Leonard - Best Boxer In Last 30 Yrs

[Bill Butcher]

I thought LONG & hard about this 1 & despite his annoying retirements I have to go for ray leonard as the best boxer since 1977/78.

I narrowed it down to 2 men - duran & leonard.
leonard finished 2-1 up but duran was naturally smaller so that evens itself out in my book.

Despite roberto being at his absolute peak between the yrs 77-80, he also had some of his prime yrs from 72-77 with him being the best ever lwt during that time where as srl had ALL of his best yrs from 77-87.

Take out their 3rd meaningless fight, I still thought srl won the 2nd clearer than duran won the 1st & my head tells me that if the leonard of the 2nd fight fought the duran of the 1st fight then sugar ray would have won a close but unanimous decision.

Then you throw in his footwork, handspeed, mindset & ability to finish a man in trouble & you have 1 of the most complete boxers in history.

Then throw in the names of hagler, hearns, benitez & duran himself + the 4/5 world titles.

Not much more to say is there ?

[brooklyn1550]

Since 30 years ago was 1977 and Duran did good work prior to that time, I would have Leonard as the best since that time period, followed by Duran, Whitaker, and Hagler.

[redrooster]

I thought LONG & hard about this 1 & despite his annoying retirements I have to go for ray leonard as the best boxer since 1977/78.

I narrowed it down to 2 men - duran & leonard.
leonard finished 2-1 up but duran was naturally smaller so that evens itself out in my book.

Despite roberto being at his absolute peak between the yrs 77-80, he also had some of his prime yrs from 72-77 with him being the best ever lwt during that time where as srl had ALL of his best yrs from 77-87.

Take out their 3rd meaningless fight, I still thought srl won the 2nd clearer than duran won the 1st & my head tells me that if the leonard of the 2nd fight fought the duran of the 1st fight then sugar ray would have won a close but unanimous decision.

Then you throw in his footwork, handspeed, mindset & ability to finish a man in trouble & you have 1 of the most complete boxers in history.

Then throw in the names of hagler, hearns, benitez & duran himself + the 4/5 world titles.

Not much more to say is there ?

it would have been better if leonard could add Norris to his resume. even a respectable loss would make him stand out more. personally, I have him at #41

[redrooster]

He lost when he was past his prime by a long ways. You must think Norris was better than Hagler, Benitez, Hearns, and Duran then if he was still in his prime against Norris.

we've been thru this before Pea. you know that i said i saw little or no visual evidence of this decline you keep talking about. Hagler's the one who looked like he hit bottom, not Ray so to me, Ray lost that fight because he couldn't handle a fighter with that kind of speed and who could hit that sharp. Leonard doesn't like to get hit by fast, hard hitting fighters. that's why he sat out the most important years from the 80's.

[Robbi]

we've been thru this before Pea. you know that i said i saw little or no visual evidence of this decline you keep talking about. Hagler's the one who looked like he hit bottom, not Ray so to me, Ray lost that fight because he couldn't handle a fighter with that kind of speed and who could hit that sharp. Leonard doesn't like to get hit by fast, hard hitting fighters. that's why he sat out the most important years from the 80's.

Leonard wasn't just years past his prime, but he hadn't made 154lbs for 7 years before sharing a ring with Norris.

[redrooster]

Leonard wasn't just years past his prime, but he hadn't made 154lbs for 7 years before sharing a ring with Norris.

Robbi, first I hear how leonard never fought at 160 before meeting Hagler. Fair enough but to bring up having weight issues at a weight he challenged Terry for doesn't make sense.

What weight is leonard supposed to be fighting at? 147? 154? 160? 168?

and trying to blame deterioration as the reason makes for a nice argument but I've never seen the evidence based on performance, especially in lihgt of his brilliant performance in uno mas. that was proof that ray was as good as he'd ever been.

[redrooster]

Stop arguing with that guy it´s talking to a wall.

tobkhan you have good taste in women

[SgrRyLeonard]

Many people say Duran was either past it or just showed up for a paycheck in Uno Mas, so that fight isn't a good indication of how much Leonard had left.

[redrooster]

true but ray leonard's ability to be up on his toes is without question. he never seemed to tire the way you'd expect from someone his age. and the combinations were still lightning fast as they were with norris but terry is always on the move so he doesn't get hit like the others. hitting terry is harder than hitting a cloud.

[Bill Butcher]

Ive only ever heard of 1 person who thinks norris would beat leonard prime for prime & thats you rooster.

You think srl cant handle fast hard punches, what about hearns & duran, especially tommy.

Norris would probably admit himself that srl would hand him his ass in their primes... fuck, even HAGLER would say ray would win that 1
:lol:

The leonard of the 2nd duran fight was the best there has been in the last 30 yrs, just watch his constant foot movement & pin point punches, no-one in or around welterweight beats that leonard imo & I`d go all the way to 160 with that statement.

[C. M. Clay II]

Ive only ever heard of 1 person who thinks norris would beat leonard prime for prime & thats you rooster.

You think srl cant handle fast hard punches, what about hearns & duran, especially tommy.

Norris would probably admit himself that srl would hand him his ass in their primes... fuck, even HAGLER would say ray would win that 1
:lol:

The leonard of the 2nd duran fight was the best there has been in the last 30 yrs, just watch his constant foot movement & pin point punches, no-one in or around welterweight beats that leonard imo & I`d go all the way to 160 with that statement.

:good

[redrooster]

Ive only ever heard of 1 person who thinks norris would beat leonard prime for prime & thats you rooster.

You think srl cant handle fast hard punches, what about hearns & duran, especially tommy.

Norris would probably admit himself that srl would hand him his ass in their primes... fuck, even HAGLER would say ray would win that 1
:lol:

The leonard of the 2nd duran fight was the best there has been in the last 30 yrs, just watch his constant foot movement & pin point punches, no-one in or around welterweight beats that leonard imo & I`d go all the way to 160 with that statement.

you probably still believe ray won two titles in one night two even though he only had one opponent in front of him who owned just one title.

the ray leonard of october 1980 as compared with the ray leonard from september of the following year? thanks for proving my point.

duran was ill prepared for that one and shouldn't have been fighting. you need to see the inside man about that one-randy gordon. so of course leonard is going to look good, very good. i can see why it would cause some to think he was so good, so fast that he was a blur next to duran, making him the best fighter of the last 30 years. if and only if duran was healthy.

but we all know he wasn't. Hearns was though. a little light but more mobile than the bloated, plodding duran of new orleans.

the hearns fight, leonard was far less impressive because he was facing an opponent with some movement and good speed.

it wasn't the kind of speed that norris possessed. no fighter had that kind of speed-not even meldrick taylor himself but tommy still enough speed and good basic boxing skills to trouble leonard.

