But that's All the MORE Reason to Praise Ray Leonard...Considering the # of Bouts he Had, the QUALITY of his Resume is REMARKABLE... REED:mj:
Leonard's resume and career is a case of quality over quanity. To me, a career that has wins over Hagler, Hearns, Benitez and Duran carries a lot more weight than a career with more fights but against less accomplished and less skilled opposition. For example...a fighter like Virgil Hill made something like 20 title defenses in his career...but does he deserve mention along with Leonard?
That, or is it that when you pick your fights and concentrate just on the big ones, it is easier to be succesful in them than it would be if you faced all comers? I want to note here that I really respect Leonard and I rewatch his fights often, I just try to point out all sides of him as a fighter
N Leonard's Case, "The Big Ones" were Also his TOUGHEST Ones...R U REALLY Insinuating that it's "Easier to B Successful" Facing the TOUGHEST Guys In & Around your Weight Class, as Opposed to Cherry Picking your Way to 50+ Bouts in your Career???... Seems like U're Playing Devil's Advocate just for the SAKE of it... REED:mj:
Duran/Hagler/Hearns/Benitez....all top 100 all-time fighters...Duran top 5-10 all time....Benitez one of the most skilled pure boxers ever...Hearns one of the hardest punching ever.....and Hagler...well Hagler was all fighter..kinda fighter you would never want to fight because he would not stop trying to hurt you...
U're NITPICKING Leonard Because he DIDN'T Fight Some LOWER LEVEL Guys???...Sorry, but the People he DID Fight is MORE than Enough... REED:boohoo:
Duran,Hagler,Hearns,Benitez............most fighters have hall of fame career and not fight 1 fighter(in their PRIME) of that caliber...
No need to be sorry. There are views between glorifying and hating you know. I like Leonard. A truth is that he fought seldom. Whether that is good or bad thing everybody can decide themselves
The ONLY Way U can Have Issue w/Leonard's Resume or # of Fights is if U're TROLLING for an Argument... REED:hammert:
I'm not so sure it can simply be attributed to trolling. Leonard does have one of the best resumes of any fighter you can name. However there's no denying he was an opportunist. He knew Duran's reputation of getting fat between fights and asked for a rematch when Roberto was basically in the middle of a binge. He waited until Hagler started to decline before fighting him, and then added stipulations on top of it. He made Lalonde come down to 168 to fight for his (Lalonde's) Light-heavyweight title. Did Ray even deserve title fights against either? Leonard's injuries were largely responsible for his inactivity but he seemed to be able to just retire on a whim as well. Even if he was relatively injury free do you think he could have maintained the same win-loss ratio?
Ugo ISN'T Arguing from that Perspective Though...He's Looking PURELY @ the # of Fights Leonard Had...Sure, Ray was the ULTIMATE Opportunist, but WHO's Fought a HIGHER Caliber of Opposition N the # of Fights Leonard Finished w/???..... REED:dunno:
I can't think of anyone who comes close. Part of me says that's highly impressive and part of me says what if ...
Yes, and that amazing comeback at 168 to win 2 titles at once against the Hall of Famer Donnie LaLonde is a sterling example. Leonard was a great fighter and deserves a mention among the best ever between 147-160. However, the dude's stardom helped him escape the rigors of holding and defending a title. The fact that he retires for 3 years and comes back to an immediate shot against Hagler, who was slipping, has always bothered me. And then retiring for another year and a half only to return for a ridiculous fight with LaLonde at a catch-weight with belts at 168 and 175 on the line just plain pissed me off. Personally I'm going to give a little extra credit to the Monzons, Hopkins, and Haglers of the world that actually own a division for a long stretch and get themselves motivated to fight against all contenders not just the megafights.
I would take your post more seriously, but I know at some point you will try to shoe horn McCallum into the discussion which will then make me quickly lose interest. What's funny is nobody even mentioned LaLonde except for you. No one has attempted to make LaLonde into more than he was, so your comment regarding him is a reach at best.
Folks get a little off base sometimes in their attempts to go against the grain or play Devil's advocate. During his prime years, Leonard fought the very best opposition, and when he had proved all he could at welter, he was heading up to face Hagler before his eye injury derailed that fight at the time. But if Leonard didn't suffer the detached retina, I guess some folks here would have liked Leonard to hang around 147 for a while longer and make some pointless defenses against the likes of the shell of Roger Stafford, Randy Shields and the shell of Pipino Cuevas instead of moving up and challenging Hagler or taking a Benitez or Hearns rematch at 154.
