BoxRec

"That simply isn't true. The heavyweights often face a wider range of opponents. You clearly don't understand what I mean by the talent pool being divided up, or choose to ignore it. Take the lightweight division. Only fighters that weigh more 130 and not more than 135 fight in it. Obviously that exludes a huge amount of people. the heavyweight division includes everyone over 200. Obviously that is going to be more people. Historically, it included everyone over 175. By sheer numbers, the odds you are going to have a large amount of heavyweights that are at least decent..."

The Heavyweights dwell in a slightly softer environment, Alp, & always have. By being surrounded by superior opposition from the moment they turn pro (which is typically at a much younger age - more points for them, again), by being trained to be more versatile & broadly skilled, & by being forced to stay in (relative) shape year-round (rare for a Heavy), because they must make weight --- not unrelated to your sustained level of skill --- over the years, the lighter weight fighters simply evolve further than the Heavyweights ever get, Alp. We've seen it over & over, the softer environment stunts the Heavy's growth. & not coincidentally, Alp, the Heavyweight division produces an unmatched & unchallenged number of under-achievers. So right off the bat, the lighter fighters, generally speaking, are more proven & battle-tested, this is why they will always have a leg-up on the Heavies --- it's not an absolute rule, it's a trend. Fighters change weightclass all the time, btw. Going through multiple divisions & facing the best each weightclass has to offer isn't easier, it's harder.

"...The heavyweight division isn't the worst division at all times. Are you seriously going to argue that the heavyweight division of the 1970's was the weakest division?
There is no reason that a big man can't be as skillful as a small man. Like the other divisions, sometimes the heavyweight division strong, some times it's weak, sometimes it's in between..."

Like I said, a trend, not a rule, but a clear & consistent trend through history, nonetheless.

"...You put more emphasis on fighters beating each other hypothetically anyway? You should look at a fighters real fights to decide how good he was..."

That's part of the analysis. I doubt you yourself place absolutely no importance on who-would-beat-who. After all, accomplishments (though less subjective) still come down to interpretation, & interpretation breeds the subjectivity you are knocking down here.

"Given the competition? Look at Ali's competition during that time. He beat Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson, two great heavyweights. Most of the other opponents were good fighters. Brian London would have been the only one in the Bum of the Month Club.
He was 10-0, with 8 KO's and 2 lopsided decision wins. That is very dominating..."

Yes, it is. It is not, however, among the top five most dominating title reigns ever. Nor is Ali himself one of the five most dominating fighters of his opponents ever. In my opinion.

"...No to mention that a past his prime Ali beat Frazier and Foreman(whom you rate as the #3 heavyweight of all time.)..."

& those are remarkable feats. They are not, however, anything close to being unique in their grandeur or importance. The top five fighters of all-time is very exclusive company, Alp. I think you're understating how little room there is to move. Sorry, someone's always gonna get left off, no matter how good. Such is the case with Ali (in many, if not most people's views, I'm hardly alone).

"...If you want to talk competition, take a hard look at the opponents one of the other fighters that you have in your top 5; Willie Pep beat two great fighters in his whole career; he went 1-3 against Saddler and beat Manuel Ortiz. After that, there a huge dropoff..."

You can do that with anyone's career. I've seen it done a hundred times, & I'm guessing you have, too. You can do it with Ali's career (just as a point off the top of my head, there is a lasting stink over several of his biggest wins). You can certainly do it with Leonard's (disjointed) career. Whatever you do, don't mention the plane crash that doctors determined was so severe, it would prevent Pep from walking, much less fighting, even moreso from fighting in his leg-dependent style.

"...How often does Tiger Woods get criticized? I certainly can't remember the last time it happened. How about Gretzky? How about Pele?
Aren't they "untouchable". (btw, Ali certainly isn't untouchable on this forum. We spend more time talking about fights when he was over the hill against Young, Shavers etc than we do when he was in his prime. Which we don't do with anyone else.)..."

The world (much of it) doesn't give a shit about Tiger Woods, nor will they nearly thirty years after his retirement, ala Ali. Wayne Gretzky? Who? I'm not being smart, I've never heard of Wayne Gretzky. That should tell you what the world thinks of him. Everyone's heard of Ali, though. His popularity is unique, because much of it is built on his outer-ring achievements (or in some cases, perceived achievements). & that's fine. However, I am of the firm belief that this influences many peoples' opinion of him in the ring, & with this I have a problem.

"...They were the best and certainly get less criticism that Ali. They get 10X the praise than the #2 guy in their sport. It's not fair, but thats the way it is. It's not their fault, and it doesn't mean that they aren't the best. Yes, Phil Mickelson, Mario Lemuix, whomever would be the #2 soccer player of all time don't get as much credit as they deserve. That doesn't mean they were the best..."

Ali (or anyone, for that matter), being the best in his division, or all-time, is only ever anyone's opinion. Not a fact.

"...Fact is, Leonard has more than enough competition for that number two spot (& of the above fighters, one I definitely would place ahead of him is Griffith, possibly one or two others as well).

All of those fighters were great, and none of them were as good as Leonard. I have mentioned Leonard's abilities and his accomplishments, and you have never disputed them..."

Leonard is not a bad pick for #2 at Welterweight. He is not a bad pick for number five, either, Alp. It's a competitive division, & Leonard (just like everyone) had nothing resembling a perfect career. Those fighters being inferior to Leonard is just your opinion (& not an opinion I can agree with in good conscience), not a fact.

"...What about the rest of those guys?
Emile Griffith -Won 3 of 4 close decisions against Rodriquez, probably just as easily could have been 0-4. This is the only great that Griffith beat at welterweight. Griffith also lost to Benny Paret, who was nothing special.

Henry Armstrong- Had some big wins at welterweight. However, he lost to Fritzie Zivic, ywice. He even got stopped the 2nd time.

Jose Napoles -Biggest wins were over Curtis Cokes and an old Griffith. Lost to Billy Backus.

Kid Gavilan - Has some nice wins, also lost not only to great fighters like Robinson,Graham, and Ike Williams, but also to Lester Felton and Doug Ratford, twice.

Joe Walcott- Great fighter, beat a lot great competition, but was very inconsistent. Had several losses to not greats.

Barney Ross- Was a lightweight for most of his career. Had 3 tough fights with McClarnin, the best welterweight that he ever beat. Lost Armstrong even though he weighed 142 and Armstrong was only 133.

Carmen Basilio- Has some big wins. Also had numerous bad losses-Ross Virgo,Vic Cardell,Eddie Giosa etc.

Beau Jack- Was really a lightweight. There is no reason to rank him in the Top 50 welterweights of all time..."

Ladies & gentlemen, Ray Leonard...

A) Scored a tained win (not his fault, but tainted nonetheless) over a (somewhat) rusty Wilfred Benitez, never gave him a rematch (Benitez moved, but not before asking for one).

