BoxRec

I Feel Fine wrote:I don't know what you were looking at either. It was hardly a bad performance. Leonard looked pretty good and broke Kalule down.

If Leonard had spent significant time at 154 he would have been fine there. Saying he wouldn't because he went rounds with a good fighter, then struggled in two comeback fights, one at old age, is ludicrous.

It's like when one time someone told me that Duran wasn't good at Welterweight because he lost to Leonard. Forgetting that he won the first fight, if Duran is fighting in a different era in Welterweight history, like today, maybe he effing kills a couple of todays "top" Welterweights.

Gotta take things into consideration...

It looks that you never saw the fight. Even Howard Cossell, one of Leonard's nuthuggers was not satisfied with that performance. I imagine a prime McCallum would have beat him with more class. He was stronger, more durable and in his own weight class and hit harder at 154 than Ray. Davey Moore ONLY NEEDED 5 ROUNDS TO BEAT KALULE. HE beat Kalule too easy, and he was not SRL class in skill.

If Leonard would have stayed at 154 in the mid 80s, he would have lost a whole bunch of fights, beginning with Hearns and McCallum...I certainly know that.

Davey Moore needed 10 rounds to beat Kalule and it was a brutal and very tough fight for him.

Kalule was a very good fighter, albeit more suited to 160.He was one of the best technical boxer-punchrs in the sport when he fought Leonard.

elmersalsa wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:I don't know what you were looking at either. It was hardly a bad performance. Leonard looked pretty good and broke Kalule down.

If Leonard had spent significant time at 154 he would have been fine there. Saying he wouldn't because he went rounds with a good fighter, then struggled in two comeback fights, one at old age, is ludicrous.

It's like when one time someone told me that Duran wasn't good at Welterweight because he lost to Leonard. Forgetting that he won the first fight, if Duran is fighting in a different era in Welterweight history, like today, maybe he effing kills a couple of todays "top" Welterweights.

Gotta take things into consideration...

It looks that you never saw the fight. Even Howard Cossell, one of Leonard's nuthuggers was not satisfied with that performance. I imagine a prime McCallum would have beat him with more class. He was stronger, more durable and in his own weight class and hit harder at 154 than Ray. Davey Moore ONLY NEEDED 5 ROUNDS TO BEAT KALULE. HE beat Kalule too easy, and he was not SRL class in skill.

If Leonard would have stayed at 154 in the mid 80s, he would have lost a whole bunch of fights, beginning with Hearns and McCallum...I certainly know that.

Now I didn't see the fight? Cute.

I've seen the fight twice, smart guy. I don't care what Cosell said... Cosell liked Ali, that didn't stop him from being critical of Ali at times, even if Ali was dominating fights. Leonard didn't look all that bad and was taking on a good opponent. His hand speed was good, he fought the guy straight up, he broke him down, he threw a lot of punches and showed good stamina in the fight. And it was his first fight there.

I haven't seen the fight, but when Hearns first stepped up to 154 he apparently got into a war with a guy who had lost his last two fights. And Hearns is considered the greatest Jr. Middleweight of all time! Yet you're going to cast dispersions on Leonard at 154 because he had some competitive rounds with an undefeated belt holder there in his very first fight at that weight? Duran went 1-2 in his first three Jr. Middleweight fights before winning a belt there. That's why fighters take tune ups when they move up in weight, before going after a belt. You're telling me that Leonard sucked at 154 because he had a somewhat competitive fight that he won by knock out against a guy who was 36-0, a solid fighter and a belt holder... and because he didn't look good in a fight coming off a two year layoff... and then because at old age he took a fight he shouldn't have at that weight class; 35 years old against a Hall of Famer in his prime...? The latter two fights meant nothing in terms of how an active, prime Sugar Ray Leonard would look at 154. And that's all there really is to say. Leonard was one of the GOAT at 147, he was really good at 160, but he would have sucked at 154... that's logical.

That's like just assuming that Aaron Pryor at his best couldn't have been any good at Welterweight either, since he lost when he moved up. He was addicted to cocaine and was no longer in his prime, but its good to be short sighted when considering these questions... if Pryor were around today, and decided to move up, I would pick Baldomir to beat him

McCallum was a great fighter. he struggled with Kalambay and Graham but he fought many different styles, almost always on foreign soil.

In the time period he fought I back him to beat all the Fab 4.

Duran was too small and old at 154 to beat McCallum.

