The Leonard than fought Hagler vs the Robinson that fought the St Valentines Day massacre. Now...most would automatically pick Robinson, but consider... Robinson had trouble with Turpin and was outhustled by Fulmer the first time. Leonard would match him or edge him in handspeed and movement and is arguably a better pure boxer. Close fight IMO...perhaps Leonard edges the first encounter.
Robinson should win pretty clearly. I'm not too sold on Leonard after his first retirement in 1982. It was a great achievement to beat Hagler considering he didn't have an official fight since 1984, and was smaller, but it was clear to me that Hagler had slipped quite a bit. He was looking pretty damn slow, and not only because of Ray. I think Hagler peaked against Sibson in 1983, and the Roldan fight was one that showed how his defensive reflexes had slowed. His legs had slowed too. Leonard had slipped too, obviously. He had amazing stamina in his prime, stamina that Manny Steward called the best ever. He finished stronger than Duran in a grueling bout in which he took a hammering to the body. He finished extremely strong against Benitez and Hearns. Against Hagler, he was already visibly tired by the 5th or 6th round. This wasn't this first time he had used his legs a lot (Duran rematch) and the pacing was nowhere near the first Duran fight. He was still fast and his reflexes were still very sharp, but his stamina was definitely not what it had been. Robinson was still pretty close to his prime in 1951. Like Leonard, he wasn't the same after his time off from the sport, when Robinson tried to become a tap dancer. I'd give Leonard a much better chance of beating the mid to late 50s version of Robinson at 160, or even during their welterweight primes (which I have barely seen of Robinson as there is limited footage which is grainy and difficult to watch). I can see Leonard winning the first and losing the 2nd to post-tap dancing career Robinson but not the Robinson of 1951. He's up there with the best MWs ever. Leonard from 1979-82 is one of the best fighters I have ever seen, but again, I don't think as highly of him after that.
I'd go with Robinson via decision. I think his harder punches catch the judges eyes. At 147, it's a pick em.
I agree with Erratic. Robinson was better than Leonard at 160. Robinson was a slightly heavier boned man than Leonard, and if he were around anytime in the modern era, he'd have the best junior middleweight of all time, as I think 154 was his optimal division, but it wasn't around back then. At 147, it's really a close call. I know there's the myth of 147 Robinson being unbeatable, but as Erratic correctly stated, 79-82 Leonard was easily one of the best fighters that ever lived. Robinson-Leonard is basically 50-50 at 147.
Let's be frank though...Robinson's opposition at 160 wasn't on Leonard's level, even though Leonard was more of a Welterweight, including Lamotta and Fulmer. Robinson invented the slick boxer style, was the only one of his kind at the time, and in his time he was a phenomenon as a result. Leonard had faced fast slick guys and prevailed: hearns and benitez....as such Leonard has a pedigree advantage of sorts. Leonard would be used to dealing with that style, Robinson would not. Gimme Leonard
Robinson faced better middleweights than Leonard. LaMotta and Fullmer and those fighters were better middleweights than Leonard. On the other hand, he didn't face any welterweights as great as Leonard, because how many welterweights were as great as Leonard was from 1979-82? What did Leonard do at middleweight that was so special other than narrowly outpoint a noticably slowed down Hagler? Sure, Leonard had declined too, but when you are comparing Leonard to other middleweights, he doesn't get an extra handicap because he was coming off a layoff. I'm not sure how Leonard fares against merely good heavyweight champions, let alone the ATG ones like Robinson. Robinson also was not the first slick boxer. There were plenty of clever, defensively slick boxers throughout history, including Willie Pep who fought around the same time as Robinson. Robinson's defense is actually somewhat overrated often times IMO. He was pretty good defensively, but not THAT slick. His offense was far more impressive to me.
I don't agree. You've seen the footage of those guys...Leonard is the better Middleweight. See fight fans assume that because someone isn't native to a particular weight class it automatically means they're inferior at that weight to fighters that were native to that weight class. However history has proven over and over again that this is not the case. For example hearns may have started out as a Welterweight but he's a better Middleweight than a Kelly Pavlik or Jermaine Taylor that were career Middleweights. Leonard, even though it was just one fight, proved that he was a better fighter than those rather limited toughmen that Robinson fought. Hagler may have slowed somewhat but he was still a better Middleweight in 1987 than Fulmer and Lamotta.
Robinson's massacre of Lamotta is more impressive than any Leonard middleweight performance, that includes the razor close fight with faded Hagler. Any version of Leonard after 82 loses to Robinson. If you take the 40s version of Robinson vs the early 80s Leonard, you have a damn close/compelling fight.
