BoxRec

Hearns was potentially the best; could have been the greatest fighter ever, but for average stamina & C- chin.

He could box the knickers off the best boxers & he could also KO you with 1 punch.

There are very few fighters that were so accomplished at doing both, the way Hearns could.

In real terms, SRL is the best.

Boxing brain, decent power, underrated strength, awesome chin, amazing footwork, great skills, brilliant stamina & the heart of 10 lions.

Ambling Alp wrote:-Please list who Leonard ducked and when he ducked them.

-Leonard was 34 and hadn't fought in 14 months when he fought Norris. What the oddsmakers thought is irrelevant. Odds on based on the public perception going into the fight.
When Hagler lost to Watts he was much closer to his prime and hadn't had a long layoff. Furhtermore, Watts wasn't as good as Norris. Hagler losing to Watts is much worse than Leonard losing to Norris.

When Leonard lost to Duran, he was 23 and Duran just turned 29. Duran was in his prime. It was a tough close fight. Leonard came back and won the rematch easily.

Call Leonard the worst of the 4 is absolutely ridiculaus.

What performances in Leonard's prime were bad? The worst performance he had was losing a close fight to Roberto Duran. That is hardly embarrassing.

Did you or didn't you see the Hagler-Watts fight?? I got the impression you actually watched it but I now believe you speak of it without actually having seen the fight. Because if you had, you wouldn't have made that remark which I find to be borne out of ignorance.

No, the loss to Watts is not as bad as Ray Leonard's loss to Norris. It is like comparing night to day. In fact, if I had to lose a fight I would much rather lose in the manner Hagler had, giving his all and getting the better of many of the exchanges while the other man initiates all of the clinches.

Preferrable to the lacing Leonard took round after round getting his head knocked around, and frequently going into a shell. I honestly thought Norris took every round and easily.

Leonard looked to me as though he didn't know the first thing about fighting and in fact it was Norris who was sweeter than sugar ever showed in a fight while leonard looked just plain pathetic, most likely because his opponent he was facing was on his way up rather than on the way down. Those opponents are always much easier to fare against.

honestly, I don't know why you keep up this pretense asking me who Leonard was ducking and when. We all know he ducked them with the exception of Benitez who was never anything to begin with, other than a cutie with a weak offense and less heart than Leonard.

Even in his brief comebback with kevin Howard, it was cause for him to retire after one fight just because he lost his appetite for fist.

So I find it wholly appropriate to rank Leonard last because even in his best years he wasn't all that impressive. Kalule? Well we can say Kalule who?

Hearns? Tommy showed he was by far the more skilled boxer. Ray Leonard's skills as a boxer were irrelevent. What was relevent in that fight was Tommy's suspect stamina further hindered by the 145 pounds, unnatural for a boy who stands 6-1.

Duran-Leonard two, it is well documented by Randy Gordon about what kind of shape Duran was in when he was called out for the rematch.

Which doesn't leave too many spectacular performances one can refer to. Perhaps Dave Green? Andy Price? Floyd Mayweather? Wilfred Benitez?

No, not Wilfred Benitez. Sorry.

Furthermore, Ray Leonard wasn't installed as a 3-1 favorite for no good reason, Alp. You should realize this. Yes it's true that Hagler was favored somewhere around the same odds but Hagler did make it close. yes he should have won as well but almost everyone including yourself underestimated how far gone he really was. He was a shell who struggled in his last outing but leonard dominated his last opponent and his one year layoff was far less significant than the 3 year layoff prior to the Hagler fight and...Norris was a much lesser and untested quantity than was Marvin Hagler.

So it doesn't add up no matter what angle you play it. There is no way Ray Leonard should have lost. At worst, he should have won by a narrow, too close to call margin the way he always does in tough fights. If this guy were even half the fighter you all say he is, then he should have had no problem with Norris and walked right through him in 6 rounds at the latest.