Tommy had at the time, a good jab and right cross combinations along with some body work. but no left hook the way norris used it which is the punch he used to destroy leonard.

you say ray leonard was gone or at least that's what you're trying to prove to yourself. you can't prove it to me because i've proven it false time and time and time again and will continue to do so in the future. I'll bet you can't even tell me what was wrong with leonard prior to the fight with norris.

you need proof if you're going to debate with critics like me. I've seen all of the modern greats in decline and i've been able to catch the signs of deterioration, when they start to digress. they say the first thing to go are the legs of a fighter and from what i saw in uno mas was a man who showed the legs of a man in his early 20's. ray leonard was a well preserved athlete if nothing else. all the years of not fighting kept him from an early decline. but even so, he was no match for my man Norris.

you're upset because my man drilled him no problem and ray didn't know how to fight back. even tho he was a legend and norris was nobody at the time, it was norris who fought like the legend. leonard fought as best as he knows how but he isn't in norris' class as a fighter and remember who has the bragging rights.

I also think you have a lot of nerve to claim leonard has bragging rights over Hagler because he won a disputed split decision and yet deny Norris' claims after slamming him round after round. I certainly wouldn't have the balls to make the claims you make. where do you get all your nerve?

[redrooster]

It's hard to rate a guy number one when he was beaten 11-4 by a former lightweight.

butcher, who is the originator of this thread, thinks he beat the same duran from montreal and that the change in tactics allowed him to change the outcome. that's what he thinks.

Upon closer examination of the facts, it clearly was a case of duran being in terrible shape, melting down from 190 pounds that enabled leonard to fight his fight the second time around.

if duran were in the same shape the same thing is going to happen as before; duran's going to put the hurt on him, intimidate him as he did the first time, and win more decisively (KO magazine rematch rule).

but according butcher, he thinks that rematch and leonard's 9 round tko over some guy kalule is impressive enough to put him at the head of the pack. what's more, he has the nerve to actually brag about it to me, his toughest critic.

[mcvey]

we've been thru this before Pea. you know that i said i saw little or no visual evidence of this decline you keep talking about. Hagler's the one who looked like he hit bottom, not Ray so to me, Ray lost that fight because he couldn't handle a fighter with that kind of speed and who could hit that sharp. Leonard doesn't like to get hit by fast, hard hitting fighters. that's why he sat out the most important years from the 80's.
Leonard was on the slide when he met Norris,that should be factored into the result,you talk about the fight as though Leonard was in his prime.

[mcvey]

you probably still believe ray won two titles in one night two even though he only had one opponent in front of him who owned just one title.

the ray leonard of october 1980 as compared with the ray leonard from september of the following year? thanks for proving my point.

duran was ill prepared for that one and shouldn't have been fighting. you need to see the inside man about that one-randy gordon. so of course leonard is going to look good, very good. i can see why it would cause some to think he was so good, so fast that he was a blur next to duran, making him the best fighter of the last 30 years. if and only if duran was healthy.

but we all know he wasn't. Hearns was though. a little light but more mobile than the bloated, plodding duran of new orleans.

the hearns fight, leonard was far less impressive because he was facing an opponent with some movement and good speed.

it wasn't the kind of speed that norris possessed. no fighter had that kind of speed-not even meldrick taylor himself but tommy still enough speed and good basic boxing skills to trouble leonard.

Tommy had at the time, a good jab and right cross combinations along with some body work. but no left hook the way norris used it which is the punch he used to destroy leonard.

you say ray leonard was gone or at least that's what you're trying to prove to yourself. you can't prove it to me because i've proven it false time and time and time again and will continue to do so in the future. I'll bet you can't even tell me what was wrong with leonard prior to the fight with norris.

you need proof if you're going to debate with critics like me. I've seen all of the modern greats in decline and i've been able to catch the signs of deterioration, when they start to digress. they say the first thing to go are the legs of a fighter and from what i saw in uno mas was a man who showed the legs of a man in his early 20's. ray leonard was a well preserved athlete if nothing else. all the years of not fighting kept him from an early decline. but even so, he was no match for my man Norris.

you're upset because my man drilled him no problem and ray didn't know how to fight back. even tho he was a legend and norris was nobody at the time, it was norris who fought like the legend. leonard fought as best as he knows how but he isn't in norris' class as a fighter and remember who has the bragging rights.

I also think you have a lot of nerve to claim leonard has bragging rights over Hagler because he won a disputed split decision and yet deny Norris' claims after slamming him round after round. I certainly wouldn't have the balls to make the claims you make. where do you get all your nerve?
Youve seen all the greats in decline,yes?Norris,s big wins over a Don Curry ,who had lost two of his last four fights,and after losing to Norris retired,,a thirty five year old Leonard who had struggled to draw with Hearns and hadnt fought in over a year,a thirty yearold weight drained Mugabi,who also retired after their fight ,these are fighters that were in decline,I dont see anything special in Norris,s resume,his period at the time was very brief ,he came along at the right time when better fighters were on the way out,thems the breaks ,but I dont see an ATG.

[redrooster]

Youve seen all the greats in decline,yes?Norris,s big wins over a Don Curry ,who had lost two of his last four fights,and after losing to Norris retired,,a thirty five year old Leonard who had struggled to draw with Hearns and hadnt fought in over a year,a thirty yearold weight drained Mugabi,who also retired after their fight ,these are fighters that were in decline,I dont see anything special in Norris,s resume,his period at the time was very brief ,he came along at the right time when better fighters were on the way out,thems the breaks ,but I dont see an ATG.

you call that proof, that he fought hearns to a draw? that's an improvement over how he fared in 81 where he was further behind that there's no doubt he would have lost in 12. And it's not like leonard didn't have to come back in the 14th to pull out the win.

also keep in mind that being off just over a year is nothing to leonard who came back after three years to beat marvin hagler who is a much bigger name than terry norris was in 1991. so that's not an excuse either.

surely you have more compelling evidence than this. :yep

my proof that he wasn't in decline is much stronger than your case claiming that he was in decline especially when coupled with his flawless performance in uno mas where he showed no signs of slowing. and if he was, please point out which one of the 12 rounds where ray leonard was too tired to dance.

no doubt you've seen my writings before so my views should be no surprise to you. but you should have brought forth stronger evidence other than just age. Was bernard hopkins over tha hill at age 36 when matched up with tito? I don't recall hopkins doing all that well when he was younger-age 28 (versus roy jones) either.

[Jbuz]

Duran is above him.

