BoxRec

We normally don't see fighters quitting for that reason. He could have least fought back out of pride. Even when he got Norris in a corner he did a bang up job because he was afraid of what Norris what do to him.

leonard only does well with old men who can't fight back. He's terrified of young lions like Norris, Nunn, Jackson and most especially young Hagler so he stayed hidden for 5 years.

No heart.

I wouldn't call it lack of heart. I just think Leonard was calculating throughout his career in terms of when and where he fought his opponents. Once he was in the ring he gave it his all. I wouldn't fault his performances. But he definitely had one eye on and how it would all look in the future.

He admitted to waiting for Hagler, but, even if you think Marvin won, it was an excellent performance by Ray.

The 3rd Duran fight was just a pay day.

The second Hearns fight was a shock because few (including me) really thought Hearns had anything left at that point. Hagler got it right though.

The not granting rematches thing is a bit much to swallow a bit like taking your ball home when you go 1-0 up.

Even so Leonard was an amazing fighter.

I think you have to put Duran 1st in a p4p sense. After that though Ray might just be 2nd.

i would have preferred to see Ray fight straight thru like most fighters normally do with their careers.

The only genuine reason we see for an interruption of a career was the case of Ali where he was stripped of his license.

Why do people go on about Leonard as though he couldn't continue. They go on with this act of "we missed the prime of Leonard because of his eye". And yet he pulls numerous comebacks later on as though he had never been cleared to comeback any later than 1982.

Just rubbish. Pure rubbish. The only ones these people are fooling are themselves.

So you're right Ezzard in saying he was just being choosey to protect himself. Don't get me wrong. I have seen Leonard show some heart in close fights, the main one being the first Duran fight where he proved just good enough, just tough enough to lose. He gave Duran a good workout, that's for sure.

The other one being the Hearns fight. Leonard was so outclassed when it came to sticking and moving. Tommy just the better talent that night.

But I did like the way Ray poured it on the starving hitman in the 6, 7 rounds. I thought he had Tommy in serious trouble. The rounds following that, Ray showed serious deficiencies in his game, the same ones that stood out like flares in the Norris fight. However in the end he did pull it out when Tommy slowed down enough for him the later rounds to catch him with one of those haymakers. It was what I'd call a marginal performance, hardly one that you'd want to put in the scrap book.

IMO, Hagler's was the much more impressive showing (tko 3)

So yes, Leonard showed heart in some fights but the way he lost to this young Terry Norris disturbs me and casts serious doubt upon his legacy. I thought Hagler's performance with Duran was puzzling but this was beyond comprehension.

In my book Leonard holds significance for the sport. he came along at a time when the sport badly needed a hero to step in for the departing Ali and Leonard was as good a look alike as there ever was one outside of Elijah Tillery. I still think however that the sport did more for him than he did for the sport and if you're going to lose to a fight you have to go out looking good. In his last two fights where he was heavily favored to win, he did not lose well.

I don't want to be too hard on the lad. He did what he had to do to win even if it meant getting someone's leftovers. I will go along with the crowd and proclaim him a top five (who else was there?) welterweight.

Sugar Ray Leonard was an extraordinary fighter, that's for sure. I do not take nothing away from him. I just wished we could have seen more of him in the middle of the 80s (1982-87), when he was in his complete prime.

But, to me, Hagler and Duran were just as talented and extraordinary. Also Hearns was as talented and extraordinary. That is why they are called THE FABOLOUS 4

I don't how any fight fan can criticise Sugar Ray Leonard.

He is the greatest fighter of all time & practically god like & omnipotent.

Yes it's true.

You name me another fighter who ever won a world title at a weight, without ever actually fighting at that weight?

See, you can't do it!

He's the greatest!!!

In Order pound for pound:
1. Roberto Duran (lightweight)
2. Sugar Ray Leonard (welterweight)
3. Marvin Hagler (middleweight)
4. Thomas Hearns (welterweight)

Styles make fights. Duran beat Leonard up in the first fight on the inside. Leonard boxed his ears off at his game in the other two. Thomas Hearns was beating Leonard but lacked the physical strength over the long haul to hold on to it. In a twelve round fight history would have been different in their first fight. Ray also did not want to grant rematches when he won. When he thought Hearns had declined enough to give him a rematch he got his butt kicked again. He lost that second fight. He waited for Hagler to age and then agreed to fight. If you look at Hagler' earlier fights and how much quicker he was with hands and feet as opposed to the end of his career, Leonard would have lost to this earlier version of Hagler. The punch Thomas Hearns landed on Roberto Duran to knock him out may have knocked out anyone it hit. That ranks up there with the Bob Foster ko of Dick Tiger and Mike Quarry. However Hearns was able to bully Duran at will at that weight. I was a huge Hagler fan but in review he did freeze up and was very cautious in major fights IE: Leonard & Duran super fights. Of course the Hearns fight was different because of the style of fight they fought. All in all these guys are some of the greatest fighters of all time with Duran ranking number 4 of my greatest fighters of all time and number one as lightweight.

I agree with much of that, but not all of it.
The one thing that people say that doesn't have validity is the whole "Leonard doesn't fight rematches" thing. Look at the facts:
After, Leonard fought Duran the 2nd time, Duran moved up in weight, out of Leonard's weight class. He never fought at welterweight again. Had he stayed at welterweight, he eventually would have gotten a rematch with Leonard.
Hearns did the same thing. After fighting Leonard, Hearns moved out of Leonard's weight class as well. Had he stayed a welterweight, he was going to get fight Leonard again at welterweight (had Leonard not had the eye problems which of course Hearns couldn't have predicted).
Why don't Duran and Hearns get criticized for ducking Leonard? It doesn't
make much sense for the guy who stays in the same weight class to be criticed for ducking people he beat?
Is there any other fighter in history, who beat an opponent, has their opponent move up in weight, that gets criticized for not moving up in in weight and fighting the guy that he has beaten? If so, will someone please name him?

Also consider this:
After Hearns beat Duran, they didn't fight a rematch. Why isn't Hearns criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?

After Hagler beat Hearns, Hagler never fought Hearns again. Why is Hagler not criticized for not fighting Hearns again?

After Hagler beat Duran, Hagler never fought Duran again. Why isn't Hagler criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?

Duran won the title in a controversial way against Buchanan. Why doesn't Duran get criticized for not giving Buchanan a rematch?

It would be nice if someone would answer these questions. I have asked them before and no one ever answers them. However, this criticism of Leonard continues.