No I didn't see the Watts-Hagler fight? So what? The fact remains that Hagler lost to a guy that wasn't as good as Terry Norris. Hagler was closer to his prime than Leonard was to his.

Duran lost to DeJesus. If you want to pretend that Leonard was in his prime against Norris than yopu have to count duran's losses to Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims as well. duran also lost to Benitez whom Leonard beat.
Hearns lost to Barkley, twice.
Hagler lost to Watts,Monroe, had a draw with Seales, had a draw with Antuofermo.

All of these guys lost to other fighters, but yet you keep harping on the Terry Norris fight as if that is is somehow more important.
Why do you keep ignoring the losses of Duran,Hearn's and Hagler?
I thought even Leonard's biggest detractors would acknolwedge that he was far from his when he fought Norris.
Do you seriously think Norris would win if Leonard was remotely close to his best?

I love the comment that Benitez was never anything and had a weak defense. Well, he did beat Duran, didn't he?

I keep up this pretense of asking whom Leonard ducked and when. Yet you didn't name anyone. So I will ask once again, whom did Leonard duck and when did he duck them?

Ambling Alp wrote:No I didn't see the Watts-Hagler fight? So what? The fact remains that Hagler lost to a guy that wasn't as good as Terry Norris. Hagler was closer to his prime than Leonard was to his.

Duran lost to DeJesus. If you want to pretend that Leonard was in his prime against Norris than yopu have to count duran's losses to Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims as well. duran also lost to Benitez whom Leonard beat.
Hearns lost to Barkley, twice.
Hagler lost to Watts,Monroe, had a draw with Seales, had a draw with Antuofermo.

All of these guys lost to other fighters, but yet you keep harping on the Terry Norris fight as if that is is somehow more important.
Why do you keep ignoring the losses of Duran,Hearn's and Hagler?
I thought even Leonard's biggest detractors would acknolwedge that he was far from his when he fought Norris.
Do you seriously think Norris would win if Leonard was remotely close to his best?

I love the comment that Benitez was never anything and had a weak defense. Well, he did beat Duran, didn't he?

I keep up this pretense of asking whom Leonard ducked and when. Yet you didn't name anyone. So I will ask once again, whom did Leonard duck and when did he duck them?

How would you know anything about him unless you saw him? maybe the competition was stiff. He beat Hagler himself so what makes you so sure about his quality as a fighter? After all, you never saw him but yet made the statement that Hagler was near his prime. When Bobby did lose he lost to Mustafa Hamsho in 78 but that has to be discounted because everyone lost to Hamsho including the "legendary"Wilfred Benitez who came out of that fight an absolute wreck.

And by the way, you got that wrong too. I said Wilfred was a defensive cutie with a limited offense which is why he spent the entire 12 rounds in passive posture (spelled cowering) in a corner.

And i would never compare Leonard's puny accomplishments with that of Roberto Duran with 12 defenses to leonard's 4 and 80+ fights compared with Leonard's 35 including a few farces including that lalonde championship.

And why would I think Leonard was far from his best because he took a beating from Norris. Leonard didn't lose the fight, Norris won it because he stayed in Ray's face, hurt him numerous times and backed him up the whole night. And the important thing is he never let Ray rest or gave him a chance to think or to look for openings.

Yes of course it matters. You'd like to pretend it didn't matter by taking the easy way out with "Leonard was old" and some such. But wasn't Hopkins even older by the time people were saying he had just reached his prime?? Dick Tiger. Archie Moore.

Besides that, Leonard performed flawlessly in Uno mas in what Steve Farhood called "the perfect fight". And we all know that no shot fighter can fight a perfect fight and win every round, or scarcely be touched, let alone stay on his legs all 12 rounds without letup until the audience starts booing out of frustration. The legs Alp. Oh my God, did you see the way he used his legs?

What other shot fighter has ever performed in this manner?

So you really have no basis in labeling Leonard a shot fighter. The only thing we really know is that he was 34 and took a whipping from a 3-1 underdog.