[TBooze]

I loathe Leonard, but would agree:

To 30 pro fighters who turned pro from 1976 onwards:

30 James Toney
29 Ronald 'Winky' Wright
28 Orlando Canizales
27 Mike Tyson
26 Sot Chitalada
25 Jeff Chandler
24 Lennox Lewis
23 Aaron Pryor
22 Myung Woo Yuh
21 Jung Koo Chang
20 Kostya Tszyu
19 Brian Mitchell
18 Jeff Fenech
17 Salvador Sanchez
16 Marco Antonio Barrera
15 Mike McCallum
14 Felix Trinidad
13 Evander Holyfield
12 Khoasio Galaxy
11 Michael Spinks
10 Azumah Nelson
9 Floyd Mayweather Jr
8 Bernard Hopkins
7 Ricardo Lopez
6 Roy Jones
5 Thomas Hearns
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Oscar de la Hoya
2 Julio Cesar Chavez
1 Ray Leonard

[redrooster]

butcher, mcvey, whoever, there isn't one person who can hold their ground with me on this. if you make a claim you got to back it up like I do.

[rodney]

You gotta be kidding.

[redrooster]

Wow, what a terrible post.


how can it be terrible if everything he mentioned is true? there's few people on this board who are completely honest when it comes to leonard's status but Thad Spencer is definitely one of them.
I'd like to give leomard more credit but I just can't. it wouldn't be honest.

[Asterion]

Whitaker could be ranked higher in the last 30 years. :bart

[brownpimp88]

Whitaker has been the best fighter since sugar ray robinson, he would school duran and benny leonard. He has a better overall resume than leonard too, besides his wins over the other fab 4 guys, leonard's resume becomes very thin.

[redrooster]

False

False

Blatantly false

Blatantly false

Hagler sulked and retired, so false

In the same way Berbick tought Ali a lesson, when will you guys get this? It's unbelievable that you think he was near his prime.

how can you argue against facts? It's too late for revisionist history.

[mr. magoo]

how can it be terrible if everything he mentioned is true? there's few people on this board who are completely honest when it comes to leonard's status but Thad Spencer is definitely one of them.



Ah yes,

Thad Spencer, the unbanned prime Frazier. The same poster who once claimed that Mike Tyson defeated Larry Holmes in the midst of his prime at 38.

Is this the ally you speak of?

[Bill Butcher]

:rofl my god rooster
you have a serious hardon for leonard dont you, whats wrong, is your fav fighter called hagler... er.. or benitez or duran or hearns.

you get my point, when you beat not 1 but ALL of the best fighters in your era, good chance you get voted boxer of that decade &... oops, sorry, srl DID win that vote, wonder why that was when he was obviously just an overrated bum
:-(

Another thing, I never said that the duran of fight 2 was as good as the duran of fight 1.
What I said was that if the srl of fight 2 fought the duran of fight 1 then leonard would win a ud because he was just to fast & sharp for him using that style.

Also, you mentioned hearns being well ahead of leonard as if tommy was some punk off the street. Hearns had destroyed everybody more or less by ko & even bob arum said nobody is gonna beat this kid, then along came a master, a complete package of heart, skill, ring smarts & 1 of the best finishers in the business who could take a great punch, you know his name, you dream of him regularly, ray charles leonard.

2-1 up vs duran.... 1-0 vs hagler... 1-0 vs benitez.... 1-0-1 with hearns & even if you give hearns the 2nd fight, leonard still won the fight closest to their primes & he won it by ko.

I dont think you have much of a case in denying the great ray leonard, you can slabber about norris all day long but no-one with any boxing brain is gonna take you seriously.

1 more thing, ray slugged with duran by his own choice in montreal & narrowly lost but duran wasnt at the races when srl did what does best boxes, end of discussion.
:D

[quintonjacksonfan]

I have to agree with SRL. He Put a end to 4 all-time great winning streaks
Hearns and Benitez were undefeated Duran and Hagler had not lost in 10 years.

[Luigi1985]

Whitaker has been the best fighter since sugar ray robinson, he would school duran and benny leonard. He has a better overall resume than leonard too, besides his wins over the other fab 4 guys, leonard's resume becomes very thin.



:lol:

[redrooster]

:rofl my god rooster


you get my point, when you beat not 1 but ALL of the best fighters in your era, good chance you get voted boxer of that decade &... oops, sorry, srl DID win that vote, wonder why that was when he was obviously just an overrated bum


where was leonard in 82? He flatly refused a fight with Hagler.


Another thing, I never said that the duran of fight 2 was as good as the duran of fight 1.
What I said was that if the srl of fight 2 fought the duran of fight 1 then leonard would win a ud because he was just to fast & sharp for him using that style.

Is that opinion or fact? Please, just the facts.

Also, you mentioned hearns being well ahead of leonard as if tommy was some punk off the street. Hearns had destroyed everybody more or less by ko & even bob arum said nobody is gonna beat this kid, then along came a master, a complete package of heart, skill, ring smarts & 1 of the best finishers in the business who could take a great punch, you know his name, you dream of him regularly, ray charles leonard.


That's media buildup you dope! Why are trying to use that bs on me? I wasn't born yesterday like John Thomas or some other nuthugger.

The press described Gerry Cooney the same way-"oh look what he did to Norton, Lyle, Young. Big deal! Veterans on the way down. His defenses hardly make him one of the more distinguised title reigns-Luis Primera, Pablo Baez, Randy Shields. :lol:

so don't start that nuthugger "master boxer" with me. Did Ray box well enough to to put himself ahead of Tommy on the scorecards?

If he were, then he wouldn't have to have come from behind with his own trainer telling him "you're blowing it son" instead of being reduced to an ineffective stalker throwing one haymaker at a time - the same approach he used with Norris. he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell with Terry.

Hagler was far more impressive against Tommy. More effective pressing the action, and got to work faster. That makes Hagler the better fighter. What's more, that's leonard's greatest accomplishment while the Hearns win for Hagler was much more convincing and was just another in a long line of great wins for him.


2-1 up vs duran.... 1-0 vs hagler... 1-0 vs benitez.... 1-0-1 with hearns & even if you give hearns the 2nd fight, leonard still won the fight closest to their primes & he won it by ko.

so? I'm not impressed with the Hagler fight. Leonard looked good and the fight could have gone to leonard. But it's not the most convincing win over a faded fighter that I've ever seen but i'll go along with it for now.

However, when the commentator says "Ray said Hagler lost a lot of speed and was counting on the slowness of Hagler" which was very evident on film, it cheapens the accomplishment. Could he have done the same against prime Hagler? I doubt it. Could he really done that much better with a young Terry Norris? Not with Ray's style of fighting. Leonard's never proven he's effective or even comfortable taking the role of the aggressor.

I dont think you have much of a case in denying the great ray leonard, you can slabber about norris all day long but no-one with any boxing brain is gonna take you seriously.

