Leonard, when from reading your posts on here, it would appear that you are overrating Hearns to an even greater degree.

Don't get me wrong, Hearns was fantastic: I love the guy; one of my favourite fighters ever, but the way how you talk about him, as another poster on here has said, you put him up as the 2nd coming of Godzilla.

Why would you denigrate people for daring to suggest that a fighter, aged only 28, with the skills, stamina, chin & nous might last 12 rounds with Tommy Hearns circa 1984?

Lesser fighters than SRL went 12 with the peak 154lb Hearns, so why not SRL?

What about the Hagler fight?

6ft 1in Tommy had all these big muscles at 154, so why were they not bigger at 160, thus making him even more of a super man you claim?

Why was this boxing Godzilla you speak of decimated so easily by Hagler (please don't quote the ludicrious Manny Steward, "somebody massaged Tommy's legs before the fight" line ( ), as he always had a ridiculous excuse for Tommy's defeats)?

Has it not occurred to you that Tommy's opponents at some point in the fight might actually hit him back?

As we all know, Tommy was not blessed with the greatest stamina & durability, so what if the fair punching, fast handed & supremely skilled Leonard had hit him with a good shot & Hearns had gone down?

Unlike Leonard (who you say is overrated), Hearns may not have got back up (or be in any condition to fight on), as we saw a few times in his career.

Despite your mocking & perceived arrogance, you have actually made some decent points & I respect all opinions, but as a previous poster has said on this thread, you cannot say that someone is wrong when talking about a mythcial bout between two evenly matched & great fighter like Tommy & Ray.