BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

suck my dick, then.

One of the most "complete" fighters ever, if not the most, IMO.

More complete than Ali and Robinson, certainly.

Was excellent in every aspect.

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

suck my dick, then.

No Thank You.

Ezzard wrote:In his 8 fights above 147 he was dropped 6 times...

He had an excellent chin but when his reflexes dulled he could be dropped. Though they were all pretty much flash knockdowns. He was rarely separated from his senses. I'd say Duran's punch in their first fight was the only time he was really on rubber legs.

Of course those 6 times were deceiving. He was way past when he fought Norris which was two of them. and he was coming off a long layoff vs Howard. Not really embarrassing to get knocked down by Lalonde who was much bigger than him.
Which leaves you with the two against Hearns, and that is if you count the first "knockdown" which had nothing to do with his chin or defense.

He was never knocked down until he had to quit because of the eyes problems.

He beat enough great fighters to be ranked in the top 10 all time; really the only thing he lacks is 20 easy wins over people no one ever heard of.

Oswald wrote:One of the most "complete" fighters ever, if not the most, IMO.

More complete than Ali and Robinson, certainly.

Was excellent in every aspect.

He might have been more complete than the GOAT but not more so than SRR. That's why SRR was so successful as an older boxer. That's not to suggest that peak SRL would be at worst a pickem against any fighter his own size who ever lived.

NYDominican wrote:Granted, Sugar Ray Leonards professional boxing career wasn't as long as Sugar Ray Robinsons or Henry Armstrongs.


How do you think Sugar Ray Leonard ranks at Welterweight?


What do you think Sugar Ray Leonards legacy is?



Would Sugar Ray Leonard been dominant in any of boxings eras?

He's minimum top ten all time at welterweight, strong legacy given that his career was short.And definitely would have been dominant in any era.If he hadn't retired, he would have dominated the welters until 1984, when he moved up.Curry didn't have the chin to deal with Ray.

Nile4000 wrote:

NYDominican wrote:Granted, Sugar Ray Leonards professional boxing career wasn't as long as Sugar Ray Robinsons or Henry Armstrongs.


How do you think Sugar Ray Leonard ranks at Welterweight?


What do you think Sugar Ray Leonards legacy is?



Would Sugar Ray Leonard been dominant in any of boxings eras?

He's minimum top ten all time at welterweight, strong legacy given that his career was short.And definitely would have been dominant in any era.If he hadn't retired, he would have dominated the welters until 1984, when he moved up.Curry didn't have the chin to deal with Ray.

Just to clarify, you feel he would have dominated in Robinson's era?

SamWise72 wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:

NYDominican wrote:Granted, Sugar Ray Leonards professional boxing career wasn't as long as Sugar Ray Robinsons or Henry Armstrongs.


How do you think Sugar Ray Leonard ranks at Welterweight?


What do you think Sugar Ray Leonards legacy is?



Would Sugar Ray Leonard been dominant in any of boxings eras?

He's minimum top ten all time at welterweight, strong legacy given that his career was short.And definitely would have been dominant in any era.If he hadn't retired, he would have dominated the welters until 1984, when he moved up.Curry didn't have the chin to deal with Ray.

Just to clarify, you feel he would have dominated in Robinson's era?

It wasn't directed at me but SRL would be a champion in any era.

I could see him taking a win over SRR in a series of 3 or 4, but that's far from dominating. No knock on Leonard, I absolutely love the guy as a fighter, I just think Robinson was better, and I think the likes of Kid Gavilan could take a win of Leonard too.

Leonard is the #2 welterweight of all time. He beat three great fighters at this weight class, only had one defeat. He also beat several contenders on on his way up.

He would have the best chance to beat Robinson. On a given night, he could lose to Gavilan or a handful of other great welterweights. However, outside of Robinson, he would beat everyone more often than not.

SamWise72 wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:

NYDominican wrote:Granted, Sugar Ray Leonards professional boxing career wasn't as long as Sugar Ray Robinsons or Henry Armstrongs.