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree with much of that, but not all of it.
The one thing that people say that doesn't have validity is the whole "Leonard doesn't fight rematches" thing. Look at the facts:
After, Leonard fought Duran the 2nd time, Duran moved up in weight, out of Leonard's weight class. He never fought at welterweight again. Had he stayed at welterweight, he eventually would have gotten a rematch with Leonard.
Hearns did the same thing. After fighting Leonard, Hearns moved out of Leonard's weight class as well. Had he stayed a welterweight, he was going to get fight Leonard again at welterweight (had Leonard not had the eye problems which of course Hearns couldn't have predicted).
Why don't Duran and Hearns get criticized for ducking Leonard? It doesn't
make much sense for the guy who stays in the same weight class to be criticed for ducking people he beat?
Is there any other fighter in history, who beat an opponent, has their opponent move up in weight, that gets criticized for not moving up in in weight and fighting the guy that he has beaten? If so, will someone please name him?

Also consider this:
After Hearns beat Duran, they didn't fight a rematch. Why isn't Hearns criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?

After Hagler beat Hearns, Hagler never fought Hearns again. Why is Hagler not criticized for not fighting Hearns again?

After Hagler beat Duran, Hagler never fought Duran again. Why isn't Hagler criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?

Duran won the title in a controversial way against Buchanan. Why doesn't Duran get criticized for not giving Buchanan a rematch?

It would be nice if someone would answer these questions. I have asked them before and no one ever answers them. However, this criticism of Leonard continues.

100% correct.

It's so strange, all these ducking opponents & not giving rematches nonsense.

How many rematches did these people want Leonard to have?

Until the other guy beat him convincingly or they got the result that satisfied them?

He's even been accused of ducking Aaron Pryor, despite the fact that Pryor was in an unglamorous division, 1 weight class BELOW SRL, who was the marquee name in the celebrated welterweight division.

All I can say is Sugar Ray Leonard must owe an awful lot of people money or something, because I do feel thet he gets criticised way too unjustly.

Don't get me wrong guys. I am a Leonard fan also but you have to look at it at pound for pound. Duran does not get beat at Lightweight, Leonard does not get beat at Welterweight and Hagler does not get beat at Middleweight. Leonard only seeked rematches if he needed vindication. He made the statement in many interviews that he did not need to fight Hearns or Hagler again because he had nothing else to prove he already defeated them. "One fight and one fight only."

Ambling Alp wrote:I agree with much of that, but not all of it.
The one thing that people say that doesn't have validity is the whole "Leonard doesn't fight rematches" thing. Look at the facts:
After, Leonard fought Duran the 2nd time, Duran moved up in weight, out of Leonard's weight class. He never fought at welterweight again. Had he stayed at welterweight, he eventually would have gotten a rematch with Leonard.
Hearns did the same thing. After fighting Leonard, Hearns moved out of Leonard's weight class as well. Had he stayed a welterweight, he was going to get fight Leonard again at welterweight (had Leonard not had the eye problems which of course Hearns couldn't have predicted).
Why don't Duran and Hearns get criticized for ducking Leonard? It doesn't
make much sense for the guy who stays in the same weight class to be criticed for ducking people he beat?
Is there any other fighter in history, who beat an opponent, has their opponent move up in weight, that gets criticized for not moving up in in weight and fighting the guy that he has beaten? If so, will someone please name him?

Also consider this:
After Hearns beat Duran, they didn't fight a rematch. Why isn't Hearns criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?

After Hagler beat Hearns, Hagler never fought Hearns again. Why is Hagler not criticized for not fighting Hearns again?
After Hagler beat Duran, Hagler never fought Duran again. Why isn't Hagler criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?
Duran won the title in a controversial way against Buchanan. Why doesn't Duran get criticized for not giving Buchanan a rematch?

It would be nice if someone would answer these questions. I have asked them before and no one ever answers them. However, this criticism of Leonard continues.

I can't believe I'm seeing "Why didn't Hagler give Duran a rematch?". If everything else you said wasn't bad enough, now I come back to see this.

Maybe it's because he wasn't top ranked like the other contenders Roldan, Hamsho. Or maybe because he was decapitated in two by Hearns.

Which by the way, all three were quickly matched up with Hagler while Duran watched safely in the luxury of retirement. Somehow I don't think Duran was too anxious for one

I frankly don't see Duran as being guilty of ducking rematches the way Leonard was. Leonard was only up for a rematch if he saw something wrong with you.

Thank God he finally mustered some courage and fought a man with life in him in the great Terry Norris. Even so I wasn't impressed at all with what I saw from Ray. But enough of Terry Norris-we know what he could to Ray leonard so it's not his credentials that are in question here.

And why do you keep bringing up leonard's eye? Don't you realize by now he had a fight soon just one month before Hearns-Duran?

You still haven't commented on this comeback. It's obvious you won't because if you did you'd have to admit his eye had no bearing on his decision to fight. He did fight-you can't deny it, and you can't cover it up yet you still keep up this pretense of "if only his eye...".

Once more: what was he doing in the ring one month before the Hearns Duran match if his eye prevented him from fighting?

The only thing you can do-the best you can do is not comment on this. The fact is, he could have faced Hagler that same year and/or Hearns if he were a true competitor. Not that i think he would have gotten by either man. He wouldn't.

If I were you Alp, I wouldn't go around flaunting my foolishness and comparing mismatches like Hearns-Duran with life and death struggles such as hearns-Leonard or Hagler-Leonard. It's obvious that you will go thru these futile attempts to excuse him for ducking healthy competition as would any Ray Leonard fan. And I'd keep quiet about these excuses he's not fighting when he's out fighting at three other weight classes.

So again:
Why didn't Duran fight Buchanan again?
(Just imagine what people would say about Leonard if he won the title this way and never fought the guy again.)

What other fighter in history besides gets criticized for not a fighting a fighter that he has already beaten who leaves his weight class?

If Duran really wanted a 3rd fight with Leonard, why did he leave Leonard's weight class?
If Hearns really wanted a rematch with Leonard right after losing to him, why did he also leave Leonard's weight class?

Why aren't Duran and Hearns accused of ducking Leonard?

You say that Hagler didn't need to fight Duran again because Duran wasn't a top contender.
Guess what? Duran and Hearns were not welterweight contenders for long after Leonard beat them.

You don't find it ironic that the guy who has the most fights between the four (Leonard,Duran,Hearns, and Hagler) is the guy that gets criticized for ducking the others?

You seriously don't think Leonard had eye problems? He had a detached retina. What do you really think happened? After his fight in 1984, he wisely waited 3 years for Hagler to decline?
What trainer would advise his fighter to go without a fight for 3 years?
Not to mention fighting above your weight class against one of the greatest middleweights of all time?
Please name all the other fighters in history who were off for 3 years and won a world title without a tune up?

As for the Norris fight, is there anyone besides Elton John that takes this fight seriously? If you don't understand the disadvantages of a 34 year old fighter who hasn't fought in 14 months taking on a fighter in his prime who had been fighting regularly then that's your problem.

