BoxRec

Robinson and I bet my balls on it

Robinson for me.
Which tactics Leonard turned up with would determine whether it was a wafer thin decision or a heavy defeat.

At their mutual best, when Leonard lost to Duran, And Robinson was ruling the WW division, I'd go with Robinson.

However, as they both entered "post prime" and fought at Middleweight, I'd call it even or slightly lean toward Leonard.

BoxBuzz wrote:At their mutual best, when Leonard lost to Duran, And Robinson was ruling the WW division, I'd go with Robinson.

However, as they both entered "post prime" and fought at Middleweight, I'd call it even or slightly lean toward Leonard.

I still fancy Robinson in this scenario if I'm being honest

I'll say this... There were much better Middleweight Challengers when Leonard won the Middleweight Title than when Robinson won it... Leonard's top challengers were Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum, and Julian Jackson... Leonard didn't want to fight them. He would have been stripped of the title, but he abandoned the title like Canyellow did.. Leonard was very clever.. He made unknown swinger Donny Lalonde boil down 7 pounds to 168 and won his title...

Funny thing... When Andre Ward beat Chad Dawson at 168 he didn't win Dawson's Light Heavyweight Title... When James Toney KO'd Iran Barkley at 168 he didn't win Barkley's Light Heavyweight Title... But Leonard had it set up that Lalonde had to make 168, but Leonard won BOTH a vacant Super Middleweight Title and the Light Heavyweight Title in one shot.. Sweet.. Leonard was then allowed to take his Super Middleweight Title and defend it at 160 against anybody he wanted.

Kalan wrote:I'll say this... There were much better Middleweight Challengers when Leonard won the Middleweight Title than when Robinson won it... Leonard's top challengers were Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum, and Julian Jackson... Leonard didn't want to fight them. He would have been stripped of the title, but he abandoned the title like Canyellow did.. Leonard was very clever.. He made unknown swinger Donny Lalonde boil down 7 pounds to 168 and won his title...

Funny thing... When Andre Ward beat Chad Dawson at 168 he didn't win Dawson's Light Heavyweight Title... When James Toney KO'd Iran Barkley at 168 he didn't win Barkley's Light Heavyweight Title... But Leonard had it set up that Lalonde had to make 168, but Leonard won BOTH a vacant Super Middleweight Title and the Light Heavyweight Title in one shot.. Sweet.. Leonard was then allowed to take his Super Middleweight Title and defend it at 160 against anybody he wanted.

I know Leonard was the golden goose fighter of the 80s & I know organisations like the WBC are 'suspect' to say the least, but I still cannot fathom how Leonard v Lalonde was for 2 titles at 2 weights?

Syntax Error wrote:

Kalan wrote:I'll say this... There were much better Middleweight Challengers when Leonard won the Middleweight Title than when Robinson won it... Leonard's top challengers were Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum, and Julian Jackson... Leonard didn't want to fight them. He would have been stripped of the title, but he abandoned the title like Canyellow did.. Leonard was very clever.. He made unknown swinger Donny Lalonde boil down 7 pounds to 168 and won his title...

Funny thing... When Andre Ward beat Chad Dawson at 168 he didn't win Dawson's Light Heavyweight Title... When James Toney KO'd Iran Barkley at 168 he didn't win Barkley's Light Heavyweight Title... But Leonard had it set up that Lalonde had to make 168, but Leonard won BOTH a vacant Super Middleweight Title and the Light Heavyweight Title in one shot.. Sweet.. Leonard was then allowed to take his Super Middleweight Title and defend it at 160 against anybody he wanted.

I know Leonard was the golden goose fighter of the 80s & I know organisations like the WBC are 'suspect' to say the least, but I still cannot fathom how Leonard v Lalonde was for 2 titles at 2 weights?

Well they both weighed in inside both limits......

Then James Toney and Andre Dawson should be LHW Champions as well... since they beat the reigning LHW Champ at 168. Normally you aren't allowed to put an opponent at a 7-pound handicap to the weight he normally fights, and win his World Title -- because you're draining the crap out of him.

Rather.... Then James Toney and Andre Ward should be LHW Champs as well...

.....i'll just have to presume kalan is just putting us on. a little obvious, though.

Would just like to point out a couple of things:

LaLonde was usually a light heavy who did not fight at 175. He had many fights under that.
He had a fight just two years previous to the Leonard fight where he weighed just 167.
Leonard had never fought above 160 before.
The 168 limit was closer to LaLonde's ideal weight than it was to Leonard's.

This is not the only fight where titles in two weight classes have been at stake.

my comment was about kalan/s screw loose posts about srr vs. srl. good lord...can you imagine when leonard was still a welterweight fighting jake lamotta all those times. these are just examples. this guy is, as i say, either doing a crude attempt at putting us on or he needs therapy.

I can imagine Sugar Ray Leonard easily beating the slow and punchable Jake LaMotta 10 times in a row without even trying -- instead of 5 out of 6...

