BoxRec

Granted, Sugar Ray Leonards professional boxing career wasn't as long as Sugar Ray Robinsons or Henry Armstrongs.


How do you think Sugar Ray Leonard ranks at Welterweight?


What do you think Sugar Ray Leonards legacy is?



Would Sugar Ray Leonard been dominant in any of boxings eras?

I think he would have to be in anyone's top 5, and most people would have him top 3. I don't think he would have been dominant in Robinson's era, though I can see him taking a decision or even a stoppage over Robinson on an off night. I believe Hearns would have taken a win if they'd fought more than once in prime (he would have won the first fight, had it been over 12). I think his legacy is that of a guy who really faced the best competition at Welter, even if he hand-picked thereafter, and a guy who could change his style, going swarmer/slugger at the end of the Hearns fight, and being much more elusive than usual against Duran the second time. I think that fight leads us to think of him as up there with Whittaker, Willie Pep and Mayweather as a defensive master when he rarely used those skills to the max in the rest of his career. He was so good that he didn't have to.

(To qualify my statements above, this is no Leonard hate; he's one of my 5 favourite fighters of all time)

SamWise72 wrote:I think he would have to be in anyone's top 5, and most people would have him top 3. I don't think he would have been dominant in Robinson's era, though I can see him taking a decision or even a stoppage over Robinson on an off night. I believe Hearns would have taken a win if they'd fought more than once in prime (he would have won the first fight, had it been over 12). I think his legacy is that of a guy who really faced the best competition at Welter, even if he hand-picked thereafter, and a guy who could change his style, going swarmer/slugger at the end of the Hearns fight, and being much more elusive than usual against Duran the second time. I think that fight leads us to think of him as up there with Whittaker, Willie Pep and Mayweather as a defensive master when he rarely used those skills to the max in the rest of his career. He was so good that he didn't have to.

(To qualify my statements above, this is no Leonard hate; he's one of my 5 favourite fighters of all time)

A small point...The first Leonard-Hearns fight was scheduled for fifteen, That was the fight where Angelo Dundee told SRL prior to the start of the fourteenth round, who was behind on points "you're blowing it, son" and he went out and stopped him in the next round.

I make SRL even money against any welterweight who ever lived. Decent chin, lightning fast, good heart, and could crack...

ThatOne wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:I think he would have to be in anyone's top 5, and most people would have him top 3. I don't think he would have been dominant in Robinson's era, though I can see him taking a decision or even a stoppage over Robinson on an off night. I believe Hearns would have taken a win if they'd fought more than once in prime (he would have won the first fight, had it been over 12). I think his legacy is that of a guy who really faced the best competition at Welter, even if he hand-picked thereafter, and a guy who could change his style, going swarmer/slugger at the end of the Hearns fight, and being much more elusive than usual against Duran the second time. I think that fight leads us to think of him as up there with Whittaker, Willie Pep and Mayweather as a defensive master when he rarely used those skills to the max in the rest of his career. He was so good that he didn't have to.

(To qualify my statements above, this is no Leonard hate; he's one of my 5 favourite fighters of all time)

A small point...The first Leonard-Hearns fight was scheduled for fifteen, That was the fight where Angelo Dundee told SRL prior to the start of the fourteenth round, who was behind on points "you're blowing it, son" and he went out and stopped him in the next round.

I make SRL even money against any welterweight who ever lived. Decent chin, lightning fast, good heart, and could crack...

Decent chin & Good heart? He was absolutely upper echelon in both of those categories.

As for the question from the OP.

I think he rates with Armstrong, Gavilan & Griffith in the top 5.

One of the greatest fighters of all time(top 15-30), one of the most disingenuous personalities of all time. Shrewd negotiator that wasn't fond of rematches and forever my most hated fighter.

He didn't dominate his own, if you mean being one of the best in the world? Absolutely in any era.

There have been so many great welterweights that it can sometimes be difficult to place them.

Leonard on his best night was a match for any 147 lber that ever lived.

I personally have him in the top 5 of welterweights & he probably would have been higher had he had more fights at the weight after unifying the title.

I would love to have seen him up against Donald Curry in 1983 for example, but we will never get to know how he would have fared after '82 properly.

Leonard was a truly amazing fighter. He had a devastating left hook and put combinations together as good as anyone who ever lived. And I'm not talking about the Hagler fight but at 147 when he would end the combo with a left hook that he could get full power on.

