SugarR Leonard vs SugarS Mosley Career Matchup

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Broughton bringing up the fact that Leonard was never 35-0 is so stupid it's not even funny. Let's compare. In his first 33 fights, Ray had fought and beaten Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Ayub Kalule, and Tommy Hearns.

--- Made you cry, sure did.

Nice bringing me up completely out of context in response to the claim that Shane was inconsistent. 35-0 near the top of p4p charts ain't inconsistent.

Had you properly followed the thread, that Leonard has a big early advantage in his career well noted through out by me. I'm comparing FULL career, not just the brief peak of Ray's career.

[dempseyfire]

Broughton bringing up the fact that Leonard was never 35-0 is so stupid it's not even funny. Let's compare. In his first 33 fights, Ray had fought and beaten Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Ayub Kalule, and Tommy Hearns.

--- Made you cry, sure did.

Nice bringing me up completely out of context in response to the claim that Shane was inconsistent. 35-0 near the top of p4p charts ain't inconsistent.

Had you properly followed the thread, that Leonard has a big early advantage in his career well noted through out by me. I'm comparing FULL career, not just the brief peak of Ray's career.

Umm, YOU are the one who made it a black mark that Ray was never 35-0 . . .which, yes, is ridiculous considering Ray fought much tougher comp in his first 35 fights.

Mosley did better in his 30s . . .so what? If you take the WHOLE picture, Ray fought, beat, and lost to the better comp, period. Mosley is ranked better in longetivity. Fine . . .that's pretty much it.

When you say 'tip-top' lists . . .no, Ray for me is not top 5 pfp or anything like that. In fact, when I think about it he doesn't make my top 10. But he's def top 15 or 20. Mosley is lucky to make my top 60.

[Robinson]

As much as I like Ray Leonard I can see Broughton's
case and I do tend to agree with his argument.

What hurts Moseley is that he did not win in a classical
era, the Vegas boys generation of Hearns, Hagler, Duran
etc will always be romanticised and loved for the entertaining
fights and personalities that it had.

In a pure sense I think Broughton is right, but in a nostalgic
sense and as far as Bert Sugar etc are concerned....Broughton
you are very wrong.

[Ambling Alp]

Come on Robinson, you are better than this.
Their personalities? Hagler and Hearns hardly had colorful personalities.

Watch their fights. They were great fighters.
Hagler could box convention or southpaw, had good power, and a great chin.

Hearns had great boxing skills and phenomenal power at welterweight.

Duran was quick, had good power and a good chin.

What exactly could Mosley do better Leonard?
Leonard was the complete package. He had great speed, boxing skills,power,chin and could throw any punch in the book. He wasn't just a great talent either; he proved over and over that he had great heart. Unlike Mosley, he could adapt to any style. During his prime, he would have beaten Vernon Forrest easily.

This isn't just "nostalgia" for the good old days. If it was you would hear people taking about all of the top fighters in all of the other divisions during this era as if they were all-time greats as well.
You don't. Because Duran,Hearns, Hagler, and especially Leonard were very special fighters.

Mosley was a great fighter but simply wasn't as good as these guys. If you can't tell that simply by watching their fights than I don't know else to say.

[Robinson]

I think in a purist sense what Broughton is saying is true.

I personally find more entertainment in watching the
80s boys. I would personally rate Leonard and his opponents
higher than Mosley.

BUT...

like I said I do find merit in what broughton is saying.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Leonard was the complete package. He had great speed, boxing skills,power,chin and could throw any punch in the book. He wasn't just a great talent either; he proved over and over that he had great heart. Unlike Mosley, he could adapt to any style. During his prime, he would have beaten Vernon Forrest easily.

--- Lessee, age 30 and Shane beat by Forrest and age 25 Leonard pulls a Hail Mary late round disputed KO out of the hat to beat Hearns, beats Finch and retires.

One Leonard supporter like to point out that Forrest was as good a boxer as Hearns, but less power and more cautious. Since Hearns was well up on the cards, it's not out of the question that Ray might lose to Forrest who would be more defensive.