I will ask this again as well. Do you really think that a prime Leonard would lose to Terry Norris?

Leonard went toe toe with Duran for 15 rounds. If anyone else did that they would get some respect.
Leonard pulled out the Hearns fight.
Leonard came back from a severe eye problems and fights again.
After a 3 year layoff, he moved up in weight and beats Marvin Hagler.
Even in the Norris fight, did he quit like Duran? No.

And you mock Leonard's courage and heart. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

I detest Roberto Duran probably more than anyone on this forum, but if he were eligible for our next round of the BoxRec HOF I'd DEFINITELY pick him. That being said, since it's ok to constantly critique Leonard's entire career, how about we give Duran's a going over as well ?

Duran's going 69-1 is supposed to be one of the greatest achievements in boxing history, but realistically about half of those wins came against bums. Duran is in many peoples estimation the greatest LW who ever lived, but no one will convince me that Duran wouldn't have a few more L's on his record if he fought as often and against the caliber of opposition that Benny Leonard did.

Sugar Ray Leonard was supposed to be (according to some) at his career best and never better when Duran beat him in a close fight in Montreal. Well than how about me saying that, Duran was at his absolute best and never better than when Esteban DeJesus beat him in 72 (he certainly had more fights than Leonard) The scoring in Duran v Leonard I was supposedly ridiculous because Duran only won by 1-1-2 pts. But the very same people didn't think it was equally ridiculous when Duran lost to Hagler by only 1-1-2 pts.

Leonard supposedly got a gift draw against Tommy Hearns in their second fight, but there's no chance that perhaps Duran may have gotten a gift decision in his bout with Iran Barkley.

Leonard had no business taking fights with Norris and Camacho if he really was just a shell of his former self, but Roberto Duran deserves our total sympathy for what ever went wrong with him in the Superdome, and for his inability through no fault of his own, to get properly motivated for Wilfred Benitez (a guy he despised) and Kirkland Laing.

Leonard was a dirty fighter who was always holding when he got hit, yet Tommy Hearns wasen't even cautioned for his excessive holding in the final rd of the 2nd fight when Leonard had him in serious trouble. Nothing Leonard ever did a ring though compares to what Duran did to Buchanan and Moore.

Nothing Leonard ever did in a ring though compares to what Duran did to Buchanan and Moore.

Yeh....pretty much.

Ambling Alp wrote:So again:
Why didn't Duran fight Buchanan again?
(Just imagine what people would say about Leonard if he won the title this way and never fought the guy again.)

What other fighter in history besides gets criticized for not a fighting a fighter that he has already beaten who leaves his weight class?

If Duran really wanted a 3rd fight with Leonard, why did he leave Leonard's weight class?
If Hearns really wanted a rematch with Leonard right after losing to him, why did he also leave Leonard's weight class?

Why aren't Duran and Hearns accused of ducking Leonard?

You say that Hagler didn't need to fight Duran again because Duran wasn't a top contender.
Guess what? Duran and Hearns were not welterweight contenders for long after Leonard beat them.

You don't find it ironic that the guy who has the most fights between the four (Leonard,Duran,Hearns, and Hagler) is the guy that gets criticized for ducking the others?

You seriously don't think Leonard had eye problems? He had a detached retina. What do you really think happened? After his fight in 1984, he wisely waited 3 years for Hagler to decline?
What trainer would advise his fighter to go without a fight for 3 years?
Not to mention fighting above your weight class against one of the greatest middleweights of all time?
Please name all the other fighters in history who were off for 3 years and won a world title without a tune up?

As for the Norris fight, is there anyone besides Elton John that takes this fight seriously? If you don't understand the disadvantages of a 34 year old fighter who hasn't fought in 14 months taking on a fighter in his prime who had been fighting regularly then that's your problem.

I will ask this again as well. Do you really think that a prime Leonard would lose to Terry Norris?

Leonard went toe toe with Duran for 15 rounds. If anyone else did that they would get some respect.
Leonard pulled out the Hearns fight.
Leonard came back from a severe eye problems and fights again.
After a 3 year layoff, he moved up in weight and beats Marvin Hagler.
Even in the Norris fight, did he quit like Duran? No.

And you mock Leonard's courage and heart. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

You duck around questions the way Leonard ducks other fighters-with great skill.

I asked you if the injury is the reason Ray Leonard would not take a fight with Hagler in 82 like he was supposed to, then what was he doing fighting some guy named Kevin Howard??

It's a simple question that can be answered just as quickly. Answer it unless you have some reason for not wanting to answer.

Many experts believe it was due to the fact that Hagler displayed weakness in the Duran fight which encouraged Leonard because it was on the record that Leonard said in a very excited manner after the bout that he could beat Hagler.

So then that is the proof that it wasn't his eye but rather a fear of getting knocked out by Marvin Hagler in brutal fashion. Better by far to wait five more years and have the opposition soften the middleweight champion to an unbelievable degree.

And you can't criticize me for saying this because this is exactly the way it went.

And so what if Leonard went toe to toe with a lightweight and lost. I'm supposed to give him points for losing a fight? That's like crediting him for hanging in there for 12 rounds to a 3-1 underdog. When the comp's a bit younger and livlier we see his true worth in a fight. He sucks. And yes, a prime Norris whips a prime leonard anyday. Norris has bragging rights so the burden of proof falls on you. Now you prove it.

By the way, Duran was much tougher than ray because he took back to back fights with Hagler and Hearns which nobody has ever done before. Ray Leonard would never dare attempt such a thing. Instead he'd gladly take back to back fights with a used up champion on the verge of retirement and a club fighter masquerading as a champion (lalonde).

That's why leonard is deservedly on the bottom of my list, well behind the other three. That and the way he was humiliated by champ Norris and (ugh) Camacho!

Ambling Alp wrote:
Also consider this:
After Hearns beat Duran, they didn't fight a rematch. Why isn't Hearns criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?

After Hagler beat Hearns, Hagler never fought Hearns again. Why is Hagler not criticized for not fighting Hearns again?

After Hagler beat Duran, Hagler never fought Duran again. Why isn't Hagler criticized for not giving Duran a rematch?

Duran won the title in a controversial way against Buchanan. Why doesn't Duran get criticized for not giving Buchanan a rematch?

It would be nice if someone would answer these questions. I have asked them before and no one ever answers them. However, this criticism of Leonard continues.

Hearns blew Duran away. It was the most convincing win of them all. I'd have loved to have seen a rematch but most people thought the fight too conclusive to warrant one. Also, Duran wasn't trying to get a rematch and Duran was semi-retired. Most people didn't expect him to continue for much longer.

Hagler-Hearns II was all set to go until Leonard stepped in. He got his shot at Hagler instead of Hearns. Hagler-Hearns II would likely have happened had Hagler beat Leonard.