When you label Leonard's resume as 'quality over quanity' then you have to be ready for the easy retort, which is always going to be about Leonard using opportunity instead of fighting the best. The LaLonde fight is the most glaring example of Leonard exploiting his stardom to easily grab laurels that mean nothing. Speaking of opportunity, my favorite was always Leonard getting back in the ring for a rematch with Duran 5 months after losing, but not being able to get back in with Hearns for 8 years. Timing is everything and Leonard had the best. Let's be honest, Leonard purposefully put off fighting Hagler until he thought Marvin had slipped far enough to be beaten. Where was the Hagler-Leonard fight in 1984 or 1985? Perhaps the most telling thing about Leonard was when he announced his first comeback and claimed he'd take on Pryor, Curry, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. What he didn't mention was he'd wait until Duran and Hearns were relics. The guy was great.
dsimon writes: There are always conditions on a fighter's opposition. You have managed to push this quality to the point of absurdity and ridiculousness regarding Leanard Sec! :cheer:
So you think it's ridiculous to detract from 'Leanard's' resume because he waited to fight Hagler? Or because he fought Donnie LaLonde for 2 belts in two different weight classes? Or because he didn't give Hearns a rematch for 8 years? Or because he retired multiple times rather than fighting specific guys? You're right. That's absurd. Silly me for preferring a guy like Hagler that ALSO beat Hearns and Duran, but in between mega fights managed to defend a title 20 times and beat anyone put in front of him. I'm crazy like that.
That's nice, but he also faced both fighters when they were among the top 10 fighters in the world. And Hagler had passed his peak a bit, but he was still the best Middleweight in world when Leonard fought him. And it's not like Leonard was all that young either and he hadn't fought at all since 1984 and hadn't fought a top opponent since Hearns in 1981. And to be honest...I don't know that a Leonard-Hagler fight in 1982 or 1983 would be significantly different if Leonard hadn't suffered the detached retina. Hagler would always have trouble with Leonard's hand speed, foot speed and ring smarts. And Hagler would be younger and quicker, but so would Leonard. I wouldn't have been all that surprised to see Leonard walk off the the decision And no matter how much you try to discredit him, Leonard is simply one of the greatest fighters ever. Did he take advantage of his earned stardom to set the rules later in his career? Sure? But what fighter wouldn't? A big part of Hagler's resentment toward Leonard is because he wanted to be the star that Leonard was. Do you think Hagler WANTED to be fighting no hopers for (relative) chump change instead of fighting big fights for big money? Of course he didn't. But he didn't have much choice in the matter. Or look at Larry Holmes...once he reached a certain point in his career he started picking and choosing his opponents really carefully. And why?? He had reached a point in his career where he could do so and he took advantage of it. This is why we were treated to Holmes vs. Frazier, Holmes vs. Rodriguez, Holmes vs. Frank, and Holmes vs. Spinks. Spinks ended up upsetting Holmes, but no one (especially Holmes!!) saw that happening. And if he had beaten Spinks, Holmes planned to make his Marciano record breaking fight against mediocre cruiserweight champ Alfonzo Ratliff. I remember an interview with Holmes around that time and he said something to the effect of "I'm not fighting any more of those big guys that can hurt, me. From now I'm fighting little guys who can't." Now I know Holmes was being somewhat tongue in cheek, but that was exactly how his career was headed at that point. So don't tell me that Leonard is the only great fighter to use whatever advantage he had to get ahead. Other fighters have done it and I'm sure there are plenty others who would if they were able to do so.
Dude...you are exaggerating here. Hagler made 12 successful title defenses (not 20) and two of those came in pointless rematches against fighters he had easily handled the first time around (Hamsho & Obelmejias). And in case you forgot, his unsuccessful 13th defense came against none other than Ray Leonard.
dsimon writes: FInd me a fighter who non conditionally cannot be picked at... Yeah that dude Jack Johnson was ok but Jeffries was past it when he fought em! :: Tyson beat Tyson bit he didn't fight the real tyson in his prime! Etc etc etc the point being that Robinson fought great comp when all was said and done, better than a lot of guys.
ROBINSON did fought great comp...but that guy LEONARD sucked ass......:kidcool: j/k...Leonard was the GREATNESS....when people talk about Robinson greatness the i look at Leonard for reference....I don't know about everybody else but when i see ROBINSON fight clips..i just don't get all wet and moist like everyone else about him.....he fought aight...most be the black and white...can't get into that shit....
The "Great" Thing about Robinson is that STYLISTICALLY he was Sooooooooooo Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar AHEAD of his Time....Back N the Late 40's & 50's Robinson Fought N a Manner that would Fit Right In w/TODAYS Standards.... MOST Black & White Era Fighters have a Very ROBOTIC, ARCHAIC Style...But Not Robinson...It's Hard for Fans of TODAY to Watch Robinson & FULLY GRASP just How Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar AHEAD of his Time he was... REED:mj:
Honestly I never saw Leonard KO someone while backing away as I saw Robinson do on film. Both are greats in their own regard though, I can say I havent seen enough of both of them as both did their thing before I became a fan.