You're a fool! You brag about Leonard's split win saying nyah nyah, leonard beat Hagler but can't accept the fact Norris gets bragging rights for his win. Terry didn't get no "split win". he kicked his but all over the ring, mastered him at every turn-against the ropes, in the middle of the ring, on the inside, and from the outside boxing. Why the hell should I take you seriously, because you're another misguidedfan who can't accept reality?



1 more thing, ray slugged with duran by his own choice in montreal & narrowly lost but duran wasnt at the races when srl did what does best boxes, end of discussion.
:D

it wasn't narrow. The round which he lost were lost by a narrow margin but he kept losing them. when Duran stepped on the gas, leonard couldn't keep up with him. when Duran decided to take a breather, then Ray was able to win a round here and there but don't fool yourself, it wasn't a close fight.

Everyone knew who the winner was that night.

[redrooster]

yeah, Hearns would have no problem at 154. no way leonard could win.

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah, Leonard's win against Hearns was very unimpressive. Leonard was Hearns' punching bag for 10 of the 14 rounds. A weight drained Hearns got tired from beating the crap out of Ray. At 154 Hearns would have won about 13 or 14 rounds and a decision.

Well you've certainly hooked Rooster

:lol:

[mr. magoo]

yeah, Hearns would have no problem at 154. no way leonard could win.

Rooster,

Why are you damn critical of Leonard? I'm not trying to start a heated debate here, but I'm just curious as to why you have such a bone to pick with him. Okay, I suppose we could all make criticisms if we wanted to. I agree that Leonard lost his rematch with Hearns. I also think the Hagler fight was very close, but do you really feel that these are reasons to deny him all time great status? The guy was a gold medalist, he beat a very good fighter in Wilfred Benitez. He was behind on points against another all time great in Thomas Hearns, but came back to beat him by stoppage. He came back from a hard fought loss against Duran to beat him twice after. The Hagler fight could have gone either way in terms of a decision, but Leonard was rerturning from a long layoff. The Don Lalonde win wasn't too bad either.

What seems to be the big problem?

[Bill Butcher]

Dont bother with rooster, when it comes to leonard the guy is in a world of his own.

Just because srl came out on top vs the fab 4 who all could have fought & won in any era he doesnt like it.

He talks about facts but he ignores the most important facts which are leonard beat them all, fact.

He says duran was out of shape for fight 2 & srl shouldnt get credit for the win but, listen to this.....
He says norris beat a very good srl BECAUSE of how srl looked vs duran in fight 3
:lol:

talk about making an argument to suit yourself.
anybody could have kept on their toes for 12 vs duran in 1989, that fight didnt mean srl wasnt the fighter he used to be, it just showed how far the great duran had slipped.

You cany say norris beat prime srl if you cant admit srl beat prime duran.

Its all personal opinion of course but roosters is WAY WAY off when it comes to leonard.

Most people see him as 1 of the atg`s, why cant you ?

You can pick holes in any boxer in history, even srr if you manipulated things enough, get my point rooster.

1 more thing... leonard vs hagler. :yep fucking beautiful
thats 1 fight I NEVER tire of watching, historic brilliance & it would have been even worse for marvin had they fought in 82, personal opinion of course.
:hi:

[Minotauro]

I loathe Leonard, but would agree:

To 30 pro fighters who turned pro from 1976 onwards:

30 James Toney
29 Ronald 'Winky' Wright
28 Orlando Canizales
27 Mike Tyson
26 Sot Chitalada
25 Jeff Chandler
24 Lennox Lewis
23 Aaron Pryor
22 Myung Woo Yuh
21 Jung Koo Chang
20 Kostya Tszyu
19 Brian Mitchell
18 Jeff Fenech
17 Salvador Sanchez
16 Marco Antonio Barrera
15 Mike McCallum
14 Felix Trinidad
13 Evander Holyfield
12 Khoasio Galaxy
11 Michael Spinks
10 Azumah Nelson
9 Floyd Mayweather Jr
8 Bernard Hopkins
7 Ricardo Lopez
6 Roy Jones
5 Thomas Hearns
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Oscar de la Hoya
2 Julio Cesar Chavez
1 Ray Leonard

Good list but you forgot Hagler and Duran.

[mr. magoo]

=redrooster]true but ray leonard's ability to be up on his toes is without question. he never seemed to tire the way you'd expect from someone his age. and the combinations were still lightning fast as they were with norris but terry is always on the move so he doesn't get hit like the others.


I seriously have to question weather or not you actually saw this fight, and even more pertinantely if you've actually viewed real footage of Leonard at his best. Leonard was exhausted by the later rounds of that fight. His reflexes and reaction time was noticeably gone. When I watched that fight on showtime back in 1991, Dr. Ferdie Pacheco even commented that he looked like a shell of his former self, and some of the fans were even chanting " stop the fight ". In your opinion, could this version of Leonard possibly have come back from behind in 1980 to beat Thomas Hearns, especially in the 14th round of a scheduled 15?






hitting terry is harder than hitting a cloud.


Now I find this interesting, because Simon Brown moved up to Jr. Middle, and creamed the livin' crap out of Norris. Brown had decent speed, but by that point in his career was not exactly a lightening bolt when it came time to quickness.

What was your take on this fight ( as you saw it )?

[Drew101]

Good list but you forgot Hagler and Duran.

They both turned pro before 1976. Otherwise, they'd likely be included.

[TBooze]

.

[redrooster]

Rooster,

Why are you damn critical of Leonard? I'm not trying to start a heated debate here, but I'm just curious as to why you have such a bone to pick with him. Okay, I suppose we could all make criticisms if we wanted to. I agree that Leonard lost his rematch with Hearns. I also think the Hagler fight was very close, but do you really feel that these are reasons to deny him all time great status? The guy was a gold medalist, he beat a very good fighter in Wilfred Benitez. He was behind on points against another all time great in Thomas Hearns, but came back to beat him by stoppage. He came back from a hard fought loss against Duran to beat him twice after. The Hagler fight could have gone either way in terms of a decision, but Leonard was rerturning from a long layoff. The Don Lalonde win wasn't too bad either.

What seems to be the big problem?

I'm not being critical of Leonard. As Thad Spencer says, leonard was good-damn good. Maybe even an all time great, but not the top fighter of the 80's let alone the last 30 years. So I can't give him credit that doesn't beong to him. It would bother my conscience.

[redrooster]

Just because srl came out on top vs the fab 4 who all could have fought & won in any era he doesnt like it.

Everyone who knows me knows that I am a fan of only the best so if Leonard was the best I would also be a fan of his. but the resume is lacking and too many false retirements. you know what that means.

