Sugar Ray Leonard: best P4P since Robinson, best welterweight ever, or neither??

[DINAMITA]

I'm not a boxing expert, but it seems to me that Leonard's major wins (Benitez, Duran II, Hearns I, Hagler) and his incredible achievement in winning world titles at welterweight all the way up to light-heavyweight (has this ever been done by anyone else?), mean that he really should be what I suggested in the title of this thread. But I always notice that when his name comes up on this forum, many people who appear to know a helluva lot about boxing, are often quite negative about him. Or even if they are not exactly negative, they don't seem to give him the status that I think he deserves. Do you guys agree with me, or are there good reasons why Leonard is not what I think he is??

[teeto]

I know you might think im biased, look who's in my avatar! But i'll do my best here-

Leonard imo, is most definitely the greatest welter since Robinson, in his prime Leonard brilliant, his single left hooks were so fast, and the clubbing-type right hand aswell, such smoothe footwork he had also, and was durable. Legacy-wise, the big criticism is that he picked fights when they suited him, he could do this because of his financial power. What wins Duran and Hagler were, but people will give the opinion that he fought them both when it suited him, we all know the specifics of the two cases i mentioned. I personally scord the Hagler one a draw, but i could possibly see it for Leonard. And winning the 168 and 175 titles in the same fight? Come on!

He was brilliant though, like i say, in his prime, it took an absolutely determined and hellbent Duran to beat him (Duran has a chance with any welter bar SRR on that night imo, and he would make a helluva fight in that 1), and he avenged that in style. The Hearns win is a defining moment legacy-wise, that's top tier legacy-making stuff right there.

Sorry, but Hagler did look slightly past his best to me in their bout, slower most definitely, everytime he went southpaw he was in control, what was he thinking? But no excuses, you can view this as a great Leonard win also.

[McGrain]

I have Duran and Ali above him pound for pound.

Leanoard is top 15 all time and certainly has a case for being above Ali, but I don't think he should be ranked in front of Duran, personally.

[Ezzard]

Leonard was amazing but teeto does a good job of outlining some criticisms. I read once that whilst Ray had the wins over Tommy, Benitez and the rematch with Duran, that he didn't have exclusive bragging rights that came with it.

Recently on UK TV. Barry McGuigan and Duke McKenzie both had him as the greatest all round fighter 9and that included Robinson) But both also think he lost to Hagler.

IMO he has a shout at the #2 spot at 147 along with Griffith, Napoles and maybe Walker. Duran on his day would be up there but I can't just forget his failings at the weight.

p4p I rate him top 20 (I don't include HWs).

[teeto]

Leonard was amazing but teeto does a good job of outlining some criticisms. I read once that whilst Ray had the wins over Tommy, Benitez and the rematch with Duran, that he didn't have exclusive bragging rights that came with it.

Recently on UK TV. Barry McGuigan and Duke McKenzie both had him as the greatest all round fighter 9and that included Robinson) But both also think he lost to Hagler.

IMO he has a shout at the #2 spot at 147 along with Griffith, Napoles and maybe Walker. Duran on his day would be up there but I can't just forget his failings at the weight.

p4p I rate him top 20 (I don't include HWs).
Thanks for acknowledging my poiints Ezzard, good one how how you said though he has the wins over them elites, it could be said not the complete bragging rights that look on paper to accompany them.

Its all subjective and i think we're bound to get some posters with positives for Leonard on here shortly, maye justifiably aswell.

[Ezzard]

Thanks for acknowledging my poiints Ezzard, good one how how you said though he has the wins over them elites, it could be said not the complete bragging rights that look on paper to accompany them.

Its all subjective and i think we're bound to get some posters with positives for Leonard on here shortly, maye justifiably aswell.

Agreed... He was a special fighter.

[Bokaj]

I would say that a case can be made for having him as the best p4p since Robinson. His foremost rivals for this honour would be Ali, Duran and possibly RJJ.

I would say Leonard's win over Hagler more or less rates with Duran's win over Leonard. Hagler was probably slightly past his prime, but Leonard was further past his and fighting above his natural weight. Giving one of the greatest middleweight ever such a fight under those conditions... Extraordinary.

[DINAMITA]

Thanks very much for all of your responses guys. I think Leonard was the greatest welterweight of all-time (if you count SRR as a middleweight) and he should be in or around top 5 all-time P4P alongside Duran. Cheers.