B) Avoided Marvin Hagler (oh yes, he did), & won a narrow fight. Much like Emile Griffith in your estimation, could, "just as easily" have lost the decision, therefore, Leonard's win doesn't matter as much (if you're doing it with Griffith's victories, don't complain when someone legitimately turns it on Leonard).

C) Avoided Aaron Pryor (hey, I don't believe this one, but it's certainly no less legitimate than knocking someone for losing to Fritzie Zivic, so I'm running with it), never wanted a bar of the man.

D) Lost to an old (not washed up, but definitely ageing) Roberto Duran, who wasn't even a Welter. Duran's best days were in a different weightclass, & a different decade. Leonard had weight, height, reach, youth, freshness, & hunger. He still lost. Terrible, ain't it? Worse than losing to Zivic.

E) A career broken in two. I don't care whose fault it is or isn't, that hurts. Other great Welters blow Leonard out of the water for consistency, & many of the ones in question fought in a time when they were much more active from fight-to-fight than Leonard ever had to be.

"...All of these guys were great. However, if you put them under the microscope, you see that they simply weren't as good as Leonard. Leonard wins were as impressive, and he didn't have the bad losses. It's really not that hard to figure out..."

It is your opinion they weren't as good as Leonard, & it is an opinion I don't entirely agree with. It is not a fact. Leonard's wins were impressive, & he is a deserved HOFer, though they are in several instances overblown, & he does have the bad losses. Getting your ass handed to you by Terry Norris is bad news (if you're going to mention losing to a guy like Zivic late in your career, don't complain about the far more valid Norris critique). Alp, who was more faded when they lost to Zivic & Norris (two men far apart in quality) respectively? 129-fight Armstrong? Or 30-odd-year-old Leonard? Yes, Zivic had been around a long time too, though unlike Norris, no one should be embarressed to lose to Zivic.

"...I have already answered this. Obviuosly since we are ranking on the top 5 here, you can only have fighters from from 5 weight classes and there are more than 5. However, it seems that you atleast didn't dismiss these guys like you do with the heavweights. If you went to as far as to say that no heavyweight is in the Top 15. Please..."

The Heavyweights are a unique case, as I outlined at the commencement of the post.

"...The difference is that I rate fighters on how good they were regardless of whether I like them or not. For example, as mentioned I rate Monzon as my #1 middleweight and Duran as my #1 lightweight even though I can't stand them. There are many other fighters that I like a lot that I don't consider to be all time greats..."

No, Alp, the difference is one of perception, & perception alone. It is my perception that I objectively rank Ali, with which you disagree. It is your perception that you objectively rank Leonard, with which I disagree.

dr_devious wrote:

Elton John wrote:

dr_devious wrote: Is this supposed to be ironic?

It's simple. If Norris had come along at the same time as leonard and if Leonard attempted to lift the title from Norris instead of Kalule, the big leonard-Hearns feast would have been wiped off the menu because Leonard would have lost.

Leonard-Hearns could have still gone on but with much of it's appeal gone. Kalule was a safe fight because he was a limited fighter lacking speed. Norris however would have proven too much for Leonard so who knows, he may have decided to end his career even earlier than 1982.

Bullsh1t, Norris beat Leonard when he was way over the hill. Who else did he beat remotely near the peak Leonards standard?

Who said he was over the hill? Leonard was favored 3-1 over Norris and there are plenty reasons why. Leonard had every edge concievable going into the fight. For one, experience. And isnt experience the standard by which we judge the worth of fighters? After all, hadn't leonard defeated hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez?

Not one expert came forward openly complaining "Leonard will lose because he is not at his peak". Did you come out in the open and say Leonard will lose to Norris? Of course not.

Everyone I knew said without blinking "Ray", "Ray", "Ray", "Ray". Not one person would dare say "Norris because Ray doesnt have it anymore" so please stop making up stories to defend his shortcomings.

If that were true I would have seen stories run on this problem. Such stories as "Leonard: why he fights on" would have been in print. Instead I saw such stories as, KO magazine ran a story on Leonard after whipping Duran for the 10th time, "Can Sugar Ray actually lose?" And Steve Farhood referred to Leonard's performance as the perfect fight.

So there's no way you can convince me that Leonard was taken in a fight against a 3-1 underdog when Leonard had all the experience, no layoffs to use as an excuse. He can't even complain his loss was due to excess weight.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I said I think it's harder to be a little man (at the highest level, you flat-out face a broader range of opponents who have more abilities across the board, & you invariably end up facing superior competition). That is not admitting I have a bias against Heavyweights, any more than it is biased of you to say Ray Leonard is better than me because he moves faster, is more adaptable, has more fight experience etc. The skill level at Heavyweight has never been as good across the board as it has been in the lower weights.

That simply isn't true. The heavyweights often face a wider range of opponents. You clearly don't understand what I mean by the talent pool being divided up, or choose to ignore it. Take the lightweight division. Only fighters that weigh more 130 and not more than 135 fight in it. Obviously that exludes a huge amount of people. the heavyweight division includes everyone over 200. Obviously that is going to be more people. Historically, it included everyone over 175. By sheer numbers, the odds you are going to have a large amount of heavyweights that are at least decent.

The heavyweight division isn't the worst division at all times. Are you seriously going to argue that the heavyweight division of the 1970's was the weakest division?
There is no reason that a big man can't be as skillful as a small man. Like the other divisions, sometimes the heavyweight division strong, some times it's weak, sometimes it's in between.

Ali did not have the, "most dominating title reign from 1964-67", given the competition. I didn't refute that because it's beneath arguing. You probably know I already place more emphasis on fighters beating one another (hypothetically) anyway, & I sure am not struggling to think of five well-accomplished men in boxing history that could have beaten Ali.

You put more emphasis on fighters beating each other hypothetically anyway? You should look at a fighters real fights to decide how good he was.
Given the competition? Look at Ali's competition during that time. He beat Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson, two great heavyweights. Most of the other opponents were good fighters. Brian London would have been the only one in the Bum of the Month Club.
He was 10-0, with 8 KO's and 2 lopsided decision wins. That is very dominating.
No to mention that a past his prime Ali beat Frazier and Foreman(whom you rate as the #3 heavyweight of all time.)

If you want to talk competition, take a hard look at the opponents one of the other fighters that you have in your top 5; Willie Pep beat two great fighters in his whole career; he went 1-3 against Saddler and beat Manuel Ortiz. After that, there a huge dropoff.

One thing that bothers me --- you are trying to say, "the #1 guy always gets more respect than the #2 guy" when we both know, Alp, that you are too knowledgeable to not know better. Ali is a rare exception (untouchable) & you know that. It is not like Tiger Woods or any other athlete.

How often does Tiger Woods get criticized? I certainly can't remember the last time it happened. How about Gretzky? How about Pele?
Aren't they "untouchable". (btw, Ali certainly isn't untouchable on this forum. We spend more time talking about fights when he was over the hill against Young, Shavers etc than we do when he was in his prime. Which we don't do with anyone else.)

