BoxRec

golden oldie wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Ok lets take that example. Leonard supposedly dangled millions for an almost immediate rematch. when he knew Roberto was "partying up a storm".
Duran was the one with the leverage here. Leonard had no power to dictate when the rematch would happen. If Duran wanted to wait longer, he could have and Leonard would have had no choice but to wait. He was the champion. Leoanrd wanted a rematch. Virtually any compettitive person would have.
More importantly, It was not an immediate rematch. The second fight took place a full 5 months after the first. Are we really supposed to believe that Duran was "partying" for five months? He plenty of time to get into shape.

This is a perfect example. If this was someone else, nobody would give the "partying excuse" any credibility at all.

It is posts like these full of blind adulation that cause people to react contemptuously.

Even people of a similar ilk to you who think the sun shines from Ray Leonard's ass, are stating the obvious, which is Leonard was a master tactician in and out of the ring, ( personally I believe the out of ring genius was down to Mike Trainer, rather than Leonard ) so it is hardy nuclear physics to work out, that when Duran originally challenged him for the 147 title, he ( Leonard ) will have dictated the terms and conditions of the rematch clause/s.

Or doesn't that common sense approach suit you're agenda?

RE, you're earlier post.

I don't see anything wrong with you convincing yourself that 87 Hagler was the same fighter he was between 79 -84, however it is a bit stupid if you try to convince others of the same belief. I am not interested in whether or not Leonard's convenient retirements helped or hindered him, suffice to say he was still able to tap and run, whilst Hagler simply no longer had the legs to catch him. When I hear Dundee screaming from the corner " only 6 minutes to go Ray, keep moving " I tend to give that more credence than a Leonard fan who wants to tell me Hagler was prime.

With regards to Benitez, I have no idea whether or not the guy was on drugs at the time he fought Ray Leonard, but only an idiot would claim that Wilfred and serious drug addiction were strangers.

As for Tommy Hearns.

I find it comical that people claim there was no problem with his stamina due to weight loss, and it was pure coincidence that Hearns went on to fight for almost 25 years after his 147 bout with SRL, and never attempted to make 147 again. Ffs the guy was back in the ring less than 3 months after the Leonard fight, a full 10 pounds heavier, and went 10 rounds comfortably. But lets not let a few inconvenient statistics get in the way of a good old fashion bit of hero worship, eh?

Which brings us to Leonard / Duran 1.

He lost.

golden oldie wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Aha, at last the voice of reason. That is exactly what he said, and is exactly why he took the fight, after NON STOP TALKING about fighting Hagler for the previous 5 years.

Yes, but your tone has a lot of anger towards SRL. SRL was being honest about it.

I have contempt ( rather than anger ) for ALL frauds. Their choice of profession is irrelevant. The way I see it, above 147 Sugar Ray Leonard was a fraud. Mainly due to who he chose to fight, and who chose to avoid, at specific times, whilst flitting in and out of " retirement " like a two bob street whore.

I have no interest whatsoever in the blind sheep party line of " eye injuries prevented SRL from fighting most of the 5 years, between Finch and Hagler."

They didn't.

Counter-puncher wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

Yes, but your tone has a lot of anger towards SRL. SRL was being honest about it.

I have contempt ( rather than anger ) for ALL frauds. Their choice of profession is irrelevant. The way I see it, above 147 Sugar Ray Leonard was a fraud. Mainly due to who he chose to fight, and who chose to avoid, at specific times, whilst flitting in and out of " retirement " like a two bob street whore.

I have no interest whatsoever in the blind sheep party line of " eye injuries prevented SRL from fighting most of the 5 years, between Finch and Hagler."

They didn't.

you seem to struggle somewhat with your tone. I mean, not coming across as a pompous, irate bore, seems to be a problem to you.

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't recall ever finding you pompous, or a bore, tony.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Ok lets take that example. Leonard supposedly dangled millions for an almost immediate rematch. when he knew Roberto was "partying up a storm".
Duran was the one with the leverage here. Leonard had no power to dictate when the rematch would happen. If Duran wanted to wait longer, he could have and Leonard would have had no choice but to wait. He was the champion. Leoanrd wanted a rematch. Virtually any compettitive person would have.
More importantly, It was not an immediate rematch. The second fight took place a full 5 months after the first. Are we really supposed to believe that Duran was "partying" for five months? He plenty of time to get into shape.

This is a perfect example. If this was someone else, nobody would give the "partying excuse" any credibility at all.

It is posts like these full of blind adulation that cause people to react contemptuously.

Even people of a similar ilk to you who think the sun shines from Ray Leonard's ass, are stating the obvious, which is Leonard was a master tactician in and out of the ring, ( personally I believe the out of ring genius was down to Mike Trainer, rather than Leonard ) so it is hardy nuclear physics to work out, that when Duran originally challenged him for the 147 title, he ( Leonard ) will have dictated the terms and conditions of the rematch clause/s.

