I know what everybody's first thought in here is: Leonard's chin was on ATG level, whereas Jones' chin was a weakness or at least a suspect, even though it let him down only late on his career. Superficially, this is true. Leonard fought several great punchers and even though he did have superb defense, he did get clipped from time to time, too, and survived it, being on the floor only late in his career. Roy Jones, in his prime, only went down once in a situation that was a borderline slip. When he lost his defensive reflexes, he began to get knocked around, and each KO softened him up more for the next to come. We often read that punch and chin are the last things to go from a fighter: a fighter can get more vulnerable when he loses his ability to slip, but actual punch resistance is more of a permanent ability. What, then, is your explanation for the fact that Leonard, at 40, was knocked out by old and soft Hector Camacho? I understand he had lost all of his reflexes, but if he did in fact have an ATG chin, he shouldn't have been knocked out THAT easily? It wasn't even a single fluke punch but a real pummeling Or, if it was because his abilities had slipped, why doesn't Roy Jones get the same pass for his KO losses and why don't we argue that in his prime, his chin might have been very good or even great? He did, however, face several good punchers. Now, I certainly don't hold the Camacho loss against Leonard's status but I think we either have to admit that chin can not be separated from other abilities, or that Leonard, like Jones, had more of great reflexes than a granite chin, whether or not that is relevant.
I think Roy had a solid chin in his prime. Just how solid we'll never truly know, as he never got enough in his prime to TRULY get a gauge. But he definitely could take a decent punch pre-Tarver rematch. We can never underestimate what moving back to 175 might have done to his body/ability to absorb punches. But to your point - punch resistance is definitely NOT a permanent ability. There are some exceptions - a freak like Ali still had a granite chin when nothing else was left. But usually, when your body begins to completely break down in boxing... everything eventually goes... even your chin. I mean, do you honestly think Danny Williams' pathetic punches would have had any effect on a prime Tyson? Of course not. Yet he stopped an old, shot Tyson in 4. Leonard getting KO'd by Camacho has no bearing on his PRIME ability to take a punch. He hadn't fought in almost 6 years, he was 40, he was coming off years of cocaine addiction, and in his previous fight 6 years before... Norris had kicked the shit outta him.
In Terms of Punch Resistance, Roy was Never Tex Cobb, but he WASN'T Junior Jones or Augie Sanchez Either... Leonard Struggled w/the HANDSPEED and RAPIDITY of Camacho's Shots, More than the Sheer Power... REED:hammert:
When guys get far removed from their prime it really has no bearing on their status to me. Jones jr and leonard are legendary fighters who have a great chance vs ANYONE at their peak weights
No I don't, but I do hold his loss to Kirkland Lang against him. But let's not ruin UGO's excellent thread with this silly banter. Regarding Jones and Leonard...I think Leonard proved his chin more than Roy did. Leonard took the punches of a prime Welterweight Hearns...so we can assume that him being knocked out by Camacho was just father time. Jones on the other hand, was never really hit flush in his prime by a puncher. Jones was an elusive ghost and I don't recall him even facing a one punch KO artist. The first real puncher Jones faced was Tarver. Now, there are valid excuses for Jones being KO'd in that fight....but the fact is the available data means that we have to come to the conclusion that Leonard's chin was stronger. Apart from chin though, Jones was a better fighter than Leonard. Jones didn't have a hard fight in his prime simply because of how good he was. Fans tend to praise guys like Leonard simply because they had hard fights. P4P if Jones fought Duran coming up from lightweight....we would have never seen a rematch. Duran would have been humiliated.
Jones and Leonard are the two best fighters of the last 35 years. It's hard for me to say who was better, even though we all know I'm a bigger Jones fan than a Leonard fan. Roy was more talented, but one could argue that Leonard's superior intangibles gives him the edge. If FORCED to give an answer, I'll side with Roy. In his prime he was the best fighter I've ever seen. But trust me, there's no sizable gap here. Leonard was amazing. BOTH of them were better fighters than your boyfriend.
Dude...stop with this "boyfriend" silliness for your own sake, por favour. Disagree that they were better fighters than Floyd....all three are great talents and in the same ballpark of brilliance.
Jones was the better fighter, Leonard was greater. Might not make sense to you but it makes sense to me so fuck off.
No, it makes perfect sense. Better and greater don't always go hand-in-hand. Joe Louis was GREATER than Tyson. But prime-for-prime, I'd consider Mike the better fighter. I wouldn't consider Jones better than Leonard by much though.
Agreed, to a point. I think Jones had the potential to far surpass Leonard, but it didn't happen. If you made me a boxer and said "you could have all the attributes of Leonard or Jones", I'd pick Jones every time without question.