What I can't imagine is Leonard losing to Ralph Jones -- who was coming off of 5 straight losses when he completely dominated Sugar Ray Robinson

Would be a great fight, but Robinson has more wrinkles to his game as a fighter. Leonard would be surprised that Robinson would be able to outbox him, and make more of a brawl out of it the way he was forced to with Hearns, it would still go Robinson's way in most rounds because he's the better infighter and more powerful hitter as well.

Leonard is a gutsy son of a bitch, and he'd be game every step of the way I'd pick Robinson to win a UD by a 9 rounds to 6 or 10 rounds to 5 margin.

Kalan wrote:I can imagine Sugar Ray Leonard easily beating the slow and punchable Jake LaMotta 10 times in a row without even trying -- instead of 5 out of 6...

What I can't imagine is Leonard losing to Ralph Jones -- who was coming off of 5 straight losses when he completely dominated Sugar Ray Robinson

Ain't the original Sugar Ray retired and was past his prime by 1955?

Robinson was 33 when he was roundly defeated by Ralph Jones... SRR fought for 12 more years so he was dead in his prime... Ralph Jones was 34 when he lost lopsidedly to Lazlo Papp -- who was making his 19th start in an undefeated career... and never got a Middleweight Title shot.

Neither did Gustov Scholz... who went undefeated in his first 68 fights.

BTW... Lazlo Papp was 2 years older than Ralph Jones.

Kalan wrote:Leonard would beat Robinson with ease...

Leonard had a better defense, better speed, better technique, and superior punch resistance to Robinson.. Leonard beat a better Middleweight in Marvin Hagler than Robinson ever fought... When you look at Robinson getting beaten by super hittable guys like Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Randy Turpin, and Ralph Jones---and getting floored by Artie Levine.. Jake LaMotta.. Tommy Bell.. and Rocky Graziano.. you know the much more deceptive and sharper punching Sugar Ray Leonard would have ripped Robinson a new one.

Point of order....Since when are you so impressed with SRL? In addition to ripping Hearns mercilessly in another thread...You had this to say about Marvin Hagler..

"LOL.. Hearns praises the "The Master" Hagler ... In the master's next fight he was taken 11 rounds by the crude swinging and hittable Mugabi... and in his next fight after that he was beaten by a Welterweight coming off a 3-year-layoff -- which was his 3rd defeat -- and he looked far from masterful."

You also said that as Champion Hagler "lived off the fat of the land" and ducked the best challengers to his title...These guys represent SRL's best wins, along with Duran (whom you have also taken to task). So, what exactly did Leonard accomplish in his career that so impressed you that he would easily vanquish SRR? you have even said that you believe that Robinson was "great", though for the life of me I can't see how you believe that given the way you rip him to shreds in every thread.

I just have trouble making a coherent whole out of how you rate fighters at times. Based on the way you have ripped these guys in other threads, I would assume that you think they are nothing special at all, but then you will seemingly backpedal and call them "great" in another thread. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, but based on what I have read, here is what I would have expected you to say

"A close match up between two flawed and overrated fighters that would have both lost to Mike McCallum if they even had the guts to face him" - Kalan

But, that is not what I got, instead it's a lot of love for Ray Leonard. If Ray is good enough to beat SRR easily one of two things would seemingly have to be true..Hearns would have to be pretty good, or Ray Robinson has to be more than overrated, but actually quite average.

Kalan wrote:Robinson was 33 when he was roundly defeated by Ralph Jones... SRR fought for 12 more years so he was dead in his prime... Ralph Jones was 34 when he lost lopsidedly to Lazlo Papp -- who was making his 19th start in an undefeated career... and never got a Middleweight Title shot.

Neither did Gustov Scholz... who went undefeated in his first 68 fights.

Ain't 33 an age when you stat off slipping? In fact, Sugar Ray already had more than at least 130 fights in his second comeback.

It's beyond stupid to think Robinson was "dead in his prime" when he fought Jones.

jas80s wrote: what exactly did Leonard accomplish in his career that so impressed you that he would easily vanquish SRR? you have even said that you believe that Robinson was "great", though for the life of me I can't see how you believe that given the way you rip him to shreds in every thread

Robinson was great for what he accomplished, not for what he COULDN'T do... SRR was a 2-Division World Champion and 5 X Middleweight Champion.

However Leonard vs Robinson is a completely different discussion... SRL beat Hagler, who was a better fighter than anybody Robinson ever fought, don't you think??? ... I really don't see Leonard losing to Ralph Jones, Jake LaMotta, Gene Fullmer, Randy Turpin, or Carmen Basilio... Leonard losing one close fight to Duran in a trilogy, and losing to Terry Norris---who were both very fast and very skilled boxers---doesn't equate to getting beaten by crude, slow, hittable swingers... I don't see SRR getting away from Leonard's superior jab, counters, and combination punching... SRR was easy to hit and Leonard was a better defender. They both absorbed punches extremely well---so I wouldn't say Robinson was necessarily tougher than Leonard.