I believe he was a great defensive fighter but he relied on his footwork most of the time and as he got older his defence failed him quicker than we might have expected.

He had underrated killer instinct and could finish the job quickly when he needed to. The attack he puts on Hearns in round 6 of their first fight was frightening in its speed and ferocity.

Barry McGuigan a year or so ago rated him as the greatest fighter of all-time. And he didn't say it flippantly but said he know he'd take a lot of flak for saying it.

At welterweight he could have beaten anyone. I don't think he'd beat Robinson. But he'd be at least even money with the likes of Gavilan, Griffith, Walker, Napoles, Hearns...

I don't think there's been a welterweight since Leonard who would have beaten him in a series of fights.

I do believe though that he had preferential treatment in his second career which annoyed me at the time.

He's definitely a top 20 p4p guy.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:I think he would have to be in anyone's top 5, and most people would have him top 3. I don't think he would have been dominant in Robinson's era, though I can see him taking a decision or even a stoppage over Robinson on an off night. I believe Hearns would have taken a win if they'd fought more than once in prime (he would have won the first fight, had it been over 12). I think his legacy is that of a guy who really faced the best competition at Welter, even if he hand-picked thereafter, and a guy who could change his style, going swarmer/slugger at the end of the Hearns fight, and being much more elusive than usual against Duran the second time. I think that fight leads us to think of him as up there with Whittaker, Willie Pep and Mayweather as a defensive master when he rarely used those skills to the max in the rest of his career. He was so good that he didn't have to.

(To qualify my statements above, this is no Leonard hate; he's one of my 5 favourite fighters of all time)

A small point...The first Leonard-Hearns fight was scheduled for fifteen, That was the fight where Angelo Dundee told SRL prior to the start of the fourteenth round, who was behind on points "you're blowing it, son" and he went out and stopped him in the next round.

I make SRL even money against any welterweight who ever lived. Decent chin, lightning fast, good heart, and could crack...

Decent chin & Good heart? He was absolutely upper echelon in both of those categories.

As for the question from the OP.

I think he rates with Armstrong, Gavilan & Griffith in the top 5.

One of the greatest fighters of all time(top 15-30), one of the most disingenuous personalities of all time. Shrewd negotiator that wasn't fond of rematches and forever my most hated fighter.

He didn't dominate his own, if you mean being one of the best in the world? Absolutely in any era.

I agree but if I start using hyperbole it invites pissing matches. SRL was a marvelous fighter.

The only knock if it's a knock is he was a reflex fighter and reflex fighters have relatively short peaks. However I tend to evaluate boxers at their best and not their worst.

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
A small point...The first Leonard-Hearns fight was scheduled for fifteen, That was the fight where Angelo Dundee told SRL prior to the start of the fourteenth round, who was behind on points "you're blowing it, son" and he went out and stopped him in the next round.

I make SRL even money against any welterweight who ever lived. Decent chin, lightning fast, good heart, and could crack...

Decent chin & Good heart? He was absolutely upper echelon in both of those categories.

As for the question from the OP.

I think he rates with Armstrong, Gavilan & Griffith in the top 5.

One of the greatest fighters of all time(top 15-30), one of the most disingenuous personalities of all time. Shrewd negotiator that wasn't fond of rematches and forever my most hated fighter.

He didn't dominate his own, if you mean being one of the best in the world? Absolutely in any era.

I agree but if I start using hyperbole it invites pissing matches. SRL was a marvelous fighter.

The only knock if it's a knock is he was a reflex fighter and reflex fighters have relatively short peaks. However I tend to evaluate boxers at their best and not their worst.

Fair enough, I detest him but his chin was granite and his heart was immense. If he had a weakness I don't think he was great defensively, but he was very good.

In his 8 fights above 147 he was dropped 6 times...

He had an excellent chin but when his reflexes dulled he could be dropped. Though they were all pretty much flash knockdowns. He was rarely separated from his senses. I'd say Duran's punch in their first fight was the only time he was really on rubber legs.

Ezzard wrote:In his 8 fights above 147 he was dropped 6 times...

He had an excellent chin but when his reflexes dulled he could be dropped. Though they were all pretty much flash knockdowns. He was rarely separated from his senses. I'd say Duran's punch in their first fight was the only time he was really on rubber legs.

I attribute that more to the less than exceptional defense.

I would argue his defense was a function of his reflexes. As his reflexes declined so did his defense as opposed to defensive fighters who rely more on technique.

