BoxRec

Who do you have?

IMO Ray Leonard would win a wide decision. I think he'd outbox Jake Lamotta over 12 or 15 rounds. I don't think either fighter would hurt the other one because Lamotta was not a big puncher but he could take anyones punches and keep coming. However, he would be there for the entire 15 rounds, even though it would be 15 rounds of Jake getting outboxed and treated like a heavy bag.

zslayton wrote:IMO Ray Leonard would win a wide decision. I think he'd outbox Jake Lamotta over 12 or 15 rounds. I don't think either fighter would hurt the other one because Lamotta was not a big puncher but he could take anyones punches and keep coming. However, he would be there for the entire 15 rounds, even though it would be 15 rounds of Jake getting outboxed and treated like a heavy bag.

All the punishment he's taken and he's still alive at 87...Amazing...

Ray Robinson had trouble beating a prime LaMotta. How the hell is Ray Leonard going to win a wide decision?!?!?!?!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

A CLASSIC internet 'boxing' site thread.

LOL

Do you enjoy posting here, Granberry? You're constantly ridiculed, no one takes your opinions seriously and now that the "ignore" feature has been introduced, I doubt anyone will read your posts anymore. I'm done with your boring, repetitive crap.

Big Bad John wrote:Do you enjoy posting here, Granberry? You're constantly ridiculed, no one takes your opinions seriously and now that the "ignore" feature has been introduced, I doubt anyone will read your posts anymore. I'm done with your boring, repetitive crap.

Do you enjoy posting here, John?

You fit right in among the Ali worshippers here.

Post away, John.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

zslayton wrote:IMO Ray Leonard would win a wide decision. I think he'd outbox Jake Lamotta over 12 or 15 rounds. I don't think either fighter would hurt the other one because Lamotta was not a big puncher but he could take anyones punches and keep coming. However, he would be there for the entire 15 rounds, even though it would be 15 rounds of Jake getting outboxed and treated like a heavy bag.

All the punishment he's taken and he's still alive at 87...Amazing...

Yep. It is amazing.

Big Bad John wrote:Ray Robinson had trouble beating a prime LaMotta. How the hell is Ray Leonard going to win a wide decision?!?!?!?!

Marvin Hagler was a better fighter than Lamotta and Ray beat him in a close decision that could have gone either way. Hagler hit harder, was a better boxer, and about as close as you could get to a Lamotta in terms of ability to take some punishment. Sugar Ray Leonard would win this fight. Lamotta might win 5 out of 15 rounds. Might.

Dundee and company would not have allowed Leonard to get in a ring with LaMotta.

No way.

zslayton wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:Ray Robinson had trouble beating a prime LaMotta. How the hell is Ray Leonard going to win a wide decision?!?!?!?!

Marvin Hagler was a better fighter than Lamotta and Ray beat him in a close decision that could have gone either way. Hagler hit harder, was a better boxer, and about as close as you could get to a Lamotta in terms of ability to take some punishment. Sugar Ray Leonard would win this fight. Lamotta might win 5 out of 15 rounds. Might.

Now tell us how Sugar Ray Robinson would do against LaMotta.

zslayton wrote:Marvin Hagler was a better fighter than Lamotta

In 1987!?!?!? The hell he wasn't!

Big Bad John wrote:

zslayton wrote:Marvin Hagler was a better fighter than Lamotta

In 1987!?!?!? The hell he wasn't!

Exactly... There's so little to go on for Leonard above 147. The Leonard who fought at 154 beat Kalule and got dropped by Howard (okay he had a lay off but we're struggling for evidence).

Leonard's win over Hagler is very impressive but I don't think he stands much chance against the prime MW ATG'S...or should I say he does stand a chance but he'd be the underdog in almost all cases.

After Leonard beat Hagler, LaMotta stated that he could not have beaten Leonard because of Leonard's running. LaMotta went on to say that the tactics Leonard used against Hagler did not exist back in LaMotta's day.This interview took place on a radio program in 1987 hosted by Art Rust jr.

Robert in NYC wrote:After Leonard beat Hagler, LaMotta stated that he could not have beaten Leonard because of Leonard's running. LaMotta went on to say that the tactics Leonard used against Hagler did not exist back in LaMotta's day.This interview took place on a radio program in 1987 hosted by Art Rust jr.