They were the best and certainly get less criticism that Ali. They get 10X the praise than the #2 guy in their sport. It's not fair, but thats the way it is. It's not their fault, and it doesn't mean that they aren't the best. Yes, Phil Mickelson, Mario Lemuix, whomever would be the #2 soccer player of all time don't get as much credit as they deserve. That doesn't mean they were the best.

Sorry, but in no universe (except that of a Leonard fan) is he the, "clear" (read: undisputable) choice for #2 Welter of all-time. How about Emile Griffith? Beau Jack? Henry Armstrong? Jose Napoles? Kid Gavilan? Joe Walcott? Barney Ross? Carmen Basilio?

Fact is, Leonard has more than enough competition for that number two spot (& of the above fighters, one I definitely would place ahead of him is Griffith, possibly one or two others as well).

All of those fighters were great, and none of them were as good as Leonard. I have mentioned Leonard's abilities and his accomplishments, and you have never disputed them.

What about the rest of those guys?
Emile Griffith -Won 3 of 4 close decisions against Rodriquez, probably just as easily could have been 0-4. This is the only great that Griffith beat at welterweight. Griffith also lost to Benny Paret, who was nothing special.

Henry Armstrong- Had some big wins at welterweight. However, he lost to Fritzie Zivic, ywice. He even got stopped the 2nd time.

Jose Napoles -Biggest wins were over Curtis Cokes and an old Griffith. Lost to Billy Backus.

Kid Gavilan - Has some nice wins, also lost not only to great fighters like Robinson,Graham, and Ike Williams, but also to Lester Felton and Doug Ratford, twice.

Joe Walcott- Great fighter, beat a lot great competition, but was very inconsistent. Had several losses to not greats.

Barney Ross- Was a lightweight for most of his career. Had 3 tough fights with McClarnin, the best welterweight that hee ver beat. Lost Armstrong even though he weighed 142 and Armstrong was only 133.

Carmen Basilio- Has some big wins. Also had numerous bad losses-Ross Virgo,Vic Cardell,Eddie Giosa etc.

Beau Jack- Was really a lightweight. There is no reason to rank him in the Top 50 welterweights of all time.

All of these guys were great. However, if you put them under the microscope, you see that they simply weren't as good as Leonard. Leonard wins were as impressive, and he didn't have the bad losses. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Once again --- I don't think any of the Heavyweights are good enough for this list. I don't think any of the Cruisers, or Light-Heavies or Bantams are, either. Why no discussion on that? Am I biased against them, too, simply by virtue of not including any?

I have already answered this. Obviuosly since we are ranking on the top 5 here, you can only have fighters from from 5 weight classes and there are more than 5. However, it seems that you atleast didn't dismiss these guys like you do with the heavweights. If you went to as far as to say that no heavyweight is in the Top 15. Please.

I'm biased against Ali. You are biased for Leonard. I'm not sure either of us will change the others mind at this point.

The difference is that I rate fighters on how good they were regardless of whether I like them or not. For example, as mentioned I rate Monzon as my #1 middleweight and Duran as my #1 lightweight even though I can't stand them. There are many other fighters that I like a lot that I don't consider to be all time greats.

But this is normal. The only reason really you rate them #1 is because you were around during their time and know next to nothing of the others. That is, they were before your time and reading about fighters isn't the same as watching their fights live. Don't deny it-you know it's true and I'm bringing it to light so that you can see past your blind spot.

You have no choice but to root for your home team-a loyalty on the subconscious level.

I think you're speaking to Alp, Elton, but I just want to check?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I think you're speaking to Alp, Elton, but I just want to check?

I was referring to Alp of course. he has some very strange views!

Leonard was 34 years old, and really only fighting part time from 1982 onwards. Of course he wasnt the same fighter he was in the early 80s

Of course you are right dr devious.

Leonard was 34 (almost 35) hadn't fought in 15 months when he fought Norris.
However, Goodnight Irene claims that is "bad news" to lose to Norris?
Yet when Leonard fought Duran who was 29, he says Duran was old.
That is bias. In a nutshell this is what I am talking about when it comes to some people in regard to Leonard. They don't want to apply the same standards to other fighters as they do to Leonard.


He also ask who was more faded, Armstrong when he fought Zivic or Leonard when he fought Norris? I guessing he is saying that somehow Armstrong was and so it wasn't as an embarrasing of a loss for Armstrong as it was for Leonard.

This is absolutely ridiculaus. Armstrong wasn't faded at all when he fought Zivic. Yes he had many more fights, but that doesn't mean he was more faded. Virtually all of the other evidence shows he wasn't. He was only 27 years old when he fought Zivic the first time. He showed no signs of slowing down before he fought Zivic. Armstrong fought on for several years after this fight and won some big fights.

As for the other recent comments that he made about Leonard:

A. The Leonard win over Benitez was tainted? I guess Goodnight Irene is again referring to the cut on Benitez forehead that he claims hurt Benitez's chances. Until he brought this up, I have never heard anyone on this forum make thsi claim. (That says a lot giving the hated many members of this forum have for Leonard).
Nor have I ever heard anyone in the 28 years since the fight happened mention this until Goodnight brought it up.

Why would that be? It's because the cut wasn't a factor in the fight whatsover. It didn't obsruct his vision at all. Leonard won the fight fair and square.
If you are going say this was a tainted win, you can come up with a lame excuse for any fight.

There is no reason to believe that Benitez would have won a rematch. However, if he wanted one he could have stayed in the welterweight division and he would have gotten one sooner or later.

B. Leonard avoided Hagler? Yeah thats right. Leonard obviously faked the detached retna, waited 5 years and then pounced on Hagler. That really makes since. That's like saying a current welterweight should sit out 2 years, have one fight, then sit out for three more years, then take on the middleweight champion, and have a huge edge. That's ludicrous.
Ever hear of ring rust? The fighter who has been much more active is the one who has a huge advantage.
Can you name one fighter in the history of boxing who was inactive for as long as Leonard and came back to win a world title without one tuneup?
Many have tried and failed.

The decision in the Hagler fight was just. Do the math. Leonard won the first 4 rounds, the fight was back and forth after that. Leonard won atleast 7 of the 12 rounds. The Griffith-Rodriquez fights were much closer. Besdies, lets not forget that Griffith lost to Benny Paret. He wasn't remotely as good as Duran.

C. Leonard ducked Pryor? That is as legitmate as pointed out that Arnmstrong lost to Zivic twice? Umm, no. Leonard didn't duck Pryor. Pryor could have moved up if he really wanted Leonard. Name one other fighter is history is criticized for not fighting a fighter below his weight class?

D. Duran was old, not even a welterweight? Losing to him is worse than losing to Zivic? Wow.
I alread pointed out that Duran was only 29, which isn't old at all. He was still in his prime.
Duran was a welterweight. He left the lightweight division for good 2 years before he fought Leonard. He had 8 fights, won them all. One was over Palomino who was a pretty good welterweight champion.

