Best pure boxer of the last 40 years

[redrooster]

Many people mistakenly believe it to be Sugar Ray Leonard. Some believe it to be Pernell Whitaker or Floyd Jr. I have repeatedly viewed these great fighters over and over in recent days and have concluded what I've known all along in my gut-that the best pure boxer of our lifetime was Hector Camacho.

I don't believe any of the aforementioned fighters could have competed with Hector because they too were boxers by definition, backtrackers if you will. It would take a great attacker with a strong stomach and crushing power such as Roberto Duran to decisively beat him. Other than Duran, there was no boxer who could cope with the blinding speed.

How would they compete? It wouldn't be a fair fight because of his umatched hand and footspeed. Pernell found this out in their sparring session when he was rescued by his own cornermen.

Floyd jr if he'd fought in Hector's time would become just another anonymity like Greg Coverson. Pernell would pose more of a problem being a fewllow southpaw but even he would be clueless as how to deal with a man who could instantaneously score and then get out of range-it was like trying to fight a ghost. THis is what made Camacho so great and dominant in his time. He is definitely going up higher on my p4p list which is coming soon.

[JohnThomas1]

Yet again i will ask for all to see

What are Camacho's 5 best wins?!?!??!?!?!

Lets get down and sort this out.

[redrooster]

Well that's strictly a matter of personal opinion John. SInce he ruled the entire decade of the 1980's anything is fair game. Hector was the fastest gun in the world. Who could have competed with him?

[JohnThomas1]

Well that's strictly a matter of personal opinion John. SInce he ruled the entire decade of the 1980's anything is fair game. Hector was the fastest gun in the world. Who could have competed with him?

Scared of the question, Rooster?

Lets go again, what are your choices for Macho's top 5 wins ever? If there's so many it really can't be hard to rattle off a measley 5.

[Sweet Pea]

Well that's strictly a matter of personal opinion John. SInce he ruled the entire decade of the 1980's anything is fair game. Hector was the fastest gun in the world. Who could have competed with him?Rosario.

[Minotauro]

Wilfred Benitez
Thomas Hearns

[Robbi]

Pernell Whitaker and Larry Holmes. The best pure boxer over the last 40 years must have a mighty fine jab that he uses often.

[Robbi]

Yet again i will ask for all to see

What are Camacho's 5 best wins?!?!??!?!?!

Lets get down and sort this out.

Hector Camacho :patsch

[SuzieQ49]

Sugar Ray Leonard

[pryorgatti]

Pernell Whitaker
Sugar Ray Leonard

[MagnificentMatt]

Pernell Whitaker and Larry Holmes. The best pure boxer over the last 40 years must have a mighty fine jab that he uses often.

Cosign.

[Joe E]

Carlos Ortiz,Jose Napoles,Ray Leonard and Hector Camacho in a stylish way come to mind immediately.

[redrooster]

Sugar Ray Leonard

:lol: That joke of a fighter who couldnt hold his own against a 3-1 underdog? Surely you jest!

Moron

[redrooster]

I think Edward James Olmos said it best when he compared Hector Camacho with the artist Rembrandt:

"Rembrandt must have painted the way Hector Camacho fought. The strokes of the master's brush were probably like slow motion versions of the movements of Hector Camacho's hands during a fight. Watching Camacho fight is like enjoying the subtleties of a great renaissance masterpiece; there's rich color and detail in his performance, his jabs are straight and accurate, his body punches are delivered with care. his left crosses and right hooks are issued with awesome potency".

he would go on to say:

"Fighting Hector Camacho was much more rigorous than your average champion because the opponent always knew that Hector was fighting for God and Country".

I couldnt have said it better myself.

[sweet_scientist]

Yet again i will ask for all to see

What are Camacho's 5 best wins?!?!??!?!?!

Lets get down and sort this out.

I'll give his top ten a crack. This is based on the opponent's level at the time Hector fought them more than how Hector performed in the fight.

1. Jose Luis Ramirez
2. Edwin Rosario
3. Greg Haugen
4. Cornelius Boza Edwards
5. Vinny Pazienza
6. Howard Davis Jr.
7. Ray Mancini
8 Tony Baltazar
9. Rafael Limon
10. I'm stuck for a number 10... perhaps a Rafael Williams, Greg Richardson, Rafael Solis, Freddie Roach type.

That's a pretty good resume on paper, but on a closer analysis it starts to look rather shaky.

Limon was totally shot, and the likes of Ray Mancini, Howard Davis and Cornelius Boza Edwards were all past their best days. Mancini (and Boza to a lesser extent) still pushed Camacho fairly close. Amongst the rest, you have fighters like Haugen and Rosario who both went close and arguably beat Camacho.

I think his best win, considering the dominance involved, was the Jose Luis Ramirez win. Ramirez was tailor made for Hector, but still it was a very impressive display.

[redrooster]

^interesting how much one knows for someone who wasnt around :D

[sweet_scientist]

^interesting how much one knows for someone who wasnt around :D

Yeah, I also go out on a limb and believe the world didn't start the day I was born. The audacity of me! :lol:

[redrooster]

Yeah, I also go out on a limb and believe the world didn't start the day I was born. The audacity of me! :lol:


I apoligize Scientist. I got you confused with Sweet Pea.

[sweet_scientist]

I apoligize Scientist. I got you confused with Sweet Pea.

Me and Pea are pretty much in the same boat though. We weren't following the sport during Hector's halcyon days like you were. So in one sense we can't know what you know.

But I have seen Hector's fights with Ramirez, Rosario, Haugen, Boza, Mancini, Pazienza, Baltazar, Limon, Davis Jr and Solis together with many fights in his declining years (Chavez, Tito, DLH, Leonard, Duran etc.), and I have seen quite a bit of his opponents too, so I have a fairly accurate picture of the trajectory of the game at the time and where Hector and his opponents stood on the world stage.

I'd be happy to hear any feedback from you regarding my description in the post above, but I think it's rather accurate.

I know you have seen his fights with Coverson and Loy, and perhaps Hector looked great there, but both Coverson and Loy hadn't been tested with anything but cans at the time they faced Hector so I don't see much reason in placing a lot of store on their records at the time Hector whipped them. Unless you wish to claim that they were excellent fighters when Hector dismantled them, and only declined subsequently. I couldn't argue against you if you held that belief, not having seen them.

