BoxRec

Carbo wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:What dumb brawls did Leonard get into?.

Well, fighting Duran as he did first time out wasn't the smartest thing to do, but lets just face fu-king facts for a moment, shall we? Leonard stood toe to toe with the, sorry, The master brawler, and held his own.

He couldn't make his way inside Hearn's reach and jab, so he stood flat-footed, inside the pocket, in range of the Hitman's murderous punches so he could find room for his own counters, and won.

Those who say Mayweather is on a par with Leonard need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Also add to that SRL's win against the unbeaten exceptional powerful counterpunching genius of Benitez (who was at the peak of his game). A single mistake would be punished and the fight turned on its head. But SRL out counterpunched the counterpuncher in an absorbing chessmatch.

SRL was as complete a fighter as you will ever see in the modern sport of boxing. So many facets to his game. PBF may well be one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time but that is about as far as you go with him.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:For me, nobody has been 'the man' at Welterweight since Mosley lost to Forrest.

Think that is a little harsh IMO, Ricardo Mayorga beat Six Heads Lewis, Forrest was an established IBF champion before he beat Mosley. Mayorga beat Forrest twice.... quite dramatically.

I'm not sure if you consider Forrest to ever be "the man", but whatever your view on Forrest, why not Mayorga - is it because of his Ugly style? With Mosley

Now I'm not disputing Shane Mosley's pedigree, but his reign as Welterweight champion was way overated. He looked fantastic, but never fought a top ten fighter AS A DEFENCE. Adrian Stone, Shannon Taylor and a shot Antonio Diaz. Hardly proof that he is the man himself.

So why is okay for Mosley not to establish himself to still be the men, but not Forrest or Mayorga. Both of whom had a better resume AT WELTERWEIGHT before winning the unified title. Lets not forget, Mosley beat a DLH for the title who had just recently lost to Tito and only won a vacant title himself.

Spinks then didn't get just lucky vs Mayorga. He'd established himself as a Welterweight champion, beat Mayorga and then successfully defended it against a former Light Welter champion.

So why the double standards for Mosley?

As I have said before, Mayweather beat the unconvential Lineal Champion in Baldomir... That might not have been enough for some, but when he added Judah - the most skillfull fighter in the top 10 (at the time).. Then surely he established himself more than Mosley. Margarito has just shown that he is as flawed as Judah - aside from him there is no one else.

No no, I'm not saying Mosley was 'the man' either, but he did put on a few defences before running into Forrest, and Oscar was looking pretty good before that.

There hasn't been a truly dominant Welterweight champion for absolutely ages.

If none of them could keep the title long enough, it doesn't really matter. I mean, if you lose on the 1st serious defense, how much of a champ are you?

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Wasn't the Super-Middleweight titles made up specifically for Leonard?

No. Super Middle was first introduced in 1984 by the IBF.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:No no, I'm not saying Mosley was 'the man' either, but he did put on a few defences before running into Forrest, and Oscar was looking pretty good before that.

There hasn't been a truly dominant Welterweight champion for absolutely ages.

Mosley's good defenses were against pretty poor fighters (for World title challengers) though.

Your original post certainly reads like you considered Mosley "the man".

bennie wrote:And let's not forget what Leonard did to an aggressive British fighter in the mould of Hatton!

Exactly,


SRL Vs Dave Boy Green all over again!

DG. wrote:

bennie wrote:And let's not forget what Leonard did to an aggressive British fighter in the mould of Hatton!

Exactly,


SRL Vs Dave Boy Green all over again!

You see, I don't understand this post. It's not so much that I disagree with it, because Mayweather is certainly the kind of fighter whose potential may be even grater than the level of performance we've seen thus far. But I simply do not understand it.

If you think Mayweather is better at welterweight than Leonard, or if you think Dave Green is on the same planet as Hatton, I think you're following the wrong sport.

Carbo wrote:

DG. wrote:

bennie wrote:And let's not forget what Leonard did to an aggressive British fighter in the mould of Hatton!

Exactly,


SRL Vs Dave Boy Green all over again!

You see, I don't understand this post. It's not so much that I disagree with it, because Mayweather is certainly the kind of fighter whose potential may be even grater than the level of performance we've seen thus far. But I simply do not understand it.

If you think Mayweather is better at welterweight than Leonard, or if you think Dave Green is on the same planet as Hatton, I think you're following the wrong sport.

My take is on the level of SRL to DVB and PBF to RH.



PBF schools Hatton.

DG. wrote:

Carbo wrote:

DG. wrote:

Exactly,


SRL Vs Dave Boy Green all over again!

You see, I don't understand this post. It's not so much that I disagree with it, because Mayweather is certainly the kind of fighter whose potential may be even grater than the level of performance we've seen thus far. But I simply do not understand it.

If you think Mayweather is better at welterweight than Leonard, or if you think Dave Green is on the same planet as Hatton, I think you're following the wrong sport.

My take is on the level of SRL to DVB and PBF to RH.



PBF schools Hatton.

I think your 'take' is wrong. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but if an opinion says that Burton Albion are a better football team than Manchester United, I think others are entitled to say that opinion is plain wrong.

As I mentioned in my previous post, Mayweather certainly is the kind of fighter who may find hitherto unseen levels of performance and dominate Hatton. I don't dispute that. But your reasoning and the comparison you draw to arrive at this conclusion betrays an ignorance I find surprising for a regular poster on a boxing forum. Furthermore, your conclusion has a level of forgone certainty which, when combined with the basis of the argument, indicates an almost childlike simplicity of logic.