[teeto]

Thanks very much for all of your responses guys. I think Leonard was the greatest welterweight of all-time (if you count SRR as a middleweight) and he should be in or around top 5 all-time P4P alongside Duran. Cheers.
Leonard is definitely one of the finest welters ever, but Robinson's prime years were at 147 also, seen as though there was no 154 then, Robinson imo, is undoubtedly the greatest welter, you really look into what he did there and there's no other man for the spot by my reckoning.

A lot of people say that Leonard may be the best ever welter H2H, this i must may say, may be true, but ive always argued the poiint for Robinson there also. Robinson was immense in every way!!

[Lobotomy]

P4P, he cannot be ranked ahead of older, smaller, shorter lightweight Duran who decisioned him handily the first time they met head to head. Duran was also more impressive over the first 12 rounds against a superior version of Hagler, even though eight ounce gloves were worn in Hagler/Duran, rather than the ten ounce gloves worn in SRL/Hagler.

But Ray produced a shocking performance against an undisputed middleweight champion who was considered the P4P best in the world at the time, and he did it off what was essentially a five year hiatus. That achievement stands alone historically.

I consider the Duran of DeJesus III and Montreal to be the P4P best since Robinson.

[Robbi]

I consider the Duran of DeJesus III and Montreal to be the P4P best since Robinson.

Duran showed his full arsenal against De Jesus in their 3rd meeting. That was Duran at the absolute peak of his powers as a lightweight. His attacks were more measured and precise compared to when he just became champion. His superb ability to slip and slide under punches was never more evident than in this encounter. He was very quick to switch around with his feet and vary the angles to produce punching opportunities.


Thoughtful, economical, precise, quick, variation, powerful, awareness. Just a few of the words to describe Duran's victory that night.

[JohnThomas1]

Duran was also more impressive over the first 12 rounds against a superior version of Hagler, even though eight ounce gloves were worn in Hagler/Duran, rather than the ten ounce gloves worn in SRL/Hagler.


:roll:

[fists of fury]

He might be the best welterweight since Robinson, but we must not forget Tommy Hearns either, who also captured a title in every weight from welter to lightheavy.
Leonard also captured two titles - the spr middle and lightheavy - in one night against Lalonde, whereas Hearns had to do it against different fighters on different nights.

[Holmes' Jab]

He's definitely the best Welter since Robbo. I have him #9 P4P.

[Bokaj]

He's definitely the best Welter since Robbo. I have him #9 P4P.

Do you have him ahead of Ali and Duran?

[JohnThomas1]

He's definitely the best Welter since Robbo. I have him #9 P4P.

That's about it for me too, sir.

[TBooze]

I would put Gavilan and maybe Griffith ahead of Leonard at 147 post 1950. But that means he still tops the Napoles... And no one pre Robinson tops him either IMO.

Now pound for pound; Ali, Monzon, Duran and Chavez top him post 1960.

[Holmes' Jab]

Do you have him ahead of Ali and Duran?


Yeah, ahead of both.

[Holmes' Jab]

That's about it for me too, sir.


A few places ahead of Benny and just behind Barney. :D

[JohnThomas1]

A few places ahead of Benny and just behind Barney. :D

:lol:

[Sweet Pea]

I would put Gavilan and maybe Griffith ahead of Leonard at 147 post 1950. But that means he still tops the Napoles... And no one pre Robinson tops him either IMO.

Now pound for pound; Ali, Monzon, Duran and Chavez top him post 1960.Negative. Definitely not Chavez, and I rate him above Monzon.

[Chinxkid]

Leonard was a smart fighter!

[janitor]

I'm not a boxing expert, but it seems to me that Leonard's major wins (Benitez, Duran II, Hearns I, Hagler) and his incredible achievement in winning world titles at welterweight all the way up to light-heavyweight (has this ever been done by anyone else?), mean that he really should be what I suggested in the title of this thread. But I always notice that when his name comes up on this forum, many people who appear to know a helluva lot about boxing, are often quite negative about him. Or even if they are not exactly negative, they don't seem to give him the status that I think he deserves. Do you guys agree with me, or are there good reasons why Leonard is not what I think he is??

Leonard is a controvertial figure on this forum for many reasons and pasions can run high. Many people do not like what he represented and he beat a lot of peoples favourite fighters which some people can never forgive him for.

If you cut through the politics and sh1t then, yes he is one of the greatest welterweights and pound for pound fighters of all time. From a historical perspective there is simply no other way you can slice it.

I could not say that he is the best pound for pound fighter since Robinson because there have been so many great fighters in diferent weight classes since then.

Among the great historic welterweights his only peers are Tommy Ryan, Joe Walcott, Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray himself.