Duran was trying to get himself back into contention but he was washed up. Nobody could take the fight seriously after he got pole-axed by Hearns.

Agree, Duran all but admitted he didn't want to rematch Buchanan.

Well Ezzard, at least you admit that Duran should have given Buchanan a rematch.
Yes Hearns blew Duran away. Shouldn't that count against Duran when rating him? Or is there some excuse as there always is with Duran?

I don't remember Hearns-Hagler II as being all ready to go until Leonard stepped in. That was two years after Hearns-Hagler. Why didn't Hagler fight Hearns during this time?

Why didn't Hagler fight Duran again immediately after their fight?
Why is Leonard supposed to have immediate rematches but no one else is ?

I am not accusing the other fighters of flat out ducking people. Sometimes the other guys doesn't want a rematch. Sometimes there are other circumstances such as another fighter that deserves a shot.

How Leonard can be accused of ducking people is absolutely baffling. It goes completely against the facts. Duran ,Hearns, and Hagler only fought each other once, and Leonard is the one that gets constantly criticized. It makes no sense.

Elton John wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:So again:
Why didn't Duran fight Buchanan again?
(Just imagine what people would say about Leonard if he won the title this way and never fought the guy again.)

What other fighter in history besides gets criticized for not a fighting a fighter that he has already beaten who leaves his weight class?

If Duran really wanted a 3rd fight with Leonard, why did he leave Leonard's weight class?
If Hearns really wanted a rematch with Leonard right after losing to him, why did he also leave Leonard's weight class?

Why aren't Duran and Hearns accused of ducking Leonard?

You say that Hagler didn't need to fight Duran again because Duran wasn't a top contender.
Guess what? Duran and Hearns were not welterweight contenders for long after Leonard beat them.

You don't find it ironic that the guy who has the most fights between the four (Leonard,Duran,Hearns, and Hagler) is the guy that gets criticized for ducking the others?

You seriously don't think Leonard had eye problems? He had a detached retina. What do you really think happened? After his fight in 1984, he wisely waited 3 years for Hagler to decline?
What trainer would advise his fighter to go without a fight for 3 years?
Not to mention fighting above your weight class against one of the greatest middleweights of all time?
Please name all the other fighters in history who were off for 3 years and won a world title without a tune up?

As for the Norris fight, is there anyone besides Elton John that takes this fight seriously? If you don't understand the disadvantages of a 34 year old fighter who hasn't fought in 14 months taking on a fighter in his prime who had been fighting regularly then that's your problem.

I will ask this again as well. Do you really think that a prime Leonard would lose to Terry Norris?

Leonard went toe toe with Duran for 15 rounds. If anyone else did that they would get some respect.
Leonard pulled out the Hearns fight.
Leonard came back from a severe eye problems and fights again.
After a 3 year layoff, he moved up in weight and beats Marvin Hagler.
Even in the Norris fight, did he quit like Duran? No.

And you mock Leonard's courage and heart. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

You duck around questions the way Leonard ducks other fighters-with great skill.

I asked you if the injury is the reason Ray Leonard would not take a fight with Hagler in 82 like he was supposed to, then what was he doing fighting some guy named Kevin Howard??

It's a simple question that can be answered just as quickly. Answer it unless you have some reason for not wanting to answer.

Many experts believe it was due to the fact that Hagler displayed weakness in the Duran fight which encouraged Leonard because it was on the record that Leonard said in a very excited manner after the bout that he could beat Hagler.

So then that is the proof that it wasn't his eye but rather a fear of getting knocked out by Marvin Hagler in brutal fashion. Better by far to wait five more years and have the opposition soften the middleweight champion to an unbelievable degree.

And you can't criticize me for saying this because this is exactly the way it went.

And so what if Leonard went toe to toe with a lightweight and lost. I'm supposed to give him points for losing a fight? That's like crediting him for hanging in there for 12 rounds to a 3-1 underdog. When the comp's a bit younger and livlier we see his true worth in a fight. He sucks. And yes, a prime Norris whips a prime leonard anyday. Norris has bragging rights so the burden of proof falls on you. Now you prove it.

By the way, Duran was much tougher than ray because he took back to back fights with Hagler and Hearns which nobody has ever done before. Ray Leonard would never dare attempt such a thing. Instead he'd gladly take back to back fights with a used up champion on the verge of retirement and a club fighter masquerading as a champion (lalonde).

That's why leonard is deservedly on the bottom of my list, well behind the other three. That and the way he was humiliated by champ Norris and (ugh) Camacho!

Well, you ducked almost every question again.

I will answer your questions even though you repeatly won't answer mine.

Leonard wasn't supposed to fight Hagler in 1982. Leonard was still a welterweight and probably wouldn't have moved up to fight as a middleweight for a tleast a couple of years.

Leonard make a comeback fight in 1984. so what? Was he supposed to move up two weight classes and fight Marvin Hagler after having eye surgery and not having fought in 2 years? Does Leonard have fight Duran,Hearns, or Hagler in every fight?
Why don't you rip Hagler for not moving up in weight and fighting Michael Spinks?

You really think that Leonard shrewdly waited 5 years for other fighters to soften up Hagler? :(
Have ever heard of ring rust? When you go a long period of time without fighting you losing your speed, timing etc. Which is why throughout history almost no one has comeback from a 3 year layoff to win a world championship, atleast not without fighting tuneup fights. Has anyone else in boxing histroy but Leonard done this?

My point about Leonard going toe to toe 15 rounds with Duran was that it was another indication showed that Leonard had heart, which you for some ridiculaus reason say he doesn't. If anyone else would have done that against Duran people would say that the guy was pretty tough. By the way, Duran wasn't a lightweight when he fought Leonard. He weighed 145. He had already 8 fights when he was atleast a welterweight. For some reason Duran is thought of forever as a lightweight by some people but he wasn't.

Do you realize that Leonard never fought as a middleweight before he beat Hagler? Why don't you say that Hagler lost to a welterweight?

Duran was tougher than Leonard becasue he took back to back fights with Hagler and Hearns? How did the "tougher" Duran do in the fight against Hearns?
Interesting that the "tougher" Duran quit against Leonard and journeyman Pat Lawlor.

As for Leonard being able to beat Norris when he was in his prime-You don't think so? Wow. It's doubtful that Terry Norris himself believes that.

Are you one of those people that thinks that Ali wouldn't have beaten Berbick on his best day?
Norris himself retired at the age of 31 after losing 3 straight fights to guys that aren't great. Leonard was 34 when he fought Norris. I will once again mention that Leonard hadn't fought in 14 months, which certainly isn't ideal, and that Norris had been active.

You keep saying Leonard was only fighting guys who were past their prime? Wrong again.