Hearns may be considered the greater fighter but in a head-to-head match I fancy McCallum's skill, chin and endurance to see him through the first half of the fight and then his stamina and body shots to win him the fight over 15. Hearns has a much better chance over 12.

Leonard's win over Kalule is impressive but Ray was rarely convincing above 147. It would be a close fight but I give the edge to McCallum.

Hagler was slowing down. Had he got past Leonard he may have gone for a rematch with Hearns. If he ahd gone for McCallum at this stage in his career he would have lost.

Mike was a fantastic fighter with a great chin, stamina and a vicious body attack. He had the chin to beat Tommy, the strength and punch to beat or trouble Leonard and he also had the variety and endurance to match Hagler. He was really that good and I would favor him to KO Hearns late, and even beat Leonard over 15 at 154 or 160lbs

Bomber Graham fought a shocking fight against McCallum but still almost snatched a win in that fight. A very disputed decision. McCallum went on to school Michael Watson at a time when Watson was tipped for great things.

I respect McCallum also but I think some people are going a little overboard here.

McCallum split fights with Kalambay, barely beat Herol Graham, was about even in his series with Toney. These guys are not in the class of Hagler,Hearns and Leonard.

Leonard had an odd career and if you are thinking of Leonard at the end ok. However, Leonard at his best would beat McCallum.
McCallum would have a puncher's chance against Hearns, but he would probably lose.
McCallum is not going to beat Marvin Hagler.

Look Mike was 34/35 when he faced a young Toney who I happen to think was a fantastic fighter. Toney would beat Hearns and LEONARD AT MIDDLE/SUPER. He would KO Hearns. And I am a huge Ray Leonard fan, but Ray was not a great middle or above as he wasn't naturally at those weights. Mike also had years of tough fights before Toney and Toney boxed quite well in their first fight. I gave it to James by a couple points but it was the first time I realised how brilliant Mike was, to put up such a display against a much younger and a very grat fighter in Toney

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:I don't know what you were looking at either. It was hardly a bad performance. Leonard looked pretty good and broke Kalule down.

If Leonard had spent significant time at 154 he would have been fine there. Saying he wouldn't because he went rounds with a good fighter, then struggled in two comeback fights, one at old age, is ludicrous.

It's like when one time someone told me that Duran wasn't good at Welterweight because he lost to Leonard. Forgetting that he won the first fight, if Duran is fighting in a different era in Welterweight history, like today, maybe he effing kills a couple of todays "top" Welterweights.

Gotta take things into consideration...

It looks that you never saw the fight. Even Howard Cossell, one of Leonard's nuthuggers was not satisfied with that performance. I imagine a prime McCallum would have beat him with more class. He was stronger, more durable and in his own weight class and hit harder at 154 than Ray. Davey Moore ONLY NEEDED 5 ROUNDS TO BEAT KALULE. HE beat Kalule too easy, and he was not SRL class in skill.

If Leonard would have stayed at 154 in the mid 80s, he would have lost a whole bunch of fights, beginning with Hearns and McCallum...I certainly know that.

Now I didn't see the fight? Cute.

I've seen the fight twice, smart guy. I don't care what Cosell said... Cosell liked Ali, that didn't stop him from being critical of Ali at times, even if Ali was dominating fights. Leonard didn't look all that bad and was taking on a good opponent. His hand speed was good, he fought the guy straight up, he broke him down, he threw a lot of punches and showed good stamina in the fight. And it was his first fight there.

I haven't seen the fight, but when Hearns first stepped up to 154 he apparently got into a war with a guy who had lost his last two fights. And Hearns is considered the greatest Jr. Middleweight of all time! Yet you're going to cast dispersions on Leonard at 154 because he had some competitive rounds with an undefeated belt holder there in his very first fight at that weight? Duran went 1-2 in his first three Jr. Middleweight fights before winning a belt there. That's why fighters take tune ups when they move up in weight, before going after a belt. You're telling me that Leonard sucked at 154 because he had a somewhat competitive fight that he won by knock out against a guy who was 36-0, a solid fighter and a belt holder... and because he didn't look good in a fight coming off a two year layoff... and then because at old age he took a fight he shouldn't have at that weight class; 35 years old against a Hall of Famer in his prime...? The latter two fights meant nothing in terms of how an active, prime Sugar Ray Leonard would look at 154. And that's all there really is to say. Leonard was one of the GOAT at 147, he was really good at 160, but he would have sucked at 154... that's logical.