[booradley]

Both men accomplished so much that to me in the all time rankings it's Robinson's 92 fight undefeated streak that absolutely seals the deal. SRL can't touch that! In a head to head match up it's a tough call; one I can't make. As far as all time great fighters from 147-160 I see no problem putting SRL in the top 3.

[Stonehands89]

I know you might think im biased, look who's in my avatar! But i'll do my best here-

Leonard imo, is most definitely the greatest welter since Robinson, in his prime Leonard brilliant, his single left hooks were so fast, and the clubbing-type right hand aswell, such smoothe footwork he had also, and was durable. Legacy-wise, the big criticism is that he picked fights when they suited him, he could do this because of his financial power. What wins Duran and Hagler were, but people will give the opinion that he fought them both when it suited him, we all know the specifics of the two cases i mentioned. I personally scord the Hagler one a draw, but i could possibly see it for Leonard. And winning the 168 and 175 titles in the same fight? Come on!

He was brilliant though, like i say, in his prime, it took an absolutely determined and hellbent Duran to beat him (Duran has a chance with any welter bar SRR on that night imo, and he would make a helluva fight in that 1), and he avenged that in style. The Hearns win is a defining moment legacy-wise, that's top tier legacy-making stuff right there.

Sorry, but Hagler did look slightly past his best to me in their bout, slower most definitely, everytime he went southpaw he was in control, what was he thinking? But no excuses, you can view this as a great Leonard win also.
I'd say that this is the stand-out post here.

When Ray too the WW title from Benitez, he made one defense, then lost it to Duran. He reclaimed it from Duran, and then made 3 defenses. Three. Then he retired. He had 40 career fights. 40. Gavilan and Robinson had 40 fights before they were 22 years old.

What makes Leonard great is that he had high profile fights against other great fighters. I think that he showed brilliance in a close fight with Benitez, sealed his status as a great in the loss against Duran and then, with that fight giving him the experience and juice he absolutely needed for Hearns, Leonard propelled himself into ATG greatness against Hearns. Faded, jaded Hagler was a nice coup de grace, although I don't like his little tricks in gaining every conceivable advantage before and during the fight -it taints the purity of the non-win. I'd also agree that Duran showed more brilliance against a younger Hagler 4 years earlier.

Head-to-head, he's a tough one to beat. I'm frickin' positive that Robinson takes him. I'm not at all sure about anyone else, ever.

Leonard is a top 3 all-time WW. Top 15 p4p. He is above neither Duran or Ali.

[Ezzard]

The biggest difference between Leonard and Robinson is power. Leonard had plenty of it but Robinson might just have hit harder than even Hearns.

Griffith would make it a 50-50 fight and it would be a split decision. Emile definitely rates higher in a p4p sense.

Ryan is a good call too...

[teeto]

I'd say that this is the stand-out post here.

When Ray too the WW title from Benitez, he made one defense, then lost it to Duran. He reclaimed it from Duran, and then made 3 defenses. Three. Then he retired. He had 40 career fights. 40. Gavilan and Robinson had 40 fights before they were 22 years old.

What makes Leonard great is that he had high profile fights against other great fighters. I think that he showed brilliance in a close fight with Benitez, sealed his status as a great in the loss against Duran and then, with that fight giving him the experience and juice he absolutely needed for Hearns, Leonard propelled himself into ATG greatness against Hearns. Faded, jaded Hagler was a nice coup de grace, although I don't like his little tricks in gaining every conceivable advantage before and during the fight -it taints the purity of the non-win. I'd also agree that Duran showed more brilliance against a younger Hagler 4 years earlier.

Head-to-head, he's a tough one to beat. I'm frickin' positive that Robinson takes him. I'm not at all sure about anyone else, ever.

Leonard is a top 3 all-time WW. Top 15 p4p. He is above neither Duran or Ali.
Thanks Stonehands, great post by you also, i too agree that Rbinson beats him, i dont wanna sound like someone who just thinks Robinson beats everyone (although possibly!!), but i do think he would get the win there.

[Pat_Lowe]

I'd say that this is the stand-out post here.

When Ray too the WW title from Benitez, he made one defense, then lost it to Duran. He reclaimed it from Duran, and then made 3 defenses. Three. Then he retired. He had 40 career fights. 40. Gavilan and Robinson had 40 fights before they were 22 years old.