That isn't what LaMotta said.

He said Leonard could not "win" a title by running away and holding on.

That's what Gene Fullmer said.

That's what Harold Johnson said.

How can you take a title by running away?

ANSWER: You can't---unless you are ABCTV's and Sports Illustrated's Ray Leonard.

granberry, did your hatred stop you from noticing all those shots Leonard landed on Hagler's noggin?

Or have you never seen the fight?

Robert in NYC wrote:After Leonard beat Hagler, LaMotta stated that he could not have beaten Leonard because of Leonard's running. LaMotta went on to say that the tactics Leonard used against Hagler did not exist back in LaMotta's day.This interview took place on a radio program in 1987 hosted by Art Rust jr.

Maybe he did get brain damage from all those fights. I guess he's never seen Georges Carpentier. Or, more likely, you're poorly paraphrasing him.

granberry wrote:

Robert in NYC wrote:After Leonard beat Hagler, LaMotta stated that he could not have beaten Leonard because of Leonard's running. LaMotta went on to say that the tactics Leonard used against Hagler did not exist back in LaMotta's day.This interview took place on a radio program in 1987 hosted by Art Rust jr.

That isn't what LaMotta said.

He said Leonard could not "win" a title by running away and holding on.

That's what Gene Fullmer said.

That's what Harold Johnson said.

How can you take a title by running away?

ANSWER: You can't---unless you are ABCTV's and Sports Illustrated's Ray Leonard.

and that is what marvin hagler said too, but he did lose his title.

ever think that that the mass marketability of a fighter plays in to the decisions they win in close fights?

i've watched the fight several times. i thought leonard won a close, tough fight.

Leonard didn't just run. He inflicted damage. More than Hagler? That's debatable, but he won the fight simply by winning more rounds.

granberry wrote:Dundee and company would not have allowed Leonard to get in a ring with LaMotta.

No way.

Why not? Sugar Ray got into the ring with all the other greats of his era.....and beat them!!

ringsider wrote:

granberry wrote:Dundee and company would not have allowed Leonard to get in a ring with LaMotta.

No way.

Why not? Sugar Ray got into the ring with all the other greats of his era.....and beat them!!

Good question, as if Hearns, Duran, and Hagler were pussycats.

Collins2000 wrote:granberry, did your hatred stop you from noticing all those shots Leonard landed on Hagler's noggin?

Or have you never seen the fight?

On the other hand, do shots to Hagler's noggin really mean anything? Answer..yes they score points. But did Hagler notice them? Probably not. Never the less I'm one of those who gave this fight to Ray on points. To hit and not be hit is a sound strategy even if at the end of the fight your opponent does not know he was defeated.

Sometimes a fight is truly like a game of chess, and maybe neither fighter is much worse for the wear at the end, especially when a consummate boxer faces an Iron Chinned plodder.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:granberry, did your hatred stop you from noticing all those shots Leonard landed on Hagler's noggin?

Or have you never seen the fight?

On the other hand, do shots to Hagler's noggin really mean anything? Answer..yes they score points. But did Hagler notice them? Probably not. Never the less I'm one of those who gave this fight to Ray on points. To hit and not be hit is a sound strategy even if at the end of the fight your opponent does not know he was defeated.Sometimes a fight is truly like a game of chess, and maybe neither fighter is much worse for the wear at the end, especially when a consummate boxer faces an Iron Chinned plodder.

Like PBF and DLH

I've never thought of DLH as a plodder. You think he fits that description? I saw the "split decision" aspect of that fight....though I preferred the outcome based on the performance. I was one of those who would have loved it if DLH would have won the fight. But in my estimation he fell a bit short.

BoxBuzz wrote:I've never thought of DLH as a plodder. You think he fits that description? I saw the "split decision" aspect of that fight....though I preferred the outcome based on the performance. I was one of those who would have loved it if DLH would have won the fight. But in my estimation he fell a bit short.

I love DLH... I (wanted) him to win the fight...But the criticism of PBF is that he avoids contact... I'm not an expert but isn't not getting hit half the part of boxing with the other half hitting the other guy...