How do you think Sugar Ray Leonard ranks at Welterweight?


What do you think Sugar Ray Leonards legacy is?



Would Sugar Ray Leonard been dominant in any of boxings eras?

He's minimum top ten all time at welterweight, strong legacy given that his career was short.And definitely would have been dominant in any era.If he hadn't retired, he would have dominated the welters until 1984, when he moved up.Curry didn't have the chin to deal with Ray.

Just to clarify, you feel he would have dominated in Robinson's era?

Indeed, he had the killer instinct.Only thing that would've stopped him would be someone being able to get in his head.

His chin was granite and his heart was immense. If his weakness was his defense, then that was purely his choice. He could have fought more defensively but he chose to push the action and for that I give him credit. No guts, no glory. I never cared for him and always wished him to lose, but he is a top five welter beyond question. Besides a prime Duran, I would have to say he was at worst the second best fighter I've ever seen tied with a dozen others that I've seen live in the past 40 years. I measure a fighter's career in its entirety, including the amateurs. His gold medal winning fight against the Cuban opponent who nearly killed opponents in the tournament was an epic win. His wins against Benitez, Duran in the rematch, Hearns, and Hagler were more than enough to convince me to change my opinion of him. He had it all. What more could you ask for in a fighter? He beat legends. His loss against Duran in the first fight proved that he was as great as they come. He gave Duran every chance to knock his head off and yet he gave just about as good as he received. Beating that Hearns by tko at that point in Hearns' career? Please. Check your opinions at the door and give this man his just due.

elmersalsa wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:From 1979 Are you talking about Sugar Ray Leonard?

Durability in the sense of career length. He had to retire multiple times and he only had 40 fights. He did not had enough longevity.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



elmersalsa, I see your 3 points above.


Looking at Sugar Ray Leonards professional boxing career. The top opponents which he fought. Which Ray beat. -----

Floyd Mayweather, Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany, Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Ayub Kalule, Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler.

How do you think Ray should rank all time?

Somewhere in the top 10?

Or, top 5?


Why?

NYDominican wrote:




elmersalsa, I see your 3 points above.


Looking at Sugar Ray Leonards professional boxing career. The top opponents which he fought. Which Ray beat. -----

Floyd Mayweather, Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany, Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Ayub Kalule, Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler.

How do you think Ray should rank all time?

Somewhere in the top 10?

Or, top 5?


Why?

To me, he is a top 5 welterweight ATG.
He is definitely a top 25 fighter ATG, somewhere between 15th and 25th slots. Why? Because of short prime (1979-82)

I cannot see him above these guys of the top 10:
Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Sam Langford, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep, Harry Greb, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Joe Gans, Joe Louis.

i love him for his great movements and for
being one of the greatest when it comes to
ring intelligence.

i hate him for not giving some rematches.
roberto duran didn't deserve to be mocked
like that in a fight, but if it was done and
did work then he definitely deserved a real
rematch.

ATG15 p4p.
ATG5 at welter.
ATG3 ring intelligence.

plus one of the guys who truly transcend the
sport. there is a very short list of people who
achieved that. he is on it for me with dempsey,
ali, robinson, leonard and de la hoya among
others.

Still can't believe people say Leonard didn't give rematches. It takes two to tangle. Leonard is expected to take on all the top fighters multiple times yet the other top fighters of his era didn't, even though they didn't miss time due to injury. Yet somehow it's Leonard who gets the criticism for this.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Still can't believe people say Leonard didn't give rematches. It takes two to tangle. Leonard is expected to take on all the top fighters multiple times yet the other top fighters of his era didn't, even though they didn't miss time due to injury. Yet somehow it's Leonard who gets the criticism for this.

Leonard was the biggest star with the most money and power. I think that might have something to do with it.