ThatOne wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:I think he would have to be in anyone's top 5, and most people would have him top 3. I don't think he would have been dominant in Robinson's era, though I can see him taking a decision or even a stoppage over Robinson on an off night. I believe Hearns would have taken a win if they'd fought more than once in prime (he would have won the first fight, had it been over 12). I think his legacy is that of a guy who really faced the best competition at Welter, even if he hand-picked thereafter, and a guy who could change his style, going swarmer/slugger at the end of the Hearns fight, and being much more elusive than usual against Duran the second time. I think that fight leads us to think of him as up there with Whittaker, Willie Pep and Mayweather as a defensive master when he rarely used those skills to the max in the rest of his career. He was so good that he didn't have to.

(To qualify my statements above, this is no Leonard hate; he's one of my 5 favourite fighters of all time)

A small point...The first Leonard-Hearns fight was scheduled for fifteen, That was the fight where Angelo Dundee told SRL prior to the start of the fourteenth round, who was behind on points "you're blowing it, son" and he went out and stopped him in the next round.

I make SRL even money against any welterweight who ever lived. Decent chin, lightning fast, good heart, and could crack...

That was my point. After 12, Tommy was winning on my card, but it was close enough at the end of the 11th that Dundee might not have told him to go knock him out. Over 12, I can see Tommy having won that fight, but of course, we'll never know how they would have managed their energy levels different for a 12 rounder.

ThatOne wrote:I would argue his defense was a function of his reflexes. As his reflexes declined so did his defense as opposed to defensive fighters who rely more on technique.

How is that an argument?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I would argue his defense was a function of his reflexes. As his reflexes declined so did his defense as opposed to defensive fighters who rely more on technique.

How is that an argument?

Because it's different than arguing his defense rested on his technique.

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I would argue his defense was a function of his reflexes. As his reflexes declined so did his defense as opposed to defensive fighters who rely more on technique.

How is that an argument?

Because it's different than arguing his defense rested on his technique.

His technique was lacking, as his athleticism dimmed his short comings came more to light. Even in his prime his defense was a tad overrated, he had great legs, but technically he could always be hit when engaging.

I agree...

His run from 1978 to 1981 was quite possibly the toughest, strongest run over such a period of any elite fighter of the last fifty years. To establish yourself as one of the greatest fighters in history - especially in the modern era - by the age of 25 is quite astonishing.



Quality over quantity, every single time.

From 1979 to 1982, the great Sugar Ray Leonard was at his very best. Too bad he had to retire for a detached retina. But in that time frame, I believe that he could beat any welterweight of any era, including the great Sugar Ray Robinson. I think he was BETTER complete fighter than the original Sugar Ray.

Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p. A top 25 fighter no doubt.
At welterweight, he is a top 5 behind Robinson, Armstrong, Griffith and Gavilan in that order.

elmersalsa wrote: Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

elmersalsa wrote:From 1979 to 1982, the great Sugar Ray Leonard was at his very best. Too bad he had to retire for a detached retina. But in that time frame, I believe that he could beat any welterweight of any era, including the great Sugar Ray Robinson. I think he was BETTER complete fighter than the original Sugar Ray.

Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p. A top 25 fighter no doubt.
At welterweight, he is a top 5 behind Robinson, Armstrong, Griffith and Gavilan in that order.

Are you talking about Sugar Ray Leonard?

any chance he meant longevity/number of fights, rather than questioning SRL's durability? or am i being generous?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

Ha.

SRL's peak was relatively short. Ring has him at #15

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5578 ... me/page/87

It's a interesting list.

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

Ha.

SRL's peak was relatively short. Ring has him at #15

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5578 ... me/page/87

It's a interesting list.

I'd have him right around there too.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

fornicate you

Syntax Error wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:From 1979 to 1982, the great Sugar Ray Leonard was at his very best. Too bad he had to retire for a detached retina. But in that time frame, I believe that he could beat any welterweight of any era, including the great Sugar Ray Robinson. I think he was BETTER complete fighter than the original Sugar Ray.

Because of lack of durability, I ranked him above the top 20 all time p4p. A top 25 fighter no doubt.
At welterweight, he is a top 5 behind Robinson, Armstrong, Griffith and Gavilan in that order.

Are you talking about Sugar Ray Leonard?

Durability in the sense of career length. He had to retire multiple times and he only had 40 fights. He did not had enough longevity.