[GazOC]

Whittaker and Leonard are the two best I have seen since the early 80s and that includes Camacho (who I do really rate at 130-135). I'd give an arm to see Camacho vs. Whittaker both at their primes at 135...

[redrooster]

Whittaker and Leonard are the two best I have seen since the early 80s and that includes Camacho (who I do really rate at 130-135). I'd give an arm to see Camacho vs. Whittaker both at their primes at 135...

Amen to that brother. My top three boxers are Camacho, Jones Jr who fit the mold of a true Sugar Ray, and El Terrible Terry Norris.

[GazOC]

I know you like Norris.....;)

[redrooster]

Terry Norris is the shit.

[Sweet Pea]

^interesting how much one knows for someone who wasnt around :DWhy? You act as if someone is unable to do reasearch.

[salsanchezfan]

I think Edward James Olmos said it best when he compared Hector Camacho with the artist Rembrandt:

"Rembrandt must have painted the way Hector Camacho fought. The strokes of the master's brush were probably like slow motion versions of the movements of Hector Camacho's hands during a fight. Watching Camacho fight is like enjoying the subtleties of a great renaissance masterpiece; there's rich color and detail in his performance, his jabs are straight and accurate, his body punches are delivered with care. his left crosses and right hooks are issued with awesome potency".

he would go on to say:

"Fighting Hector Camacho was much more rigorous than your average champion because the opponent always knew that Hector was fighting for God and Country".

I couldnt have said it better myself.


...........Cut the bullshit. That quote was written in KO magazine in 1981 in reference to Arguello in the article they wrote following his KO of Mancini and you know it. :roll:

[Sweet Pea]

...........Cut the bullshit. That quote was written in KO magazine in 1981 in reference to Arguello in the article they wrote following his KO of Mancini and you know it. :roll::lol: I remember that as well. Goddamn Redroostwer is such a lying fool. Not only is he a bullshitter, but a delusional one as well.

[mcvey]

Many people mistakenly believe it to be Sugar Ray Leonard. Some believe it to be Pernell Whitaker or Floyd Jr. I have repeatedly viewed these great fighters over and over in recent days and have concluded what I've known all along in my gut-that the best pure boxer of our lifetime was Hector Camacho.

I don't believe any of the aforementioned fighters could have competed with Hector because they too were boxers by definition, backtrackers if you will. It would take a great attacker with a strong stomach and crushing power such as Roberto Duran to decisively beat him. Other than Duran, there was no boxer who could cope with the blinding speed.

How would they compete? It wouldn't be a fair fight because of his umatched hand and footspeed. Pernell found this out in their sparring session when he was rescued by his own cornermen.

Floyd jr if he'd fought in Hector's time would become just another anonymity like Greg Coverson. Pernell would pose more of a problem being a fewllow southpaw but even he would be clueless as how to deal with a man who could instantaneously score and then get out of range-it was like trying to fight a ghost. THis is what made Camacho so great and dominant in his time. He is definitely going up higher on my p4p list which is coming soon.
Ill go for Whitaker ,he is a throw back to Pep and Driscoll ,maybe not exiciting but technically very sound a defensive master,"defence allways wins in the end if its good enough" Jack Johnson.

[JohnThomas1]

I'll give his top ten a crack. This is based on the opponent's level at the time Hector fought them more than how Hector performed in the fight.

1. Jose Luis Ramirez
2. Edwin Rosario
3. Greg Haugen
4. Cornelius Boza Edwards
5. Vinny Pazienza
6. Howard Davis Jr.
7. Ray Mancini
8 Tony Baltazar
9. Rafael Limon
10. I'm stuck for a number 10... perhaps a Rafael Williams, Greg Richardson, Rafael Solis, Freddie Roach type.

That's a pretty good resume on paper, but on a closer analysis it starts to look rather shaky.

Limon was totally shot, and the likes of Ray Mancini, Howard Davis and Cornelius Boza Edwards were all past their best days. Mancini (and Boza to a lesser extent) still pushed Camacho fairly close. Amongst the rest, you have fighters like Haugen and Rosario who both went close and arguably beat Camacho.

I think his best win, considering the dominance involved, was the Jose Luis Ramirez win. Ramirez was tailor made for Hector, but still it was a very impressive display.

Nice post SS, quite well balanced. I know you're a fan, and his potential was big, but at the end of the day his best wins are mostly quite ordinary when looked at closely. I agree his best performance ever was vs Ramirez, but Whitaker also did much of the same. Whitakers not bad tho :D

[JohnThomas1]

...........Cut the bullshit. That quote was written in KO magazine in 1981 in reference to Arguello in the article they wrote following his KO of Mancini and you know it. :roll:

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Talk about being caught out in the henhouse :lol:

That's just plain embarrassing Rooster lmao

[sweet_scientist]

Nice post SS, quite well balanced. I know you're a fan, and his potential was big, but at the end of the day his best wins are mostly quite ordinary when looked at closely. I agree his best performance ever was vs Ramirez, but Whitaker also did much of the same. Whitakers not bad tho :D

Yeah Pea had his moments. :D

Red seems to rate fighters more on potential or how good he thinks they were at their peak more than looking at what they accomplished, and when doing so, it isn't totally insane to say that Camacho was one of the best pure boxers in the last 40 odd years.

Now if accomplishments come into the picture, it isn't even arguable, Camacho is no where near the pinnacle of pure boxers in the last 40 years.

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah Pea had his moments. :D

Red seems to rate fighters more on potential or how good he thinks they were at their peak more than looking at what they accomplished, and when doing so, it isn't totally insane to say that Camacho was one of the best pure boxers in the last 40 odd years.

Now if accomplishments come into the picture, it isn't even arguable, Camacho is no where near the pinnacle of pure boxers in the last 40 years.

I remember when Camacho came on the scene, had a book with about 20 expert opinons on him. One said he was a cross between Wille Pep and some other notable :lol:

But yes, pre Rosario he looked incredible at times, so much speed and smoothness. Another of the endless who didn't quite reach the heights we hoped. As for Red's ratings, well he just goes berko over the 80's middleweights that most don't even know of now. Quite amusing tho. Davidson, Animarl, Green, Lee, the list goes on and on.

