BoxRec

It doesn't matter how long your career is; it is what you actually do in your career.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Nov 2017, 11:50 For whatever reason, there has long been a lot of anti-Leonard comments on this Forum. If you look back at the posts overs the years, Ali had got the most criticism, then either Leonard or Tyson. (Some of Tyson's is justified) His name even gets mention and very quickly you get somebody ripping him.

We still have people bring up the Camacho fight. He was 40 and had not fought for 6 years. Anybody who knows anything about the sport should knows that fights is meaningless; as it would be for anyone in that situation.

Have never heard anyone call him the best welterweight ever; but he is right up there. Calling him a Top 5 welterweight is like calling Joe Louis a Top 5 heavyweight. Leonard is the clear #2; only Robinson is ahead of him. There really should be no serious argument for anyone else being ahead of him.
If you objectively take a look at the quality of his wins compared to the quality of his losses, nobody beside Robinson surpasses him. Armstrong, Ross, Gavilan, Napoles, Griffith nor anyone else can match him.

As for all time, he usually gets underrated there as well. Make a list of the Top 50. Leonard has wins over four different opponents in the Top 50. How many others can match that? Just one loss and that fighter is easily in the Top 50 as well. Less than 10. That's right, Ray Leonard was one of the Top 10 fighters of all time. There is no gray area here. He clearly belongs.

I don't see Leonard as a Top-10 ATG.. His cleverness and business acumen was among the best -- but Leonard draws a lot of criticism because he clearly ducked top fighters and obvious rematches at a time when they were red-hot money makers.. He fought famous fighters at a time of his choosing---when they seemed the most vulnerable.. Leonard clearly avoided the top Middleweights after he beat Hagler -- fighting a weight-drained Lalonde... a Hearns who looked particularly vulnerable after his horrific KO loss to Iran Barkley and his poor showing in his MD with James Kinchen---and that was 8 YEARS after their first fight... and a fat 38-year-old Duran for their rubbermatch.. Then Leonard escaped from an extremely tough Middleweight division by fighting Terry Norris.. Leonard was an very crafty businessman like Foreman.. He was an operator.

Felix Trinidad ranks above both Leonard and Robinson as a Welterweight.. He never ducked a 147-pounder and won his first 40 fights like Robinson. However, Trinidad's first 40 fights included 15 consecutive successful World Welterweight Championship Title Defenses, including wins over ATG's Oscar De La Hoya, Pernell Whitaker, and Hector Camacho -- clearly better than the SRR's extremely soft comp.

Robinson only defended the Welterweight Title 5 times against forgettable opponents... His only noteworthy defense was Kid Gavilan...but Gavilan lost the previous year to lightweight Ike Williams and to 3rd rater Doug Ratford in consecutive losses... Oscar De La Hoya was 31-0... Pernell Whitaker was 40-2-1... Luis Ramon Campas was 56-0... Hector Camacho was 43-2, when they challenged Trinidad -- much more impressive numbers than Gavilan, who had already racked up 6 losses and 2 draws when he faced Robinson for the same title.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Nov 2017, 15:00 It doesn't matter how long your career is; it is what you actually do in your career.

Well, there are 17 boxers that did better than the great Sugar Ray Leonard. A great boxer, indeed, but short career. Not too much longevity, and not too many fights.

Let's ask the forum if he deserves to be ahead of giants like Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, Tony Canzoneri and Bob Fitzsimmons for example. I think Leonard comes short if he is compared to each one of them head to head.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑13 Nov 2017, 16:25

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Nov 2017, 15:00 It doesn't matter how long your career is; it is what you actually do in your career.

Well, there are 17 boxers that did better than the great Sugar Ray Leonard. A great boxer, indeed, but short career. Not too much longevity, and not too many fights.

Let's ask the forum if he deserves to be ahead of giants like Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, Tony Canzoneri and Bob Fitzsimmons for example. I think Leonard comes short if he is compared to each one of them head to head.

Not ahead of Moore or canzoneri. Ahead of monzon and well ahead of Fitzsimmons.

Monzon was undefeated in 14 consecutive successful World Title Defenses... He won his last 30 fights in a row...and fought 100 fights.

Leonard struggled with 2nd raters and ducked Middleweights who were Monzon caliber fighters... Nunn, McCallum, Jackson, and Toney.

Quivering Terry Norris proved to be too fast, slick, and hard punching for Leonard.

I'm not sure he is the clear number 2. Why couldn't someone reasonably rate Jose Napoles ahead of him for example or Emile Griffith?

I'm not sure he is the clear number 2. Why couldn't someone reasonably rate Jose Napoles ahead of him for example or Emile Griffith?

Joe Louis for instance had 25 title defenses at heavyweight, Leonard did not set any sort of record in terms of dominance or title defenses at that weight.