What makes Leonard great is that he had high profile fights against other great fighters. I think that he showed brilliance in a close fight with Benitez, sealed his status as a great in the loss against Duran and then, with that fight giving him the experience and juice he absolutely needed for Hearns, Leonard propelled himself into ATG greatness against Hearns. Faded, jaded Hagler was a nice coup de grace, although I don't like his little tricks in gaining every conceivable advantage before and during the fight -it taints the purity of the non-win. I'd also agree that Duran showed more brilliance against a younger Hagler 4 years earlier.

Head-to-head, he's a tough one to beat. I'm frickin' positive that Robinson takes him. I'm not at all sure about anyone else, ever.

Leonard is a top 3 all-time WW. Top 15 p4p. He is above neither Duran or Ali.
By every conceivable advantage you mean a smaller ring and a 12 round fight. Wow, the deck was sure stacked against Hagler, who was the naturally bigger fighter, had 2 previous fights that were 12 round affairs, and he was the reigning middleweight champ with 12 title defences.

Its simple, Leonard should not have beaten Hagler, who was the bigger fighter and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time. Hagler may have been past his best but to bring that up allows us to also factor in that Leonard had only 1 fight in 5 years. Even if it was a split decision, history and logic tells us Leonard shouldn't have won that fight, much the same way that Duran shouldn't have beaten Leonard first time around but he did. Please don't go discrediting Leonard's win there and saying Duran's close (but clear) losing effort was a better accomplishment.

[Addie]

Sugar Ray Leonard doesn't get the credit he deserves. Probably has the greatest top 4 wins in the history of boxing and won titles at multiple weights. He is top 5 P4P for me, and the greatest welterweight ever, in my opinion.

[redrooster]

Two things stand out in my mind that will forever mar Leonard's rank as a fighter.

One is that he never fought the best of Marvin Hagler (by choice) and two, he was brutally outclassed by Norris.

It's simple, Norris should not have beaten Leonard who, was a five time champion and arguably the greatest welterweight of his time. Remember, Norris was at a severe disadvantage in terms of overall experience and was faced with a living legend on the heels of a most brutal knockout loss to Julian Jackson.

Inactivity was not a factor here since Sugar Ray had been relatively busy over the last four years and showed little or no signs of slippage from his earlier years. Leonard also had not recieved a loss in years and was on an astounding 11 year win streak.

Even if it were a split decision in favor of Norris, history and logic tells us Norris shouldn't have won the fight, let alone turn it into a one sided win the way he did. The important thing to remember is not what should have happend in the fight but rather what actually happened in comparison with what was expected to happen that makes this all the more an impressive achievement for Terry.

This was a major accomplishment that went down in the annals of sports history that musn't be ignored. This was every bit as great an accomplishment as was Buster Douglas' miracle win over Tyson and Antuofuermo's miracle draw against Hagler in '79.

Let's please not downplay the significance of this important victory. I can understand all the hate Terry recieves because of it (destroying one of boxing's most beloved idols) but let's be honest and give proper credit to the man who made Ray Leonard bow in acknowledgement of fistic superiority.

[BritInvasion]

Ali possible and Duran 10000% certainly for me.

Anyone rate Roy Jones above Leonard? Roy's resume don't match the saccharine one, not that Hop and Toney should be sniffed at with the Ruiz win underappreciated if not quite 'underrated'; but I think a good case be made that Roy is 'better'. Is his H2H ranking enough to give him the nod ahead of Ray? I think Roy is underrated on all time lists and Ray the complete opposite, I mean for Roy it was so easy. So. Easy. He would not have lost to a guy a division south of him in his prime. No way. Thoughts?

[JohnThomas1]

Two things stand out in my mind that will forever mar Leonard's rank as a fighter.

One is that he never fought the best of Marvin Hagler (by choice) and two, he was brutally outclassed by Norris.

It's simple, Norris should not have beaten Leonard who, was a five time champion and arguably the greatest welterweight of his time. Remember, Norris was at a severe disadvantage in terms of overall experience and was faced with a living legend on the heels of a most brutal knockout loss to Julian Jackson.

Inactivity was not a factor here since Sugar Ray had been relatively busy over the last four years and showed little or no signs of slippage from his earlier years. Leonard also had not recieved a loss in years and was on an astounding 11 year win streak.

Even if it were a split decision in favor of Norris, history and logic tells us Norris shouldn't have won the fight, let alone turn it into a one sided win the way he did. The important thing to remember is not what should have happend in the fight but rather what actually happened in comparison with what was expected to happen that makes this all the more an impressive achievement for Terry.

This was a major accomplishment that went down in the annals of sports history that musn't be ignored. This was every bit as great an accomplishment as was Buster Douglas' miracle win over Tyson and Antuofuermo's miracle draw against Hagler in '79.

