BoxRec

Posted: **15 Nov 2020, 23:23**

He beat Hags, hearns, duran, benitez et al. He was great and there is no dimishing his accomplishments. I would have preferred more big fights (and no LaLondes), but what he did made him great.

Posted: **16 Nov 2020, 11:48**

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Nov 2020, 23:23 He beat Hags, hearns, duran, benitez et al. He was great and there is no dimishing his accomplishments. I would have preferred more big fights (and no LaLondes), but what he did made him great.

Posted: **16 Nov 2020, 11:50**

Would’ve loved to have seen Leonard v Hearns at light middleweight

Posted: **16 Nov 2020, 12:02**

Thought I would address some comments:

OK, it would have been awesome if he had even more huge fights. Who had more during his era, or since for that matter? Nobody.

As for Donny Lalonde, I agree that winning a couple of WBS titles in the same fight means much if that is the argument. We need to get away from putting value on these garbage titles anyway. People that do give Leonard his due never make a big deal about winning those titles anyway.

If the argument is criticizing him for fighting a fighter of Lalonde's ability, then I disagree. Lalonde was no legend, but literally every other great fighter has loads of fighters they fought that were inferior to Lalonde.

Would have been great if he didn't have the eye injury and had a longer career. But it should be what a fighter does in his career regardless of how long it is.
In tennis, if one player A wins a lot more major tournaments in a relatively short career than player B who played a lot longer, everyone would say that player A was better even though he had a shorter career. (For example, Bjorn Borg was better than Jimmy Connors. As great as Connors was, almost no serious tennis fan disputes this) Should be the same with boxing.

As Caracatus pointing our fights that Leonard conceivably missed:
If you are going to do that, then criticize Duran for never fighting Arguello, Cervantes, or Pryor.
Rip Hagler for not fighting Benitez, or moving up in weight to fight Spinks or Mustapha Muhammad or Qawi.

Give me a name, and we can come up with guys that he could have fought. Obviously some had more than others.

In short, lets stop criticizing Leonard for things we don't criticize other fighters for. Let's give Leonard credit in situations where we would give other guys credit. Until we do that, we are not giving him his due.

Posted: **16 Nov 2020, 13:11**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Nov 2020, 13:34 Yeah, we would not want to do that. We need to take into consideration the crybaby excuses for his opponents. Plus he didn't have enough fights against total stiffs that he could not possibly have lost to. Only the legends do that. You have to do that to prove that you have "longevity".

Fighters lose all the time to guys they seemingly have no business losing to.
Hearns-Barkley is a perfect example. Had Hearns won, it would have been viewed as a win of little importance over a hopelessly outmatched opponent who never really stood any chance. I doubt anybody here would give Barkley any shot at all had the two never fought.

Posted: **16 Nov 2020, 15:28**

from 1977 to 1983 Leonard certainly paid his dues.
however in 1986 or 1987,1988.
I would have liked to have seen him fight Bruce Curry in the pros
( Leonard beat him twice in the amateurs) but the pros is different
and maybe Donald Curry who I think Hagler had planned to fight
after he defeated Leonard.

Posted: **17 Nov 2020, 17:47**

Tony1244 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:31
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Nov 2020, 15:47 This is perfect example of Leonard not getting his due. Who else would be criticized for this kind of stuff?

Cuevas? You have to be kidding. When was he supposed to have fought Cuevas?
Hearns moved up in weight class right after Leonard beat him. So Leonard as champion, is supposed to move up in weight and go after a guy who he had just beat?

Aaron Pryor? So Leonard was supposed to move down in weight to fight Aaron Pryor.

He fought and beat the best competition of his era.
Best example I can think of, as to why I Hate the Jr. divisions. If there was no Jr. Welterweight, Pryor would have likely fought Duran and/or Leonard.

If Saoul Mamby, or Esteban DeJesus didn't get to him first.

Posted: **18 Nov 2020, 12:02**

Speaking of Saoul Mamby, he was another guy Leonard ducked.
He could have fought Bruce Curry, Saoul Mamby, Donald Curry, Aaron Pryor, Cuevas. Obviously he was a scaredy cat and wanted no part of them.