That's like just assuming that Aaron Pryor at his best couldn't have been any good at Welterweight either, since he lost when he moved up. He was addicted to cocaine and was no longer in his prime, but its good to be short sighted when considering these questions... if Pryor were around today, and decided to move up, I would pick Baldomir to beat him

Well, how many fights do you need for Leonard to look good beyond 147?

Kalule was not even Davey Moore's class, and Moore crushed him in 5 rounds. Leonard did not had the power to beat McCallum. Now, you want to mention Aaron Pryor? Pryor was SUPERWASHED UP AND IN DRUGS AND BROKE. What the hell we are supposed to think that he would have been successful at 147? Leonard was not good over the 147 limit. He STUNK. Kalule gave him so much trouble because of the weight class. If Kalule was a welterweight, the fight would have not be that competitive. Kalule would have not passed the 5th round.

What makes us think that Leonard would have been dominant at 154 when we looked at the evidence he did not look good against a fair opponent? Now I IMAGINE with an exceptional opponent like Hearns or McCallum or Julian Jackson I can see a KO loss by SRL.

And to tell everybody the truth, I cannot see him beat Tony Ayala nor Davey Moore either....Not at 154 or beyond.
That "victory" over Hagler is QUESTIONABLE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.

McCallum would certainly in my view would have beaten Duran and Leonard. With Hearns would have been more difficult because of the height factor. Hearns looked stronger at 154. He was a horse! That is why a fight with Hears vs McCallum I called it a tossed up. With Hagler, I put my money on Hagler, but I would not be too sure about that.

Davey Moore beat Kalule in TEN rounds and it was a very tough fight.


Leonard looked fine against kalule.

He had trouble with him because Kalule was an excellent technician and counterpuncher.Not because of any change in weightclass, he only came in a few pounds over 147 after all and was still basically a Welter.

I really have no dog in this fight and could see either McCallum or Leonard winning, and I like them about evenly, but if you think Leonard looked bad against Kalule, or that based on those three fights that we can assume that Leonard, active, in his prime, at 154 would look bad... then have fun with that... maybe you don't like Leonard.

My point about Pryor was exactly that... we have absolutely nothing to go on in terms of how he, at his best, would look at 147. Making leaps based on one fight would be foolish, and making leaps based on how Leonard looked at 154 at 35 years old, or after a layoff, or in his first fight there against a good opponent... not smart thinking.

I see you ignored my reference to Hearns struggling in his first 154 fight... I looked it up, he was fighting Earnie Singletary, who had been 0-2 in his last two fights. He had lost a decision to Alan Minter, the guy Hagler beat to win the title, and had been stopped by a guy with 12 wins. Don Dunphy said it was a war, he said it was an even tougher fight than Hearns' fight with Leonard! And it went the distance. Now, maybe this guy was good and had just had some bad luck recently, but he wasn't an undefeated belt holder, either, as Kalule was.

I guess if Hearns had retired or gone back to 147 after that fight with Singletary, it would have been safe to just assume that Hearns would have sucked at 154

I Feel Fine wrote:I really have no dog in this fight and could see either McCallum or Leonard winning, and I like them about evenly, but if you think Leonard looked bad against Kalule, or that based on those three fights that we can assume that Leonard, active, in his prime, at 154 would look bad... then have fun with that... maybe you don't like Leonard.

My point about Pryor was exactly that... we have absolutely nothing to go on in terms of how he, at his best, would look at 147. Making leaps based on one fight would be foolish, and making leaps based on how Leonard looked at 154 at 35 years old, or after a layoff, or in his first fight there against a good opponent... not smart thinking.

I see you ignored my reference to Hearns struggling in his first 154 fight... I looked it up, he was fighting Earnie Singletary, who had been 0-2 in his last two fights. He had lost a decision to Alan Minter, the guy Hagler beat to win the title, and had been stopped by a guy with 12 wins. Don Dunphy said it was a war, he said it was an even tougher fight than Hearns' fight with Leonard! And it went the distance. Now, maybe this guy was good and had just had some bad luck recently, but he wasn't an undefeated belt holder, either, as Kalule was.