[redrooster]

Yeah Pea had his moments. :D

Red seems to rate fighters more on potential or how good he thinks they were at their peak more than looking at what they accomplished, and when doing so, it isn't totally insane to say that Camacho was one of the best pure boxers in the last 40 odd years.

Now if accomplishments come into the picture, it isn't even arguable, Camacho is no where near the pinnacle of pure boxers in the last 40 years.

What seems to be in your opinion is actually correct. Remember, this thread is about the best pure boxer and for most observers here it may be beyond the scope of their physical senses to perceive. I could tell for the most part how one fighter could do against another and even by the margin by which he could win. Muhammud Ali also had this ability and early in his career would call the round his opponent would go down (he was amazingly accurate)

In the end, Camacho really was the best. Putting another boxer in the ring with him the odds are 100% that Hector would win every time. Everything would be in his favor-the fact that he was a southpaw, his chin, his ability to get in a score more quickly than his opponent. With his speed, the other boxers would totally be baffled as was Howard Davis, the olympic gold medalist. Howard always made it close.

I thought he actually beat Rosario. Howard outboxed and outscored Rosario but no one likes to talk about it because it puts Howard and Hector Camacho in a much better light. The way I look at it, one punch at the end of the fight cannot make up for 9 of the previous lost rounds.

Howard also proved the experts wrong when he held another speedster, Meldrick Taylor, yet another gold medalist, to a draw. So one cannot simply say Howard was grade B opponent or past his prime. Since this was the case that makes Hector Camacho's win over Davis that much more impressive. Howard couldnt lay a glove on Hector who was still the fastest, most elusive boxer alive. Howard must have felt as though he were dealing with two different opponents at the same time. This is why neither Greg Haugen nor Julio Chavez would dare to enter the ring and risk thieeir careers with against this unbeatable opponent. Hector was clearly the best p4p fighter of 1987.

Head to head, Camacho beats them all and that makes him to this day the best pure boxer of the last 40 years and counting.

[redrooster]

...........Cut the bullshit. That quote was written in KO magazine in 1981 in reference to Arguello in the article they wrote following his KO of Mancini and you know it. :roll:

message to Sweet Pea: here's a guy who knows his #*%. Had you been around like SalSanchezfan and me you would have caught on to this.

[redrooster]

:lol: I remember that as well. Goddamn Redroostwer is such a lying fool. Not only is he a bullshitter, but a delusional one as well.

But you weren't the one who brought it up. Stop pretending you bullshitter. :D

[sweet_scientist]

I remember when Camacho came on the scene, had a book with about 20 expert opinons on him. One said he was a cross between Wille Pep and some other notable :lol:

But yes, pre Rosario he looked incredible at times, so much speed and smoothness. Another of the endless who didn't quite reach the heights we hoped. As for Red's ratings, well he just goes berko over the 80's middleweights that most don't even know of now. Quite amusing tho. Davidson, Animarl, Green, Lee, the list goes on and on.

Unfortunately I haven't seen the likes of Hard Rock Green and Frank the Animal Fletcher to know just how absurd his praise of them is. :D Certainly sounds like funny stuff tho.

As for Hector, yeah he fell short of hefty expectations. Fighters like Willie Pep and that other notable ;) only come around very rarely.

[JohnThomas1]

Unfortunately I haven't seen the likes of Hard Rock Green and Frank the Animal Fletcher to know just how absurd his praise of them is. :D Certainly sounds like funny stuff tho.


Just look at their measely records :lol:

I have a couple of pictures of Animarl, he's lying prone, utterly facefirst with blood stains on the canvas all around him against Roldan and you can see Bo Derek at ringside, hands up to her face and a look of absolute horror that's better than any she ever put on in her movies. Totally priceless picture and moment in time.

[JohnThomas1]

In the end, Camacho really was the best. Putting another boxer in the ring with him the odds are 100% that Hector would win every time.

:lol:

Howard also proved the experts wrong when he held another speedster, Meldrick Taylor, yet another gold medalist, to a draw. So one cannot simply say Howard was grade B opponent or past his prime.

Why don't you tell the good folk of ESB how many fights Taylor had behind him when going into the Davis fight?

You could also tell them he was beaten and dropped twice by the most ordinary Joe Manley the year before. How come Macho couldn't drop him given his dominance? Feather fists?

This is why neither Greg Haugen nor Julio Chavez would dare to enter the ring and risk thieeir careers with against this unbeatable opponent.

Yes, he really showed them what havoc he could cause when losing to both :lol:

[redrooster]

^ Camacho without speed is like Ali without speed and they become perpetual losers. In his prime the difference Hector's speed would be too much for any of them.

[JohnThomas1]

^ Camacho without speed is like Ali without speed and they become perpetual losers. In his prime the difference Hector's speed would be too much for any of them.

Ali kept winning thru sheer heart, will, durability and determination, the very things that stopped Camacho becoming and ATG.

[Titan1]

What seems to be in your opinion is actually correct. Remember, this thread is about the best pure boxer and for most observers here it may be beyond the scope of their physical senses to perceive. I could tell for the most part how one fighter could do against another and even by the margin by which he could win. Muhammud Ali also had this ability and early in his career would call the round his opponent would go down (he was amazingly accurate)

In the end, Camacho really was the best. Putting another boxer in the ring with him the odds are 100% that Hector would win every time. Everything would be in his favor-the fact that he was a southpaw, his chin, his ability to get in a score more quickly than his opponent. With his speed, the other boxers would totally be baffled as was Howard Davis, the olympic gold medalist. Howard always made it close.

I thought he actually beat Rosario. Howard outboxed and outscored Rosario but no one likes to talk about it because it puts Howard and Hector Camacho in a much better light. The way I look at it, one punch at the end of the fight cannot make up for 9 of the previous lost rounds.

Howard also proved the experts wrong when he held another speedster, Meldrick Taylor, yet another gold medalist, to a draw. So one cannot simply say Howard was grade B opponent or past his prime. Since this was the case that makes Hector Camacho's win over Davis that much more impressive. Howard couldnt lay a glove on Hector who was still the fastest, most elusive boxer alive. Howard must have felt as though he were dealing with two different opponents at the same time. This is why neither Greg Haugen nor Julio Chavez would dare to enter the ring and risk thieeir careers with against this unbeatable opponent. Hector was clearly the best p4p fighter of 1987.