As for the people he ducked, you should know the answer to that but let's just say that you don't. He owed Roberto a rubbermatch much sooner than nine years in the future but maybe he prefers the sight of a pudgy old 38 year old in front of him.

hearns would have been a good matchup, say 1984 meeting the winner of Hearns-Duran. But then, you could say he probably wouldn't have the stomach for it if all he could say after the kevin Howard coronation concluded was "it wasn't there".

I also believe Leonard should have taken a fight with marvin much sooner than 1987. It was absurd the way he came out as the news flashed across the sports world. I thought "Why the sudden change of heart? Could the Mugabi fight have had something to do with it?" Maybe Hagler was now looking slow enough, hittable enough, and fighting at a pace leonard could finally keep up with. Maybe the fact that Hagler's lacked the firepower he once showed in fights. Maybe it was all of these things.

But I'll tell you what it wasn't due to and that was the risk to his eye because if that were the case, it wouldn't make sense to make a comeback at age 30.

But if you heard that Leonard revealed to Tim Ryan who revealed in on aire that "Leonard said that Hagler had lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of Hagler" then it becomes clear what the reason for Leonard's comeback were.

And leonard-Hearns two was wayyyyy past due. What a joke. 1989 just because he leonard watched Hearns-kinchen and salivated over getting the leftovers. "i'm going to finish the job that Kinchen started but unlike James, I'll be the one to get credit for it"

Too bad it didn't quite work out that way.

It's not really my eye I'm worried about-it's just that it wasn't there tonight folks. I'm going to have to retire.

"I'm just not feeling it tonight"- Sugar Ray Leonard.

Where's Ringsider? Maybe he's not feeling it tonight.

Elton John wrote:Where's Ringsider? Maybe he's not feeling it tonight.

I am right here, what should I be feeling? Or saying.........

Elton John,
Maybe ringsider has as much respect for your opinions as I do.
Anyway, Leonard didn't duck anyone.
He should have fought Hearns in 1984? Well Leonard was having eye problems for several years. I thought that maybe you knew about that. It was in all of the papers.
If Hearns wanted a rematch immediately, he would have stayed at welterweight instead of moving out Leonards weight class. If anything, it was Hearns ducking Leonard.

Duran should have got a 3rd fight sooner? Again Leonard was almost entirely out of action for 5 years. If Duran wanted a 3rd fight soon after he quit in the 2nd fight, he should have stayed a welterweight. However, he like Hearns, moved out of Leonard's weight class. If anything it was Duran who was ducking Leonard.

Leonard should have fought Hagler before 1987? Well, again Leonard was out of action becasue of his injuries. Even so, it was Hagler who had the advantage that the fight in 1987. Leonard hadn't fought in 3 years and had only one fight in the last 5. Leonard had never fought as a middleweight before.

Most people in Leonard's situation never would have fought again. However he came back after a long layoff to fight Marvin Hagler. To criticize him for that is simply stupid.
You can keep mocking Benitez all you want. If you really believe that Benitez wasn't any good, than Duran's loss to Benitez is all the more embarrassing.

Just because I haven't seen the Watts-Hagler fight doesn't mean it didn't happen. Hagler lost to a good, but nowhere near great fighter. That has to be a mark against him when comparing him to the All-Time Greats. Yes, Hagler was a great fighter, but I'm not going to pretend he didn't lose to Watts just because I didn't see it.

I like how you make a big deal of Hagler slowing down when he fought Leonard, but you give Leonard absolutley no slack against Norris. Leonard was 34 when he fought Norris, Hagler (Hagler)and wasn't going against a guy that had been almost totally inactive for 5 years.
Do you really believe that Leonard was remotely close to his best for that fight? If that was the case, then Terry Norris must be one of the All-Time greats.