Good question, his good buddy Hank Armstrong had 19 defenses, but he doesn't rate him at all.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 02:52 I'm not sure he is the clear number 2. Why couldn't someone reasonably rate Jose Napoles ahead of him for example or Emile Griffith?

At welterweight, I got Leonard at #5:
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Emile Griffith
Kid Gavilan
Sugar Ray Leonard

The Ring got the great Charley Burley above Leonard.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 07:55

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 02:52 I'm not sure he is the clear number 2. Why couldn't someone reasonably rate Jose Napoles ahead of him for example or Emile Griffith?

At welterweight, I got Leonard at #5:
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Emile Griffith
Kid Gavilan
Sugar Ray Leonard

The Ring got the great Charley Burley above Leonard.

So gavilan can't measure up to pascual Perez but he's a greater welter than Leonard? You're a strange, strange man.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 07:58

elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 07:55

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 02:52 I'm not sure he is the clear number 2. Why couldn't someone reasonably rate Jose Napoles ahead of him for example or Emile Griffith?

At welterweight, I got Leonard at #5:
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Emile Griffith
Kid Gavilan
Sugar Ray Leonard

The Ring got the great Charley Burley above Leonard.

So gavilan can't measure up to pascual Perez but he's a greater welter than Leonard? You're a strange, strange man.

The list was of 2014. Gavilan was a better welterweight than Leonard. Leonard was better pound per pound. He won more titles than Gavilan going up in weight.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 10:37

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 07:58

elmersalsa wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 07:55

At welterweight, I got Leonard at #5:
Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Emile Griffith
Kid Gavilan
Sugar Ray Leonard

The Ring got the great Charley Burley above Leonard.

So gavilan can't measure up to pascual Perez but he's a greater welter than Leonard? You're a strange, strange man.

The list was of 2014. Gavilan was a better welterweight than Leonard. Leonard was better pound per pound. He won more titles than Gavilan going up in weight.

I don't disagree that gavilan was a better welterweight, they're both far greater fighters than pascual Perez. None of them have fought since 2014.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 02:52 I'm not sure he is the clear number 2. Why couldn't someone reasonably rate Jose Napoles ahead of him for example or Emile Griffith?

Take a look at their losses and there best wins. Leonard only lost Duran. They each losses to inferior opponents than Duran. Napoles lost to Backus. Griffith lost to Benny Paret. He beat Duran, Benitez and Hearns. Napoles and Griffith best wins don't match up to Leonard's. It's not rocket science. They have no case.

As for the Top 10 of all time:
Ali, Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Charles, Moore, Langford, and Leonard should be locks. The only thing Leonard lacks is wins over people that nobody cares about. He beat the quality opponents. If his name was Smith nobody would argue this.

Where exactly you want to rate them all within the Top 10 is obviously arguable.
I consider Joe Louis almost a lock and have him in the Top 10. If someone doesn't have him in their top 10? Reasonable people disagree.
That leaves only more spot with several guys you can make a good case for such as Monzon, Duran, Canzoneri or Pep.

As for elmer bringing up Monzon, Canzoneri, Moore, and Fitzsimmons: Yes they all won more fights than Leonard. We can also come up with fighters who won more fights than them who nobody considers top 10. Total wins don't mean much in boxing. You can always find a tomato can to beat. Some great fighters beat scores of bums and some didn't bother.
Same with the sheer amount of title defenses. They don't mean jack.

Now elmer will be forced to bring up one reason Monzon was better than Leonard, another why Moore was better, another why Canbzoneri was, and another why Fitz was. Same old story. His criteria always shifts to favor the fighter he likes better.

Napoles suffered some early losses but between 1963 and 1974 (his prime) he only has two losses at welterweight. That's a level of consistency comparable to Leonard. His early losses don't detract from an incredible level of consistency over 10 years in which he was frequently fighting.

I would say Napoles prime was 1964 to 1973 or thereabouts which is a long period in which he accomplished a great deal with very few losses.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 11:53 The only thing Leonard lacks is wins over people that nobody cares about.

How about Kevin Howard??? ... Leonard got floored throwing a lazy left and looked really bad -- but he managed to win.. He has a lot of other wins over people nobody GAF about.. plus losses to folks who some fans do care about.. He matched Hagler in losses but not in wins.

As far as losses to people that nobody cares about ... Armstrong has lots of losses to people nobody gives a flying F about. He lost 10 fights in his first 10 years as a pro. And what about all his head butts, low blows, shouldering, elbowing, and pushing??? He should have fouled out 20 times. I notice you didn't mention Pep in your top-10 locks.. Pep had 1 loss in his first 136 fights.. Armstrong had 15 times as many losses at that point.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 12:19 Napoles suffered some early losses but between 1963 and 1974 (his prime) he only has two losses at welterweight. That's a level of consistency comparable to Leonard. His early losses don't detract from an incredible level of consistency over 10 years in which he was frequently fighting.