Leonard beat Benitez (who you don't think was very good but who beat Duran) who was 21.
Leonard beat Duran when Duran was 29.
Leonard beat Hearns when Hearns was 22.

You say that Hagler was "shop worn", he was 32, which is 2 years younger than Leonard was when he fought Norris. Considering that Leonard hadn't fought in 3 years and had never fought at middleweight, Hagler was a lot closer to his best than Leonard.

Terry Norris never beat anyone close to the level of these guys and lost a few times to guys that Leonard never would have lost to. Leonard in his prime had much greater hand speed and was more elusive than the Leonard that Norris beat. Leonard did virtually everything better. He was faster, had a much better chin, a more accurrate puncher, harder to hit, and had atleast as much power. The Leonard of 1979-1982 would have beat Norris 10 out of 10 times.

You are now bringing up Camacho? Umm, Leonard hadn't fought for 6 years and was 40 years old. Are you going to count Duran's losses against legends like Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor against him? Oh, and by the way Duran was only 38 when Leonard slapped him around for 12 rounds in their 3rd fight.

Probably the dumbest comment that you have made about Leonard (and there have been many to choose from) is "he sucks". How insightful. How truthful.

I have answered your questions. Are you ever going to answer mine? Or is your hatred of Leonard so great that you are unable to do so?

Ambling Alp wrote:Well Ezzard, at least you admit that Duran should have given Buchanan a rematch.
Yes Hearns blew Duran away. Shouldn't that count against Duran when rating him? Or is there some excuse as there always is with Duran?

I don't remember Hearns-Hagler II as being all ready to go until Leonard stepped in. That was two years after Hearns-Hagler. Why didn't Hagler fight Hearns during this time?

Why didn't Hagler fight Duran again immediately after their fight?
Why is Leonard supposed to have immediate rematches but no one else is ?

I am not accusing the other fighters of flat out ducking people. Sometimes the other guys doesn't want a rematch. Sometimes there are other circumstances such as another fighter that deserves a shot.

How Leonard can be accused of ducking people is absolutely baffling. It goes completely against the facts. Duran ,Hearns, and Hagler only fought each other once, and Leonard is the one that gets constantly criticized. It makes no sense.

Basically, Hagler was only fighting once a year. He wanted Monzon's record. Hearns-Shuler (on the Hagler-Mugabi undercard) was supposed to be an eliminator for the next shot. It was also because Hearns needed to get some momentum again. Straight after the Mugabi fight Leonard threw down the challenge. There was no time for Hagler to fight Hearns. he could have fought more often than he did but he wasn't fighting other people in the meantime. He simply wasn't fighting.

Hagler didn't fight Duran again because the first fight wasn't dramatic enough or close enough to need it.

There are no excuses but all fights have circumstances that effect how you rate performances. We've discussed my ratings criteria and Duran getting blown out by Hearns doesn't seriously ruin his rep in my book. It would be the same if Leonard had got KO'd by Hagler, or Hagler by Michael Spinks. Yes, it means something but is there, or has there been, a lightweight who could have blown a hole in Duran like that?

Leonard-Hearns was down to the wire, was considered controversial and was a barnstromer of a fight. the only person on the planet who didn't want to see a rematch was Leonard.

Leonard went 1-1 with Duran and the fiasco of the 2nd fight menat many wanted to see the 3rd fight. It would have been a money spinner for everyone concerned. Many people think Hagler deserved the decision. There was huge clamour for a return.

Leonard wanted Hagler after seeing Hagler-Duran. He knew then that Duran had to a large extent showed vulnerabilities in Hagler's style. Duran simply wasn't big enough or young enough to take advantage. Leonard came back, got dropped by Howard and re-retired.

I can't believe you are saying some of these things, Ezzard. It's a lot of spin and not that accurrate.

Hagler was only fighting once a year so ther was no time for him to fight Hearns again? Come on. He could have fought him immediatly after their first fight. Or he could have fought him after Mugabi and then fought Leonard.
Imagine if Leonard did this.
Hagler didn't need to fight Duran again? The fight wasn't good enough or exciting enough? Well it might not have been a great fight, but what other great options did Hagler have? He went back to fighting the ordinary type of middleweights that he had been beating-Juan Roldan and Mustapha Hamsho. Fights everyone knew he wouldn't lose.
Imagine if Leonard would win a close decision against Duran, then went two years before fighting a serious opponent?

Yet Leonard is criticized for not fighting Duran a third time right after their 2nd fight? Very few people was clamoring for 3rd fight. Most people were disgusted with Duran for quitting in their 2nd fight. There are other fighters as to think about as well. Why should guys that don't quit in fights get passed over for title shots for Duran?
If Duran really wanted a third fight, why did he move out of the welterweight class right after he quit against Leonard? He had to have known that if he bided his time and beat a couple of welterweight contenders, he would get another chance at Leonard. I have asked this several times and no one ever answers it.

Only Leonard didn't want a rematch with Hearns? Once again, if Hearns really wanted a rematch so bad, why he did he also move out of Leonard's weight class? Logically, if he had stayed a welterweight, he was going to get a chance against Leonard again.

Leonard is off for 3 years, moves up two weight classes and beat Hagler.
(If you don't think it's a big deal being off for 3 years and winning a world title without fighting any tuneups, name all of the other guys that have done it.)
If you think Hagler deserved a rematch right away, fine. I think it's a weak arguement but it is better than the other criticisms of Leonard.

Why is that excuse after excuse is made for why Duran,Hearns, and Hagler don't fight someone, but we have to pull reasons out of nowhere and say why Leonard should have fought so and so?

Leonard beat 9 Top 10 contenders before he ever fought for a title. In a period of less than 3 years, he had 4 fights against All-Time Greats.
After being off for 3 years, he moved up 2 weight classes and beats Marvin Hagler.
Yet he is the one that gets ripped for not fighting people. This makes absolutely no sense. None.

Ambling Alp wrote:I can't believe you are saying some of these things, Ezzard. It's a lot of spin and not that accurrate.

Hagler was only fighting once a year so ther was no time for him to fight Hearns again? Come on. He could have fought him immediatly after their first fight. Or he could have fought him after Mugabi and then fought Leonard.
Imagine if Leonard did this.
Hagler didn't need to fight Duran again? The fight wasn't good enough or exciting enough? Well it might not have been a great fight, but what other great options did Hagler have? He went back to fighting the ordinary type of middleweights that he had been beating-Juan Roldan and Mustapha Hamsho. Fights everyone knew he wouldn't lose.
Imagine if Leonard would win a close decision against Duran, then went two years before fighting a serious opponent?