Head to head, Camacho beats them all and that makes him to this day the best pure boxer of the last 40 years and counting.

Didn't Howard have the flu for the Camacho fight?

[Minotauro]

Leonard was a great boxer but he was getting out boxed by Hearns who had it all speed, jab, accuracy could fight forward and backwards he is my choice for the best pure boxer in the last 40 years.

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard was a great boxer but he was getting out boxed by Hearns who had it all speed, jab, accuracy could fight forward and backwards he is my choice for the best pure boxer in the last 40 years.

And he also outboxed another pure boxer in Benitez.

Tommy is my absolute fave but let me cast this aside for a minute.

I think "most effective boxer" fits Tommy more than "pure". A SRL moved (especially laterally) and boxed more fluidly even if Tommy did outbox him. Napoled i would call "pure". SRL too. Tommy could be ungainly at times much like a young colt. The way a Leonard outboxed a Hagler against the odds had to be seen to be believed. It's of course a credit to Hearns he could outbox such a smooth resourceful foe with his own skillset and nuances.

Tommy - "Most effective"

Leonard, Napoles etc most "pure".

[salsanchezfan]

...............Merely offhand, I'd say Napoles. As I mentioned in a post in some other thread, his style demanded more skill than many boxers, because he was that rarest of birds; an aggressive counterpuncher. By definition then, he had to be right there in your wheelhouse and still look polished. Being always in harm's way and still looking untouchable as he did most of the time demands something extra. He was as polished a fighter as I've ever seen.

[Robbi]

Camacho was head and shoulders above them all. Leonard, Hearns and Napoles aint in the same league as him.

Nobody was as "pure" as Camacho. Perhaps among the best ever, including Robinson.

[salsanchezfan]

Camacho was head and shoulders above them all. Leonard, Hearns and Napoles aint in the same league as him.

Nobody was as "pure" as Camacho. Perhaps among the best ever, including Robinson.



........:blood

[MrSmall]

Leonard was the first to come to mind.
Sweet pea second.
Hearns?

[JAB5239]

Alexis Arguello and Eder Jofre come to mind.

[redrooster]

Leonard was the first to come to mind.
Sweet pea second.
Hearns?

Leonard is the last person to come to mind. Hector could give up more than 10 pounds to prime leonard and still give him a humiliating boxing lesson. :smoke

[redrooster]

Ali kept winning thru sheer heart, will, durability and determination, the very things that stopped Camacho becoming and ATG.

Ali wasnt winning at all. He was getting gift decisions at this point because the sport couldnt do without him. You're a dumbass piece of shit

[redrooster]

I remember when Camacho came on the scene, had a book with about 20 expert opinons on him. One said he was a cross between Wille Pep and some other notable :lol:

But yes, pre Rosario he looked incredible at times, so much speed and smoothness. Another of the endless who didn't quite reach the heights we hoped. As for Red's ratings, well he just goes berko over the 80's middleweights that most don't even know of now. Quite amusing tho. Davidson, Animarl, Green, Lee, the list goes on and on.

Its not Davidson you moron, it's Davison-something you wouldnt know about since you've never seen him either. :lol:

[redrooster]

Didn't Howard have the flu for the Camacho fight?

No, an after fight excuse.

[JohnThomas1]

Ali wasnt winning at all. He was getting gift decisions at this point because the sport couldnt do without him. You're a dumbass piece of shit

Mate, last time i looked there were big "W"s on his record

:lol:

[redrooster]

And he also outboxed another pure boxer in Benitez.

Tommy is my absolute fave but let me cast this aside for a minute.

I think "most effective boxer" fits Tommy more than "pure". A SRL moved (especially laterally) and boxed more fluidly even if Tommy did outbox him. Napoled i would call "pure". SRL too. Tommy could be ungainly at times much like a young colt. The way a Leonard outboxed a Hagler against the odds had to be seen to be believed. It's of course a credit to Hearns he could outbox such a smooth resourceful foe with his own skillset and nuances.

Tommy - "Most effective"

Leonard, Napoles etc most "pure".

you got that backwards. Leonard only managed a controversial split over Hagler and only won three rounds clearly while Norris won every round against a terrified Sugar ray Leonard. It was only when Norris slowed down in round four that Ray could even get an even round. Terefore, it's Terry Norris beating the the odds that you you should be raving about.

Sugar Ray is by no means a great boxer the way he lost all those rounds to Tommy. It was a very poor performance and wound up getting scolded by his own trainer between rounds. i personally thought he needed more boxing lessons. Leonard being the poor tactician that he was had no choice but to wait for Tommy's endurance shortage to kick in before he could take advantage. Norris had no such weakness.

[redrooster]

Mate, last time i looked there were big "W"s on his record

:lol:

And of course you believe everything you read and that there are no bad decisions.

[JohnThomas1]

Its not Davidson you moron, it's Davison-something you wouldnt know about since you've never seen him either. :lol:

I know him alright, long streaky lazy ass most of the time. Big right hand power and no meaness and drive to take advantage of it. Looked like he was sleepwalking in there at times. I kept hoping they might prick him with a pin against your old pal Sibbo.

Good trick there yesty too, taking Arguello's poetry and inserting Camacho's name :rofl

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the embarrassment :oops:

[JohnThomas1]

you got that backwards. Leonard only managed a controversial split over Hagler and only won three rounds clearly while Norris won every round against a terrified Sugar ray Leonard. It was only when Norris slowed down in round four that Ray could even get an even round. Terefore, it's Terry Norris beating the the odds that you you should be raving about.


But said about Camacho yesty, once his speed was gone that was it. How come Leonard don't get the same leeway? At least he kept his speed a lot longer than Camacho :lol:

Camacho washed up at 29 after never taking a hiding :nut

And here you scold Leonard at 35 years of age :nut

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard being the poor tactician that he was had no choice but to wait for Tommy's endurance shortage to kick in before he could take advantage. Norris had no such weakness.