Leonard's accomplisments are puny compared to Duran?
Well you are right, Leonard didn't spend 6 years defending his title against mediocre fighters like Duran did. His best opponent (DeJesus) actually beat Duran once.
Imagine the crap Leonard would get if he had spent 6 years fighting opponents like this.

Yes Duran had more fights than Leonard. So what? There are dozens of guys that had more fights than Duran that weren't nearly as good. Quality is a lot more important than quantity. It's a lot harder to beat a Hagler, a Hearns or a Benitez than it is to beat 10 tomato cans. Going to Panama and scoring easy knockouts against people hardly anyone has ever heard of doesn't mean much. Nor does beating club fighters in the United States.

Let's call the Leonard-Duran head to head series even. (We will throw out the 3rd fight)

If you want to count Leonard's loss to Norris, then you have to count Duran's losses to Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims.
Who are Duran's biggest wins against? Buchanan, Marcel,DeJesus,
Palomino, and Cuevas?
Leonard's are against Hearns, Hagler, and Benitez. They were much better fighters than Buchanan,Marcel, DeJeus, Palomino and Cuevas.

Leonard beat Benitez
Benitez beat Duran.

Leonard beat Hearns.
Hearns knocked Duran out cold in two rounds.

Leonard beat Hagler.
Hagler beat Duran.

Whom did Duran ever beat that beat Leonard? No one.

As mentioned before Hagler lost to Watts and Monroe. Duran lost to DeJesus. Hearns lost to Barkley twice. They were all reasonably close to their primes at the time. Even if you want to throw out the fact that Leonard hadn't fought for 14 months and was closing in on 35 when he fought Norris, it's still to an opponent that is better than the ones Duran, Hagler, and Hearns' lost to.

You are not willing to judge these fighters careers with any objectivity.
You should use the same criteria whether you like a guy or not.

I second that post.

Whom did Duran ever beat that beat Leonard? No one.

Very true, but when Duran fought Leonard in fight one, and SRL fought like a man, he was beaten like a child. So Duran just past his LW prime, beat a prime WW Leonard.

Prime on prime....I gotta go with Duran.

If Leonard was having eye problems that prevented a rematch with Tommy in 84 then what was he doing in the ring a month before Tommy aced Duran?? Was his real ambition to face off with Kevin Howard in the ultimate showdown??

And Leonard still lost to a 3-1 underdog. I don't recall anyone coming forward and picking Norris to win that fight. They said mismatch but instead would up like Clay-Liston the night he shocked the world.

And please don't use that excuse about a 14 month layoff as the reason for the loss to Terry Norris. I've never seen this kind of beating due to a short layoff. We're talking 14 months, not 14 years.

Wasn't this the fighter of the decade?

Fighter of the decade my eye. His retirements were all farces just like his excuses for making seven comebacks including clubfighters and shells.

His excuses for failing to meet Hagler aren't even same the ones you've mentioned. He called Hagler into the Baltimore Civic Center and began touting a fight with him then shot it down afterwards saying "I wanted to feel something" , not "I couldn't risk my eye". And in the same way pulled out immediately afterwards for the Hagler tuneup in 1984 saying "it wasn't there tonight" like a little crybaby.

So you see why I don't believe this garbage his fans are pedalling to me that his eye was the sole reason for all this ducking and dodging.

He's just a guy who picked his opponents every time he saw they were fading and then made up an excuse for coming out and when the first live wire crossed his path, he was pubically crucified.

It was a nice change really not having to watch Leonard slipping by on points with another relic and the outcome was pretty much what I expected to see; a slaughter.

leonard had absolutely no idea what he was doing and by the 5th round, lost all his confidence. he looked like a real sucker following Norris across the ring and getting whacked in the head for his efforts. It reminded me of his first fight with Tommy Hearns but without the problems Tommy displayed with burnout late in the fight. We all know Tommy was on his way to a sure points win over the less talented but physically stornger Leonard.