So really, what was he supposed to have done? He fought Benitez in late 1979, Duran twice in 1980, and Hearns in 1981. In early 1982, he had to stop fighting.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Still can't believe people say Leonard didn't give rematches. It takes two to tangle. Leonard is expected to take on all the top fighters multiple times yet the other top fighters of his era didn't, even though they didn't miss time due to injury. Yet somehow it's Leonard who gets the criticism for this.

He didn't give Hagler a rematch . . . and that was one rematch everybody wanted.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:I think he would have to be in anyone's top 5, and most people would have him top 3. I don't think he would have been dominant in Robinson's era, though I can see him taking a decision or even a stoppage over Robinson on an off night. I believe Hearns would have taken a win if they'd fought more than once in prime (he would have won the first fight, had it been over 12). I think his legacy is that of a guy who really faced the best competition at Welter, even if he hand-picked thereafter, and a guy who could change his style, going swarmer/slugger at the end of the Hearns fight, and being much more elusive than usual against Duran the second time. I think that fight leads us to think of him as up there with Whittaker, Willie Pep and Mayweather as a defensive master when he rarely used those skills to the max in the rest of his career. He was so good that he didn't have to.

(To qualify my statements above, this is no Leonard hate; he's one of my 5 favourite fighters of all time)

A small point...The first Leonard-Hearns fight was scheduled for fifteen, That was the fight where Angelo Dundee told SRL prior to the start of the fourteenth round, who was behind on points "you're blowing it, son" and he went out and stopped him in the next round.

I make SRL even money against any welterweight who ever lived. Decent chin, lightning fast, good heart, and could crack...

Decent chin & Good heart? He was absolutely upper echelon in both of those categories.

As for the question from the OP.

I think he rates with Armstrong, Gavilan & Griffith in the top 5.

One of the greatest fighters of all time(top 15-30), one of the most disingenuous personalities of all time. Shrewd negotiator that wasn't fond of rematches and forever my most hated fighter.

He didn't dominate his own, if you mean being one of the best in the world? Absolutely in any era.

I like when people can give honest unbiased opinions on fighters they don't like, its a rare quality.

One of the greatest of all time both at welterweight and p4p. He defeated a string of hall of fame notables and possessed all of the attributes that make a successful fighter. How high exactly do I rate him? I'm not very good at assigning numbers. Especially given that this is a sport with over a hundred years of history and thousands of competitors. But if forced to give him a place, I'd say he's top 20 p4p and probably top five at welter.

Put it like this... Since his career ended he is the boxer every p4p great has been compared to.

I think Pac has probably edged him on resume...but on what Leonard brought to the ring...I don't think anyone has trumped him since he retired...

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Still can't believe people say Leonard didn't give rematches. It takes two to tangle. Leonard is expected to take on all the top fighters multiple times yet the other top fighters of his era didn't, even though they didn't miss time due to injury. Yet somehow it's Leonard who gets the criticism for this.

He didn't give Hagler a rematch . . . and that was one rematch everybody wanted.

It takes two to tangle. I saw him interviewed several times in the days and weeks after the fight. He would always be asked if he wanted a rematch. He always hemmed and hawed. Never heard him say he wanted one.

Ambling Alp II wrote:So really, what was he supposed to have done? He fought Benitez in late 1979, Duran twice in 1980, and Hearns in 1981. In early 1982, he had to stop fighting.

I was agreeing with you, just saying that since he was the best and most powerful there are those who don't/didn't like him.

A great fantasy matchup would have been him against Mickey Walker. Walker is usally rated as a MW but he was a terror as a WW as well and seems to get snubbed whan most people talk ATG fighters.

He was one of my favorite fighters. He brought a lot excitement for the sport. Fast hands, smarts, will to win, always in the fight and presence. Plus, he was a killer with that pretty boy face. He was a monster and great finisher. No doubt an all time great. I just wish that he never had that DETACHED RETINA. It would have been very interesting a REMATCH with the great Thomas Hearns in 1983 or '84 at 154lbs, win or lose. Also a third fight with the great Hands of Stones would not hurt to settle the score once and for all.