Look at what Duran did after fighting Leonard twice:
He beat Cuevas, considered by many one of his best performances.
Three years after losing to Leonard, Duran won the Jr Middleweight title, in won of his best performances.
He then even moved up to middleweight, and gave one of the best middleweights of all time (Hagler) a tough fight.

Yet we are supposed to blieve that Duran was old and still a lightweight when he fought Leonard. Doesn't make sense.

Fritzie Zivic certainly had some big wins in an up and down career. However, the guy barely won 2/3 of his fights. He wasn't remotely close to the ability of Robert Duran. To think so is beyond comrehension. By the way Zivic was a lightweight for much of his career. So didn't Armstrong lose to a lightweight? Of course he didn't, becasue he wasn't a lightweight whhen he fought Armstrong.

E. Leonard's career was broken in two. This I agree with. It was. It's true that Leonard's career didn't have the sheer quantity that other greats had. I am not going to make an excuse for this, unlike the excuse that are made for Leonard beaten opponents. However, the sheer quality of Leonard's career makes him worthy for serious consideration as one of the top 5 fighters of all time.

Leonard did lose to Duran, an all alltime great. That is about the worst legitimate criticism that you can make about one of his fights in his prime. I have pointed out worse losses by every other welterweight that you mentioned.
Leonard's quality wins are atleast as good as the other great welterweights (except for Robinson) and better than some.

As for Ali (and the heavyweights:)
Well it appears that alteast you are now conceding that the heavyweight division isn't always the worst. Most importantly, it was strong when Ali fought.

Ali didn't have one of the 5 most dominating title reigns from 1964-1967? Well you didn't name who was better. Certainly none of the 5 guys that voted as the Top fighters ever did.

Ali beating Foreman and Frazier (and others) when he was past his best isn't that important? Really. Well with the possible exception of Robinson, none of the 5 guys that you mentioned did anyything as impressive when they were past their prime. Knocking out the guy that you have as the #3 heavyweight of all time when you are past your best isn't that importance? That defys logic.

I pointed out that Willie Pep has a career record that consists of two wins over great fighters. 1-3 against Saddler and a win over Manuel Ortz. The best response is that you can say that about anyone?
Well, no you can't. Ali (and Leonard for that matter) had a much better record than that against great fighters. I'm not saying that Pep wasn't a great fight or that he is a bad pick for Top 5, I'm just making a point here. If you are going to rank Pep top 5, you have to alteast consider Ali.

You have never heard of Wayne Gretzky? Are you serious?
Well, he is considered by most hockey fans as the best hockey player ever. He gets at least 10X the attention that any other hockey player gets. He wasn't 10X as good as the #2 guy. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't the best.
Thje same with Tiger Woods, who gets a lot more attention that Ali does now. Who knows how much attentionh e will get 30 years after he retires.
Pele is the same way. How about Michael Jordan. Was he 10X as good as Wilt Chamberlain? Of course not. However, he gets a lot more attention that any other basketball player ever has.

It's not fair, but that's how it is. Ali is perceived as the best heavyweight of all time. Sure, many people who say he is aren't hardcore boxing fans. However, many people who say he is.

What you need to do with Ali is just block anything about him in regard to what he has done outside of the ring. Just watch tape of him, and look at his record. Compare him to others at similar times of his career to anyone else.

What really bugs me is when people don't evaluate fighters that they don't like the same way as they do as other fighters.

Sometimes people that you like are the best, sometimes they aren't.

Ok, all you anti-Leonard and/or Ali people. Lets here the same tired BS about Leonard ducking someone or the lame excuses why so and so lost to him. Lets here the crap that isn't based on facts and logic. Lets compare them when they are past their best to other fighters when they were in their prime.
Maybe we should explore ideas such as:
Did Davey Boy Green get a fast count against Leonard?
Did Chuvalo get screwed in the decision against Ali?

I think the point is that Leonard has a shot at being the welter #2. I think almost everyone agrees with that BUT many don't think it is a given in the same way you do, Alp. Your arguments are blind to Leonard's negatives but quick to jump on anyone elses... and you cry foul whenever anyone critiques Leonard.

I don't think the Benitez cut made a difference to the result but your refusal to even consider it as a factor goes against all logic. Anyone who has performed any sport at a high level will tell you that the even the smallest of advantages make a huge difference when you're competing. If you said that the cut made no difference to the result then fair enough but to say it's no factor at all just smacks of favouritism.

Leonard went 2-1 with Duran. I think many people consider the final fight pretty worthless in evaluating them, even so... Had they fought 5-6 times then Duran would likely have won a second fight, but they didn't... It seems to me that you over crticise fighters for losing to other top fighters and in doing so give marks (second hand) to fighters with short, well managed careers.

Griffith beat Rodrigues 3 times isn't that on a par with Leonard's 3 big wins at 147?

..willie pep would win every round easy against wayne gretzgy.

-I am not blind to his negatives. I judge him like I judge anyone else. I count the Duran fight against him and don't make any excuses for it.
Have you ever seen me do that?
I also recognize (and have said) that he didn't have the sheer quantity of fights as some other fighters. Those are legitimate things that should be discussed when talking about Leonard.

I have never heard any other criticism of him that gets made about every other fighters in siliar situation. If you have something new, I'm all ears. All of the rest of the criticsms that I have heard about Leonard is all BS that people won't say about other fighters.
Give me another criticism that gets applied to everyone else when rating fighters.

-The cut in the Benitez fight? I am assuming that you have seen the fight. The cut didn't obstruct his vision. It might as well have been on his knee. It wasn't a factor in the fight at all. As in zero.
To even consider it smacks of bias against Leonard.

-Yes Leonard went 2-1 against Duran. I don't factor in the 3rd fight because Duran was well past it. Have you ever heard me make a big deal about the 3rd fight?

Well managed careers? Leonard went out of his way to fight tough competition. You can go on and on how about how he supposedly duck this guy or that guy, but the fact is that he didn't.

He beat 9 Top 10 opponents before he ever got a title shot. (Duran didn't do that. Hagler didn't do that. Benitez didn't do that. Hearns didn't do that Pryor didn't do that)

He won the title from Benitez, he could have taken an easier road and won the WBA title from Cuevas.
He fought Duran and Hearns at welterweight.
One fight in 5 years, and takes on Marvin Hagler.
Yeah, that really looks like someone who won't fight the best.

Emile Griffith? A great fighter. If you want to say that winning 3 dubious decisions over Rodriquez is as impressive as stopping Benitez,Duran, and Hearns, fine. ( I know there is an excuse for every opponent that Leonard beat.)
Let's pretend for a minute that Griffith and Leonard's wins at welterweight are even.
Leonard's only loss was to Duran. Griffith lost to Benny Paret, a below average champion. If Leonard would have lost to someone like him we would never hear the end of it. Instead, Griffith pretty much gets a free pass. Griffith's loss is much worse. Paret wasn't anywhere near as good as Duran.
Therefore Leonard's resume at welterweight is better, even if you try to claim that Griffths wins at welterweight were as good, which a dubious claim.