He says duran was out of shape for fight 2 & srl shouldnt get credit for the win but, listen to this.....
He says norris beat a very good srl BECAUSE of how srl looked vs duran in fight 3
:lol:

No that is not what I said. I said that Duran of the second fight melted off 40+ pounds according to Randy Gordon and I have no doubt whatsoever that' he's telling the truth. He said that Leonard rushed him into the rematch knowing that Duran was in need of money. I would have told leonard and his ghetto managers to go fuck themselves, and that he needed me more than I needed him especially since I just beat the pants off of him and that I would take as long as I felt to get the weight off.

Duran for the rubber match had no such problem with a weight drop of 40 pounds.


talk about making an argument to suit yourself.
anybody could have kept on their toes for 12 vs duran in 1989, that fight didnt mean srl wasnt the fighter he used to be, it just showed how far the great duran had slipped.

what difference does it make who the opponent is if you can you demonstrate that you can do it for 12 rounds without letup. just remember why the audience was booing that night. you can't change the fact that leonard-duran 3 was a blowout, that Ray won all 12 rounds, that he did it in the usual way by boxing and being up on his toes and that in no way did he resemble the Ali of 1976 who took punishment like a punching bag.




Most people see him as 1 of the atg`s, why cant you ?

He is one of the all time greats. he's just not what Terry Norris was. He's on a throne too, only a little lower.



You can pick holes in any boxer in history, even srr if you manipulated things enough, get my point rooster.

Please don't compare Leonard with Robinson. that's a joke. Robbie gave rematches and didn't set ridiculous conditions to meet him at these absurd weights. You really don't have enough performances from leonard wheras Robinson performed many times a year.



1 more thing... leonard vs hagler. :yep fucking beautiful
thats 1 fight I NEVER tire of watching, historic brilliance & it would have been even worse for marvin had they fought in 82, personal opinion of course.
:hi:

it may have been beautiful performance I won't dissagree but the Norris fight forever tarnished him.

[TBooze]

They both turned pro before 1976. Otherwise, they'd likely be included.

They would of... both top 5.

[TIGEREDGE]

I thought LONG & hard about this 1 & despite his annoying retirements I have to go for ray leonard as the best boxer since 1977/78.

I narrowed it down to 2 men - duran & leonard.
leonard finished 2-1 up but duran was naturally smaller so that evens itself out in my book.

Despite roberto being at his absolute peak between the yrs 77-80, he also had some of his prime yrs from 72-77 with him being the best ever lwt during that time where as srl had ALL of his best yrs from 77-87.

Take out their 3rd meaningless fight, I still thought srl won the 2nd clearer than duran won the 1st & my head tells me that if the leonard of the 2nd fight fought the duran of the 1st fight then sugar ray would have won a close but unanimous decision.

Then you throw in his footwork, handspeed, mindset & ability to finish a man in trouble & you have 1 of the most complete boxers in history.

Then throw in the names of hagler, hearns, benitez & duran himself + the 4/5 world titles.

Not much more to say is there ?

what second fight? it was a farce the no mas fight. duran never turned up. ray is in my top 5 based on his short prime, but great prime. everything about his late 80's comeback was a farce. even though he barely beat hagler in my eyes.

hagler was past it and leonard had so many advantages in his favour like the bigger rings, gloves, 12 round limit and others. don't get me started on the donny lalonde fight. that was a farce.

there's no way that any knowledgable boxing fan could call ray a five weight world champion. he is a 3 weight champion at best. arguably a two weigh as the hagler fight was a bit of a farce

My top 5 for the last 30 years is:

Duran: Still great in 1977 - June 1980. put in a few of his best performances against de jesus, palomino and leonard. also got to be given great credit foir his performance against hagler

Chavez: Long unbeaten streak against high quality opposition and legit 3 weight world champion

Hagler: Long reigning middleweight champion who really made his bones before winning a title

Ray Leonard: Greatest talent of the last 30 years. beat 2 of the best boxers of the last 30 years during his short career in thomas hearns and wilfred benitez

Thomas Hearns: legitimate champion at 5 weights. Could of been higher if he had of got the rematches that he would of got if he had of come along 30 years before

[JohnThomas1]

what second fight? it was a farce the no mas fight. duran never turned up.

Last time i checked the fight i saw Duran, large as life getting outboxed and outsped. Must have been dreaming.

Or should i say the real SRL didn't turn up for the first one and some imposter hellbent on planting his feet and outfighting Duran as opposed to outboxing him did.

:hey

[Arminius]

I do not want to go over this again and again but...

The second Leonard - Duran fight was Duran's 73rd fight. After just 39 fights Leonard was outclassed by Terry Norris and stopped in his 40th. Tigeredge's points are right on the mark.

[TBooze]

I do not want to go over this again and again but...

The second Leonard - Duran fight was Duran's 73rd fight. After just 39 fights Leonard was outclassed by Terry Norris and stopped in his 40th. Tigeredge's points are right on the mark.

And 73 fights in Maxie Rosenbloom's manager suggested he stepped up to 6 rounders;), what has that got to do with the price of bread?

[Arminius]

And 73 fights in Maxie Rosenbloom's manager suggested he stepped up to 6 rounders;), what has that got to do with the price of bread?


Check the greats's records they almost always decline with the more fights they have.

[TBooze]

Check the greats's records they almost always decline with the more fights they have.

Yeah Robinson was never quite the same post Echevarria;)

[Arminius]

Joe Louis was finished after 71 fights.
Ali was finished after 61 fights.

Robnson and Chavez declined shortly after 73 fights.

[TBooze]

Joe Louis was finished after 71 fights.
Ali was finished after 61 fights.

Robnson and Chavez declined shortly after 73 fights.

Ali was in decline post Foley; Louis post SchmelingII...

It has little to do fights fought, normally it is age.

[TIGEREDGE]

Last time i checked the fight i saw Duran, large as life getting outboxed and outsped. Must have been dreaming.

Or should i say the real SRL didn't turn up for the first one and some imposter hellbent on planting his feet and outfighting Duran as opposed to outboxing him did.

:hey

sugar ray in the first fight, never had to lose the weight that duran had to lose. he was fully focused on beating duran in both fights. duran wasn't

sugar ray in the second fight was not really landing that many punches he was mostly clowning around. it would of been a 50-5o whatever way leonard fought. a boxer can only keep running for a certain amount of time

[mr. magoo]

I do not want to go over this again and again but...

The second Leonard - Duran fight was Duran's 73rd fight. After just 39 fights Leonard was outclassed by Terry Norris and stopped in his 40th. Tigeredge's points are right on the mark.

Duran was still only around 29 years old when he fought Leonard in the rematch. Leonard was like 34 when fought Norris and had only fought some 4 times in 7 years. He was 40 years old and hadn't been in the ring in 6 years when fought Camacho. How does Duran's situation compare to Leonard's?