I think you just contradicted yourself, again

:lol:

Nice poetry yesty too mate :rofl

[redrooster]

because Leonard didnt lose his speed how many times you got to watch uno mas before it gets thru your thick skull. he was on his toes for 12 rounds the way he always does-can you honestly blame me for pointing it out? Just because you cant accept the truth is no reason to lie to deny it. Hector also didnt have the luxury of picking his fights the way Ray did, who could fight him and when like a coward. Leonard was a coward who wasnt afraid to face anyone who fought like an old man. Hector would fight anyone anywhere.


And here you praise Leonard just for being awarded a controversial split decision. Low standards huh?

[redrooster]

I think you just contradicted yourself, again

:lol:

Nice poetry yesty too mate :rofl

Really, where?

[JohnThomas1]

because Leonard didnt lose his speed how many times you got to watch uno mas before it gets thru your thick skull. he was on his toes for 12 rounds the way he always does-can you honestly blame me for pointing it out? Just because you cant accept the truth is no reason to lie to deny it.

How old was his opponent again?

:good

Hector also didnt have the luxury of picking his fights the way Ray did, who could fight him and when like a coward.

Can't recall Camacho fighting any scary opponents. Leonard on the other hand........:good

And here you praise Leonard just for being awarded a controversial split decision. Low standards huh?

I had him the definite winner, as did the majority of the world press

:good

[JohnThomas1]

Really, where?

I'm sure others will "get it"

:yep

[Robbi]

Leonard being the poor tactician that he was had no choice but to wait for Tommy's endurance shortage to kick in before he could take advantage. Norris had no such weakness.

Leonard was among the best tacticians the sport has ever seen. His tactics were poor during the first Duran fight, but he sure sorted that out in the rematch. He lost many rounds against Hearns, no question. However, he waited for the right moments to strike. And when he opened up Hearns was all over the place throughout both fights. Leonard was smart against Hearns, even though he was outboxed the vast majority of the time. He certainly wasn't wreckless.

And the Hagler fight, Leonard had him well and truely in his pocket. Better defense, variety, ring intelligence, and scoring punches in bunches.

[redrooster]

Leonard was among the best tacticians the sport has ever seen. :lol: :patsch :oops:

His tactics were poor during the first Duran fight, but he sure sorted that out in the rematch. He lost many rounds against Hearns, no question. However, he waited for the right moments to strike. And when he opened up Hearns was all over the place throughout both fights. Leonard was smart against Hearns, even though he was outboxed the vast majority of the time. He certainly wasn't wreckless.

And the Hagler fight, Leonard had him well and truely in his pocket. Better defense, variety, ring intelligence, and scoring punches in bunches.

I think his swollen shut eye would beg to differ. All this proves he wasn't able to hit a moving target. I don't feel this was particularly very impressive and with his own trainer yelling at him in the corner, well I fail to see how Sugar Ray Leonard could even be close to what you have claimed. :smoke

I also don't see how Norris with his movement should be considered any different than what Hearns did with him, keeping him off balance from different angles. Norris actually boxed better than Tommy because his counter attack was so much more diverse than Tommy's. So Terry would have enjoyed much more success than Tommy and without his fatal weaknesses, would have certainly gained the decision in convincing fashion.

As for the Hagler fight, I don't believe getting a split decision is at all indicative of having the other fighter in their 'pocket'. :nono

That term can only be described when discussing a mismatch on the magnitude of Norris-Leonard. :yep

i have proved my point. Sadly though, you haven't. keep trying and perhaps you will attain the level of success I have achieved on this forum.

[redrooster]

I'm sure others will "get it"

:yep

Got no answer yet, hmm? :lol:

[redrooster]

How old was his opponent again?

What does that have to do with Leonard's legs? leonard's never been good with other boxers.




Can't recall Camacho fighting any scary opponents. Leonard on the other hand........:good

yeah I see what you mean. That Benitez was a real terror! Especially in his fights with Hamsho and Hilton.



I had him the definite winner, as did the minority of the world press

:good

yeah well you're a moron so what else is new?

[Robbi]

I think his swollen shut eye would beg to differ. All this proves he wasn't able to hit a moving target. I don't feel this was particularly very impressive and with his own trainer yelling at him in the corner, well I fail to see how Sugar Ray Leonard could even be close to what you have claimed. :smoke

I also don't see how Norris with his movement should be considered any different than what Hearns did with him, keeping him off balance from different angles. Norris actually boxed better than Tommy because his counter attack was so much more diverse than Tommy's. So Terry would have enjoyed much more success than Tommy and without his fatal weaknesses, would have certainly gained the decision in convincing fashion.

As for the Hagler fight, I don't believe getting a split decision is at all indicative of having the other fighter in their 'pocket'. :nono

That term can only be described when discussing a mismatch on the magnitude of Norris-Leonard. :yep

i have proved my point. Sadly though, you haven't. keep trying and perhaps you will attain the level of success I have achieved on this forum.

I proved my point which you quoted me on. To be a tactical master you don't have to be Willie Pep. I explained that Leonard was being outboxed, but he waited for the right moments. Robinson would have had trouble from the outside with Hearns firing on all cylinders. We need to be realistic. Do you think Norris would have done any better than Leonard? Probably not. He wouldn't have done as well because his ass would have been handed to him. You can say goodnight to Norris if he shared a ring with Hearns. He doesn't have the greatness inside him to come through what Leonard did and have something left in the tank to get the victory.

Leonard beat Hagler. End of story. Maybe one day you'll be able to come to terms with it.

You haven't achieved any success on this forum. You make a fool of yourself with you're crazy views and opinions. Look at my posts and you'll seldom find many disagreeing with me, well some do but I don't get laughed like the way you do.

You continually go on about a near prime Norris beating a faded Leonard. Yet when it comes to an inactive Leonard beating a past prime Hagler, It's a different story. Double standards.

[redrooster]

I proved my point which you quoted me on. To be a tactical master you don't have to be Willie Pep. I explained that Leonard was being outboxed, but he waited for the right moments. Robinson would have had trouble from the outside with Hearns firing on all cylinders. We need to be realistic. Do you think Norris would have done any better than Leonard? Probably not. He wouldn't have done as well because his ass would have been handed to him. You can say goodnight to Norris if he shared a ring with Hearns. He doesn't have the greatness inside him to come through what Leonard did and have something left in the tank to get the victory.

Leonard beat Hagler. End of story. Maybe one day you'll be able to come to terms with it.