Greater is to do with accomplishments. Better is more about potential based on proven abilities. So sure...the two are not always the same thing. That's rudimentary.
Jones was clearly better than Leonard though. Jones wouldn't have struggled with Duran and would have likely wiped out Hearns in 5 rounds or less.
No fighter in the history of this sport is "clearly" better than fuckin Ray Leonard and you holding the Duran loss against him is comical. Last time I checked.... Leonard never required a gift from the judges to get by a fighter the caliber of JL Castillo.
Last time I checked.... Leonard never faced a fighter the caliber of JL Castillo with a damaged right arm. And hell yes I hold the Duran loss against him. Duran was a lightweight, giving up at least 3 inches in height and quite a bit of reach. Put Jones against someone with those three disadvantages and that person loses royally. Same with mayweather. Objectively speaking that loss should be held against ray Leonard.
Considering Duran would beat the VAST majority of welterweights in history (including your boyfriend) and considering Duran, like Leonard and Roy, was an exceptionally, very rare boxing talent, losing to him in no way tarnishes Leonard's legacy. Plus, Duran had been fighting as a welterweight for almost 2 years PRIOR to the Leonard fight, and had completely dominated an excellent welterweight in Palomino. I love Roy to death, but he never faced a fighter the caliber of Montreal Duran (and please, don't say Toney) so there's no way for certain to say how he would have fared. Roy was a better fighter than Leonard by a slim margin. And I'd say Roy/Leonard were better than Whitaker by a slim margin. ALL THREE were better fighters than Floyd by a clear margin.
It's circular logic though, that's the problem and only a few of us have realized this. Duran is considered to be better than most Welterweights in history BECAUSE he beat Leonard and Duran is considered an acceptable loss for Leonard BECAUSE he is considered to be better than most welterweights BECAUSE he beat Leonard. It's an eternal circle of causality. It's ridiculous. Had Leonard beat him handily as he was expected to and should have done...we wouldn't be hearing this Duran is one of the greatest Welterweights nonsense. Instead...Leonard is rewarded for losing to him who was prime at a weight 12lbs south. Madness. Again "Montreal Duran" is only Montreal Duran because he beat Leonard. Duran had already lost at 135lbs before he beat Leonard. Prime Sugar Ray Leonard, the natural welterweight, had no business losing to him. Say what you want about Toney but he was undefeated when Jones beat him and was the same size as Jones if not bigger. Toney had beaten Nunn, Barkjley and McCallum. Jones winning 12 out of 12 rounds against him is more impressive than Leonard losing to a lightweight. Again...please give me the logic to support your claim that Leonard was better than Floyd by a clear margin?
Leonard would have beaten Floyd at Welterweight..close but clear. However Floyd started off at 130lbs. We have to evaluate them P4P not as Welterweights. If not...then you have to match a 160/168 lb Leonard against Jones at 160/168lbs...and if you do that....guess what...Jones fucks him up royally...especially at 168lbs which to Leonard is the equivalent of 147lbs to Mayweather.
Del Valle fairly took the legs out from under Jones, and Jones didn;t dare go after him for the rest of the fight like he had been up to that point. I think Ray had a better chin.
A bit off topic, but I always wonder if the Norris fight should be held against Leonard. Guy wasn't that old, and was only inactive for barely a year.
I think so. (to a degree) Obviously a prime Leonard would have won but he wasn't so far gone that the fight should be completely dismissed. It wasn't Duran-Joppy or Holmes-Ali. Ray got beat up but still went the distance and was trying to win.
The Leonard that lost to Norris could probably still beat lower level fighters, but he clearly didn't have enough left to compete with a young, elite level fighter like Norris. Plus, I'd venture to say he DEFINITELY underestimated Norris. Going into that fight, nobody on Earth expected Terry Norris to be an eventually HOF caliber fighter. So, the combination of Leonard being washed up and Norris being better than he expected.... and you got what you got. There's literally about 3 light years of difference between the Leonard of 91 and the Leonard of 81. So no, I don't hold the Norris loss against Leonard. Not anymore than I hold the Calzaghe loss against Roy. We all know that in their respective peaks, Leonard and Jones would have taken a shit on Norris and Calzaghe.
In their prime Leonard faced better competition than Jones bum-of-the-month opponents. As for your last sentence on the Duran analogy, the same could have been said had Leonard not haven't fallen victim to the mental tactics that Duran played on him. The Leonard that fought Duran 1 wasn't the same Leonard we always knew. He try to beat Duran at his own game, macho a macho. It didn't work. Had Leonard fought using his usual trademark leg work and defensive style (like he did in fights 2 & 3), well you know how those went.