I have pointed this out about the other great welterweights. I mentioned fighters that they lost to that were certainly worse than Duran. Most had multiple losses to much lesser fighters.

I am willing to put Leonard under the micropscope, but some people that want to do that won't do that with other fighters.

All I am asking is that the same criteria be used with Leonard as with anyone else. Instead it's the usual garbage:

It's horrible that he lost to Terry Norris even though he was 34.
Yet somehow Roberto Duran was old when Leonard fought him. He just turned 29.

Duran was a lightweight when he fought Leonard, despite all the evidence to the contrary. (He had been fighting above lightweight for years, had beaten Palomino easily at lightweight, had some of his best performances after he fought Leoanrd when he was a higher weights etc.)

Leonard didn't fight the best?
Yet who had the most fights out Leonard,Hearns,Benitez,Duran, and Hagler against each other?
Surprise, it's Leonard.

Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor?
Who else gets criticezed for ducking a fighter that wouldn't move up in weight?

Leonard waited for Hagler to grow old before fighting him by staying out of the ring for almost 5 years.
I mean, how stupid is that theory?
Please I ask again, name anyone else in more than 100 years of boxing to sit out for 3 years, and win the title without a tuneup?


Again, lets criticize Leonard if others fights are criticized for the same thing, and being willing to criticize other great fighters if it's legitimate.

Alp, it's pretty clear you don't understand when I'm making a point by way of playing devil's advocate (such as the Leonard-Duran, Armstrong-Zivic example, among a host of others), & are taking anything I say that is even remotely approaching negative toward Leonard literally & out of context.

I think it's pretty clear that you feel strongly that I am biased against Ali (& now Leonard, since I have dared to say something negative for the first time in the six months I have been on this board), as I feel strongly that you are biased for Leonard & Ali. It's not going to change.

As far as Wayne Gretzky goes? The world extends beyond anyone's backyard. I would like to hear your thoughts (even briefly) on Jonah Lomu, though?

"I think the point is that Leonard has a shot at being the welter #2. I think almost everyone agrees with that BUT many don't think it is a given in the same way you do, Alp..." - Ezzard

That is precisely the point. However, it appears anyone who says otherwise is guilty of bias.

dr_devious wrote:Leonard was 34 years old, and really only fighting part time from 1982 onwards. Of course he wasnt the same fighter he was in the early 80s

Then Hagler was a part time fighter from 1984 on because he fought once a year like Leonard.

Ambling Alp wrote:
Leonard avoided Hagler? Yeah thats right. Leonard obviously faked the detached retna, waited 5 years and then pounced on Hagler. That really makes since. That's like saying a current welterweight should sit out 2 years, have one fight, then sit out for three more years, then take on the middleweight champion, and have a huge edge. That's ludicrous.
Ever hear of ring rust? The fighter who has been much more active is the one who has a huge advantage.
Can you name one fighter in the history of boxing who was inactive for as long as Leonard and came back to win a world title without one tuneup?
Many have tried and failed.

The decision in the Hagler fight was just. Do the math. Leonard won the first 4 rounds, the fight was back and forth after that. Leonard won atleast 7 of the 12 rounds. The Griffith-Rodriquez fights were much closer. Besdies, lets not forget that Griffith lost to Benny Paret. He wasn't remotely as good as Duran.


Ok, all you anti-Leonard and/or Ali people. Lets here the same tired BS about Leonard ducking someone or the lame excuses why so and so lost to him. Lets here the crap that isn't based on facts and logic. Lets compare them when they are past their best to other fighters when they were in their prime.

But you notice there is a certain theme unique to Leonard's career? That is, he faced off with Hagler, then Hearns, then Duran far too late after the significance of those matches had years since passed.

Duran and Hearns were not really seen as the top fighters anymore but as fighters on their last legs. He was avoiding the top fighters of that time; Nunn and McCallum, the way he avoiding Hagler whn Marvin was the top fighter in the sport-1982, 83.

By 1987, Hagler was on the way out, a relic. The fact he was holding only one of his three belts is conclusive evidence of this. He had no plans to continue-that was evident. The hagler of old would have fought tooth and nail to hold all thre belts.

Because leonard was taking fights with soft competion instead of the Nunn's and McCallums, the jacksons, then you have to say he also avoided the top competition in the earlier part of the decade-namely Hagler. This is his motis operandi, what he's known for.

besides that, I noticed his "damaged retina" hadn't actually kept him from taking an earlier fight in 1984. This shows his intentions to fight much earlier than the Hagler fight of 87 so his eye was not the actual barrier to fighting in the ring.

This cannot be denied. Anyone who says Leonard's eye kept him from continuing his caeer I tell them "What about the Howard fight?"

So now that we know he will fight, eye and all, so we have to take he excuse of his eye with a grain of salt. he already fought. So the excuse carries as much weight as his excuse for quitting again after one fight "It wasn't there"

yet it was there when you had Lalonde and some faded relics. But it wasn't there when it came to getting in the ring with Nunn and McCallum. It wasn't there when it came to facing hagler in 82 but it was there for hagler in 1987??

I'm not dumb enough to believe that.

I still think you don't get it Alp. You're going to keep up your dumb act with me. Let me put it to you this way: If Leonard's eye was preventing him from coninuing his career earlier then what was he doing fighting as far back as 1984? Why didnt he just fight Hagler right after the Howard fight? At least he could say he had one tuneup and that he was only 27. What would have made it better is that both were still in their primes more or less. That's what the public perception would have been so this would have been the right time to make it happen.

By the way Alp, here's a comment I got straight off the hagler-Leonard fight, round six: Tim Ryan speaking

"Leonard said Hagler had lost a lot of speed and tht he was counting on the slowness of Hagler"

You can't deny it was said Alp. Everything else you can act dumb about but the one thing you can't escape is that leonard himself admitted what we knew. Or at least what I knew which is he wanted hagler all along but he wanted him in the worst, most beat up shape possible and that cheapens it, even if you're a leonard fan because people like me know what he was up to all this time.

You're not going to deny he said it are you? You want the round he said it in - that way you can hear for yourself. Round six.

I'll even give you the time remaining in the round: 20 seconds left in the round.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how you respond to this. I'll be waiting for your reply. Think it through carefully!

Ambling Alp wrote:-I am not blind to his negatives. I judge him like I judge anyone else. I count the Duran fight against him and don't make any excuses for it.
Have you ever seen me do that?
I also recognize (and have said) that he didn't have the sheer quantity of fights as some other fighters. Those are legitimate things that should be discussed when talking about Leonard.

I have never heard any other criticism of him that gets made about every other fighters in siliar situation. If you have something new, I'm all ears. All of the rest of the criticsms that I have heard about Leonard is all BS that people won't say about other fighters.
Give me another criticism that gets applied to everyone else when rating fighters.