Or doesn't that common sense approach suit you're agenda?

RE, you're earlier post.

I don't see anything wrong with you convincing yourself that 87 Hagler was the same fighter he was between 79 -84, however it is a bit stupid if you try to convince others of the same belief. I am not interested in whether or not Leonard's convenient retirements helped or hindered him, suffice to say he was still able to tap and run, whilst Hagler simply no longer had the legs to catch him. When I hear Dundee screaming from the corner " only 6 minutes to go Ray, keep moving " I tend to give that more credence than a Leonard fan who wants to tell me Hagler was prime.

With regards to Benitez, I have no idea whether or not the guy was on drugs at the time he fought Ray Leonard, but only an idiot would claim that Wilfred and serious drug addiction were strangers.

As for Tommy Hearns.

I find it comical that people claim there was no problem with his stamina due to weight loss, and it was pure coincidence that Hearns went on to fight for almost 25 years after his 147 bout with SRL, and never attempted to make 147 again. Ffs the guy was back in the ring less than 3 months after the Leonard fight, a full 10 pounds heavier, and went 10 rounds comfortably. But lets not let a few inconvenient statistics get in the way of a good old fashion bit of hero worship, eh?

Which brings us to Leonard / Duran 1.

He lost.

1. Leonard beat Duran fair and square. The "partying excuse" for several months is about the lamest excuse I have hear of.
2. Leonard beat Benitez fair and square.
3. Leonard beat Hearns fair and square. Not Leonard's problem if the guy comes in a whopping two pounds less than normal. That Hearns later moved up in weight is irrelevant. You can't just dismiss a result because the loser moved up in weight after the bout.
4. I never said Hagler was in his prime. Neither was Leonard. The situation was much closer to being ideal for Hagler than it was for Leonard. Imagine Hagler trying to fight a light heavyweight champion of his era after not having fought in three years.
5. Leonard lost to Duran fair and square.

golden oldie wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

you seem to struggle somewhat with your tone. I mean, not coming across as a pompous, irate bore, seems to be a problem to you.

I believe you might have me seriously confused with someone who gives a toss what you think.

golden oldie wrote:
Not necessarily, in your case it is a simple observation of how " seriously " you take yourself, which leads to your judgmentalism about people of which you know less than nothing.

golden oldie wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't recall ever finding you pompous, or a bore, tony.

Appreciate that and likewise. You never know in this Internet world we live in. Sometimes someone comes out of the blue to bite your head off and you're left..

Golden oldie really has it in for SRL. I get that Ray's aww chucks personality was a phony cover for his partying lifestyle but geez.

It also works in a strange way in Ray's favor as Benitez and Duran weren't the only ones partying up a storm.

If you want to pick my posts, or indeed me apart, at least try to offer a semblance of truth. I have never mentioned anything to do with Leonard's personal life, as I have less interest in it than I would a stray cat mewing for food. I also had nothing to say with regards to Duran's lifestyle. As far as Benitez is concerned I stated I had " no idea whether Wilfred had drug problems at the time of the SRL fight " but his drug problems per se are well documented.

I have it in for Leonard for what I consider to be his phony record above Welterweight. Nothing more, or nothing less. If it offends you that I have more respect for a guy who won titles at 135, 147, 154, and 160, with no weight stips, no advantages negotiated at the contract table, or any other poo, that is your problem, not mine.

ginty wrote:I might get slaughtered for this but watching the cruiser weight Usyk last week he reminded me of Clay/Ali fast on his feet with great lateral movement with that little side to side movement a young Ali would do he even did an Ali shuffle ,same size as well.

golden oldie wrote:Kalule's best wins pre Leonard were Seales, and Kevin Finnegan, beaten 12 times between them respectively. 5 of those 12 defeats by stoppage.

Wow.

golden oldie wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
If you want to pick my posts, or indeed me apart, at least try to offer a semblance of truth. I have never mentioned anything to do with Leonard's personal life, as I have less interest in it than I would a stray cat mewing for food. I also had nothing to say with regards to Duran's lifestyle. As far as Benitez is concerned I stated I had " no idea whether Wilfred had drug problems at the time of the SRL fight " but his drug problems per se are well documented.

I have it in for Leonard for what I consider to be his phony record above Welterweight. Nothing more, or nothing less. If it offends you that I have more respect for a guy who won titles at 135, 147, 154, and 160, with no weight stips, no advantages negotiated at the contract table, or any other poo, that is your problem, not mine.

