The size difference is not that significant, Leonard was making 147 in the era of same day weigh-ins. But either way, I think the fact that Leonard is about a thousand times better than Pacquiao would be more of a determining factor.
I want to see how Manny does against somebody from a rough inner city neighborhood before speculating about this one.
- inner city + somebody with a good straight right hand:shadow: Mosley will be the first one since Marquez.
:: He needs to past the African American acid test fo sho! :kidcool: Anyhoo......Leonard wins but it'll be FAR from easy. Size will be the deciding factor.
Agreed. I can't see Pacquiao winning this one, but that doesn't mean it's mismatch and one side beating either.
Shane grew up in a suburb and doesn't fight "black" Leonard would tear Pacquiao 10 new assholes, I don't think Pac lasts the distance
GTFOH!! Pacquiao with his height, handspeed, footspeed, agression and RIDICULOUS workrate would present much of the same problems to Leonard as Duran did in their first fight. Make no mistake padna!
Leonard by close decision. Manny was a naturally smaller man than Duran, and with his less physical style, would not be able to do what Duran did in their first fight. But his sheer handspeed, agility, unpredictability, accuracy etc would make it a close fight without a shadow of a doubt. If they were the same natural size, Manny would win a close decision.
Manny is a terrific fighter, the best fighter in what is now, perhaps the weakest era in boxing history. I believe in giving credit where credit is due more than the next guy does; but Manny in a close fight with Ray?? I can tell you folks that not even Manny or Freddie will acknowledge that, he would have been chewed up like a little piece of Candy by Ray, I have to keep it real as it would have been a brutal mismatch.
I wish there were message boards around in the 80's and we could read them today. There probably would have been lots of people thinking Leonard and Hearns would have no chance against the likes of Fullmer and Basilio.
I agree. This isn't a fair fight and truthfully...one I doubt would have been made. if Leonard were around Manny wouldn't have gone above lightweight.
There were Whiskey, but they were letters posted in magazines such as: Big Book of Boxing, International Boxing, KO Boxing, World Boxing and Boxing Illustrated. You had to write what you thought, mail it and hoped that it got posted in the letters to the editor section, and oftentimes they held contests where the readers voted their picks as the best ever in each weight division. The difference was: the 80's were a great decade for boxing with great champions, and those days are long gone and probably never coming back as the great teachers and trainers have passed on or are now too old to work and stay home.
Like I said before... In a P4P sense: Hopkins, Pacquiao, Mayweather hold their own against any three fighters from any chosen era.
The 80's indeed was a great decade, perhaps the best ever. My point is people tend to look at the past with rose colored glasses and refuse to believe anybody is good enough to beat a great of the past. Hell, they don't even have a chance of being competitive. They don't even argue the point with anything substantive. It's just "That fight would be a joke, so and so would kill him without even breaking a sweat". If i thought (for example) boxing reached it's peak in the 60's and every thing went downhill from there, and not a single fighter from the 70's onward to today would be competitive against them i really don't see how I could enjoy the sport any more. It's as if boxing used to be an NFL franchise that left town and now you're watching some kids play pick up football in the park. The same thing will happen on the forums here after the next great featherweight emerges. "Oh sure he's good but Morales/Pac/Barrera/JMM all would have beat the piss out of him without so much as losing a second of any round"
Yup. I'm sure people in Louis' day said "He's good, but no way he'd have had a chance with Dempsey". Fight fans always do this.
Hopkins would not have been able to defeat Rodrigo Valdez let alone Carlos Monzon, Manny would have really been beaten up and lost to Esteban DeJesus (not to mention what Duran would have done to him), and you could have taken your pick of around a dozen (maybe more) or so welterweights that would have torn Mayweather up in the 70's era. Again; this is currently perhaps the weakest era in boxing history.
A fight with Monzon would go the distance every time and probably wouldn't be very easy to score. I wouldn't have any argument with anybody picking Carlos, but again this is not a "mismatch" whatsoever.
LOL This is what i was waiting for, deluded nuthuggery at its finest. I am not one to overrate fighters from past eras. But Pacquiao wouldn't beat Floyd Jr, forget about Ray Leonard. Hell, he couldn't beat fucking Marquez at 130 lbs. Manny continues to get overrated based on his recent cherry picking bullshit run of freshly beat up guys with no right hands.
But you are forgetting that Carlos was a 15 round fighter. He was the master at the championship rounds (13, 14, 15) even more so than Ali was.
There's nothing to suggest Bernard couldn't fight 15 rounds. Even if he couldn't you're basically just giving the fight to Monzon based upon 1 critera which isn't relevant in Bernard's era. It doesn't prove Monzon is a better fighter if he could beat Hopkins at something he's never done.
According to boxing historians, the general though was exactly that. The same as when Ali first arrived