-The cut in the Benitez fight? I am assuming that you have seen the fight. The cut didn't obstruct his vision. It might as well have been on his knee. It wasn't a factor in the fight at all. As in zero.
To even consider it smacks of bias against Leonard.

-Yes Leonard went 2-1 against Duran. I don't factor in the 3rd fight because Duran was well past it. Have you ever heard me make a big deal about the 3rd fight?

Well managed careers? Leonard went out of his way to fight tough competition. You can go on and on how about how he supposedly duck this guy or that guy, but the fact is that he didn't.

He beat 9 Top 10 opponents before he ever got a title shot. (Duran didn't do that. Hagler didn't do that. Benitez didn't do that. Hearns didn't do that Pryor didn't do that)

He won the title from Benitez, he could have taken an easier road and won the WBA title from Cuevas.
He fought Duran and Hearns at welterweight.
One fight in 5 years, and takes on Marvin Hagler.
Yeah, that really looks like someone who won't fight the best.

Emile Griffith? A great fighter. If you want to say that winning 3 dubious decisions over Rodriquez is as impressive as stopping Benitez,Duran, and Hearns, fine. ( I know there is an excuse for every opponent that Leonard beat.)
Let's pretend for a minute that Griffith and Leonard's wins at welterweight are even.
Leonard's only loss was to Duran. Griffith lost to Benny Paret, a below average champion. If Leonard would have lost to someone like him we would never hear the end of it. Instead, Griffith pretty much gets a free pass. Griffith's loss is much worse. Paret wasn't anywhere near as good as Duran.
Therefore Leonard's resume at welterweight is better, even if you try to claim that Griffths wins at welterweight were as good, which a dubious claim.

I have pointed this out about the other great welterweights. I mentioned fighters that they lost to that were certainly worse than Duran. Most had multiple losses to much lesser fighters.

I am willing to put Leonard under the micropscope, but some people that want to do that won't do that with other fighters.

All I am asking is that the same criteria be used with Leonard as with anyone else. Instead it's the usual garbage:

It's horrible that he lost to Terry Norris even though he was 34.
Yet somehow Roberto Duran was old when Leonard fought him. He just turned 29.

Duran was a lightweight when he fought Leonard, despite all the evidence to the contrary. (He had been fighting above lightweight for years, had beaten Palomino easily at lightweight, had some of his best performances after he fought Leoanrd when he was a higher weights etc.)

Leonard didn't fight the best?
Yet who had the most fights out Leonard,Hearns,Benitez,Duran, and Hagler against each other?
Surprise, it's Leonard.

Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor?
Who else gets criticezed for ducking a fighter that wouldn't move up in weight?

Leonard waited for Hagler to grow old before fighting him by staying out of the ring for almost 5 years.
I mean, how stupid is that theory?
Please I ask again, name anyone else in more than 100 years of boxing to sit out for 3 years, and win the title without a tuneup?


Again, lets criticize Leonard if others fights are criticized for the same thing, and being willing to criticize other great fighters if it's legitimate.

you are so clueless whe saying that Hagler and Duran didn't fight TOUGH OPPOSITION before winning the title. Duran fought good and excellent opposition like Hiroshi Kobayashi, Ernesto Marcel, Carlos Mendoza and Angel Robinson Garcia and Benny Huertas before the title.

Hagler fought Bennie Briscoe, Willie Monroe and Bobby Watts and other top middleweights before the title.

Not only Leonard has fought good fighters alp. Also Hearns did the same before the title.

I didn't say they didn't fight tough opposition before they won the title. I said that they didn't beat 9 Top 10 opponents before winning the title, which Leonard did.

Armstrong
Langford
Robinson
Fitzsimmons
Walcott

Honorable Mention

Ryan
Mitchell
Choynski
Gans
Duran
Pep

Ambling Alp wrote:Obviously Langford was one of the greatest fighters of all time. I have him in my Top 10, but not quite my Top 5.

He certainly fought great competition and was very successful. However, when you compare him to other legends, you have to nitpick. Here are the negatives:

-Yes, he beat McVey and Jeannette. However he also lost to them. Head to head as a heavyweight, they were very close to him.

-The loss to Gunboat Smith. A good, but not great fighter, who weighed less than Langford. Yes he did avenge the loss, and this is just one fight out of 300. However, you have to look at everything.

-Draws against good but not great fighters like Colin Bell,Jim Johnson, and Sandy Ferguson.

Again, he had so many wins over good, very good, and great opponents that far outweigh these negatives. I just think that when you weigh everything, and weigh what others have done, there are a few other fighters who had slightly better careers. It's certainly arguable either way.

THat's not being fair. You face the calibre of opponents Langford did literally weeks apart, you are going to have some draws/off days. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to win them all, especially him being the much smaller man everytime out vs the Heavweights. Back then there was no postponing the fight 3 months b/c you injured your pinky finger.

As for Ali, the main reason you can't rank him top 5 PFP. He lacked the complete skill-set. The reason he was such a great HW was that he was a big man who moved like a welterweight, and had an incredible ability to absorb punishment and recupertate. But put Ali in a 130 lb body, and he loses a lot more to the top calibre opponents. Ali won't have the advantage of being an anomaly i.e. a swift/super fast 200 plus lb man. And his opponents won't tire out a la Foreman if he rope a dopes. His real lack of an inside game would really hurt him.

Great HW fighter and a truly unique/special fighter but on a lb for lb level just doesn't cut it.

Ambling Alp wrote:-I am not blind to his negatives. I judge him like I judge anyone else. I count the Duran fight against him and don't make any excuses for it.
Have you ever seen me do that?
I also recognize (and have said) that he didn't have the sheer quantity of fights as some other fighters. Those are legitimate things that should be discussed when talking about Leonard.

-The cut in the Benitez fight? I am assuming that you have seen the fight. The cut didn't obstruct his vision. It might as well have been on his knee. It wasn't a factor in the fight at all. As in zero.
To even consider it smacks of bias against Leonard.

All sporting outcomes are the results of millions and millions of details all combined. If having a cut doesn't make any difference then it's an impossible conversation. I don't see what you've got to gain from this. Nobody has said that they feel the result would have been different but not to acknowledge that a cut has an effect physical, psychological or otherwise is a pretty poor show.

And in your words to even 'consider it' shows bias sums up your relationship to Leonard...i.e. we're not even supposed to take it into consideration because if we do it means we have an agenda against Leonard.

Ambling Alp wrote: -Yes Leonard went 2-1 against Duran. I don't factor in the 3rd fight because Duran was well past it. Have you ever heard me make a big deal about the 3rd fight?

No... My point is in your rating of a fighter is goign 1-1 with an opponent better or worse than going 5-5?

