BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Shane's chin is above reproach. I wouldn't pick anyone to stop him. Ray would be more likely to stop Oscar.

Me neither

Leonard beats them all, on points, with the exception of Pacquiao whom he 'might' have stopped late.

gilgamesh wrote:

SenorPipino wrote:If he could stop the even more dangerous Hearns, then Leonard could also put away Trinidad.

That's what I was thinking.

He could, but he stopped Hearns because he had too. Hearns was outboxing him and winning. Trinidad doesn't have that ability and isn't as long as Hearns so I could see Leonard using his legs against Tito.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Shane's chin is above reproach. I wouldn't pick anyone to stop him. Ray would be more likely to stop Oscar.

I think Thomas Hearns could do the trick, as well as John Mugabi, and Donald Curry.

From reading some of the posts here, it seems people still have this false image of Leonard as being this flashy, fancy-dan sort of slickster rather than the complete, all-around ruthless bastard that he was. We're talking about one of the finest finishers in history here, who's knockout ratio improved as his competition got better. Leonard could hurt you at any point in the fight and seldom let you off the hook. He knew how to pace himself and knew how to break you down over the course of the fight.


I'd favour him to stop all the fighters listed here. They're all durable, tough guys, but they never fought a versatile technician or an offensive machine like Leonard.

Hairy Arse wrote:From reading some of the posts here, it seems people still have this false image of Leonard as being this flashy, fancy-dan sort of slickster rather than the complete, all-around ruthless bastard that he was. We're talking about one of the finest finishers in history here, who's knockout ratio improved as his competition got better. Leonard could hurt you at any point in the fight and seldom let you off the hook. He knew how to pace himself and knew how to break you down over the course of the fight.


I'd favour him to stop all the fighters listed here. They're all durable, tough guys, but they never fought a versatile technician or an offensive machine like Leonard.

Agreed. Sugar Ray was an underrated puncher. He could also make you weak with an underrated body attack. He was so good. So complete. Probably one of the top 5 most complete boxers I have ever seen.

Hairy Arse wrote:From reading some of the posts here, it seems people still have this false image of Leonard as being this flashy, fancy-dan sort of slickster rather than the complete, all-around ruthless bastard that he was. We're talking about one of the finest finishers in history here, who's knockout ratio improved as his competition got better. Leonard could hurt you at any point in the fight and seldom let you off the hook. He knew how to pace himself and knew how to break you down over the course of the fight.


I'd favour him to stop all the fighters listed here. They're all durable, tough guys, but they never fought a versatile technician or an offensive machine like Leonard.

Leonard could do it all, above all that he was one of the smarter fighters in history and he isn't going to slug it out with someone like Trinidad when he doesn't have to. I'm not downplaying Ray, you're acting like the other guys are just cannon fodder and leonard was George Foreman.

Leonard v Pac would be the best fight and the one Ray could lose. The others will be difficult fights that he wins.

Ezzard wrote:Leonard v Pac would be the best fight and the one Ray could lose. The others will be difficult fights that he wins.

Ray wouldn't lose to Pacman, neither would Hearns, Curry, McCrory, or Starling.

Starling could be simply outworked. But Starling could also be fantastic. I can see either man winning.

McCrory would lose.

Curry would be 50-50.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Hairy Arse wrote:From reading some of the posts here, it seems people still have this false image of Leonard as being this flashy, fancy-dan sort of slickster rather than the complete, all-around ruthless bastard that he was. We're talking about one of the finest finishers in history here, who's knockout ratio improved as his competition got better. Leonard could hurt you at any point in the fight and seldom let you off the hook. He knew how to pace himself and knew how to break you down over the course of the fight.


I'd favour him to stop all the fighters listed here. They're all durable, tough guys, but they never fought a versatile technician or an offensive machine like Leonard.