Me thinks I may have knocked over a little holy water at some Leonard shrines here. The idea that the latest Sugar might be closer to the the Sugar wannabe, none of whom could hold a candle to the real Sugar.

[Ambling Alp]

Robinson,
What is he saying that has merit? Most of is nonsense.

He cherry picks stats that favors his cause. Surely you know that because one guy is 35-0 he isn't automatically better than another guy who isn't?

Surely you know that the sheer number of title defenses doesn't make one guy better than another? (If so, Tommy Burns must have been better than Jack Johnson, Sonny Liston Joe Frazier, and George Foreman)

Beating great fighters is important. It's harder to beat Marvin Hagler than beating 10 far inferior fighters. Losing to good but nowhere near great fighters like Vernon Forrest has to count against you. You have to weigh these things against each other as well as watch as much film as you can.

About the only thing that you could reasonably say that favors Mosley is that he is better at an old age than Leonard.
However, does that really make him better than Leonard?
By that logic Foreman must be the greatest heavyweight champion of all time, and Jersey Joe Walcott is #2.

[Ambling Alp]

Leonard was the complete package. He had great speed, boxing skills,power,chin and could throw any punch in the book. He wasn't just a great talent either; he proved over and over that he had great heart. Unlike Mosley, he could adapt to any style. During his prime, he would have beaten Vernon Forrest easily.

--- Lessee, age 30 and Shane beat by Forrest and age 25 Leonard pulls a Hail Mary late round disputed KO out of the hat to beat Hearns, beats Finch and retires.

One Leonard supporter like to point out that Forrest was as good a boxer as Hearns, but less power and more cautious. Since Hearns was well up on the cards, it's not out of the question that Ray might lose to Forrest who would be more defensive.

Me thinks I may have knocked over a little holy water at some Leonard shrines here. The idea that the latest Sugar might be closer to the the Sugar wannabe, none of whom could hold a candle to the real Sugar.

Have you actually seen the first Hearns-Leonard fight?
Unlike Forrest-Mosley,it was a great fight. Hearns was hurt several times in the fights and wasn't going to last the 15 rounds.

You are seriously comparing Hearns to Vernon Forrest? Get a clue.
If Leonard fought Forrest 10 times in their primes he would won all ten times.
At 30, Leonard was beating Hagler for the title after a 3 year layoff, and fighting as a middleweight for the first time. That's a little more impressive than losing to Vernon Forrest.

[Cojimar 1945]

People were comparing Vernon Forrest to Thomas Hearns earlier but I was under the impression that Hearns would rate well above Forrest in terms of accomplishments. I'd be interested in knowing if people disagree and if so why.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

You are seriously comparing Hearns to Vernon Forrest? Get a clue.
If Leonard fought Forrest 10 times in their primes he would won all ten times.
At 30, Leonard was beating Hagler for the title after a 3 year layoff, and fighting as a middleweight for the first time. That's a little more impressive than losing to Vernon Forrest.

--- I got a clue that you got the glue.

There was nothing impressive about Leonard or Marv that night, and one judge was especially poor. No need to clue you in on which one.

Now, I wasn't the one who brought up the Forrest/Hearns comparison, but there are more similarities than differences.

Shane didn't need the histrionics of repeated retirements and secret training sessions waiting for the precise moment to jump up 2 divisions to beat an older shopworn HOFer. Shane stepped right in to the fray against the highly touted Olympic gold medalist/prime champ and won a much more dynamic split. Yes, it pains you, but not as much pain if Ray didn't retire and gave Marv the rematch. The beating Ray took would be soothed by the salve of his largest career purse, but he turned it down.

End of. No mo' pain......

[Ambling Alp]

I am not fluent in gibberish but this is what he seems to be saying:

1. Vernon Forrest is a comparable fighter to Thomas Hearns. (True,they both have boxed.)

2. Going 0-2 against Vernon Forrest is better than going 1-0 against Marvin Hagler. (Makes sense in bizarro world.)

Not sure about the "I got the clue that you got the glue" part.