Yet Leonard is criticized for not fighting Duran a third time right after their 2nd fight? Very few people was clamoring for 3rd fight. Most people were disgusted with Duran for quitting in their 2nd fight. There are other fighters as to think about as well. Why should guys that don't quit in fights get passed over for title shots for Duran?
If Duran really wanted a third fight, why did he move out of the welterweight class right after he quit against Leonard? He had to have known that if he bided his time and beat a couple of welterweight contenders, he would get another chance at Leonard. I have asked this several times and no one ever answers it.

Only Leonard didn't want a rematch with Hearns? Once again, if Hearns really wanted a rematch so bad, why he did he also move out of Leonard's weight class? Logically, if he had stayed a welterweight, he was going to get a chance against Leonard again.

Leonard is off for 3 years, moves up two weight classes and beat Hagler.
(If you don't think it's a big deal being off for 3 years and winning a world title without fighting any tuneups, name all of the other guys that have done it.)
If you think Hagler deserved a rematch right away, fine. I think it's a weak arguement but it is better than the other criticisms of Leonard.

Why is that excuse after excuse is made for why Duran,Hearns, and Hagler don't fight someone, but we have to pull reasons out of nowhere and say why Leonard should have fought so and so?

Leonard beat 9 Top 10 contenders before he ever fought for a title. In a period of less than 3 years, he had 4 fights against All-Time Greats.
After being off for 3 years, he moved up 2 weight classes and beats Marvin Hagler.
Yet he is the one that gets ripped for not fighting people. This makes absolutely no sense. None.

Leonard was NEVER an avid guy of giving rematches. He did not want to give one to Benitez. He made excuses that he did not want to fight Duran, because "Duran needs to re-establish himsel"...Duran begged for a third fight. He did not get it. He did not move to another weight class because he was ducking Leonard. He's not going to beg for a third fight. Then, with Hearns, he PUBLICLY SAID IT TWICE, that he was not going to give Hearns a rematch UNTIL Hearns admits that no way he would have survived the 14th round. Why should Hearns got to admit that he lost the fight when he himself thought that he had a chance to continue?

I believe that Hearns in that fight could have continued. The same Don Dunphy thought, too. I bet you if Benitez, Hagler or Hearns would have beaten Leonard in their fights with him, he would have SURELY GOT A REMATCH...NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

Now, if we take Duran and Benitez out of Leonard's ledger, who were natural lightweights and jr welterweights respectively, then, the ONLY guy that he beat at 147lbs was Hearns, the other guys? Ranzany, Chaverini, Shields, and Price were as bums as you called Duran opponents at lightweight. That is like Alexis Arguello and Danny Lopez, great fighters indeed, would have challenged Duran for the lightweight title just like Benitez and Duran fought Leonard. I cannot picture a featherweight taking the title of Duran? Do you? Well, a LIGHTWEIGHT TOOK the title from Leonard, no matter how we put it. And that happened in the biggest match of Leonard's life.

These 3 guys, Leonard, Duran and Hagler were the very best in their respective weight classes. Two of them were the best fighters of their respective eras (Duran in the 70s and Leonard in the 80s)...But who was more dominant in his proper weight class? Duran, Hagler or Leonard? That is the answer right there...Duran was the better of the three .

Leonard KNEW that he was not in proper prime to fight the monsters in Hagler and Hearns in 1982 and 1984 respectively. He fought them because he saw they were slipping their fighting qualities.

I imagine Hagler vs Leonard in 1982 and Hearns vs Leonard in 1984 at 154lbs...What a massacre!!! different stories.

Ambling Alp wrote:I can't believe you are saying some of these things, Ezzard. It's a lot of spin and not that accurrate.

Hagler was only fighting once a year so ther was no time for him to fight Hearns again? Come on. He could have fought him immediatly after their first fight. Or he could have fought him after Mugabi and then fought Leonard.
Imagine if Leonard did this.
Hagler didn't need to fight Duran again? The fight wasn't good enough or exciting enough? Well it might not have been a great fight, but what other great options did Hagler have? He went back to fighting the ordinary type of middleweights that he had been beating-Juan Roldan and Mustapha Hamsho. Fights everyone knew he wouldn't lose.
Imagine if Leonard would win a close decision against Duran, then went two years before fighting a serious opponent?

Yet Leonard is criticized for not fighting Duran a third time right after their 2nd fight? Very few people was clamoring for 3rd fight. Most people were disgusted with Duran for quitting in their 2nd fight. There are other fighters as to think about as well. Why should guys that don't quit in fights get passed over for title shots for Duran?
If Duran really wanted a third fight, why did he move out of the welterweight class right after he quit against Leonard? He had to have known that if he bided his time and beat a couple of welterweight contenders, he would get another chance at Leonard. I have asked this several times and no one ever answers it.

Only Leonard didn't want a rematch with Hearns? Once again, if Hearns really wanted a rematch so bad, why he did he also move out of Leonard's weight class? Logically, if he had stayed a welterweight, he was going to get a chance against Leonard again.

Leonard is off for 3 years, moves up two weight classes and beat Hagler.
(If you don't think it's a big deal being off for 3 years and winning a world title without fighting any tuneups, name all of the other guys that have done it.)
If you think Hagler deserved a rematch right away, fine. I think it's a weak arguement but it is better than the other criticisms of Leonard.

Why is that excuse after excuse is made for why Duran,Hearns, and Hagler don't fight someone, but we have to pull reasons out of nowhere and say why Leonard should have fought so and so?

Leonard beat 9 Top 10 contenders before he ever fought for a title. In a period of less than 3 years, he had 4 fights against All-Time Greats.
After being off for 3 years, he moved up 2 weight classes and beats Marvin Hagler.
Yet he is the one that gets ripped for not fighting people. This makes absolutely no sense. None.

For a level headed poster you seem to have a blind spot on this one.

Hagler fought Mugabi because Mugabi had proved himself to be a real threat to any MW that was out there. It was a widely anticipated fight.

Once Leonard's challenge was on the table that was the money fight. Leonard wasn't interested in fighting Hagler after Hearns. This was a big money fight. Besides, had Hagler won, Hearns would have been the next opponent (assuming he didn't lose in the meantime).

After Duran, Hagler fought the top contenders whilst waiting for the winner of Duran-Hearns as the next superfight. Had Duran beat Hearns there would have been a rematch. Simple as that.

Duran was considered a joke for quite a while after the 'no mas' debacle. Hearns didn't run to a new division. Hearns and Leonard were both looking north of 147. Hearns probably had little chance to make the weight for much longer, such was his frame. What you don't seem to accept is that Leonard was THE money fight. Everybody wanted to fight him because the pay day was so big.

Hagler wanting a rematch a weak argument? Hagler was champion for something like 7 years. He lost a split decision and not getting a rematch is a weak argument?