[JohnThomas1]

sugar ray in the first fight, never had to lose the weight that duran had to lose. he was fully focused on beating duran in both fights. duran wasn't

sugar ray in the second fight was not really landing that many punches he was mostly clowning around. it would of been a 50-5o whatever way leonard fought. a boxer can only keep running for a certain amount of time

Bottom line, Leonard 2 Duran 1.

[redrooster]

Bottom line, Leonard 0 Norris 1.

Now we're on the same page :good

[TBooze]

Bottom line, Leonard 2 Duran 1.

Or boxing won 2-1, Leonard may of technically won the third bout, but it was just a statistical abnormaility, because no one; Leonard, Duran or the sport came out winners that night.;)

[redrooster]

Or boxing won 2-1, Leonard may of technically won the third bout, but it was just a statistical abnormaility, because no one; Leonard, Duran or the sport came out winners that night.;)

Uno mas? Well I'm sure Leonard still felt pretty good about himself--a feeling that lasted for 14 months.

[George W Hedge]

I dont class leonard as a 5 weight champion, I class him as a 4 weight champ as he never really fought at lt-hwt but he DID beat the lt-hwt champion & must be credited with at least 4 titles.

I have to agree & say that it is between duran & leonard for the best boxer in 30 yrs.

when you think a large chunk of duran`s best yrs where before 77 then you have to go with leonard.


Did I read somewhere on this thread red rooster say that norris would have beat leonard in a prime vs prime match
:yikes
He`s having you all on otherwise he should be in a mental hospital.

:good

[JohnThomas1]

Or boxing won 2-1, Leonard may of technically won the third bout, but it was just a statistical abnormaility, because no one; Leonard, Duran or the sport came out winners that night.;)

Is it a statistical abnormality that fighting between 135 and 140 doesn't constitute fighting at Junior Welterweight too?

:D

[redrooster]

I dont class leonard as a 5 weight champion, I class him as a 4 weight champ as he never really fought at lt-hwt but he DID beat the lt-hwt champion & must be credited with at least 4 titles.

I have to agree & say that it is between duran & leonard for the best boxer in 30 yrs.

when you think a large chunk of duran`s best yrs where before 77 then you have to go with leonard.


Did I read somewhere on this thread red rooster say that norris would have beat leonard in a prime vs prime match
:yikes
He`s having you all on otherwise he should be in a mental hospital.

:good

Put your money where your mouth is if you care to dispute it. Most people don't make it very far against me but once in a while one or two get past 2 or 3 days until things get tough. I recently destroyed John Thomas. Would you care to be next?

[brownpimp88]

Duran's resume within the last 30 years is not better than whitaker's resume. Hell pernell overall has the better resume between the two anyways.

[brownpimp88]

No, he doesn't, dumbass.
Explain how durans is better, whitaker beat more p4p fighters, he was more consistent and he had the better lightweight title reign.

[TBooze]

Is it a statistical abnormality that fighting between 135 and 140 doesn't constitute fighting at Junior Welterweight too?

:D

LOL, but that is a matter of fact in the circumstance, much like Steele's most important '0';)

[brownpimp88]

Not to mention won the big fights, most of them, while Duran didn't really other than Leonard. I have all 3 of them top 10, in whatever order, but I am starting to think Duran places last among them.
How many guys has duran beat that are better than buddy mcgirt, besides leonard of course. I think pernell's wins over 2 atgs like nelson and chavez will take away the leonard win anyways, cuz duran won that fight by like 1 fuckin point.

Every guy that Pernell fought during his title run was either a beltholder or a top contender. Duran fought quite a few bums during his reign as lightweight king.

[Bill Butcher]

whitaker & chavez are right up there with the very best aswell, they might be my 3rd & 4th picks (dont know what order) but I think srl & duran lead the pack & from a pure boxing standpoint, I got to go with sugar ray leonard.

I think a whitaker duran match at lwt would be amazing & if anyone could beat these guys at lwt it might be each other.
The reason i lean towards duran is that murderous power, pea had some defence but he would get hit by duran & he would feel those hits big time at 135.

same as pea vs srl at 147, great boxing chess match in the mold of srl benitez & I think it goes the same way, leonards power would be the decisive factor & he beats whitaker by close but not too debatable ud.

As I says before, the leonard of `no mas` was the best in 30 yrs.
the srl of the 1st hearns fight was also very good but I felt he lost a bit of speed in hands & feet after coming back down to 147 from 154 in the kalule fight.
Im a firm believer that if you move up in weight & you can handle the weight then dont go back down for any fight, let your rivals come up to face you.

Nobody beats the sugar ray leonard of `no mas` & that is as good a boxer as Ive seen in the last 30 yrs & his welterweight peak, he made a very good (tho not 100%) duran look ordinary.

Leonard was, is & will always be the master of his time to many many fans, phenomenal athlete & fighter.

sugar ray all the way.

[redrooster]

whitaker & chavez are right up there with the very best aswell, they might be my 3rd & 4th picks (dont know what order) but I think srl & duran lead the pack & from a pure boxing standpoint, I got to go with sugar ray leonard.

I think a whitaker duran match at lwt would be amazing & if anyone could beat these guys at lwt it might be each other.
The reason i lean towards duran is that murderous power, pea had some defence but he would get hit by duran & he would feel those hits big time at 135.

same as pea vs srl at 147, great boxing chess match in the mold of srl benitez & I think it goes the same way, leonards power would be the decisive factor & he beats whitaker by close but not too debatable ud.

As I says before, the leonard of `no mas` was the best in 30 yrs.
the srl of the 1st hearns fight was also very good but I felt he lost a bit of speed in hands & feet after coming back down to 147 from 154 in the kalule fight.
Im a firm believer that if you move up in weight & you can handle the weight then dont go back down for any fight, let your rivals come up to face you.

Nobody beats the sugar ray leonard of `no mas` & that is as good a boxer as Ive seen in the last 30 yrs & his welterweight peak, he made a very good (tho not 100%) duran look ordinary.

Leonard was, is & will always be the master of his time to many many fans, phenomenal athlete & fighter.

sugar ray all the way.


'oh god no it's the leonard of no mas'

He lost "a bit of speed" coming down from 154. that explains why he was outboxed for 12 rounds.
:lol:

[mr. magoo]

'oh god no it's the leonard of no mas'

He lost "a bit of speed" coming down from 154. that explains why he was outboxed for 12 rounds.
:lol:

Leonard was a super star and an all time great who was definately one of the best. Admit that rooster, like we all know that you want to, and let's put this thread to rest.