You haven't achieved any success on this forum. You make a fool of yourself with you're crazy views and opinions. Look at my posts and you'll seldom find many disagreeing with me, well some do but I don't get laughed like the way you do.

You continually go on about a near prime Norris beating a faded Leonard. Yet when it comes to an inactive Leonard beating a past prime Hagler, It's a different story. Double standards.

You did not prove your point-that is the problem. I am far convinced and no, Terry Norris would not have had his ass handed to him against an anemic 145 pound hitman. Against a 154 pound hitman maybe.

And no, Robinson would not have had the major problems that Leonard had with Tommy. This fight would not have gone beyond ten rounds (at the most)

The REAL Sugar Ray would have gotten in on him sooner and never let him off the hook the way an incompetent leonard showed. How could anyone have been impressed with that showing?


Furhtermore, Leonard did not beat a shot Hagler. Too many rounds were undecisive including the first and third, the 7th in which Leonard struck well after the bell. I don't give rounds to someone for punching after the bell the way you do or the way leonard fans would be expected to out of sheer desperation. I take rounds for illegal tactics.

I also took the 4th from him for groin punching which also goes unmentioned by leonard fans. Because of this, this only widens Hagler's lead.

And please try not to feel too much anguish over the way Norris whipped Sugar ray. Don't hold it against Terry because his fights are non controversial, because he requires no aid from the judges. Forgive Terry Norris for the way he defeated a 3-1 favorite whom no expert would pick against. Look at me, I sleep well at nights even though Norris effortlessly destroyed a legend without working up a sweat. Nobody likes what happened that night but we must move on with our lives.

And like it or not, we must all accept the fact that hector Camacho, the fastest fighter who ever lived, along with Roy Jones, is the finest boxer of the last 40 years.

[Robbi]

You did not prove your point-that is the problem. I am far convinced and no, Terry Norris would not have had his ass handed to him against an anemic 145 pound hitman. Against a 154 pound hitman maybe.

I never proved my point because I never sided with you or convinced you to change you're mind I assume? If thats your definition of someone proving their point then likewise.

Hearns would have had Norris out there inside 5 rounds. Norris was inclinded to get involved more often than not and paid the price on many ocassions. The speed, power, and overall boxing ability of Hearns would prove too much. Also looking back at their careers, Hearns fought better opponents. Hearns has too many physical advantages and punched harder.

And no, Robinson would not have had the major problems that Leonard had with Tommy. This fight would not have gone beyond ten rounds (at the most)

Probably so. But Hearns has the abililty to give Robinson problems for as long as the fight lasted. His left jab alone would be a cause for concern.




Furhtermore, Leonard did not beat a shot Hagler. Too many rounds were undecisive including the first and third, the 7th in which Leonard struck well after the bell. I don't give rounds to someone for punching after the bell the way you do or the way leonard fans would be expected to out of sheer desperation. I take rounds for illegal tactics.

Hagler was past his prime, but far from shot. Ok, I'll even things up. Leonard was shot when he fought Norris.

And what about Norris getting spanked and falling to pieces against Mullings. He had the big money fight against De La Hoya on the horizon, but failed to deliver in a tune-up. Norris crumbled like a biscuit against Mullings when he was only 30 years old. That sure was an embarassment.


And please try not to feel too much anguish over the way Norris whipped Sugar ray. Don't hold it against Terry because his fights are non controversial, because he requires no aid from the judges. Forgive Terry Norris for the way he defeated a 3-1 favorite whom no expert would pick against. Look at me, I sleep well at nights even though Norris effortlessly destroyed a legend without working up a sweat. Nobody likes what happened that night but we must move on with our lives.

Leonard struggled with the weight. Hadn't made 154lbs for 7 years before fighting Norris. But no doubt you'll see things differently. What about Hagler dropping down to 154lbs to fight Leonard?. Mind now, Leonard was willing to meet him halfway between welterweight and middleweight. That fight not happening in 1982 was as much Hagler's fault as it was Leonard's. And the truth of the matter is that Hagler weighed 157lbs for the first Hamsho fight.


And like it or not, we must all accept the fact that hector Camacho, the fastest fighter who ever lived, along with Roy Jones, is the finest boxer of the last 40 years

Camacho isn't in the same class as Mayweather or Whitaker. He's a couple of notches below. And the general opinion of the boxing public would give me the thumbs up on that one. Make no mistake about it either.

[godking]

But said about Camacho yesty, once his speed was gone that was it. How come Leonard don't get the same leeway? At least he kept his speed a lot longer than Camacho :lol:

Camacho washed up at 29 after never taking a hiding :nut

And here you scold Leonard at 35 years of age :nutGreat pure boxers can still fight effectivelly when their natural physical abilities have diminished and they have to rely on learned skills.

Guys who rely on speed to outbox their opponents are not great pure boxers.

A guy like Ricardo Lopez is a much better candidate for being the best pure boxer of the past 40 years since his succes was based on PURE boxing skills not on physical advantages.

[redrooster]

Hearns would have had Norris out there inside 5 rounds. Norris was inclinded to get involved more often than not and paid the price on many ocassions. The speed, power, and overall boxing ability of Hearns would prove too much. Also looking back at their careers, Hearns fought better opponents. Hearns has too many physical advantages and punched harder.

I fail to see this if past their prime welters, took Tommy the distance. Harold Weston was still erect if I recall, victim of a thumbing. You're living in a fantasy world.



Hagler was past his prime, but far from shot. Ok, I'll even things up. Leonard was shot when he fought Norris.

Hagler was shot. You're talking to someone who saw him two weeks previous in sparring sessions. Leonard on the other hand showed no signs of slowing in uno mas, one of his most convincing performances and for once did not get himself into trouble or on the canvas or need to catch up like he did in the Hearns fight. His problem is he never learned how to cope with a boxer like Norris. If Ray was shot by your reckoning then how could a shot fighter be as mobile as he was for 12 rounds? I have asked this question repeatedly and everyone keeps ducking the question. COuld you try to answer it this time?

And what about Norris getting spanked and falling to pieces against Mullings. He had the big money fight against De La Hoya on the horizon, but failed to deliver in a tune-up. Norris crumbled like a biscuit against Mullings when he was only 30 years old. That sure was an embarassment.

