Welterweights: Sugar Ray Leonard vs Emile Griffith

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 23 Jan 2007, 18:02

2 all time greats that made their mark in this weight class. One made his mark fighting great and excellent Cuban rivals of the 60s and is the ONLY welterweight to win the welter crown 3 times and the other made his mark on this weight class by fighting the Benitezes, Durans and Hearns.

Who wins??? Speed and accuracy, I pick Leonard, but it would not be easy for him. Hey, he probably lose to Emile on a rematch.

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Jan 2007, 20:05

Leonard could do anything Griffith could do, plus with more speed and power.
Leonard UD15.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Jan 2007, 20:18

TheOne you think Leonard would fare well against Monzon too if I recall. Is my memory right?

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Jan 2007, 20:21

TheOne you think Leonard would fare well against Monzon too if I recall. Is my memory right?

Fare well? Sure. Win? Nope.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Jan 2007, 20:39

Then we are on the same page there....hell there is not a middleweight that Leonard would not be able to at least compete with. If he hung in with Marvin he's probably in for the long haul with just about anyone.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 24 Jan 2007, 02:57

If Hagler came at Leonard the way he fought Mugabi and Hearns I don't think Leonard would be able to stand at the end of the night

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 24 Jan 2007, 03:48

If Hagler came at Leonard the way he fought Mugabi and Hearns I don't think Leonard would be able to stand at the end of the night

A Hagler nut hugger quote. Hagler did come after Leonard, problem was he was a plodder with no decent foot work. He looked like an amatuer chasing SRL around. You would think a guy who was suppose to be an ATG middleweight would at least be able to have the foot work to cut the ring off on a few occasions against a fat welter weight. Nope!!

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Jan 2007, 05:29

A toss up. Maybe one or two rounds either way. Leonard's best chance is at 147. Ray loses some potency the higher up he goes in weight. At 160 I favour Emile, at 147 it's even.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Jan 2007, 10:13

theone wrote:Leonard could do anything Griffith could do, plus with more speed and power.
Leonard UD15.

This is the truth but it's not what the anti-Leonard people want to hear.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 24 Jan 2007, 11:07

Leonard by probably 10-4-1 on round scoring.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Jan 2007, 11:35

Seamus wrote:Leonard by probably 10-4-1 on round scoring.

I think you're selling Emile short here. Ray was outstanding and I accept that most will have him as favourite but 10-4-1 is too lopsided. Ray lost on points to Duran and was behind against Hearns. Griffith is far too good to be beaten so soundly.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:12

Griffith was soundly beaten by Jose Napoles, who didn't have Leonard's skill or speed.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:17

Nothing wrong with losing to Napoles who was a great WW Griffith had fought at MW for 3-5 Years before going down in weight to Challenge Napoles Griffith came in weight drained weighing 144 pounds I don't think this represents a Prime Griffith

enrique · Post by **enrique** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:30

I've seen them both and I'll go with Griffith beating Leonard.

And Griffith's nemesis -Luis Rodriguez- would have also beaten SRL.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:31

ahh but would they actually get the decision?

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:36

Let's ask Hagler or Hearns after the second fight

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:48

I'm sure that Hagler and Hearns would give completely unbiased opinions about their fights with Leonard.
Apparently the judges weren't impressed with Hagler sleepwalking his way through the first 4 rounds.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:51

Alp Hagler gave him too much respect for the first 3-4 rounds but then he started to get things going and as far as Hearns-Leonard 2 goes

It wasn't a draw!!

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 24 Jan 2007, 12:53

Let's ask some neuro surgeons who sustained more damage in Leonard v Hearns II. And Hearns didn't even get a warning for excessive holding in the 12th when Leonard had him hurt.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Jan 2007, 13:39

Victor*KC wrote:Alp Hagler gave him too much respect for the first 3-4 rounds but then he started to get things going and as far as Hearns-Leonard 2 goes It wasn't a draw!!

Hagler lost the first 4 rounds. The first four rounds of a fight are just as important as the other rounds. I agree that after that it was pretty close. However, for Hagler to win he would have had to win 7 of the last 8 rounds, and there is no way that he did. At most, Hagler won 5 rounds. There have been many closer fights than this.

The 2nd Hearns-Leonard fight is much more arguable. Many people assume that since Hearns scored two knockdowns that he deserved the decision. However, if you watch the fight it was pretty close. Leonard actually landed many more damaging punches than Hearns did. Leonard won as many rounds as Hearns. Of course Hearns scored two knockdowns which gave him 10-8 rounds. However, Leonard had two rounds in which he had had Hearns in major trouble and almost knocked him out. Scoring those rounds 10-8 makes it a draw. Sometimes those type of rounds are scored 10-8 and sometimes they aren't. Even if you don't score those rounds 10-8 it was a very close fight, it certainly wasn't a robbery.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Jan 2007, 13:51

I've seen them both and I'll go with Griffith beating Leonard.
And Griffith's nemesis -Luis Rodriguez- would have also beaten SRL.

Theres nothing Griffith could bring to the table that Leonard did not deal with before. Rodriguez likewise. Leonard was faster then them, hit harder than them, and was more versitile than both of them.
Leonards chin was also top shelf as was his stamina. Both Griffith and Rodriguez would competitve, but in the end they would come up short nearly every time.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Jan 2007, 19:05

Ambling Alp wrote:
Victor*KC wrote:Alp Hagler gave him too much respect for the first 3-4 rounds but then he started to get things going and as far as Hearns-Leonard 2 goes It wasn't a draw!!
Hagler lost the first 4 rounds. The first four rounds of a fight are just as important as the other rounds. I agree that after that it was pretty close. However, for Hagler to win he would have had to win 7 of the last 8 rounds, and there is no way that he did. At most, Hagler won 5 rounds. There have been many closer fights than this.

The 2nd Hearns-Leonard fight is much more arguable. Many people assume that since Hearns scored two knockdowns that he deserved the decision. However, if you watch the fight it was pretty close. Leonard actually landed many more damaging punches than Hearns did. Leonard won as many rounds as Hearns. Of course Hearns scored two knockdowns which gave him 10-8 rounds. However, Leonard had two rounds in which he had had Hearns in major trouble and almost knocked him out. Scoring those rounds 10-8 makes it a draw. Sometimes those type of rounds are scored 10-8 and sometimes they aren't. Even if you don't score those rounds 10-8 it was a very close fight, it certainly wasn't a robbery.

Agree on the Hagler fight. Ray was in trouble in 2 rounds but he survived them. He had to work very, very hard to win the fight and was exhausted at the end. I think 15 rounds would have been very hard even if he'd have paced himself differently. Leonard deserved the win though. It was close but there have been closer fights.

In Hearns II again it was close but I think Hearns won more rounds. I think you're right about Leonard getting at least one 10-8 round but I wouldn't score the final round as 10-8. Hearns is in big trouble but for the 1st minute he is absolutely pasting Leonard. Ray grits his teeth and storms back but I think Tommy did enough in the 1st minute to only lose it by a point. Terrific fights though.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 11 Feb 2007, 11:44

I'm a big fan of both, but I have to say that I think the Sugarman takes this one on points.

In his prime (admittedly cut short due to retina problems & an uncanny ability to retire every month) Ray Leonard was one of the few fighters that I have seen that did not have any apparent weaknesses.

Handspeed, flashy feet, titanium chin, decent power, great boxing brain, heart galore, stamina, adaptability & he didn't cut.

Griffith would have made him earn his money, as he was a definite welterweight ATG, but I just think that Leonard would have the answer to any of Griffith's questions.