Relieve yourself of this sugary burden. you know you want to concede and be accepted. The first step to recovery is identifying the problem :good

[cuchulain]

Ive only ever heard of 1 person who thinks norris would beat leonard prime for prime & thats you rooster.

You think srl cant handle fast hard punches, what about hearns & duran, especially tommy.

Norris would probably admit himself that srl would hand him his ass in their primes... fuck, even HAGLER would say ray would win that 1
:lol:

The leonard of the 2nd duran fight was the best there has been in the last 30 yrs, just watch his constant foot movement & pin point punches, no-one in or around welterweight beats that leonard imo & I`d go all the way to 160 with that statement.

At 160, he loses (badly) to Jones.

[Robbi]

I think a whitaker duran match at lwt would be amazing & if anyone could beat these guys at lwt it might be each other.The reason i lean towards duran is that murderous power, pea had some defence but he would get hit by duran & he would feel those hits big time at 135.

Duran has a great stoppage record at lightweight, but he was not a murderous puncher. Well that depends on a persons viewpoint of exactly how effective a fighter needs to be with his power to be considered a "murderous puncher".

If you look at Duran's record at lightweight, around 80% of his stoppage wins came after 10 rounds. Lets not forget Duran was a very aggressive machine at lightweight, especially during the early-middle part of his reign.

He was hitting opponents often and it took him a while to beat Buchanan, which was a low blow at the end of the 13th round. His rematch against De Jesus was a round by round wear down contested during very high tempratures In Panama City. Duran finally caught up with Dejesus, nailing him with a two fisted barrage in the centre of the ring, round 11. Thats just two examples.

It would be extremely dumb to say Duran couldn't hit, because some of his stoppages were brutal. But his power was not effective when his opponents were fresh, physically and mentally. I'll compare two other fighters from different divisions who hit much harder than Duran. Hearns at welterweight, and Tyson at heavyweight.

Regarding Duran against Whitaker at lightweight. I would pick Whitaker. As good as Duran's defense was, he was not as defensively minded as Whitaker.

Whitaker's style was totally different to Duran's. Whitaker's probably one of the best balanced fighters in boxing history when it comes to offense and defense.

And ring generalship would be vital attribute in terms of Whitaker pulling out a decision. When any tough moments arose, Whitaker had the ability to adjust, thus make things easier for himself and get back on top.

Duran's intelligence cannot be questioned either. Duran was a very efficient hunter, and knew how to cut off the ring. He would pressure Whitaker better than anyone else ever done, Nelson and Chavez included. But Whitaker was extremely good at fighting on the backfoot. His spearing jabs while backing up would rack up points.

I go round in circles in my mind about how this fight would pan out. And it keeps coming back to Whitaker being able to hit Duran more than the otherway around. Whitaker has the intelligence and skill to offset Duran's aggression. For Duran to win this fight, he would need to KO Whitaker, and that means wearing Whitaker down over the course of the fight, and I'm afriad he wouldn't be able to hit Whitaker regularly enough to get the stoppage.

Whitaker by 3-4 points.

[redrooster]

Leonard was a super star and an all time great who was definately one of the best. Admit that rooster, like we all know that you want to, and let's put this thread to rest.

Relieve yourself of this sugary burden. you know you want to concede and be accepted. The first step to recovery is identifying the problem :good

you have to admit he looks plain fooish the way he exalts leonard off the performance in New Orleans. He acts like Ray destroyed Duran physically. Personally, I thought he did most of the harm with his showboating and taunting than with his fists. How does that make Leonard great?? This man is clearly not thinking straight.

Thomas Hearns at his peak trounced Roberto. leonard never did.

And these excuses of his dropping down from his brief stint at 154 slowing him down is one of the most absured statements you'd expect from a nuthugger.

You can say he's got skills, that he was a top fighter, etc. but if anyone deserves to be best of the last 30 years it's Norris and even I wouldn't rank him that highly. My choice would be Roy Jones as Cuchulain hinted at.

[mr. magoo]

you have to admit he looks plain fooish the way he exalts leonard off the performance in New Orleans. He acts like Ray destroyed Duran physically. Personally, I thought he did most of the harm with his showboating and taunting than with his fists. How does that make Leonard great?? This man is clearly not thinking straight.

Thomas Hearns at his peak trounced Roberto. leonard never did.

And these excuses of his dropping down from his brief stint at 154 slowing him down is one of the most absured statements you'd expect from a nuthugger.

You can say he's got skills, that he was a top fighter, etc. but if anyone deserves to be best of the last 30 years it's Norris and even I wouldn't rank him that highly. My choice would be Roy Jones as Cuchulain hinted at.

Roy Jones is a reasonable pick, but definately not Terry Norris. A peak prime Leonard would KTFO of Terry Norris.

[redrooster]

Roy Jones is a reasonable pick, but definately not Terry Norris. A peak prime Leonard would KTFO of Terry Norris.

Now all you have to do is prove it.

you can't. the only thing we have to compare the two is the actual contest and in case you hadn't noticed, Norris didn't exactly "just scrape by" in the manner that Ray was known for.

"Peak prime Leonard" :lol:

[brownpimp88]

Now all you have to do is prove it.

you can't. the only thing we have to compare the two is the actual contest and in case you hadn't noticed, Norris didn't exactly "just scrape by" in the manner that Ray was known for.

"Peak prime Leonard" :lol:
Simon Brown did blast norris and he's a natural welterweight. This was a peak norris too.

[sweet_scientist]

Simon Brown did blast norris and he's a natural welterweight. This was a peak norris too.

And a past peak Brown.

[brownpimp88]

And a past peak Brown.
Speaking of simon brown, shouldnt he be in the HOF. The man was a former linear champ and he beat norris at 154. He therefore accomplished more than carlos palomino.

[redrooster]

How come no one ever mentions the Norris-Brown rematch as if it didn't matter? I think people begrudge Norris because of how good he was.

[sweet_scientist]

Speaking of simon brown, shouldnt he be in the HOF. The man was a former linear champ and he beat norris at 154. He therefore accomplished more than carlos palomino.

I think guys like Brown and Palomino are the type (calibre) of fighters who shouldn't be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Sure they were excellent fighters of their time, but if you include them, you have to induct a good 100 more fighters that are not inducted that achieved as much as they did.

[redrooster]

Simon Brown did blast norris and he's a natural welterweight. This was a peak norris too.


You're right Pimp. Lets not forget how easily Norris defeated him in the rematch. He was well prepared and whipped Brown as easily as he did Leonard, Mugabi, Leonard, and Taylor.

[redrooster]

palomino is definitely not hof material. he's known more for his beer commercials than he is for anything he did in the ring. He's actually known more for his two losses than he is for any of his wins. Most people don't even know who he won the title from.