I guess if Hearns had retired or gone back to 147 after that fight with Singletary, it would have been safe to just assume that Hearns would have sucked at 154

First of all, you got the facts all wrong. Hearns first fight after losing to Leonard was with Earnie Singletary in the Bahamas on the Ali-Berbick undercard. That fight was billed as a 10 round middleweight bout. The next fight of Hearns was with Marcos Geraldo at 154. What happened? Hearns crushed him in expectacular fashion in less than 5 rounds. At 154, Hearns looked way better than Leonard in all the areas. He was stronger, faster and hit harder at 154 than when he was at 147. He was at the right weight class at the right time. Hearns looked like a monster at 154. I could not see Leonard beating him in that weight class when he struggled with Tommy at 147 and worse yet at 168. The bigger they go in weight, THE WORSE WAS FOR LEONARD. And at 154, Hearns beat Benitez and Duran much easier than Leonard beat them at 147, and that was Leonard's weight class.

Sugar Ray Leonard was one of my favorite fighters, but he had a lot of loopholes that people here want to deny. Sometimes he used to get hit unecessarily at times. He had trouble with guys that were slick, he lacked the punch going up in weight, and got too many stipulations. If you want to accuse me of not liking Ray because of my earlier posts, then fine, I could live with that. But one thing for sure I knew his career as good as you, Ray Leonard lover. And at 154, he WOULD HAVE NOT BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS MANY PEOPLE IN HERE THINK OR AS YOU THINK. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARE READING, DO NOT READ MY POSTS.

Yes, since technically the Hearns-Singletary so technically that wasn't a Jr middleweight fight.

However, technically speaking, Leonard's wins in his early career against good fighters like Marcus Geraldo,Tony Chiaverini and Fernand Marcotte were at Jr middleweight.
Since Leonard hadn't reach his peak yet, this is a strong indication that Leonard would have been even better in the Jr Middleweight division when he did reach his peak.

Leonard had trouble with slick boxers? Say what? He beat Benitez who is about as slick as they come.

As for elmer's theory about Hearns and Leonard, that the higher they go in weight, the worse for Leonard. If thats true, the reverse must be true. (Leonard's chances at 154 than at a weight higher than 154) If the 162 pound Hearns couldn't destroy the 160 pound Leonard, then Hearns isn't going to destroy him at 154.

If Leonard can perform as well as he did at middleweight against Hagler after a long layoff, there is every indication that he would be much better at Jr Middleweight if he wasn't coming off a long layoff.

There is good reason to believe that Leonard not had the eye injury, he probably would be been very successful at Jr Middleweight around 1983-1985.

elmersalsa wrote: First of all, you got the facts all wrong. Hearns first fight after losing to Leonard was with Earnie Singletary in the Bahamas on the Ali-Berbick undercard. That fight was billed as a 10 round middleweight bout. The next fight of Hearns was with Marcos Geraldo at 154. What happened? Hearns crushed him in expectacular fashion in less than 5 rounds. At 154, Hearns looked way better than Leonard in all the areas. He was stronger, faster and hit harder at 154 than when he was at 147. He was at the right weight class at the right time. Hearns looked like a monster at 154. I could not see Leonard beating him in that weight class when he struggled with Tommy at 147 and worse yet at 168. The bigger they go in weight, THE WORSE WAS FOR LEONARD. And at 154, Hearns beat Benitez and Duran much easier than Leonard beat them at 147, and that was Leonard's weight class.

Sugar Ray Leonard was one of my favorite fighters, but he had a lot of loopholes that people here want to deny. Sometimes he used to get hit unecessarily at times. He had trouble with guys that were slick, he lacked the punch going up in weight, and got too many stipulations. If you want to accuse me of not liking Ray because of my earlier posts, then fine, I could live with that. But one thing for sure I knew his career as good as you, Ray Leonard lover. And at 154, he WOULD HAVE NOT BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS MANY PEOPLE IN HERE THINK OR AS YOU THINK. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARE READING, DO NOT READ MY POSTS.

As I said, I didn't see Hearns-Singletary, my understanding was that the fight was at Jr. Middleweight. Now that I look at boxrec, Hearns was 155, so yes, technically he was a Middleweight, though he was right there. Singletary's weight isn't listed.

The rest of your post is bullshit. Leonard didn't do as well in the rematch, but not because they were at 168, more likely because it wasn't a 15 rounder and Leonard didn't have enough time to rally as he did in the first fight, though he destroyed Hearns in the last round of the second fight. And the same thing applies to the fight at 147, if that had been 12 rounds Hearns would have probably won.