To sum it up, the fairest situation would be for Leonard to fight every good fighter not only in his weight class, but in weight classes above and below him. Obviously none of the rest of the guys should have to fight each other.

Posted: **18 Nov 2020, 15:38**

Marvelous Marvin Hagler wondered why Sugar Ray Leonard
didn't first fight a
John Mugabi,(Thomas Hearns (again) or Donald Curry
before he got a shot at the Middleweight title after 3 years of being in-active
( which 2 were stripped from him when he agreed to fight Leonard).

Posted: **19 Nov 2020, 09:47**

If Hagler didn't think he should get a shot, then he should not have given him one.

Posted: **19 Nov 2020, 11:38**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Nov 2020, 09:47 If Hagler didn't think he should get a shot, then he should not have given him one.

It could be that it was the million$$$$$$$?

Posted: **19 Nov 2020, 17:51**

elmersalsa wrote: ↑19 Nov 2020, 11:38
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Nov 2020, 09:47 If Hagler didn't think he should get a shot, then he should not have given him one.
It could be that it was the million$$$$$$$?

That's exactly why.

Hagler was obsessed with getting a big payday and the only he could have done that was fighting SRL.

Add in the belief that Leonard stood no chance on paper, Hagler must have thought it was Christmas every day for months when the fight was signed.

Posted: **19 Nov 2020, 18:04**

Caractacus wrote: ↑16 Nov 2020, 15:28 from 1977 to 1983 Leonard certainly paid his dues.
however in 1986 or 1987,1988.
I would have liked to have seen him fight Bruce Curry in the pros
( Leonard beat him twice in the amateurs)

But Bruce Curry was done after losing to Bill Costello in 1984....

Posted: **19 Nov 2020, 18:10**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Nov 2020, 12:02 Speaking of Saoul Mamby, he was another guy Leonard ducked.
He could have fought Bruce Curry, Saoul Mamby, Donald Curry, Aaron Pryor, Cuevas. Obviously he was a scaredy cat and wanted no part of them.

To sum it up, the fairest situation would be for Leonard to fight every good fighter not only in his weight class, but in weight classes above and below him. Obviously none of the rest of the guys should have to fight each other.

None of those guys had a chance with Leonard.

Even Aaron Pryor who was smaller and whose skills were made up for Leonard to outbox him.

Posted: **19 Nov 2020, 18:27**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Nov 2020, 13:22 I think deep down most people know he was very great. But as you say, he gets criticized for things others wouldn't.
If you go back several years, you see that he has been criticized more than any great fighter except for Ali and possibly Tyson. At least now people are getting creative; the TV network? And of course there are lame excuses for his opponents.

Still I think a lot of people that do say he was great don't go far enough. He gets routinely rated below Duran when he was clearly better. He has a rock solid case for being in the Top 10 of all time. He beat 4 different fighters who are the top 50. How many others have done that? Less than 10. Weigh the quality wins/great performances against losses/bad performances. He was clearly one of the very best. If he isn't rated in the Top 10, he isn't getting his due.

The top ten is a hard group to crack...

I mean you have Ali, Robinson, Duran, Chavez, Archie Moore, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler, Barney Ross, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Carlos Monzon, Pascual Perez, Eder Jofre, Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Wilde even Bernard Hopkins to consider, and its true Leonard is there, but you have to also consider all these other greats plus Salvador Sanchez-who beat two or three top 100-Harry Greb, Gene Tunney, all of them...

But you are right about everything else. Plus one problem Leonard had was that if he chose to fight Pipino Cuevas, people would accuse him of ducking Duran. He chose Duran instead and people say he ducked Cuevas. He fought Tommy Hearns and people accuse him of ducking Aaron Pryor. Had he chosen Pryor instead, people would be saying he chose the smaller man and ducked the young, dangerous other champion-Hearns. Either way it was a win and no win situation for Leonard. A catch-22 if there ever was one in boxing!

Posted: **19 Nov 2020, 18:38**

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑19 Nov 2020, 18:27
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Nov 2020, 13:22 I think deep down most people know he was very great. But as you say, he gets criticized for things others wouldn't.
If you go back several years, you see that he has been criticized more than any great fighter except for Ali and possibly Tyson. At least now people are getting creative; the TV network? And of course there are lame excuses for his opponents.