[elmersalsa]

I would not even considered Shane Mosley in the top 100 greatest fighters ever, pound per pound. He could never be comparable to Sugar Ray Leonard in terms of history, talent, nor even in the same class.

Sugar Shane was a very good fighter, but if we compare him to Leonard in terms of quality of opposition, division dominance and were both of them rank in their respective weight classes, IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Quality of opposition: Just to mention that Leonard fought and beat LEGENDS like the great Roberto Duran, Wilfred Benitez, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler and Terry Norris is a great crop of great fighters, no matter how you look at his fights. Best win for Mosley was when he beat Oscar De La Hoya...De La Hoya in not even in Norris nor Benitez' class for cripes sake. Best win for Leonard? TKO14 Thomas Hearns...NUFF SAID.

Division dominance: Mosley dominated his weight class against a bunch of third-rated fighters and over the hill champions in that period when he was champion. He made 8 title defenses of the IBF Lightweight crown, all by KO, which is impressive, but nothing to be high about. The PROBLEM was that Mosley never unified the crowns... that probably cost him in ranking him with the 100 p4p greats or 20 greats of the lightweight class of all-time. Leonard in the other hand at welter, had tougher competition and unified the welter crowns against Hearns in a fantastic performance from both fighters. Leonard could be considered with the top 5 or 10 greatest welterweights ever....I don't see the same case for Shane at lightweight. Shane in my view, is not even a top 10 lightweight all-time!!!

Contribution and influence to the sport: Leonard was the first fighter to command a million dollar payday outside the heavyweight division. His gold medal victory boosted the mainstream in boxing. Everybody wanted to see him fight. Everybody wanted to fight him. Mosley has never even crossed over to the public, even though, he is a great fighter.

Leonard was too much for Mosley even in TALENT is concern...Two different Sugars, one could beat the Original Sugar Ray in any given night (Leonard)...I don't think I could say the same for Shane.

[Tantum]

De La Hoya not in Norris' class?

I think you need to find a new hobby.

Perhaps Dungeons and Dragons, where delusions and fairytales are looked kindly upon.

[Syntax Error]

However, if you hate Leonard so much that you can't be objective or use common sense

--- However, if you silly up the conversation so much that you can't be obliged to use common sense, ain't that more the question?

I'm comparing the two most recent Sugars who happened to compete in mostly the same weight classes. It's not like putting a fatwa on Leonard for being overrated or calling him bad names.

Who said Leonard cleaned out the division? Guy was barely in the division 2 yrs and had a spontaneous retirement in the middle of that in reaction to the beating Duran gave him. Nobody ever beat Shane into retirement. You say Shane never beat anyone as good as Duran, well, when did Leonard ever jump two divisions to beat a prime HOF great like Oscar?

Someone points out losses to Forrest and Wright, but when did Leonard ever jump up two divisions to face a possible prime HOFer twice consecutively, and follow that up against a former champ 3 divisions above his original division, plus 3 more consecutive fights against prime HOFers?

This on top of Shane coming back to beat the prime Ring Champ ranked in his division going on 8 straight years now at an age Leonard was busy practicing climbing the ring steps so as to save his teetering for inside the ring?

Way I see it, Shane in fights that involved at least 17 past, current or future champs compared to Ray's 11. That on top of more wins, almost as many KOs as Leonard managed fights, as well as 30% more fights than Leonard.

Lots of different ways you can spin a career.

SRL was a Welterweight from 1977 - 1982; significantly longer than 2 years.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Who said Leonard cleaned out the division? Guy was barely in the division 2 yrs

SRL was a Welterweight from 1977 - 1982; significantly longer than 2 years.

- Obviously my response to the claim that Leonard cleaned out the division. The Hearns unification fight took place at the end of his two year run with the title where he lost his 2nd defense and retired before coming back to reclaim it.

That ain't cleaning out the division since he didn't fight the contenders and champ Hearns fought and didn't fight the champ and contenders that came afterwards, ie McCrory/Jones and Curry/Starling, excellent fighters all with Curry shortly assuming the p4p mantle Leonard vacated.

