BoxRec

Rexob wrote:Mayweather by massive points decision bamboozling Raymond from the opening bell with his defensive craft.

Who is Raymond?


I agree he could easily outpoint the character who played Tom Cruise's autistic brother.

Ray is short for Raymond

And on the same night, Floyd outpoints Hearns, Benitez, and Duran without losing a single round.

bigcheese wrote:Why do some of you guys even watch boxing today? I mean if the best pound for pound fighter of the last 15 years doesnt even stand a chance against a p4p great of 30 years ago then it hardly seems worth while watching?

That's probably why the mainstream no longer embraces boxing.....because they knew that yesteryear was that much better with guys fighting each other without any excuse and PROVING who is the best.

Rexob wrote:Ray is short for Raymond

Ray is not a diminutive for raymond. His legal name is Ray Charles Leonard.

Floyd would have ducked SR Leonard for certain. He would have used any excuse and then some more to duck slander discredit Sugar Ray in order to save his own fake 0.

Haymon would have protected Floyd from SRL and manipulated Espinoza to buy the next Floyd sparring session.

if Les Moonves forced Floyd to fight Leonard, the result would be a sure KO win for Sugar Ray.

Forget Ray Leonard! I know people who think Floyd would beat Ray Robinson!

I think Mayweather Jnr would definitely win the fight ................... after all Leonard is 58, and hasn't boxed for about 18 years

nickcat0 wrote:I think Mayweather Jnr would definitely win the fight ................... after all Leonard is 58, and hasn't boxed for about 18 years

You never know with Ray Leonard: you always get the impression that a comeback announcement is imminent.

Whenever you have doubts about Leonard or even Hearns, just ask yourself how they would've done against Canelo, Maidana, Guerrero, and Cotto.

dempseyfire wrote:
It was also a much deeper era. Gatekeepers then would be titleholders now.

"Gatekeepers then would be titleholders now"
this is true but I'm not sure this is simply down to the depth of an era in comparison to modern day or that there are better fighters then than now.

I think the main factor has to simply be the number and availability of "title" and the way certain fighter are managed.

the duran, leonard, hagler, hearns era was a freak and there are very few examples, at any point in history, where 4 fighters of such quality, existed in roughly the same weight division at one time.

IKSRTFO wrote:Whenever you have doubts about Leonard or even Hearns, just ask yourself how they would've done against Canelo, Maidana, Guerrero, and Cotto.

they would have dominated them!



Exactly as Floyd did







**yes, yes, maidana gave him a hard fight in the first bout, but lets not kid ourselves that hearns or leonard wouldn't have had an odd off night at the age of 38, where they perhaps weren't tip top against an opponent they should have beaten