Leonard could do it all, above all that he was one of the smarter fighters in history and he isn't going to slug it out with someone like Trinidad when he doesn't have to. I'm not downplaying Ray, you're acting like the other guys are just cannon fodder and leonard was George Foreman.

he decided to go to war with duran in the first fight. got to be one of the greatest tactical faux pas in boxing history. that point was proven in the second and third fight.
although it says it all that he was still competative in that fight

i don't know whether he knocks these guys out or wins by points but i'd fancy him to win each and every one

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Hairy Arse wrote:From reading some of the posts here, it seems people still have this false image of Leonard as being this flashy, fancy-dan sort of slickster rather than the complete, all-around ruthless bastard that he was. We're talking about one of the finest finishers in history here, who's knockout ratio improved as his competition got better. Leonard could hurt you at any point in the fight and seldom let you off the hook. He knew how to pace himself and knew how to break you down over the course of the fight.


I'd favour him to stop all the fighters listed here. They're all durable, tough guys, but they never fought a versatile technician or an offensive machine like Leonard.

Leonard could do it all, above all that he was one of the smarter fighters in history and he isn't going to slug it out with someone like Trinidad when he doesn't have to. I'm not downplaying Ray, you're acting like the other guys are just cannon fodder and leonard was George Foreman.

he decided to go to war with duran in the first fight. got to be one of the greatest tactical faux pas in boxing history. that point was proven in the second and third fight.
although it says it all that he was still competative in that fight

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:

Leonard could do it all, above all that he was one of the smarter fighters in history and he isn't going to slug it out with someone like Trinidad when he doesn't have to. I'm not downplaying Ray, you're acting like the other guys are just cannon fodder and leonard was George Foreman.

he decided to go to war with duran in the first fight. got to be one of the greatest tactical faux pas in boxing history. that point was proven in the second and third fight.
although it says it all that he was still competative in that fight[/quote]

[/quote]

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Leonard could do it all, above all that he was one of the smarter fighters in history and he isn't going to slug it out with someone like Trinidad when he doesn't have to. I'm not downplaying Ray, you're acting like the other guys are just cannon fodder and leonard was George Foreman.

he decided to go to war with duran in the first fight. got to be one of the greatest tactical faux pas in boxing history. that point was proven in the second and third fight.
although it says it all that he was still competative in that fight

:??

SRL UD12 Oscar de la Hoya
SRL UD12 Felix Trinidad (I agree, he could stop Trinidad if he really went for it, but probably wouldn't)
SRL TKO8 Julio Cesar Chavez
SRL UD12 Shane Mosley
SRL TKO6 Manny Pacquiao

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:
he decided to go to war with duran in the first fight. got to be one of the greatest tactical faux pas in boxing history. that point was proven in the second and third fight.
although it says it all that he was still competative in that fight

:??

He had no choice. Against Tito he most certainly would.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

:??

He had no choice.

i must have missed something here.
why did he have no choice against duran? was there a reason he couldn't have fought the first fight in the style he did the secong and third duran bout?
i don't know the history, i've just watched the bouts

Duran apologists will say the the Roberto of that night was too good at cutting off the ring. The fact that Ray came out flat footed, and made no attempt to skate around him butters no parsnips with them. Personally, I think if he'd boxed as he did in the second fight, which was admittedly against a much less fit Duran, he'd have won, just not as emphatically as he did in No Mas.

SamWise72 wrote:Duran apologists will say the the Roberto of that night was too good at cutting off the ring. The fact that Ray came out flat footed, and made no attempt to skate around him butters no parsnips with them. Personally, I think if he'd boxed as he did in the second fight, which was admittedly against a much less fit Duran, he'd have won, just not as emphatically as he did in No Mas.

that was pretty much how i saw it. leonard boxed his lugs off in the second and third fights.
and i believe he would have done the same in the first fight if he had taken the same approach. the decision to stand toe to toe with duran was madness and the only reason he lost that fight.
not that i'm complaining, the first fight was one of the best i've ever seen, a thoroughly entertaining spectacle.
it says a lot about leonard that he almost matched duran in that bout despite his decision to go to war.

duran was a magnificent fighter and arguably better than leonard. but that was at lightwieght.
leonard was a naturally bigger fighter and a wonderful boxer. i honestly dont believe duran would have got to him in that first fight if leonard had approached it differently.

obviously this will have been debated to death in here. but i'm new to that era, having just watched the careers of the respective fighters recently and i've never been in this bit of the forum before. but i cant see how people could believe duran forced leonard to fight that way by cutting off the ring. leonard clearly chose to come out flat footed from the first bell and that was a decision that cost him his only (narrow) defeat in his prime years.