Even his attempts to corner Norris on the ropes proved to be futile. Perhaps a gainst Tommy or Duran he would have shined that night but hitting Terry was harder than hitting a cloud.

This is not a loss that anyone would compare with Hagler-Watts or Dejesus-Duran since those fights were competitive. Norris-Leonard was anything but competitive.

Syntax Error wrote:Hearns was potentially the best; could have been the greatest fighter ever, but for average stamina & C- chin.

He could box the knickers off the best boxers & he could also KO you with 1 punch.

There are very few fighters that were so accomplished at doing both, the way Hearns could.

In real terms, SRL is the best.

Boxing brain, decent power, underrated strength, awesome chin, amazing footwork, great skills, brilliant stamina & the heart of 10 lions.

I thought that those were also Duran's and Hagler's qualities too!!!

Syntax Error wrote:Hearns was potentially the best; could have been the greatest fighter ever, but for average stamina & C- chin.

He could box the knickers off the best boxers & he could also KO you with 1 punch.

There are very few fighters that were so accomplished at doing both, the way Hearns could.

In real terms, SRL is the best.

Boxing brain, decent power, underrated strength, awesome chin, amazing footwork, great skills, brilliant stamina & the heart of 10 lions.

He didn't look like he had the heart of ten lions aginst Norris. His courage melted away by the 3rd when he realized he was in deep shit.

Other than that he was a talented boy who was able to avert getting hurt by taking long overdue fights against some recognizable names. His style reminded me a bit of Jersey Joe. Good speed and a versatile puncher. Chin was a little shitty though.

Duran had the highest numbers, but Sugar Ray Leonard had the quality kills.

The more I see Sugar Ray Leonard fight, the more I am getting conviced that he was not as I thought he was in my view at first.

Talented? yes. Does he had great speed? yes. Extraordinary boxing ability? Not as good as some other fighters that I have seen on film like Ezzard Charles, Eder Jofre or Ken Buchanan for example.

It makes me laugh when some here throw his wins vs the likes of Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez as the parameter to put him over the great Duran when considering, the fact were:

1. Duran and Benitez were not natural welterweights
2. Duran, a lightweight, whupped him in the BIGGEST NIGHT OF LEONARD'S CAREER
3. His win over Hagler was not definite by some people, because many around the world thought Hagler won anyway.
4. Never gave IMMEDIATE REMATCHES to his opponents. I bet if Benitez, and Hearns would have won those fights, Leonard would have had an immediate rematch.

In view of the rivalries...None of the 4 can be called as the "best"...Sugar Ray is viewed as the best of the bunch because of his wins, but if we look at it right, we have:

1. He should have lost the decision with Hearns in the second fight..
2. Duran whupped him when both were at their very best
3. He really did not beat Hagler according to some people.

And to throw that Duran and Hagler did not had great opponents in their respective weight classes, that is baloney. Then, why Alexis Arguello did not went up to fight Duran in '78?

Duran whupped excellent opponents at lightweight which were better than the Pete Ranzanys, Randy Shields and Andy Prices of the world. He did not had the fault that Antonio Cervantes did not agree to fight him. He did not had the fault that Danny Lopez, feather champion, did not challenge him. So he beat the very best that there was: Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus and Ishimatsu Suzuki. He also beat a gift technician in Ernesto Marcel in 1970 at featherweight, the same Marcel that retired UNDEFEATED CHAMPION by beating the great Arguello in his last fight. He beat Hiroshi Kobayashi, a jr lightweight champion for 4 years, Saoul Mamby, who later became champion and also beat tough guys like Hector Thompson and Ray Lampkin. Hagler? also had great opposition at middleweight, discouting the Durans, the Leonards and Hearns. He fought guys like Mustapha Hamsho, John Mugabi, Bobby Watts, Bennie Briscoe, Sugar Ray Seales, and other top contenders before winning the title.

If I got to choose pound per pound, who was the best? Duran hands down was the greatest of the 4

If I got to choose, who was the best of the rivalry? NONE OF THEM...They did not fight enough fights between them to be called the best.