I like Leonard but I'm not particularly a huge Leonard fan. I actually like Hearns about as much. But you're very short sighted in your assumptions that Leonard would suck at 154, and you're blind if you think he looked terrible against Kalule.

Don't read your posts? It'll be a pleasure.

Agreed ambling. Good point about Benitez, I have no idea what this guy is talking about on that one.

[quote="elmersalsa"]He had trouble with guys that were slick, [quote]

No offence but you could say that about almost any fighter.

KOJOE90 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:He had trouble with guys that were slick,

No offence but you could say that about almost any fighter.

What about that one guy who KO'd every slick fighter he ever faced? I forget his name. Oh and then there's Edwin Valero....but he don't care if your slick or not, he Knock's you out either way. Maybe he can't tell the difference.

I can see Elmers point, Leonard was not as impressive over 147 really, but I think you are underrating Kalule Elmer... the guy was a very good fighter and his style gave Leonard problems. As for Leonard vs Mccallum I think this would have been a very tough fight for both men... and while Leonard struggled against counter punchers, Mccallum also struggled with boxers who had speed and skill and so I see Leonard as a difficult fight for him.... I'd probably go for Mccallum over the Leonard who fought Hagler/Hearns2/Duran... etc but I think the Leonard who beat Kalule would be too fast for Mccallum and would win a decision... but it would probably be very close and controversial...

Giving Marvin Hagler his closest Middleweight championship fight is not impressive? That is arguably Leonard's best performance... arguably.

Again, if Leonard looked less great in his later fights, it was because of age and inactivity, not weight. Weight had nothing to do with some of his later close fights and losses, absolutely nothing.

I Feel Fine wrote:Giving Marvin Hagler his closest Middleweight championship fight is not impressive? That is arguably Leonard's best performance... arguably.

Again, if Leonard looked less great in his later fights, it was because of age and inactivity, not weight. Weight had nothing to do with some of his later close fights and losses, absolutely nothing.

But Hagler was well past his best when he fought Leonard... I dont see what your point is I've said that Leonard would give Mccallum a hard fight and you still want to pick an argument... if you think moving up in weoght didnt affect Leonard ability then you're dreaming... why did he make Lalonde come in at 168 rather than at the Light Heavy limit when the 175 title was supposedly up for grabs as well???........ why was he floored in just about every fight he had after the Hagler bout??....
moving up in weight affects every fighter, if you dont know that then you dont know nothing!.... 8)

I'm sorry, I wont argue, I was wrong on all points:

Yes, Hagler was an easy fight.

And you're right, Leonard showed his cowardice fighting the much bigger Lalonde at 168.

And that knock down, it was definitely a knock down. Lalonde absolutely landed that punch. And Lalonde won every round, prior to the questionable stoppage.

And yes, Leonard was down in just about every fight he had in higher weight classes. Marcotte, Geraldo, Chiaverini, Kalule, and Duran had Leonard down several times in their fights in higher weights. As did Hagler.

And Camacho, he definitely would have stopped Leonard if Leonard was in his 20's... the weight had everything to do with it.

And I agree, I don't know anything about boxing. But you do.

:(

Leonard is hard to gauge above 147 because his number of fights is so few and there is so much time between them.

Despite Hagler's deterioration, and however you scored it, it was still an excellent win for Leonard BUT Ray was never so effective once he left welterweight. From the evidence we have Leonard was still great at 154 and very good at 160 but he would not have beaten all before him. McCallum would take him 15 rounds in a very, very hard fight. I lean towards Mike but it could go either way, in mid 80s scenario.

By the end of the 1980s (post Hagler) McCallum would have had a much easier time of it. I'd say that by 1987 McCallum was more than capable fo beating all of the fab 4.

I think its more about eras when these guys were at their peaks; with McCallum it was mid-late 80s, with Hagler, Leonard and Hearns their peaks were early 80s, and with Duran the 1970s.
McCallum won a LM title in 1984, therefore I would give him an advantage over Leonard and Duran at this point because they were past their best. Hearns was moving up to MW for the Hagler fight, I wouldnt have back McCallum to beat Hearns in the mid 80s, although he would have had a good chance

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: First of all, you got the facts all wrong. Hearns first fight after losing to Leonard was with Earnie Singletary in the Bahamas on the Ali-Berbick undercard. That fight was billed as a 10 round middleweight bout. The next fight of Hearns was with Marcos Geraldo at 154. What happened? Hearns crushed him in expectacular fashion in less than 5 rounds. At 154, Hearns looked way better than Leonard in all the areas. He was stronger, faster and hit harder at 154 than when he was at 147. He was at the right weight class at the right time. Hearns looked like a monster at 154. I could not see Leonard beating him in that weight class when he struggled with Tommy at 147 and worse yet at 168. The bigger they go in weight, THE WORSE WAS FOR LEONARD. And at 154, Hearns beat Benitez and Duran much easier than Leonard beat them at 147, and that was Leonard's weight class.