Ambling Alp wrote:
Emile Griffith? A great fighter. If you want to say that winning 3 dubious decisions over Rodriquez is as impressive as stopping Benitez,Duran, and Hearns, fine. ( I know there is an excuse for every opponent that Leonard beat.)
Let's pretend for a minute that Griffith and Leonard's wins at welterweight are even.
Leonard's only loss was to Duran. Griffith lost to Benny Paret, a below average champion. If Leonard would have lost to someone like him we would never hear the end of it. Instead, Griffith pretty much gets a free pass. Griffith's loss is much worse. Paret wasn't anywhere near as good as Duran.
Therefore Leonard's resume at welterweight is better, even if you try to claim that Griffths wins at welterweight were as good, which a dubious claim.

Leonard's wins have been questioned. You are questioning Griffith's wins. Why is it okay to question one fighter but not the other? Why can you say there is an excuse for every Leonard win but call Griffiths' wins dubious and that not count as a double standard? I don't get it?

Ambling Alp wrote: Duran was a lightweight when he fought Leonard, despite all the evidence to the contrary. (He had been fighting above lightweight for years, had beaten Palomino easily at lightweight, had some of his best performances after he fought Leoanrd when he was a higher weights etc.)

Duran had already had a career as a lightweight. You can't say that Duran at 147 was as good as Duran at 135. His best performances were at 135... The best Duran was at 135. Just like the best leonard was at 147.

Ambling Alp wrote: Leonard waited for Hagler to grow old before fighting him by staying out of the ring for almost 5 years.
I mean, how stupid is that theory?
Please I ask again, name anyone else in more than 100 years of boxing to sit out for 3 years, and win the title without a tuneup?

In Leonard's own words he saw that Hagler had slipped. He said it over and over in the run up to the fight. Whatever advantages or disadvantages either of them had those were his words. I'm less interested in leonard and more interested in why, even when it seems obvious that some of points are way out, you continue to plug away with them. I mean you've got Leonard in your top 5 but not Langford?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Alp, it's pretty clear you don't understand when I'm making a point by way of playing devil's advocate (such as the Leonard-Duran, Armstrong-Zivic example, among a host of others), & are taking anything I say that is even remotely approaching negative toward Leonard literally & out of context.

Oh brother. You have got to be kidding. :x After all this, You are now saying that you were playing devils advocate, some of the time?
Yes I was taking everything that you say literally. So I am supposed to know what you really believe and what you don't?
So when you keep saying that Duran was old when fought Leonard, I am supposed to know that you don't mean it? (Or did you really mean that?)
When you saying losing to Duran is worse that losing to Zivic I was supposed to know that you really didn't mean it? (Or did you really mean that?)

If you don't mean it, don't say it. (Or atleast indicate that you don't mean to say it to be taken literally.)
Don't say anything negative about Leonard or anyone else if you don't really mean it.

I think it's pretty clear that you feel strongly that I am biased against Ali (& now Leonard, since I have dared to say something negative for the first time in the six months I have been on this board), as I feel strongly that you are biased for Leonard & Ali. It's not going to change.

Yes you have said negative things about Leonard before this thread. Of course I suppose I was supposed to know that it wasn't to be taken literally.

Yes, I like Ali and I like Leonard. That doesn't mean that my arguements for them are any less valid.
I like many other fighters that I don't rate that highly.
There are many fighters that I don't like that I do rate highly.

I use the same logic to rate everyone, regardless if I personally like them or not.

In the past I have acknowledged legitmate criticisms of Ali and Leonard. I know they weren't perfect. However, I defend them against criticisms that other fighters don't get under similar circumstances. Guess what? There is less to legitimately criticize with them that almost everyone else because they were two of the greatest fighters of all time.

If someone is criticizing Ali or Leonard for something that other fighters don't get ceriticed for; than yes they are being biased. It's that simple.

Yet who gets by far the most criticism on this forum? How often does Pep,Robinson,Greb,Langford get? How about Griffith, Ross,Armstrong, Gavilan? Are there multiple threads every week on this forum ripping them?

You can make 100 criticisms of Ali or Leonard. That doesn't mean more than a few have any validity. I can come up with 100 reasons to rip Ray Robinson or anyone else if I am not restricted to them having vaildity.


[b]Can you or anyone else find one example that I give credit to either Ali or Leonard where I won't for another fighter under similar circumstances?[/b]

Can you or anyone else find an example when I criticized another fighter and didn't Ali or Leonard in similar circumstances?

b]You, however don't use the same logic toward everyone and I have pointed out several examples when you haven't. You like to compare Ali when he was past his prime against others when they are in their prime. [/b]
You claim Duran who just turned 29 was old when he fought Leonard.
Yet you claim that it was a bad loss for Leonard at the age of 34 (almost 35) to lost to Norris.
How can you possibly say that isn't bias against Leonard?


As far as Wayne Gretzky goes? The world extends beyond anyone's backyard. I would like to hear your thoughts (even briefly) on Jonah Lomu, though?

As for Wayne Gretzky, my point which for some reason you don't seem to grasp is that in his sport is widely considered the best.
He gets far more attention than other any hockey player. However, it's not his fault, and it doesn't make him not the best.
Same thing with Michael Jordan in basketball.
Pele in soccer.
Tiger Woods in Golf.

Lomu is a Rugby player. I know next to nothing about Rugby.

Even Ezzard, who thinks Ali gets far too much attention, agrees with this. You need to foget how much attention Ali gets and concentrate on how good he was, and rate him the same way as that you would anyone else.

Ezzard, in respones to your last post:
-The cut that Benitez had - If the cut doesn't affect his vision, it doesn't matter. It's that simple. A psychcological advantage? Any fighter worth is salt isn't going to let a cut bother him if it doesn't affect his vision. Every little thing doesn't count. This boxing. If you wanted to, you could come up with an excuse for the loser of every fight.

If Leonard had a cut (from a unintentinal headbutt) against Duran, I wouldn't even mention it. Can you imagine if I did?
What do I have to gain by saying it had no affect? Goodnight Irene actually has called the win over Benitez "tainted" because of this.
Are you going to deny that this doesn't smack of bias?

Ezzard, we have debated about Leonard several times in the past. You never once brought up the Benitez cut before. (I suspect because it never occurred to you that a cut on the forehead that doesn't hurt someones vision meant anything.) Now that Goodnight has, you all of a sudden have jumped all over it. That's disappointing to me. You are a good poster and I expect better from you.

-Is going 1-1 better or worse than going 5-5? Well mathamatically it's the same.
However, two fighters that went 5-5 over the course are pretty much equal; atleast against each other. If they fought 10 more times, they are likely to go 5-5 again. I don't think think that is true as often with 2 guys that went 1-1. If they fought 10 more times, it's likely that one would win most of the rest of their fights.

I will say that when Fighter A beats Fighter B in a tough decision, then loses the rematch in 8 rounds that Fighter B is usually considered to have won the series, but this is Leonard so I guess we can't do that here.
Somehow it's more embarrassing to lose a tough 15 round decision than to quit like a spoiled child.
Do you consider the Schmeling -Louis series to be dead even? I don't.

-Leonard's wins are questioned-Of course Leonard's wins are questioned. The key is it fair that they are questioned? Would other fighters under similar circumstances as Leonard have their wins questioned?
I don't see how you can say that they would.