Still I think a lot of people that do say he was great don't go far enough. He gets routinely rated below Duran when he was clearly better. He has a rock solid case for being in the Top 10 of all time. He beat 4 different fighters who are the top 50. How many others have done that? Less than 10. Weigh the quality wins/great performances against losses/bad performances. He was clearly one of the very best. If he isn't rated in the Top 10, he isn't getting his due.
The top ten is a hard group to crack...

I mean you have Ali, Robinson, Duran, Chavez, Archie Moore, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler, Barney Ross, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Carlos Monzon, Pascual Perez, Eder Jofre, Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Wilde even Bernard Hopkins to consider, and its true Leonard is there, but you have to also consider all these other greats plus Salvador Sanchez-who beat two or three top 100-Harry Greb, Gene Tunney, even Ricardo Lopez and Joe Calzaghe, all of them...

But you are right about everything else. Plus one problem Leonard had was that if he chose to fight Pipino Cuevas, people would accuse him of ducking Duran. He chose Duran instead and people say he ducked Cuevas. He fought Tommy Hearns and people accuse him of ducking Aaron Pryor. Had he chosen Pryor instead, people would be saying he chose the smaller man and ducked the young, dangerous other champion-Hearns. Either way it was a win and no win situation for Leonard. A catch-22 if there ever was one in boxing!

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 12:02**

I agree the why didn't he fight this guy or that guy in regard to Leonard is ridiculous. The guy went out his way to fight the best competition and people come up with this nonsense. It's funny, I have people say the same with Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali. Guys who fought the best competition of there era(in strong eras of their weight classes) get criticized.

The Top 10 is certainly a tough group to crack. Look what happens when you weigh these guys victims list against his losses/bad performances.

Not going to argue with Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Robinson, Charles, Ali. That's six.
However, who else is there?

Duran is an easy one. They fought each other and had common opponents. If you bend over backwards in their head to head meetings (throw out the 3rd fight, rate a TKO8 as no better than W15) than they are even.
Common opponents? Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, and Hagler. Duran lost to them all.

Big wins? Duran had one. Leonard had four.
Consistency? Duran was consistent, but he did lose to DeJesus. Leonard had no bad losses.

Other guys? Chavez, Pep, Saddler, Louis, Marciano, Perez, Wilde, Sanchez etc. simply don't have four huge wins like Leonard has.
Moore had some huge wins but also had a lot of losses. To some extent that can be blamed on how often he was fighting, but you have to count some of them.

To me, Leonard has a rock solid case for the top 10. you really have to go into major excuse land not to have him in the top 10. He really should be about #7.
The rest of the top 10 is very close; you certainly can make a case for Moore, Duran, Louis, Monzon, Ross, and a few others.
They are arguable.
Leonard really should not be. He should be in the top 10 without question. To not put him in there, is not giving him his due.

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 13:31**

I think Mayweather has a better case for top 10 than guys like Monzon, Moore, etc

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 13:34**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 12:02 I agree the why didn't he fight this guy or that guy in regard to Leonard is ridiculous. The guy went out his way to fight the best competition and people come up with this nonsense. It's funny, I have people say the same with Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali. Guys who fought the best competition of there era(in strong eras of their weight classes) get criticized.

The Top 10 is certainly a tough group to crack. Look what happens when you weigh these guys victims list against his losses/bad performances.

Not going to argue with Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Robinson, Charles, Ali. That's six.
However, who else is there?

Duran is an easy one. They fought each other and had common opponents. If you bend over backwards in their head to head meetings (throw out the 3rd fight, rate a TKO8 as no better than W15) than they are even.
Common opponents? Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, and Hagler. Duran lost to them all.

Big wins? Duran had one. Leonard had four.
Consistency? Duran was consistent, but he did lose to DeJesus. Leonard had no bad losses.

Other guys? Chavez, Pep, Saddler, Louis, Marciano, Perez, Wilde, Sanchez etc. simply don't have four huge wins like Leonard has.
Moore had some huge wins but also had a lot of losses. To some extent that can be blamed on how often he was fighting, but you have to count some of them.