I would say Napoles prime was 1964 to 1973 or thereabouts which is a long period in which he accomplished a great deal with very few losses.

Yes Napoles was pretty consistent.
Napoles lost to Billy Backus. Leonard's only loss at welter was to Roberto Duran. Losing to Backus is an embarrassing loss compared to losing to Duran.
Napoles biggest wins at welter were against Curtis Cokes and Griffith. Griffith had not fought at welter in 4 years. Leonard beat Duran, Benitez, and Hearns. Leonard's wins are much more impressive.

This is not a gray area. It is black and white. Leonard was better than Napoles.

Napoles lost too Backus on cuts. I don't consider that embarrassing.

Napoles can only beat the best of his own era. In Napoles prime Hearns and Leonard were children and Duran was fighting at lightweight. You seem to be trying to penalize Napoles because you don't feel he fought in a strong era. However, fighters are generally rated based on what they do in their own eras.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2017, 18:11 Napoles can only beat the best of his own era. In Napoles prime Hearns and Leonard were children and Duran was fighting at lightweight. You seem to be trying to penalize Napoles because you don't feel he fought in a strong era. However, fighters are generally rated based on what they do in their own eras.

You can only fight what is in your era. Well said.

I am 47 years old so since say about 1980 Leonard is probably THE BEST FIGHTER I HAVE EVER SEEN IN 37 YEAR'S OR SO
THE MAN WAS A FREAK SPEED/POWER/FOOTWORK/CHIN/BALANCE AND THEM COMBO'S ANYONE THAT COULD HAVE THAT LONG LAY OFF AND COME BACK AND BEAT THE ALMOST UNBEATABLE HAGLER WAS SOMETHING ELSE AND HE IN MY HONEST OPINION OUT-BOXED OUT-FOUGHT OUT-SMARTED AND OUT-GRITTED THE MARVELOUS ONE WITH OUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT AND THAT SECOND HEARNS FIGHT WAS RAZOR THIN CLOSE THE 2 KNOCK DOWN'S PROBABLEY SHOULD HAVE GOT THE WIN FOR TOMMY BUT SRL DID FIGHT HIS WAY RIGHT BACK INTO THAT FIGHT IT WAS MORE OF TOMMY LETTING THE FIGHT SLIP THEN A ROBBERY THE OTHER 2 FIGHT'S MENTIONED WAS WHEN SRL WAS NO WHERE NEAR HIS BEST............

golden oldie wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 13:27 Lets take a look at Leonards Welterweight career. He had 3 meaningful opponents at the weight.

1. Benitez. Brilliant win and to deny that would be beyond stupid.

2. Duran. A guy who had spent the vast majority of the first ten years of his career at 135 or less. LOST.

3. Hearns. A come from behind win against a guy with obvious weight making problems, as EVIDENCED by him fighting less than 3 months later at 10 lbs heavier than he was for Leonard, and never attempting to make Welter again. This comes under the " fair enough " category, not brilliant.

And on the strength of that people are claiming Leonard was second only to the real Sugar Ray at Welter. What utter effing drivel.

As for the rest of his smoke and mirrors career.

Kalule, the weaker title holder at 154 and Leonard ran from any chance of having to defend it.

We'll let his own words sum up the Hagler fight which was hotly disputed despite the opinions of Leonard fanboys.

"I was ringside", Leonard said. "I'm watching John 'The Beast' Mugabi fight Hagler. Of all people, John 'The Beast' Mugabi." He called Mike Trainer and said, "I can beat Hagler".

This after blatantly ducking Hagler for almost 5 years.

The debacles surrounding both Lalonde, and the Hearns rematch are simply not worth talking about, unless you want to include Norris, and Camacho in the nonsense, as all four fights have about the same REAL value.

You missed that he also beat Duran at welter. And Hearns never said himself that he had weight problems. He moved up because there wasn't much else for him to do at 147.

Loved the part where he ducked a guy two weight classes above him. He ducked him and then beat him! Got to love it.
That Duran never fought above 135 his four years is simply false. He was over 135 as early as 1972. He was a full fledged welterweight hen he fought Leonard. Of course it's not mentioned that Leonard had to move up to fight Hagler with much less experience at t he weight than Duran had at welter.
This shows where we are with Leonard. People criticize him for things they would not dream of criticizing anyone else for.
Anyone else who has the quality victories that he had would be praised. Instead people come up with my dog ate my homework excuses for his opponents.

Who said that? I have most of the clowns you're talking to on ignore. Duran/palomino and Duran/dejesus 3 were his other career best performances. Not only was he a full fledged welter, he was in his absolute prime as a fighter.