I also give Tommy Hearns a slight edge over Robinson... if he could maintain his concentration for 12 rounds... because if SRR hit Tommy he'd be out... Hearns was known for getting tagged if he wasn't dialed in very well -- a little like Terry Norris who was brilliant until he got hit.

In my view, I always picked a prime Duran or Leonard to best the great Sugar Ray Robinson at 147lbs.

But, at 154lbs and above, it will be in my view, a different story. Robinson would have been too fast and strong for Duran and Leonard.

Duran and Leonard have not impressed me very much above welterweight.

Kalan wrote:

jas80s wrote: what exactly did Leonard accomplish in his career that so impressed you that he would easily vanquish SRR? you have even said that you believe that Robinson was "great", though for the life of me I can't see how you believe that given the way you rip him to shreds in every thread

Robinson was great for what he accomplished, not for what he COULDN'T do... SRR was a 2-Division World Champion and 5 X Middleweight Champion.

However Leonard vs Robinson is a completely different discussion... SRL beat Hagler, who was a better fighter than anybody Robinson ever fought, don't you think??? ... I really don't see Leonard losing to Ralph Jones, Jake LaMotta, Gene Fullmer, Randy Turpin, or Carmen Basilio... Leonard losing one close fight to Duran in a trilogy, and losing to Terry Norris---who were both very fast and very skilled boxers---doesn't equate to getting beaten by crude, slow, hittable swingers... I don't see SRR getting away from Leonard's superior jab, counters, and combination punching... SRR was easy to hit and Leonard was a better defender. They both absorbed punches extremely well---so I wouldn't say Robinson was necessarily tougher than Leonard.

I also give Tommy Hearns a slight edge over Robinson... if he could maintain his concentration for 12 rounds... because if SRR hit Tommy he'd be out... Hearns was known for getting tagged if he wasn't dialed in very well -- a little like Terry Norris who was brilliant until he got hit.

I see what you are saying, and yes I would agree that Hagler would have quite possibly been the best fighter SRR ever faced. I have to deal in probablilites here as I don't know THAT much about many of SRR's opponents and there are quite a few great fighters in there that would make for a very hard comparison. But, given that Hagler was strong, tough, and great, and a legit 160 pounder I feel pretty safe saying he would be a strong candidate for most dangerous opponent ever to face Robinson. But, I would also say I rate Hagler a helluva lot higher than you, and that brings me to my next point, if I may...

You are quick to point out the flaws you see in SRR and you certainly show little regard for his opponents whom you routinely describe as crude and limited, in fact, pretty pedestrian. The last word there was mine, but crude and limited? I don't think pedestrian is a stretch. So, what is so "great" about what Robinson's accomplishments?? If you are right, that would mean that SRR winning the MW title 5 times meant that he actually had to lose four times to these crude, flawed fighters, no?

Again, just trying to discern your view on SRR which seems to differ so greatly from the views of so many others. Basically, I just want to understand what your view is here? It reads like you don't see much of a fighter in him, and that's totally fine with me, but then you try to squeeze out a little something in the way of credit to him. But, if one is to take your words from other posts, I fail to see why he deserves any credit at all? For what? His inability to consistenly beat even the poorest competition? It sounds like you think he sucked, so I guess i am saying, explain to me why he doesn't suck, and don't give me accomplishments, you have already rebuked those with your frequent and lengthy posts about his level of competition...

And just so you know, I won't argue with you (not much an arguer). I just happen to think that minority views and those that differ from my own are interesting.

Why did I think Robinson was great??? Because he could box and punch... And if the guys who beat SRR were crude and slow, they were also very tough head knockers.. and Robinson usually had the last word and beat all those guys in the rematches.. He didn't rematch Ralph Jones because it wasn't a title fight ... and he didn't rematch Joey Maxim because he was more interested in taking some deserved time off after fighting a heavy schedule.

Kalan wrote:Why did I think Robinson was great??? Because he could box and punch... And if the guys who beat SRR were crude and slow, they were also very tough head knockers.. and Robinson usually had the last word and beat all those guys in the rematches.. He didn't rematch Ralph Jones because it wasn't a title fight ... and he didn't rematch Joey Maxim because he was more interested in taking some deserved time off after fighting a heavy schedule.

Most guys who can box are not "easy to hit". And for a great figher who can punch, he still failed to make even your top 10 MW punchers, in fact I would go so far as to say that is the first time you have even offered that he can "box and punch". In addition, he lost often to guys whose best attribute seems to be that, despite being crude and slow, they had hard heads...So, I hope you can see why I found it interesting that you so readily referenced him as a great fighter, your previous posts certainly seemed to cloud that view.

You have interesting takes, it would seem at times as though you have an insanely high threshold for greatness as you dump on the ledgers of guys like: Robinson, Hearns, Ali, and Hagler; Hall of Famers all. But, then you will turn around and attach the word "great" to a fighter that you have described as above. Nonetheless, I asked you to explain your view and you have, most patiently, so I thank you for that.