To me, Leonard has a rock solid case for the top 10. you really have to go into major excuse land not to have him in the top 10. He really should be about #7.
The rest of the top 10 is very close; you certainly can make a case for Moore, Duran, Louis, Monzon, Ross, and a few others.
They are arguable.
Leonard really should not be. He should be in the top 10 without question. To not put him in there, is not giving him his due.

To not put him in the top ten does not mean that no one is giving him his due. He gets his due from a lot of people, even boxing experts alike.

Ranking fighters is SUBJECTIVE most of the time. I try to be as OBJECTIVE as possible when ranking fighters from different eras and certainly, is very hard to do. Not everybody would come with the same ranking. Why? Different criterias.

I ranked Sugar Ray at #18. I think that is fair enough. He beat some great fighters. So did the 17 others before him in my view. Plus, longevity got a lot to do with it. It is not fair that Sugar Ray after 1982 only had 7 fights in the next 15 years of his career when others in that time frame of fighting had at least 30 fights.

For example, A guy like the great Archie Moore could never be below Leonard. The same with Carlos Monzon and Duran. Those were guys that were constantly fighting the very best all over the world.

If Sugar Ray would have had more longevity, probably he would have been top ten. Maybe top 5. But, he didn't. He did not fight very much after 1982. And after 1982, all he did was beating a FADING MARVELOUS. A great win? Yes! But, we cannot go overboard. Why? Thomas Hearns and Duran fought Marvelous at his very best. In his prime. Sugar Ray didn't. See the point?

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 13:38**

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 13:31 I think Mayweather has a better case for top 10 than guys like Monzon, Moore, etc

And he does! He is defitnitely top 10 to me. It is SUBJECTIVE when ranking boxers. Not everybody would come with the same result.

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 14:34**

I can’t see any Heavyweights cracking the top ten as there’s too many better fighters in lower divisions, I’d pop Fitzsimmons in there but he’s not really a heavyweight, Leonard slots in around 7 for me and probably make room for May and Pac as well.

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 14:42**

littlepug wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 14:34 I can’t see any Heavyweights cracking the top ten as there’s too many better fighters in lower divisions, I’d pop Fitzsimmons in there but he’s not really a heavyweight, Leonard slots in around 7 for me and probably make room for May and Pac as well.

Tell me. What deficiencies get exposed at a lower weight class for Joe Louis? Wasn't he a complete enough boxer to be top 10 all time?

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 14:54**

oogiebe wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 14:42
littlepug wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 14:34 I can’t see any Heavyweights cracking the top ten as there’s too many better fighters in lower divisions, I’d pop Fitzsimmons in there but he’s not really a heavyweight, Leonard slots in around 7 for me and probably make room for May and Pac as well.
Tell me. What deficiencies get exposed at a lower weight class for Joe Louis? Wasn't he a complete enough boxer to be top 10 all time?

If Joe ain't all time Top 10 P4P, he's just outside of it. Like 11 or 12 or something.

He was an absolutely masterful offensive fighter, and one of the best Combination punchers ever at Heavyweight or indeed in Boxing period.

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 14:55**

gilgamesh wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 14:54
oogiebe wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 14:42
littlepug wrote: ↑20 Nov 2020, 14:34 I can’t see any Heavyweights cracking the top ten as there’s too many better fighters in lower divisions, I’d pop Fitzsimmons in there but he’s not really a heavyweight, Leonard slots in around 7 for me and probably make room for May and Pac as well.
Tell me. What deficiencies get exposed at a lower weight class for Joe Louis? Wasn't he a complete enough boxer to be top 10 all time?
If Joe ain't all time Top 10 P4P, he's just outside of it. Like 11 or 12 or something.

He was an absolutely masterful offensive fighter, and one of the best Combination punchers ever at Heavyweight or indeed in Boxing period.

Posted: **20 Nov 2020, 15:36**

In the 20th century, the great Joe Louis was in almost everyone list in the top 10 all-time. Now, his ranking is going down as time passes. He is still top 10 material in some lists today.

BoxRec

Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?

Re: Does Sugar Ray Leonard get his due?