What about it? He was shot. The Santana trilogy took everything out of him.


Leonard struggled with the weight. Hadn't made 154lbs for 7 years before fighting Norris. But no doubt you'll see things differently. What about Hagler dropping down to 154lbs to fight Leonard?. Mind now, Leonard was willing to meet him halfway between welterweight and middleweight. That fight not happening in 1982 was as much Hagler's fault as it was Leonard's. And the truth of the matter is that Hagler weighed 157lbs for the first Hamsho fight.

Excuse me but Leonard himself was the one responsible for making this fight. What was he doing making a fight he couldnt make weight for? Don't you think you are going too far out of the way for him this time with the excuses? This is hardly a legitimate excuse as one would expect for say Roberto Duran taking off 40+ pounds in defense of his title. It's no wonder I see things differently-who wouldn't?

As i said before when you take Ray Leonard's side one must always fabricate and become more and more inventive to make up for his many failings.




Camacho isn't in the same class as Mayweather or Whitaker. He's a couple of notches below. And the general opinion of the boxing public would give me the thumbs up on that one. Make no mistake about it either.

Like him or not we all must give the man his due. He was a great champion you cant take that away from him. His southpaw style, unparalled hand and footspeed, ghetto toughness and grit, not to mention, granite chin make young Camacho more than a match for any of his protoges who came after him. I admit Floyd is a superstar by today's standards but not at Camacho's level-not yet at least.

[JohnThomas1]

Great pure boxers can still fight effectivelly when their natural physical abilities have diminished and they have to rely on learned skills.

Guys who rely on speed to outbox their opponents are not great pure boxers.

A guy like Ricardo Lopez is a much better candidate for being the best pure boxer of the past 40 years since his succes was based on PURE boxing skills not on physical advantages.

Great post.

[redrooster]

Great post.

get that banana out of your mouth

[Vantage_West]

.

[Robbi]

If Ray was shot by your reckoning then how could a shot fighter be as mobile as he was for 12 rounds? I have asked this question repeatedly and everyone keeps ducking the question. COuld you try to answer it this time?

I'll reverse the question. Camacho moved effectively for 12 rounds against De La Hoya. Although he never won, he did move well throughout the fight. I assume Camacho wasn't shot either?

[redrooster]

^ pretty slick. When he gets stumped by a question he asks a question of his own.

[Robbi]

^ pretty slick. When he gets stumped by a question he asks a question of his own.

I smell double stanards, yet again.

[redrooster]

I smell double stanards, yet again.

Just answer the question truthfully. No shot fighter can be desribed as shot from a fighter who is up on his toes for 12 rounds the way Leonard was. Saying that he was shot is their way of covering for him because in this case he wasn't protected and blew it when he signed to fight Norris. Oops oh well.


Watching Leonard-Duran 3 gives me the perfect opportunily to see just how little ray leonard had left as a fight. Were the combinations flowing? Yes. Was he far from is natural weight? No

And now, we have yet another poorly constructed argument that Leonard was struggling to make the weight for a fight he made. Sorry but these kinds of excuses are only legit for Roy Jones jr coming down 25 pounds from heavyweight, Eddie Mustafa Muhammud in defense of his title against Spinks, and Roberto Duran in defense of his title vs. Leonard.

Yes, Leonard baffled and embarassed Duran with his movement. Yes he won every round and yes he intimidated Roberto with his speed.

Now, how the hell does all that point to him being a shot fighter??

[JohnThomas1]

^ pretty slick. When he gets stumped by a question he asks a question of his own.

Near two weeks and counting waiting on your 5 best Camacho wins :lol:

[redrooster]

Near two weeks and counting waiting on your 5 best Camacho wins :lol:

You can suck my **** for all I care.

[JohnThomas1]

You can suck my **** for all I care.

You're talking about something you haven't got :yikes

But at least you've admitted by your actions, after all the talk you're still a bit :oops: to fess em up

:hi:

[redrooster]

i'm looking at the fight right now. Anyone who says Leonard was shot should watch this performance-he looks great! - as sharp as I've seen him in years.

What a beautiful left jab, the accuracy of his combinations is stunning and his speed is startling. I dont see any problem with his legs. I just can't believe his movement. Oh there goes the shuffle! An eight punch combination and Duran goes into a shell. A huge right hand by leonard,, I was surprised Roberto didn't go down. This is no contest.

I must say I was impressed by this performance-an A+. I gave Roberto an F-.The only weakness I was able to pick up is that I could see that Leonard does not like to get hit himself. Had it been Norris with him though, he'd have leonard shitting in his pants by the early rounds.

It's easy to see why Norris was given no chance. like Rocky Balboa against Clubber lang the phrase "You can't win!!" was thrown around quite a bit by the experts. But Terry is a true thoroughbred. Without the experience of Hearns, Hagler, Leonard, Duran wasn't intimidated at all and tied leonard in knots. That makes Norris' performance all that much more impressive.

[Pat_Lowe]

i'm looking at the fight right now. Anyone who says Leonard was shot should watch this performance-he looks great! - as sharp as I've seen him in years.

What a beautiful left jab, the accuracy of his combinations is stunning and his speed is startling. I dont see any problem with his legs. I just can't believe his movement. Oh there goes the shuffle! An eight punch combination and Duran goes into a shell. A huge right hand by leonard,, I was surprised Roberto didn't go down. This is no contest.

I must say I was impressed by this performance-an A+. I gave Roberto an F-.The only weakness I was able to pick up is that I could see that Leonard does not like to get hit himself. Had it been Norris with him though, he'd have leonard shitting in his pants by the early rounds.

It's easy to see why Norris was given no chance. like Rocky Balboa against Clubber lang the phrase "You can't win!!" was thrown around quite a bit by the experts. But Terry is a true thoroughbred. Without the experience of Hearns, Hagler, Leonard, Duran wasn't intimidated at all and tied leonard in knots. That makes Norris' performance all that much more impressive.
Did you ever think that Leonard looked A+ because he was against an F- opponent?

Robbi brings up a good point though, Camacho was on his toes the whole fight against De La Hoya, his legs were fine and as you have said before, he legs are the first thing to go. That was prime Camacho in there.