You're right Elmer. Winning bouts above your "natural" weight is the single most important criteria in the process of evaluating fighters. Roberto Duran is superior to Sugar Ray Leonard, AND the greatest fighter in the history of the sport of boxing is, let's have a long drum roll ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... JAMES "LIGHTS OUT" TONEY !

Toney campaigned successfully at Heavyweight almost 80 lbs heavier than what he weighed for his 1st title victory over Michael Nunn. Roberto Duran didn't even come close to doing that !

I always say it but these guys really polarise opinions. Like it or not we all identify with some of the bunch more than others and so fight their corner...

Someone just said leonard had the quality kills. I didn't see any kills. If leonard killed Hearns then what do you call it when Hagler settles it in three? That to me was far more convincing than Tommy's previous defeat, especially when Tommy did so much better and for so much longer.

Ray hardly killed Benitez or Duran. Those two bouts were very unsatisfactory in the manner of their conclusion. Nothing clean about it and referee padilla had to step in and help so that sugar could have himself an official knockout on his resume.

A kill is what Tommy forced onto Duran, with a helpless foe looking to escape the onslaught of his oppressor, not a disputed decision win over a badly faded superstar like Hagler.

Seamus wrote:You're right Elmer. Winning bouts above your "natural" weight is the single most important criteria in the process of evaluating fighters. Roberto Duran is superior to Sugar Ray Leonard, AND the greatest fighter in the history of the sport of boxing is, let's have a long drum roll ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... JAMES "LIGHTS OUT" TONEY !

Toney campaigned successfully at Heavyweight almost 80 lbs heavier than what he weighed for his 1st title victory over Michael Nunn. Roberto Duran didn't even come close to doing that !

i hope you are joking.

Elton John wrote:Someone just said leonard had the quality kills. I didn't see any kills. If leonard killed Hearns then what do you call it when Hagler settles it in three? That to me was far more convincing than Tommy's previous defeat, especially when Tommy did so much better and for so much longer.

Ray hardly killed Benitez or Duran. Those two bouts were very unsatisfactory in the manner of their conclusion. Nothing clean about it and referee padilla had to step in and help so that sugar could have himself an official knockout on his resume.

A kill is what Tommy forced onto Duran, with a helpless foe looking to escape the onslaught of his oppressor, not a disputed decision win over a badly faded superstar like Hagler.

By kill, he means wins. He probably thought that everyone could figure that out. Looks like he was wrong.

Head to head wins between Leonard,Duran,Hearns, and Hagler:

1. Leonard (4)
2. Hagler (2)
3. Hearns (1)
3. Duran (1)

But please continue to entertain us with your excuses and half baked theories why Leonard is the worst of the four.

The difference between these guys is razor thin so the 4 that Ray boasts does not give him quite the bragging rights that one might assume on first blush. Nor do Tommy and Roberto's lower numbers fairly indicate their respective deficits. IMHO

However I agree with Alp wholeheartedly that Leonard can NOT be considered the worst under any set of objective criteria. To come to that conclusion would be well....ludacrisp.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Elton John wrote:Someone just said leonard had the quality kills. I didn't see any kills. If leonard killed Hearns then what do you call it when Hagler settles it in three? That to me was far more convincing than Tommy's previous defeat, especially when Tommy did so much better and for so much longer.

Ray hardly killed Benitez or Duran. Those two bouts were very unsatisfactory in the manner of their conclusion. Nothing clean about it and referee padilla had to step in and help so that sugar could have himself an official knockout on his resume.

A kill is what Tommy forced onto Duran, with a helpless foe looking to escape the onslaught of his oppressor, not a disputed decision win over a badly faded superstar like Hagler.

By kill, he means wins. He probably thought that everyone could figure that out. Looks like he was wrong.