[brownpimp88]

palomino is definitely not hof material. he's known more for his beer commercials than he is for anything he did in the ring. He's actually known more for his two losses than he is for any of his wins. Most people don't even know who he won the title from. LOL, sad but true.
Terry Norris has a great resume but how can you explain his loss to keith mullings?

[mr. magoo]

You're right Pimp. Lets not forget how easily Norris defeated him in the rematch. He was well prepared and whipped Brown as easily as he did Leonard, Mugabi, Leonard, and Taylor.

Norris didn't do dick to Brown by comparison to what Simon did to him the first time. Brown Sadamized Norris the way he should have been, for wrongfully impersonating a great fighter.

[mr. magoo]

Now all you have to do is prove it.

you can't. the only thing we have to compare the two is the actual contest and in case you hadn't noticed, Norris didn't exactly "just scrape by" in the manner that Ray was known for.

"Peak prime Leonard" :lol:

Agreed,

and it was rather impressive to see what Keith Mullings, Dana Rosenblatt and laurant boudouani did to a prime Norris. And just think, Norris was only between 30-31 years old ( 3 to 4 years younger than Leonard) when he had those spectacular losses to those all time great fighters. Hell, Norris only lost 9 times in his career with only a mere 4 of them coming by way of knockout. That's really not that many when you think about it. Who in the hell could possibly call Ray Leonard a better fighter and keep a straight face?

[redrooster]

Norris didn't do dick to Brown by comparison to what Simon did to him the first time. Brown Sadamized Norris the way he should have been, for wrongfully impersonating a great fighter.

I'm sure you didn't notice how Terry took him no sweat in the rematch

[redrooster]

Agreed,

and it was rather impressive to see what Keith Mullings, Dana Rosenblatt and laurant boudouani did to a prime Norris. And just think, Norris was only between 30-31 years old ( 3 to 4 years younger than Leonard) when he had those spectacular losses to those all time great fighters. Hell, Norris only lost 9 times in his career with only a mere 4 of them coming by way of knockout. That's really not that many when you think about it. Who in the hell could possibly call Ray Leonard a better fighter and keep a straight face?


hard to keep a straight face telling me how leonard would ktfo terry considering the actual outcome and leonard's lack of a real career. when you got nothing to work with just keep bringing up the 'age' excuse and hope everyone else is dumb enough to buy into it while forgetting his effortless win over Duran prompting Farhood to write "can sugar ray actually lose"?

looked unbeatable to me.

[young griffo]

hard to keep a straight face telling me how leonard would ktfo terry considering the actual outcome and leonard's lack of a real career. when you got nothing to work with just keep bringing up the 'age' excuse and hope everyone else is dumb enough to buy into it while forgetting his effortless win over Duran prompting Farhood to write "can sugar ray actually lose"?

looked unbeatable to me.
I just rewatched Norris-Leonard and the Norris victory is tainted for mine.

In the second round Norris floored Ray (he was a bit off balance imo) and then deliberately followed up by hitting him with a big right hand whilst Leonard was still down.

If you recall Roy Jones Jnr got DQ'd for doing something similar to Montell Griffin and if Mills Lane had any competence he would have done likewise to Norris.After all Norris as good as he was had a history of fouling,as his 3DQ losses attests to.

As it was Leonard looked as if he fought in a daze after this moment and Norris dominated him from here on.That one deliberate cheap shot cost Ray any chance of victory so I don't give Norris too much credit for this win.

[mr. magoo]

hard to keep a straight face telling me how leonard would ktfo terry considering the actual outcome and leonard's lack of a real career. when you got nothing to work with just keep bringing up the 'age' excuse and hope everyone else is dumb enough to buy into it while forgetting his effortless win over Duran prompting Farhood to write "can sugar ray actually lose"?

looked unbeatable to me.

Indeed,

and the knockdowns from Hearns and Lalonde were just a pure demonstatrion of how awesome Ray still was in that he was able to get back up from them and be competitive. Plus, look at all the rest he had after only fighting some 5 times in like 8 years. If you ask me Norris was at a total disadvantage. They should have allowed him to use Brass knuckles. I also think that the torn retina injury from the Bruce Finch fight may have improved Leonard's hand eye coordination. Not to mention Ray at 34 was just getting his stride. Hell, look at how great Norris looked at age 31 against guys like Dana Rosenblatt. I'd hate to think of what that version of Terry would have done to even a peak Leonard at 34.

[George W Hedge]

Indeed,

and the knockdowns from Hearns and Lalonde were just a pure demonstatrion of how awesome Ray still was in that he was able to get back up from them and be competitive. Plus, look at all the rest he had after only fighting some 5 times in like 8 years. If you ask me Norris was at a total disadvantage. They should have allowed him to use Brass knuckles. I also think that the torn retina injury from the Bruce Finch fight may have improved Leonard's hand eye coordination. Not to mention Ray at 34 was just getting his stride. Hell, look at how great Norris looked at age 31 against guys like Dana Rosenblatt. I'd hate to think of what that version of Terry would have done to even a peak Leonard at 34.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Absolute fuckin class.

Thats the best way to deal with that dick rooster.

Leonard would have pissed & farted all over norris in primes & this moron knows this.

:good

[Robbi]

Leonard would have KO'd Norris inside 8 rounds.

[mcvey]

George W Hedge is a faggot. Norris would always beat Gay Leonard.
You and Rooster must be a double act.

[redrooster]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Absolute fuckin class.

Thats the best way to deal with that dick rooster.

Leonard would have pissed & farted all over norris in primes & this moron knows this.

:good

Norris pissed and farted all over leonard and bitch slapped him all at the same time. it's a fact now get over it.

[Robbi]

Norris pissed and farted all over leonard and bitch slapped him all at the same time. it's a fact now get over it.

We are all over it. But the Leonard of 10 years earlier was a better fighter, and also wasn't weight drained.

Leonard would have owned Norris.

[redrooster]

We are all over it. But the Leonard of 10 years earlier was a better fighter, and also wasn't weight drained.

Leonard would have owned Norris.

I seriously doubt that Robbi and what's more, that bit about Leonard's weight is an more than just exagerration but I don't want to aire it here. By the way, what proof is there that he was weight drained?

You were right when you said Leonard wanted a fight at 156 I'll grant you that because it's fact, but this time you have no proof Leonard was weight drained. That fight was made/signed well ahead of it's date and Ray was probably (most likely) in fighting shape and close to the weight he could make comfortably.

It's even more difficult to believe when you realize who made the fight-leonard himself. No one gets to fight leonard unless he makes it.

Ray Leonard is like some girls I used to know: he doesn't like to be chased-he likes to do the chasing so why would he press for a fight he didn't think he could make the weight comfortably? And besides that, his aim has always been to get the other guy to bring his weight down.