One last thing, you continuously criticize Leonard for losing to Norris. Yet build up Norris as though he is the greatest. If so, whats the horrendous shame in Leonard losing to someone of Norris' caliber?

[redrooster]

Did you ever think that Leonard looked A+ because he was against an F- opponent?

Robbi brings up a good point though, Camacho was on his toes the whole fight against De La Hoya, his legs were fine and as you have said before, he legs are the first thing to go. That was prime Camacho in there.

One last thing, you continuously criticize Leonard for losing to Norris. Yet build up Norris as though he is the greatest. If so, whats the horrendous shame in Leonard losing to someone of Norris' caliber?

With Camacho I can't answer your question for Robbi until Robbi first answers me. Capiche?

[Pat_Lowe]

With Camacho I can't answer your question for Robbi until Robbi first answers me. Capiche?

What was the question to Robbi I'll see if I can answer it.

[enquirer]

Best pure boxer of the last 40 years?
Tommy the hit man hearns.
Not only did he utilise a textbook rapier like jab but a classical right cross,lateral movement,head movement,long left hook to the body and a beautiful side on position for maximum utilisation of his height and reach.
When he chose to box,he outboxed benitez and hill,two great pure boxers themselves,when he choose to box he was always the greater boxer than his foe.
The jewel in tommys crown? Twice outboxing the incomparable ray leonard for huge spells in both of their fights,especially the peak leonard of the 81 encounter.
I would even go so far as to say tommy is on a par ,pure boxer wise,with anyone in history.....

[Pat_Lowe]

Best pure boxer of the last 40 years?
Tommy the hit man hearns.
Not only did he utilise a textbook rapier like jab but a classical right cross,lateral movement,head movement,long left hook to the body and a beautiful side on position for maximum utilisation of his height and reach.
When he chose to box,he outboxed benitez and hill,two great pure boxers themselves,when he choose to box he was always the greater boxer than his foe.
The jewel in tommys crown? Twice outboxing the incomparable ray leonard for huge spells in both of their fights,especially the peak leonard of the 81 encounter.
I would even go so far as to say tommy is on a par ,pure boxer wise,with anyone in history.....

Pretty reasonable position there. In a fight at a distance no one outboxed Hearns. It's pretty hard for any fighter to get past the advantages he has in height and reach. Combine that with the speed and power and it becomes almost impossible. It took arguably the greatest chin in history to take it to him and even then he was stunned. Leonard also accomplished the feat although against a tired Hearns, but nonetheless it was still impressive.

[enquirer]

I know its a cliche now,but if tommy had the chin or survival skills of say ray leonard then he would be a prime candidate for no 1 p4p of all times. I think with a little bigger frame as well,he could have won a proper title at cruier,and maybe heavy.Manny steward made an interesting analysis after the duran fight,he stated that hearns at his best could do things that hagler and leonard couldnt,like knocking over a world class fighter early on with no risk of being tagged. Prime examples are cuevas,roldan,duran,geraldo and schuler. Manny also stated he thought he was the best pure boxer since the late sixties. (and ali,i assume.)

[Pat_Lowe]

I know its a cliche now,but if tommy had the chin or survival skills of say ray leonard then he would be a prime candidate for no 1 p4p of all times. I think with a little bigger frame as well,he could have won a proper title at cruier,and maybe heavy.Manny steward made an interesting analysis after the duran fight,he stated that hearns at his best could do things that hagler and leonard couldnt,like knocking over a world class fighter early on with no risk of being tagged. Prime examples are cuevas,roldan,duran,geraldo and schuler. Manny also stated he thought he was the best pure boxer since the late sixties. (and ali,i assume.)

I believe against the right opponent a cruiserweight title would be possible for Hearns, for example against Virgil Hill again he might have been capable of winning that one. At heavyweight he just couldn't cut it, in any era IMO. Sure he was more skilled than alot of them but theres just a huge difference in size, power and strength. Hearns wasn't particularly strong at welterweight, even with a bit of a bigger frame he wouldn't be able to pick up a title.
The thing about Hearns having a better chin, its rare to see a fighter with the body shape he has having an excellent chin. Long spindly legs just can't stand up to a punch. Carlos Monzon and Sugar Ray Robinson are two anomalies to that logic but there's very few out there like that. A fighter couldn't enjoy Hearns' physical advantages over opponents plus have a better chin.
But yes as Steward stated, Hearns could be arguably the best pure boxer since the 60's. Outboxing Virgil hill 30 pounds above his best weight, against a really good (Arguably great) boxer, whilst being about 5 years past his peak is a remarkable feat and is really underrated.

[enquirer]

Yes,maybe heavy is a stretch too far.
To be honest it wasnt chin as such,it was probably more his survival skills and the fact he sometimes got a bit reckless. He took good shots v hagler and leonard,and got reckless v barkley when on the verge of a stoppage. Funny also,he seemed to be more durable at lt heavy?! The hill fight,as you say,is a very underrated performance from a way past peak tommy...
Still,a truely great talent,warts included...

[Pat_Lowe]

Yes,maybe heavy is a stretch too far.
To be honest it wasnt chin as such,it was probably more his survival skills and the fact he sometimes got a bit reckless. He took good shots v hagler and leonard,and got reckless v barkley when on the verge of a stoppage. Funny also,he seemed to be more durable at lt heavy?!
Still,a truely great talent,warts included...

Its true, he did seem to get a bit more durable as he went up. I noticed how much bigger he got, including his legs. Probably accounted for that. To be honest though I truly think he was the perfect 154 pound fighter. He had the size advantage without seeiming shrunken down as he was at welterweight. That probably was his natural weight all along its just that he was able to make the welterweight limit. His power and speed against Duran was possibly the greatest I've ever seen. We are talking about Duran here, a fighter that never had that done to him again till he was nearing 50. The perfect fighting machine that night. He is the #1 fighter at 154 in my books and I'd say beats pretty much any fighter that fought there including Leonard in the rematch that never happened.
He was a truly great talent as you say, wins over Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Roldan, Andries, Shuler and a 'draw' against Leonard is a pretty damn good record. Also he's pretty much a universally liked fighter, its hard to find someone who dislikes him. Imagine if Hearns was in the welterweight division these days. In fact its pretty hard to pick someone from today all the way up to light-heavyweight to beat him.