I'll have to go with Leonard? The whole 7-up and Popeye chicken thing has me convinced. Plus, he beat Howard Davis and split two fights with Hearns. Oh, and a lot of people say he defeated a declining version of Hagler. Plus, he beat Duran 2/3 times. And in one of those wins Duran was actually within 20 pounds of his optimal weight. Yeah. SRL. He was so good and fast and strong. Nobody could beat him. What's hilarious is if Arguello had managed to beat Pryor there's no doubt SRL would've called him out at 147.
We may as well start with all of his contemporary contenders and champions who he managed not to fight, whether it was due to one of his retirements, his eye, money, etc.? For example, McCallum? Pryor? Curry? I don't think anyone could ever beat a prime SRL. The SRL who schooled Duran beats any fighter that ever lived or that will ever live. A new born baby for the most part has a series of uncertainties ahead of him. But not when it comes to SRL and his chances of ever having beaten him if he'd fought him in his prime. It just would not have happened. SRL was that good. His flurries. His jab. His left-hook. His right-hand. He was a complete fighter and there's no sense even discussing him in this forum because even though he lost to a light-weight, was bested by Hearns, and barely beat a faded Hagler, there's not a single fighter who could've beaten him. He was that good.
You really are the worst poster ever. :: You try so hard to go against the grain on nearly every topic that it's painful to watch. And of course you are trying to perpetuate the myth of Hagler being a doddering old man when he fought Leonard. Which is funny because I doubt you had even HEARD of boxing when that fight took place. And it's also fun to watch you pull fighters out of BoxRec whose careers took place around the time of Leonard and claim they were "ducked" without having a clue as to what was going on at that time. Like when you claimed Hopkins ducked McClellan...who had brain damage and was in a hospital. You will say ANYTHING, no matter how off-base or ridiculous, just to have something to say. As you were...
Somebody has to go against the grain when every last poster on the MM board ignores the facts and talks about SRL like he's unbeatable. Guess what. He's not. He's got the "L's" on his record to prove it.
If Hagler was spry as you'll have us believe why in the hell would he retire and leave so much money on the table? He wasn't a shell of himself, but 2-3 years previously Hagler would've killed SRL and we all know it. Heck. I think he beat him as it were. And I don't pretend to understand all of the politics and circumstances surrounding SRL's career and who he did and did not fight. But I do know that there were many good and some great fighters who fought either while he was retired or in a neighboring weight class who he never faced. That's fine. Obviously no fighter can be expected to take on every threat out there. But it remains a fact that there were plenty of intriguing fights SRL could've made that he never did.
Wow. No one is unbeatable? Thanks for the knowledge. Do you have any other similar knowledge lthat you are holding back from everyone like water is wet, ice is cold or fire is hot? You can try to disparage him all you like...but the bottom line is that Ray Leonard is one of the very best and greatest fighters to ever lace up a glove. And yes...he would be favored to beat the vast majority of fighters all time in his weight range and would be a pick-em (or nearly so) against the very best. And what "facts" are these? That you mentioned some names that Leonard didn't fight (without a clue of the circumstances) and you jump to the conclusion that Leonard ducked them. Which is weak because you don't ever seem to understand the context of each fighter and situation....which is how we get to how Hopkins was too scared to go to the hospital and beat up a brain damaged McClellan. Well...at least you're not trying to still make a case for Leonard ducking Julian Jackson. ::
Hagler retired because he knew Leonard wasn't likely to give him a rematch. And that goes back to knowing the context of the time.
Well then I guess the majority of posters on MM would have us believe that fire is not hot and that water is not wet. Because day after day that's essentially what many of you do when it comes to SRL. So Hagler retired because he knew SRL "probably" wouldn't give him a rematch? And you know this how? I may seem ignorant when it comes to the "context" of times gone by, as you like to say, but at least I don't dream them up to try to bolster my point. It's funny how SRL was fighting at catch-weights against nobodys right around the time McCallum and Curry won their titles. It was shortly thereafter he retired. Sound familiar? And what's with his move from 168 all the way back down to 154 to take on Norris? Didn't that back-fire. . He thought he'd pass on Second to Nunn and try to catch Norris on the chin. It wasn't unlike ODH's attempt to beat Pacquiao. Both plans back-fired big-time. Hilarious.
First of all...you are saying "as you'll have us believe" as if I am the one coming out of left field and everyone agrees with you. That is, more often than not, probably not the case. Hagler retired because he knew Leonard was going to re-retire and not give him a rematch. I remember Leonard talking about the Hagler fight being a one fight comeback and since he was expected to lose...nobody cared about that...until he won and retired again. And that goes back to knowing the context of the time. Personally...and this is just my own opinion...but I believe that Leonard planned to retire after Hagler...but like most retired greats...he just couldn't stay away. And before you start trying to claim that was a form of ducking...I see no reason why Leonard needed to beat Hagler twice to prove himself. Hagler had his chance against Leonard in a fight he could have won, but he blew it. Being champion was Hagler's whole identity. The idea of him being like Holyfield and fighting for alphabet pieces of his fomer undisputed title never seemed like something Hagler would do. Even though...who was going to beat him, even at that point? And what is this about all this money on the table? Where were the big money fights for Hagler with Leonard retired? The only fight that might have been a good payday would have been a Hearns rematch...but Hagler-Hearns for a vacant title and coming off a loss was a would have been a pale version of the 1985 Hagler-Hearns Superfight. After all he had been through in his career...and then getting the biggest payday of his career and no shot at a Leonard rematch...it wasn't at all surprising that Hagler retired when he did. It wasn't because he was washed up...it was because he had plenty of money and nothing left to prove. And again...where was all the money left on the table? With no Leonard and Hagler not being the world champion? There were some up and comers like Michael Nunn, Frank Tate, Michael Olajide, etc...but none of them would have been close to being a superfight for Hagler. And to criticize Leonard for not fighting due to his retirement is weak. Back then....a detached retina was a serious injury that ended more than one fighter's career. It may be a less serious injury now.. But don't forget...that was almost 30 years ago. And I don't know that Hagler kills Leonard a few years earlier. I wouldn't have been at all surprised to see Leonard outfox Hagler both at the negotiating table and in the ring if the fight took place in 1985.
it's rather telling that you like to focus on fights like Trinidad - Whitaker and Norris - Leonard...both of which featured end of the line versions of fighters you hate against prime versions of their opponents. And then you crow about it as if these fights somehow tell the whole story of the fighter you are trying to disparage. And since you know so much...please tell us again how Hopkins ducked McClellan.
Yes...because Leonard made a living at 147 by calling out all kinds of Lightweights. That's how he made his mark. Oh wait...not really. Leonard fought ONE former Lightweight champ in a title defense...and that Lightweight was the best fighter in the world at that time...who had already easily beaten a very good former Welter champ in Palomino and would move up to 154 and 160 and win titles and have success there as well. Not to mention Duran-Leonard I was the biggest fight to be made in boxing at that time. Geez...this is getting boring already. You will be posting all kinds of unfounded & disparaging messages about Leonard because he is the newest entry in the list of fighters you don't like. And this will end up like your bullshit posts about Whitaker in which you create a boxing world which is the way you want it to be rather than how it actually was.