I don't see any excuses being made for the others not to grant rematches. Duran should have rematched Buchanan. Maybe you could say Hagler should have been fighting more regularly in those last 2-3 years. But Leonard had 3 years out of the ring and looking back now it hardly seems like a real retirement.

If he'd have retired after hagler (as he said) and never come back again then that would have been one thing. But he didn't. He was the draw and however you want to argue it he used this to secure the fights he wanted at the time he wanted them.

Leonard before he retired the first time was looking at a career at 154 (147 was becoming difficult for him). This would mean a rematch with Hearns, probably Duran, Benitez and fights with McCallum and Curry (these last 2 would not have been on his radar at that point), probably culminating in a fight with Hagler. Leonard had already beaten Hearns, Duran and Benitez so why risk return fights with them? That's the logic.

I'm not ripping on what he achieved in the ring. I'm criticising him for what he did out of the ring.

Well, thanks for calling me a level headed poster.

But no, I don't have a blind spot in regard to Leonard. I think he should be judged the same way as Haglar,Duran, Hearns and anyone else throught boxing history for that matter.

-I didn't say the Mugabi fight wasn't anticipated or a legitimate defense for Hagler. However, Hagler should have fought Hearns before Mugabi, or even after Mugabi and after Leonard. If Leonard was in that exact situation he would be ripped for not fighting Hearns again immediately.
But Hagler gets a free pass.

- I don't think that Hearns would have been Hagler's next opponent had he beat Leonard. I think Hagler would have retired.

-After Hagler beat Duran, he could have fought Duran again immediately.This is what Leonard would have been expected to do. Instead, he fought Roldan and Hamsho. You can call them top contenders, but everyone knew neither had any chance against Hagler.
Again Hagler gets a free pass.

Yes you are right that Duran was considered a joke after the "no mas" debacle. That is my point. He didn't deserve a 3rd fight with Leonard immediately. How can Leonard be criticized for not fighting Duran when Duran quit on him and was considered a joke? (Besides the fact that Duran was no longer a welterweight).

-Leonard wasn't having trouble making weight at 147. That simply isn't true. He already defended the title once at 147 after beating Hearns (and Hearns had already moved up to 147) and was in training to defend his 147 title against Roger Stafford when he had the eye injury.
If Leonard didn't have the eye injury, he may or may not have moved up to 154 right after the Stafford fight. He eventually would have at some point.
It certainly possible that Hearns couldn't make 147 anymore and that is why he moved up right after he lost to Leonard. But how can Leonard be criticized for not moving up immediately and fighting Hearns at 154 as well? (It wouldn't have even been a title fight)
As I have asked before, name one other champion in boxing history who after beating a guy, is expected to move up in weight and fight that guy again ? Please, just one?

-As for Hagler not getting a rematch with Leonard, well often a long time champion will get a rematch, especially if the loss was close. However if you lose to a guy fighting his first fight at your weight class and who hadn't fought in 3 years, you don't have much to cry about.
The other thing I want to address is that Hagler really wanted a rematch. He wasn't exactly screaming for a rematch. I'm sure someone can dig up some Ring Magazine Article that said that he wanted one, but I saw several interviews with him after the Leonard fight and he seemed to be on the fence whether he wanted to fight again.

I also don't think that Leonard knew if he wanted to fight Hagler or anyone else after the Hagler fight. Of course, since it's Leonard, many people won't give him the benefit of the doubt. He must be scared to fight Hagler again. (Why Leonard would be scared of a guy that he just beat after a 3 year layoff is something that never seems to be asked)

-Yes, Leonard was the biggest draw and therefore had some leverage of who and when he fought. That's how it goes it in boxing. (Of course you do have to fight the top contender once a year or you will get your title stripped.) But look at who and when Leonard fought: He took a lot of unnecessary risks:
-He certainly didn't have to fight 9 Top 10 opponents before fighting before fighting for the title. How many fighters have done that since the 1940's?
-He probably could have fought Cuevas instead of Benitez for the welterweight title. That would have been a much easier fight than Benitez. Some people thought Benitez was pound for pound the best fighter in the world. Instead Leonard took on the more difficult challenge.

-He certainly didn't have to fight Hearns in a unification fight at 147. He could have ducked him. But he didn't.

-He certainly didn't have to comeback after his eye injuries, much less taking on Marvin Hagler right away. Remember doctors didn't want him to fight again, even with thumbless gloves.

People act as if if Leonard didn't have the eye injuries that he would have just fought tomato cans from 1982-1987. He would have fought fighters like Hearns, Duran, Benitez, McCallum etc. Throughout his career Leonard took on challenges. He wasn't interested in padding his record with easy wins against tomato cans or no names from Panama. He wanted to fight the best.

I really don't understand the comment about critcizing him for what he did out of the ring at all.
If you go through Hearns,Duran, Haglers career with a fine tooth comb, you can find many times when they could have fought better opponents. However, they get very little criticism for this. Yet somehow Leonard is constantly ripped for not fighting so and so an exact time. There is a double standard.

Leonard had the most fights (and won the most) against great competition than any other fighter of his era, even though he missed 5 years. Yet he is the one that is constantly ripped. It makes no sense.

I am not saying that Hearns,Duran,Hagler necessarily ducked people, atleast not in every case where they didn't fight someome good. However, they should be judged the same way as Leonard and they clearly aren't.

Ambling Alp wrote:Well, thanks for calling me a level headed poster.

But no, I don't have a blind spot in regard to Leonard. I think he should be judged the same way as Haglar,Duran, Hearns and anyone else throught boxing history for that matter.

-I didn't say the Mugabi fight wasn't anticipated or a legitimate defense for Hagler. However, Hagler should have fought Hearns before Mugabi, or even after Mugabi and after Leonard. If Leonard was in that exact situation he would be ripped for not fighting Hearns again immediately.
But Hagler gets a free pass.

Well, Hagler ate up Hearns. Leonard had a life and death struggle. If Hagler had not retired, or had he beat Leonard he would have fought Hearns next. That was the logic.

Ambling Alp wrote:
- I don't think that Hearns would have been Hagler's next opponent had he beat Leonard. I think Hagler would have retired.

Hagler has said that Monzon's record would have been too much of a temptation. He would have tried to beat it.

Ambling Alp wrote: -After Hagler beat Duran, he could have fought Duran again immediately.This is what Leonard would have been expected to do. Instead, he fought Roldan and Hamsho. You can call them top contenders, but everyone knew neither had any chance against Hagler.
Again Hagler gets a free pass.

Not the same thing. Hagler did not rule out a rematch with Duran, nor did he go into retirement.

Ambling Alp wrote:
-Leonard wasn't having trouble making weight at 147. That simply isn't true. He already defended the title once at 147 after beating Hearns (and Hearns had already moved up to 147) and was in training to defend his 147 title against Roger Stafford when he had the eye injury.
If Leonard didn't have the eye injury, he may or may not have moved up to 154 right after the Stafford fight. He eventually would have at some point.