Head to head wins between Leonard,Duran,Hearns, and Hagler:

1. Leonard (4)
2. Hagler (2)
3. Hearns (1)
3. Duran (1)

But please continue to entertain us with your excuses and half baked theories why Leonard is the worst of the four.

You gotta add, Hearns UD12 Leonard and Hagler UD12 Leonard by some fans

This 4 way rivalry was not very conclusive because of times and weigh discrepancy

If we look at the other 4 way rivalries of the lightweights of the 1940s between Ike Williams, Beau Jack, Sammy Angott and Bob Montgomery is MORE LEGIT AND FAIR. THEY ALL FOUGHT EACH OTHER MORE THAN TWICE AND THEY FOUGHT AT THE SAME WEIGHT CLASS

Even the 4-way rivalry of Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman and Ken Norton was more legit and FAIR than the Leonard-Duran-Hagler-Hearns series

Ambling Alp wrote:

Elton John wrote:Someone just said leonard had the quality kills. I didn't see any kills. If leonard killed Hearns then what do you call it when Hagler settles it in three? That to me was far more convincing than Tommy's previous defeat, especially when Tommy did so much better and for so much longer.

Ray hardly killed Benitez or Duran. Those two bouts were very unsatisfactory in the manner of their conclusion. Nothing clean about it and referee padilla had to step in and help so that sugar could have himself an official knockout on his resume.

A kill is what Tommy forced onto Duran, with a helpless foe looking to escape the onslaught of his oppressor, not a disputed decision win over a badly faded superstar like Hagler.

By kill, he means wins. He probably thought that everyone could figure that out. Looks like he was wrong.

Head to head wins between Leonard,Duran,Hearns, and Hagler:

1. Leonard (4)
2. Hagler (2)
3. Hearns (1)
3. Duran (1)

But please continue to entertain us with your excuses and half baked theories why Leonard is the worst of the four.

All right you want to play hard ball I'll go along with it. I don't count offical decisions when they're bad calls (to put it another way, I don't count bum decisions) as in the case of Ramirez-Whitaker or Louis Walcott. Same as in Hagler-Leonard which leonard failed to connect on 75%. How do I know? I counted them.

Therefore, Leonard was more accurate but Hagler landed more. Out of the first four rounds I had 1st even 2nd leonard 3rd Hagler 4th Leonard 5th Hagler 6 leonard 7, 8, Hagler 9 even, 10, 11 going to Hagler and 12 to Leonard.

Now read this: 4 rounds leonard 2 even 6 Hagler easy. Many rounds looked close but Leonard failed to score on most of what he threw and the judges just didn't look carefully enough. Leonard was sharper but that he shouldn't be rewarded for that reason alone.

hearns-Leonard two must also go to hearns. I felt Tommy edged him so the draw decision is also invalid.

Considering that Hagler and Hearns were so incredibly ring worn and that they actually defeated Leonard narrowly, I shuddered to think what Norris was apt to do once he go hold of him. Like I thought, it wasn't pretty.

Elton John wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Hearns was potentially the best; could have been the greatest fighter ever, but for average stamina & C- chin.

He could box the knickers off the best boxers & he could also KO you with 1 punch.

There are very few fighters that were so accomplished at doing both, the way Hearns could.

In real terms, SRL is the best.

Boxing brain, decent power, underrated strength, awesome chin, amazing footwork, great skills, brilliant stamina & the heart of 10 lions.

He didn't look like he had the heart of ten lions aginst Norris. His courage melted away by the 3rd when he realized he was in deep shit.

Other than that he was a talented boy who was able to avert getting hurt by taking long overdue fights against some recognizable names. His style reminded me a bit of Jersey Joe. Good speed and a versatile puncher. Chin was a little shitty though.

I thought he showed an immense amount of heart versus Norris.

He knew from early on that he wasn't going to win that fight, but he hung in there, kept plugging away & took his beating.

If he had no heart, he would have quit or fouled his way out of the fight or heaven forbid, did a No Mas!