Sugar Ray Leonard was one of my favorite fighters, but he had a lot of loopholes that people here want to deny. Sometimes he used to get hit unecessarily at times. He had trouble with guys that were slick, he lacked the punch going up in weight, and got too many stipulations. If you want to accuse me of not liking Ray because of my earlier posts, then fine, I could live with that. But one thing for sure I knew his career as good as you, Ray Leonard lover. And at 154, he WOULD HAVE NOT BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS MANY PEOPLE IN HERE THINK OR AS YOU THINK. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARE READING, DO NOT READ MY POSTS.

As I said, I didn't see Hearns-Singletary, my understanding was that the fight was at Jr. Middleweight. Now that I look at boxrec, Hearns was 155, so yes, technically he was a Middleweight, though he was right there. Singletary's weight isn't listed.

The rest of your post is bullshit. Leonard didn't do as well in the rematch, but not because they were at 168, more likely because it wasn't a 15 rounder and Leonard didn't have enough time to rally as he did in the first fight, though he destroyed Hearns in the last round of the second fight. And the same thing applies to the fight at 147, if that had been 12 rounds Hearns would have probably won.

I like Leonard but I'm not particularly a huge Leonard fan. I actually like Hearns about as much. But you're very short sighted in your assumptions that Leonard would suck at 154, and you're blind if you think he looked terrible against Kalule.

Don't read your posts? It'll be a pleasure.

Agreed ambling. Good point about Benitez, I have no idea what this guy is talking about on that one.

You are so full of garbage and bullshit. To you, Leonard would have dominate every weight class all the way to lightheavyweight. He would have beaten a Michael Spinks and Bob Foster in their primes for cripe's sake!!!

The evidence was there that Leonard beyond 147, was NEVER THE SAME FIGHTER. The fight against Kalule, he did not looked like a fighter of his standards.

Now you want to tell me that Hearns was getting killed in their second bout. Do not make me laugh. Leonard pick the fight because he THOUGHT that Hearns was washed up. That is the only reason he fought Hearns the second time. And indeed, HEARNS WAS MORE WASHED UP THAN LEONARD, AND STILL HEARNS PUT IN THE FLOOR EATING DUST TWICE IN THE FIGHT. That fight was not a draw in no circumstance. Only Leonard nuthuggers would have agreed that that fight was a draw. Let's be true to ourselves, please.

Now, I imagine the Leonard that came back from retirement in 1984 against Kevin Howard against the machine of Hearns that crushed Duran in 2 rounds for a rematch then. It would have been a massacre!!! Hearns by KO in 5...No doubt about that. He (Leonard) probably would have survived the 2 rounds that Duran got KO'd, but that's it.

Hearns was beating him the first fight at 147, but Hearns came at 145. Many experts doubt about him coming at that weight. They said that he should have come stronger at 147. Now at 154, Hearns would have beaten him much easier because the range and the height would carry the weight. At 154, Hearns looked PHENOMENAL, much better than at 147. Every body in this forum would have agreed with me in that one, including yourself. Just like Felix "Tito" Trinidad looked more awesome at 154 than at 147.

Now, you do not want to believe that Leonard had troubles with slick fighters?
It looked that you did not see the Benitez fight.
It seems that you did not see the slickness of Duran in Montreal.
It seems that you did not see how Hearns was outboxing him for almost 10 rounds when Hearns started to box.

How many slick fighters Leonard fought in his career than those 3? That tells me that McCallum, another slick fighter (See the McCallum-Toney I, probably you did not watch that one either), would have beaten Ray at 154 because he was stronger and hit harder and was as complete fighter as Leonard.

Let's give McCallum some credit. He could have beaten at least 3 of the FAB 4.

And that is right...Do yourself a favor...Do not read my posts even if stinks...Maybe I was taking a shit when you read them...And by the way, taking a shit is probably better than debating this with you. You should try the same.