Are Griffith's wins questionable? Well unless you are arguing that Griffth won all 3 convincingly than I don't see how you can they aren't questionable. I did go further and said that even if you count them as all as convincing, that Leonard still had a better welterweight career than Griffith and I said why.

-I can't say that Duran was as good at 147 as he was at 135?
Guess what, I am saying it. And I will say why.

-He was awesome at lightweight , but he wasn't invincible. He lost to DeJesus, who was good but certainly not great. He didn't exactly steamroll him in the rematches either.

- He was only 26 when he had his last fight at lightweight.

-Look at his performances at welterweight. I would argue, that on balance they were just as good. He beat Palomino fairly easily at welterweight before he fought Leonard.

-How many bad performances did he have at welterweight?

In another era, Duran could have been a dominating welterweight champion for several years, and would have been regarded as one of the great welterweight champions. The welterweight division was much stronger than the lightweight divsion was when he was a lightweight.

It's obvious to me that we have to claim that Duran had declined so that it hurts Leonard's case. However, there isn't much evidence to back that up.

-Duran beat Cuevas in what is regarded as one his best fights. This was after he fought Leonard.

-Duran won the 154 pound title 3 years after he fought Leonard at 147. It's considered one of his better performances.

-Duran gave Hagler a tough fight at 160 3 years after fighting Leonard.

Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that Duran was old and/or not a welterweight when he fought Leonard. That way it's "a bad loss' for Leonard and not a big win for him when he won the rematch.

Objectively, that doesn't make sense.

-So Leonard said that Hagler slipped. How can you possibly say that Hagler wasn't closer to his prime than Leonard was to his? Do you not understand ring rust at all?

For the umpteenth time, if it's not hard to comeback and win the title without a tuneup after such a long layoff, then why has no one else been able to do it in over 100 years?

Sam Langford-I have him right behind Leonard. Certainly a close call. As are most of the cases when you get down to this elite of a list.

Obviously that fought under vastly different circumstances which makes the comparison difficult. Certainly Langford had a much longer career with many more fights and that has to be taken into account. However, just because one guy had more fights, doesn't by itself mean he was better.

Besides the relative shortness of his career, the most valid criticsm of Leonard is that he lost to Duran. I don't think that is bad as some Langfords losses and draws. Some were to very ordinary fighters. I have mentioned this before.

Of course you have to weigh in Langford many positives as well.
I just think that if you take the quality of Leonard's career is very special.
However if someone are going to try to "taint" all of his major wins (which isn't done near as often with other fighters) and ignore the flaws of other greats then of course he isn't going to compare to Langford or come close to being in the Top 5 of All time.

Ambling Alp wrote: -He was awesome at lightweight , but he wasn't invincible. He lost to DeJesus, who was good but certainly not great. He didn't exactly steamroll him in the rematches either.

Well, actually he did steam roll him in the rematches. Both were amazing performances against a great fighter. Yes, DeJesus was a great fighter.

Sorry to divert from the never ending SRL argument.

1) I'm not using the cut to taint it. I only mention because you dismissed it so readily that it jarred with me. Every little thing does count. I have never offered it as an excuse and never would. You're right in saying the outcome was not effected, but to say it has absolutely zero impact is wrong and blatantly biased (and this is the ONLY reason I brought it up).

2) I don't agree with any of your conclusions on the 1-1 v 5-5... maths have nothing to do with it IMO. beating an all time great 5 times means a lot more to me than beating him once, and getting in the ring with him 10 times means more than getting in twice. That's how I see it.

The series was won by neither man IMO. Argue however you like. I don't care for 'embarrassing'... When it comes to it this is personal preference, some think the first fight is conclusive others don't, some think the second fight is conclusive, others don't... I think it's 50-50.

3) Duran better at 147... Those fights you mention are only considered great performances because he was older, slower, smaller and less powerful. Duran post Leonard I and II could still beat world class opponents of a certain style. Duran at 135 could take on any fighter from history and have a great chance of winning.

4) I try to be generous in my ratings (this is boxing). I look more to who people beat, IMO losing is just a part of sport especially when you fight everyone multiple times. I'd rather reward guys who fought the best over and over and over rather than guys who didn't lose many (losses are overplayed in boxing).

"...Sam Langford-I have him right behind Leonard. Certainly a close call. As are most of the cases when you get down to this elite of a list..." - Alp

Which has been at the heart of my point all along, so why the hell chase me for precluding Ali if you're now going to say the list is very exclusive, & not everyone can make it!?

"...Obviously that fought under vastly different circumstances which makes the comparison difficult..."

Yes, it does. Advantage Leonard!

Leonard's career is special. He beat many great fighters, & carved out one of the better legacies in boxing history. He is a contender for the #2 all-time Welter spot, maybe even the favourite.

These things I have never denied. I have said that he is not one of the top five greatest fighters of all-time, & that is not bias. No way in hell does he place ahead of someone like Greb or Langford, given what they did in the ring.

Sorry, but statements like, "Duran was as good at 147 as he was at 135" &, "to even consider Benitez's cut hindered him smacks of bias against Leonard" re-iterate one of my initial points --- that it is only your subjective perception that you rate all fighters equally, Alp, not a fact. & it isn't a perception I agree with.

Your point has always been that Leonard isn't that close. You are the one who started this in the first place by questioning my having him in the top 5.
Then you go on to say that he doesn't belong there and that he it's arguable that he isn't even Top 5 as a welterweight.

I have made my case why he was better than any other welterweight besides Robinson. I made my case why and you haven't refuted many of my comments. (Except for Armstrong and Zivic, and then you come with the playing devil advocate crap.)

I don't mind it if someone has Leonard #6 or somewhere close. However, you have said he isn't close. "You can't even imagine it."
Well guess what I can. and I'm not the only one. Theone,Seamus, and Diamond Weapon all had him in their top 5 as well.

No way does he compare with Greb or Langford? Well he does. Atleast I say why. I point out the negatives in other fighters careers and weigh them against the positives. I answer your arguements, but you often don't have the decency to answer mine.


Your statement about Leonard's win over Benitez being tainted is total BS.
That cut didn't obstruct his vision. Therefore it's meaningless. It's that simple. The only reason that I think of why anyone would bring that up is that you don't like Leonard (or really like Benitez which I don't think is the case.)

Again you are the first person in the more than 28 years since the fight that I have heard mention this. Why? Because it would never occur to anyone, becasue it was irrelevant. You are reaching big time.
Even on this forum with all of the anti-Leonard comments that are here on a weekly basis, I have never heard anyone say that.

I wouldn't any crap like that as an excuse for Leonard or any fighter. If that is a tainted victory, than almost every victory is a tainted victory.

I said why I thought Duran's performances at welterweight were as good as lightweight and I gave several reasons for it. Don't just say that it's isn't true without trying to refute it.

I actually back up my opinions with relevant facts.