You chaps seem to have the need to wrap the legend of Leonard in cotton wool. You keep making a case for key guys he beat, which is obvious, but one which you keep making vast overstatements for, like cleaning out his division. He made 4 successful defenses against Green, Bonds, Hearns, and Finch and retired for a 2nd time in his best run in his heyday.

Like I say, different ways you can spin a career, and Leonard more than that, but again, Sal Sanchez is seldom mentioned in the lofty manner Leonard is deified. Sal has a superior record at an earlier age before being permanently retired against his wishes just to get away from the Mosley comparison.

I'm saying that these two fighters are at least fairly close to where Leonard is ranked. We could include many other fighters, but this thread as much about how rankings are determined as it is about Sugar Shane and Sugar Ray.

[dempseyfire]

Who said Leonard cleaned out the division? Guy was barely in the division 2 yrs

SRL was a Welterweight from 1977 - 1982; significantly longer than 2 years.

- Obviously my response to the claim that Leonard cleaned out the division. The Hearns unification fight took place at the end of his two year run with the title where he lost his 2nd defense and retired before coming back to reclaim it.

That ain't cleaning out the division since he didn't fight the contenders and champ Hearns fought and didn't fight the champ and contenders that came afterwards, ie McCrory/Jones and Curry/Starling, excellent fighters all with Curry shortly assuming the p4p mantle Leonard vacated.

You chaps seem to have the need to wrap the legend of Leonard in cotton wool. You keep making a case for key guys he beat, which is obvious, but one which you keep making vast overstatements for, like cleaning out his division. He made 4 successful defenses against Green, Bonds, Hearns, and Finch and retired for a 2nd time in his best run in his heyday.

Like I say, different ways you can spin a career, and Leonard more than that, but again, Sal Sanchez is seldom mentioned in the lofty manner Leonard is deified. Sal has a superior record at an earlier age before being permanently retired against his wishes just to get away from the Mosley comparison.

I'm saying that these two fighters are at least fairly close to where Leonard is ranked. We could include many other fighters, but this thread as much about how rankings are determined as it is about Sugar Shane and Sugar Ray.

As for Sanchez.

1) As great as Lopez, Gomez, and a (green) Nelson were, I wouldn't say they equal victories over Duran, Hearns, Benitez, and Hagler.
2) Sanchez is routinely in discussions of top 10 featherweights. Mosley is practically never placed as a top 10 lightweight or welterweight.
3) All-time across weight classes I'd rank Sanchez ahead of Mosley too.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

As for Sanchez.

1) As great as Lopez, Gomez, and a (green) Nelson were, I wouldn't say they equal victories over Duran, Hearns, Benitez, and Hagler.
2) Sanchez is routinely in discussions of top 10 featherweights. Mosley is practically never placed as a top 10 lightweight or welterweight.
3) All-time across weight classes I'd rank Sanchez ahead of Mosley too.

- Fair enough. I rank Sanchez over Leonard because of his impetuous youth without the corporate suits providing gilded red carpet treatment that Leonard received.

I feel that Shane deserves a modern reassessment given the recent upset win. Some questions about his career sportsmanship like Leonard suffers from, but competing well into his mid to late 30s and beating the longest (7.5 yr) Ring ranked champ in a barn burner performance very significant if it holds. He may suffer another beatdown in his next fight, but precious few fighters with his age and experience have ever performed so well.

[Ezzard]

I do believe that Sanchez had the ability and the opposition to have been fighter of the 1980s. A rematch with Nelson, as well as fights with Pedroza, Fenech, Chavez, Mitchell, Arguello (maybe), Rosario and McGuigan would all have been amazing. he still had to win them all but I'd have made him favourite in all of those bouts.

[elmersalsa]

De La Hoya not in Norris' class?

I think you need to find a new hobby.

Perhaps Dungeons and Dragons, where delusions and fairytales are looked kindly upon.

Are you surprised that I said that De La Hoya is not in Terry Norris' class? None of the two were nothing high to be about. What makes you think that DLH was better than Terry?