Of course I'm picking things out of your post and you can pick things out of mine if you'd like. You are very critical of SRL, and when that's pointed out you act as if we shouldn't do that. Say anything you want, but my response is, for example, it's patently ridiculous to claim SRL had a "Phony record above welterweight." Kalule was 36-0. While he was not a great fighter, he was undefeated, Southpaw, tricky, and certainly one of the top 3 guys @ 154 @ the time. The Ugandan born fighter didn't do any Pepsi commercials. Was it such a travesty, Leonard gave him his first serious payday? He also moved up to fight Lalonde, who was on a big KO streak having stopped Leslie Stewart, among others. I think SRL has a damn good record post 147. Did I mention him beating Hagler?

Hearns and Duran moved up in weight and won titles too. Dennis Andrede sp? Pazienza?, Davey Moore?, Iran Barkley? Duran and Hearns also had success post 147, but not everyone they beat is an all time great either.

Whoa there Johnny. Easy tiger.

You are actually slaughtering yourself. Please allow me the chance. When Hearns beat Andries it was at 175, NOT SOME POXY 169 CATCHWEIGHT which Leonard DEMANDED of Lalonde. Thanks for the PERFECT example of why EVERYTHING he did above 147 is PHONY.

KALULE. 36 - 0?

Would you care to mention that 34 of those wins were in that well known hot bed of boxing called DENMARK?

Would you like to ask 90% of Americans if they even know where Denmark is?

Hagler was a SHOP WORN shadow of his former self. Leonard was just a chancer who ducked in and out of retirement to avoid risks. Seriously man, if you want to argue, you had best put up better examples than Duran fighting and LOSING to Pazienza at the ages of 43, and 44 respectively.

AGAIN whatever Hearns, or Duran did POST 147 ( in Duran's case it is FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT because was a 135 fighter originally ) was done WITHOUT weight stips, or other advantages done through lawyers at the negotiating table, which carries far more value in fight fans minds, as opposed to Leonard fanboys minds.

With due respect, if you are determined to defend one of your hero's from any kind of criticism, I suggest you don't bring up B level fighters, ( Kalule ) or genuine, level playing field fighters ( Hearns / Duran ) as examples of his post 147 greatness.

elmersalsa wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Kalule's best wins pre Leonard were Seales, and Kevin Finnegan, beaten 12 times between them respectively. 5 of those 12 defeats by stoppage.

Wow.

That's the same thing I've been talking about in this forum for years. The great Sugar Ray Leonard was a great fighter, but, above 147lbs, he was not that great. The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT HE BEAT was Thomas Hearns.

Yes, he beat a FADING MARVELOUS. Marvelous was missing all kinds of shots at close range. It was a CALCULATED win. That he only had one fight in five years was a great accomplishment only the Leonard's supporters are impressed by that. More impressive to me was when a washed up 37 year old former lightweight champion beats going TOE TO TOE with a stronger, faster, bigger, younger and taller champion in Iran Barkley. That is more impressive! And it was a war!

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Kalule's best wins pre Leonard were Seales, and Kevin Finnegan, beaten 12 times between them respectively. 5 of those 12 defeats by stoppage.

Wow.

That's the same thing I've been talking about in this forum for years. The great Sugar Ray Leonard was a great fighter, but, above 147lbs, he was not that great. The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT HE BEAT was Thomas Hearns.

Yes, he beat a FADING MARVELOUS. Marvelous was missing all kinds of shots at close range. It was a CALCULATED win. That he only had one fight in five years was a great accomplishment only the Leonard's supporters are impressed by that. More impressive to me was when a washed up 37 year old former lightweight champion beats going TOE TO TOE with a stronger, faster, bigger, younger and taller champion in Iran Barkley. That is more impressive! And it was a war!

What a stupid post.

golden oldie wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Had it a draw. Leonard landed many more big punches. Are there any other fights where a guy got hurt so many times but got "robbed"?

Can you please cut and paste this post on any and every internet boxing forum out there. You have actually got Leonard as a " bigger puncher " than Tommy Hearns.

There will be people from places like Arkansas laughing like drains for months on the strength of that POO.

Out of interest do we totally discount the punches that put Leonard on his ass during that fight? Were SRL's punches actually harder?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Stupid by elmer as well. Gee who was better, Marvin Hagler or the legendary Iran Barkley?

Ambling Alp II wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Had it a draw. Leonard landed many more big punches. Are there any other fights where a guy got hurt so many times but got "robbed"?

Can you please cut and paste this post on any and every internet boxing forum out there. You have actually got Leonard as a " bigger puncher " than Tommy Hearns.

There will be people from places like Arkansas laughing like drains for months on the strength of that POO.

Out of interest do we totally discount the punches that put Leonard on his ass during that fight? Were SRL's punches actually harder?

I said that Leonard landed more big punches than Hearns. Didn't say Leonard was a bigger puncher. There is a difference.