I can't say for sure. I read he had trouble getting back down to 147 and expected this to be possibly his last fight in the division. Either way his time at 147 was limited.

Ambling Alp wrote: It certainly possible that Hearns couldn't make 147 anymore and that is why he moved up right after he lost to Leonard. But how can Leonard be criticized for not moving up immediately and fighting Hearns at 154 as well? (It wouldn't have even been a title fight)
As I have asked before, name one other champion in boxing history who after beating a guy, is expected to move up in weight and fight that guy again ? Please, just one?

Off the top of my head Nigel Benn.

Ambling Alp wrote: -As for Hagler not getting a rematch with Leonard, well often a long time champion will get a rematch, especially if the loss was close. However if you lose to a guy fighting his first fight at your weight class and who hadn't fought in 3 years, you don't have much to cry about.
The other thing I want to address is that Hagler really wanted a rematch. He wasn't exactly screaming for a rematch. I'm sure someone can dig up some Ring Magazine Article that said that he wanted one, but I saw several interviews with him after the Leonard fight and he seemed to be on the fence whether he wanted to fight again.

Of course he wanted a rematch. You're talking millions of dollars. Hagler thought he won the fight, so did many others. Hagler wanted a rematch but Leonard retired. Hagler said he's be willing to fight for another 12 months. Leonard declined. You don't really believe that Leonard wasn't calculating in how he did business in this instance.

Ambling Alp wrote:
I also don't think that Leonard knew if he wanted to fight Hagler or anyone else after the Hagler fight. Of course, since it's Leonard, many people won't give him the benefit of the doubt. He must be scared to fight Hagler again. (Why Leonard would be scared of a guy that he just beat after a 3 year layoff is something that never seems to be asked)

-Yes, Leonard was the biggest draw and therefore had some leverage of who and when he fought. That's how it goes it in boxing. (Of course you do have to fight the top contender once a year or you will get your title stripped.) But look at who and when Leonard fought: He took a lot of unnecessary risks:
-He certainly didn't have to fight 9 Top 10 opponents before fighting before fighting for the title. How many fighters have done that since the 1940's?
-He probably could have fought Cuevas instead of Benitez for the welterweight title. That would have been a much easier fight than Benitez. Some people thought Benitez was pound for pound the best fighter in the world. Instead Leonard took on the more difficult challenge.

-He certainly didn't have to fight Hearns in a unification fight at 147. He could have ducked him. But he didn't.

-He certainly didn't have to comeback after his eye injuries, much less taking on Marvin Hagler right away. Remember doctors didn't want him to fight again, even with thumbless gloves.

People act as if if Leonard didn't have the eye injuries that he would have just fought tomato cans from 1982-1987. He would have fought fighters like Hearns, Duran, Benitez, McCallum etc. Throughout his career Leonard took on challenges. He wasn't interested in padding his record with easy wins against tomato cans or no names from Panama. He wanted to fight the best.

I really don't understand the comment about critcizing him for what he did out of the ring at all.
If you go through Hearns,Duran, Haglers career with a fine tooth comb, you can find many times when they could have fought better opponents. However, they get very little criticism for this. Yet somehow Leonard is constantly ripped for not fighting so and so an exact time. There is a double standard.

Leonard had the most fights (and won the most) against great competition than any other fighter of his era, even though he missed 5 years. Yet he is the one that is constantly ripped. It makes no sense.

I am not saying that Hearns,Duran,Hagler necessarily ducked people, atleast not in every case where they didn't fight someome good. However, they should be judged the same way as Leonard and they clearly aren't.

I don't think Leonard was scared of anyone. I don't think boxers are scared in general. I think he was over protective of his record. I think the top 4 are judged the same. I think it became obvious to most that Leonard was operating in a different way to the others and this left a bitter taste for many. The consensus for the fab 4 (on this thread) puts Ray at #2 or #1 if you think that he's been judged harshly then I don't see what else can be done to elevate him any higher. What more honours can be bestowed upon the man. You often make the point that he gets judged harshly but almost everyone has him as a top 3 welter and a p4p top 20-50. If this is underrating him in your book then how should he be rated?

-The Hagler-Hearns fight is considered by many one of the best of all time. If Leonard had a fight like that and then not fought him again in the next 2 years he would be ripped constantly.

Hagler had plenty of time to fight Hearns again and didn't. Whether he would have fought Hearns had he beat Leonard is just speculation. Again, if Leonard would have been in Hagler's exact situation. He would be ripped constantly.

Nigel Benn? You lost me there. Who did Nigel Benn beat, that moved up in weight, that Benn is criticized for not fighting? I have no idea who you could be referring to. I certainly have never heard Benn being criticized for this as Leonard is.

Why do I think Leonard is judged harshly?
If it was only not fighting Hagler again, that would be one thing. at least with that arguenment, you have a leg to stand on. However, you point out one fightin almost any other fighters career that he should have taken.
Almost all of the other complaints about Leonard are complete nonsense.

Why is he judged too harshly?
-He should be considered without question the #2 welterweight of alltime behind Ray Robinson.
-He should be considered without question one of the Top 10 pound for pound fighters of all time.
-He gets criticized much more than Duran,Hearns, and Hagler combined.
-He shouldn't get criticized for not giving rematches because it's simply not true.
-He actually gets criticized for ridiculaus things like he had no heart.
- He doesn't get nearly the credit that he deserves for his historic victory over Hagler. Instead the focus is usually on how Hagler supposedly got "robbed", (Even if it's pushing it to give Hagler 5 rounds). Just going the distance with Hagler and giving him a competitive fight would have been a tremendous accomplishment, especially under those circumstances. That he actually beat Hagler should be considered one of the most amazing feats in boxing history.

Even his retirement in 1982 is criticized by some people. Like Leonard planned to have a detached retina. Like he planned to miss the best years of his career.
-You are now criticizing him for being overprotective of his record? Wow.

If he was, he wouldn't have fought 9 Top Ten opponents before getting a title shot.
If he was, he would have fought Cuevas instead of the much better Benitez for the title.
If he was, he never would have had a unification fight with Hearns.
If he was, he never would have come out of retirement to fight Hagler.

Considering that he missed 5 years, his competition was as good as almost anyone in any weight class in the last 50 years.

What this is really about is that Leonard was the "pretty boy" and that he the could actually talk intelligently. From Corbett to Tunney to De La Hoya, these type of fighters are disliked by many people and get a lot of unjustified criticism. Many people are unable to rate a fighter that they don't like fairly.
No, Leonard didn't look "mean" like Duran or Hagler, but he was just as tough and had more heart.