However, technically speaking, Leonard's wins in his early career against good fighters like Marcus Geraldo,Tony Chiaverini and Fernand Marcotte were at Jr middleweight.

Yeah right. In the Geraldo fight, Geraldo almost knock him out. That is his fourth fight that he did not looked good. Hearns crushed Geraldo in less than 5. Leonard was seeing 3 Geraldo's in that fight. Geraldo had him in trouble.

Leonard had trouble with slick boxers? Say what? He beat Benitez who is about as slick as they come.

Be honest to yourself Alp. You did not see how troublesome Benitez was for Ray? I was rooting for Leonard to knock him out with his fast hands and I could not believe what I was watching. I even was crying during the fight that my daddy had to calm me down because I thought that Leonard was losing the fight. Benitez gave him so much trouble that Leonard NEVER AGAIN DID NOT WANT TO FIGHT HIM.

How about the UNDERRATED slickness of Duran in Montreal??? Did not the great Duran made him miss like no one before or after?

And how about the first fight with Hearns when the Hitman started to box? Did not had Leonard trouble then for almost 10 rounds?

As for elmer's theory about Hearns and Leonard, that the higher they go in weight, the worse for Leonard. If thats true, the reverse must be true. (Leonard's chances at 154 than at a weight higher than 154) If the 162 pound Hearns couldn't destroy the 160 pound Leonard, then Hearns isn't going to destroy him at 154.

What make you think that? Hearns was totally washed up for their second bout and still put Leonard on the floor eating dust not once, but twice. That fight was not a draw in no circumstance. Now I imagine the same Hearns that crushed Duran in 2 rounds, in his complete prime, fighting Leonard at 154. You think that Leonard would have survived against a taller, faster, hit harder and stronger opponent that looked PERFECT AT 154? I DON'T THINK SO.

If Leonard can perform as well as he did at middleweight against Hagler after a long layoff, there is every indication that he would be much better at Jr Middleweight if he wasn't coming off a long layoff.

There is good reason to believe that Leonard not had the eye injury, he probably would be been very successful at Jr Middleweight around 1983-1985.

We never know the evidence of how well he would have performed between 1983 to 1985...That is for sure. But as the evidence showed at that particular time, HE DID NOT LOOKED AS GOOD AS WHEN HE WAS AT WELTERWEIGHT AND THAT HAPPENS to almost every fighter.

We never will know how he would have fared against Terry Norris, Julian Jackson, Tony Ayala Jr, John Mugabi, Duane Thomas and Milton McCrory. But as far with Hearns and McCallum? Being a Leonard fan, probably I would not put my money on him in that period of 1982 thorugh 1985

Wow, you're a special kind of a retard.

This is quickly deteriorating, and this whole 'debate' as you call it was fruitless to begin with, especially in a thread that has nothing to do with Leonard. But for the sake of clarity, I'll make a couple of points...

I didn't say Leonard "killed" Hearns in the second fight. If you knew how to read, I said he "destroyed" him in the 12th round of the rematch, and could have came from behind to win if the rematch had been a 15 round fight, just as he came from behind to win the first fight. And I said the same could be said in the first fight; Hearns could have won that if it had been a 12 rounder. So, to me, your theory that Leonard was better in the lower weight classes and Hearns in the higher is a dumb theory. The difference in rounds was the real difference in the two fights.

You've already stated your opinion about Leonard vs. Kalule, no need to say it again. I frankly don't care.

And the other stupid statement was that I haven't seen Leonard's fights with Benitez, Duran, Hearns. Well again, that's cute, but I'm sure I've seen those fights more often than you have. Yes, they were "slick" fighters, and they were also the best fighters Leonard ever fought, along with Hagler, who was also a better boxer than people make him out to be. If Leonard had difficulties with them, well, that's to be expected, but if you can beat Wilfredo Benitez, as ambling indicated, its a bit difficult for someone to accuse you of being unable to take on a slick fighter. Duran also had some of that, and Leonard beat him. So, there it is.

If Leonard doesn't suffer an eye injury, and decided to carry on to 154, stays active, is in his prime, he would be very good at Jr. Middleweight. Whether he beats McCallum or not I do not know. His fight with Hearns would be no more or no less difficult, the question of whether its a 15 rounder or a 12 rounder would seem to be the bigger factor.

And that's it for this thread. Hopefully we can get this back to Mike McCallum. Have fun talking to yourself