Leonard was a flat footed fighter. The media were so caught up on the old 'boxer vs brawler' matchup and the never-ending comparisons with Ali that they forgot/didn't realise Leonard was boxing how he usually fought. New Orleans really wasn't the norm for him.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:


Leonard could do it all, above all that he was one of the smarter fighters in history and he isn't going to slug it out with someone like Trinidad when he doesn't have to. I'm not downplaying Ray, you're acting like the other guys are just cannon fodder and leonard was George Foreman.

It's got nothing to do with slugging it out or even power itself. Top technicians like Leonard know how to pace themselves and know how to break opponents down. You don't need to load up on every single shot before the other guy can no longer absorb the shots; a simple jab can do the job, in addition to a good, concentrated body attack. Having great punch placement, real variety in your offence and a general unpredictability in your attack always helps a great deal, too.



Trinidad was strong and durable, but his balance wasn't the best, not much in the way of head movement and he could be hurt - and as they say: it's the punches you don't see that hurt the most, and Leonard was an outstanding finisher.

Duran won the first fight mainly because of round two. He out-boxed Leonard at range and had him on rubber legs. Duran then put the next 3-4 rounds in the bank and paced himself after that.

Ray went toe to toe because boxing at range wasn’t working for him. He was getting beaten to the punch and was missing more than he landed.

Leonard only skated against Hagler and the rematch with Duran. He was flat footed for the rest of them…

Ray changed his tactics for the second fight. He didn't change his tactics for the first fight. And that makes his success in the rematch all the better.

davie wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

davie wrote:

:??

He had no choice.

i must have missed something here.
why did he have no choice against duran? was there a reason he couldn't have fought the first fight in the style he did the secong and third duran bout?
i don't know the history, i've just watched the bouts

Yup, the speed and pressure of Duran coupled with almost being knocked out in the second round. You can't dance around everything. As hard as it is to believe, sometimes the pressure fighter presses too hard of a pace for simple 'boxing' to be the answer. Another thing was Padilla, he allowed Roberto to fight in the clinch for extended periods. It's an old topic on here, that's why I gave a simple eye roll.

Hairy Arse wrote:Leonard was a flat footed fighter. The media were so caught up on the old 'boxer vs brawler' matchup and the never-ending comparisons with Ali that they forgot/didn't realise Leonard was boxing how he usually fought. New Orleans really wasn't the norm for him.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:


Leonard could do it all, above all that he was one of the smarter fighters in history and he isn't going to slug it out with someone like Trinidad when he doesn't have to. I'm not downplaying Ray, you're acting like the other guys are just cannon fodder and leonard was George Foreman.

It's got nothing to do with slugging it out or even power itself. Top technicians like Leonard know how to pace themselves and know how to break opponents down. You don't need to load up on every single shot before the other guy can no longer absorb the shots; a simple jab can do the job, in addition to a good, concentrated body attack. Having great punch placement, real variety in your offence and a general unpredictability in your attack always helps a great deal, too.



Trinidad was strong and durable, but his balance wasn't the best, not much in the way of head movement and he could be hurt - and as they say: it's the punches you don't see that hurt the most, and Leonard was an outstanding finisher.

Ok champ, Leonard KO1.

SamWise72 wrote:Duran apologists will say the the Roberto of that night was too good at cutting off the ring. The fact that Ray came out flat footed, and made no attempt to skate around him butters no parsnips with them. Personally, I think if he'd boxed as he did in the second fight, which was admittedly against a much less fit Duran, he'd have won, just not as emphatically as he did in No Mas.

Actually, that sentiment would be considered in the corner of Leonard apologists and you guys are a finger pointing, delusional, group of fans.

Nah, I'd give Trinidad the benefit of the doubt and say he'd last a couple more rounds than that.


But yeah, stoppages are forced through brute force and brute force alone. #topboxingexpertise