Let's please not downplay the significance of this important victory. I can understand all the hate Terry recieves because of it (destroying one of boxing's most beloved idols) but let's be honest and give proper credit to the man who made Ray Leonard bow in acknowledgement of fistic superiority.


:nut

[redrooster]

Ali possible and Duran 10000% certainly for me.

Anyone rate Roy Jones above Leonard? Roy's resume don't match the saccharine one, not that Hop and Toney should be sniffed at with the Ruiz win underappreciated if not quite 'underrated'; but I think a good case be made that Roy is 'better'. Is his H2H ranking enough to give him the nod ahead of Ray? I think Roy is underrated on all time lists and Ray the complete opposite, I mean for Roy it was so easy. So. Easy. He would not have lost to a guy a division south of him in his prime. No way. Thoughts?

Roy Jones is definitely head and shoulders above the likes of Leonard or Benitez. The thought of ducking another fighter would never occur to him, so great were his talents. He was supremely confident before his fights unlike Leonard who needed assurance from Randy Gordon that he wasn't going to be in over his head facing Roberto Duran (a lightweight)

But back to Roy Jones. In my mind, Roy Jones is vastly underrated because many fans from before the Roy Jones era resent his enormous talents. Deep down they all know how good he was but they don't like to admit it, preferring to cite his lack of competition. Critics who did not like Hagler also resorted to this for many years blaming him for not fighting leonard. Yet I did not hear these same people calling for leonard to summon the courage to challenge him.

[Bill Butcher]

Based on talent & great fighters that Leonard beat, Id rank him top 5 p4p & 2nd best welter-wt after SRR.

I fully understand if some dont rate him top 5 but you must rate him top 10 which means he was 1 helluva fighter & he was.

Master boxer, could brawl too, great stamina, solid chin, fast, versatile & really knew how to finish a guy.

Got the better of Duran thru 3 fights, got the better of Hearns thru 2 fights (even if you give Tommy the 2nd fight, it was only a pts loss where as SRL TKOd Hearns in the prime fight) & outboxed & out-thought Hagler in their 1 fight. Lets not forget outboxing defensive genius Benitez then stopping him in rd 15.

Great fighter, underrated on this forum generally.

[Nick Balsamo]

Leonard deserves to be 2nd all-time at welterweight. He's certainly Top 15 all-time p4p and probably Top 10 IMO.

His skillset is incredible as he got great great speed of hand and foot, power, toughness, endurance, killer instinct and all the intangibles to get the upper hand when needed. His speed, flashiness, movement and his left hook were his bread and butter.

The names on his record are truly impressive (Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez) but the number of fights on it can't give him the edge over 100+ fights ATG's. Their skills must've been sharper because they fought more often. And Leonard's inactivity doesn't play in his favor.

Leonard chose his fights with care (his eye injury may be for something though), as he wanted to fight on his own terms, when the money was there, when he was ready and when he thought that the guy at the other end was ready to be beat. That's why we never had the chance to see Leonard against Aaron Pryor, Mike McCallum, Pipino Cuevas, Donald Curry or Hagler in a rematch.

I can't rank Leonard above the likes of Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson or Benny Leonard who dominate the game for a longer and more active period of time.

[markedwardscott]

Leonard was great but I rate Duran and ali above him. I rate Leonard even with Heans, even though Hearns had a suspect chin.

In fight one with Hearns, the ref stopped the bout with Hearns well ahead and not that hurt. The announcer said, "Oh, I don't believe this! He's stopping the fight. Hearns was way ahead!"

In their second fight, Leonard got a gift in the draw. Hearns had him down twice, and hurt in several rounds. Almost everybody thought Hearns got robbed.

Also, Hearns beat a tougher set of fighters in winning his various titles. Virgil Hill, for example, is on many lists of ATG light heavies.

[Pat_Lowe]

Roy Jones is definitely head and shoulders above the likes of Leonard or Benitez. The thought of ducking another fighter would never occur to him, so great were his talents. He was supremely confident before his fights unlike Leonard who needed assurance from Randy Gordon that he wasn't going to be in over his head facing Roberto Duran (a lightweight)

But back to Roy Jones. In my mind, Roy Jones is vastly underrated because many fans from before the Roy Jones era resent his enormous talents. Deep down they all know how good he was but they don't like to admit it, preferring to cite his lack of competition. Critics who did not like Hagler also resorted to this for many years blaming him for not fighting leonard. Yet I did not hear these same people calling for leonard to summon the courage to challenge him.

Roy Jones supremely confident before his fights? What about against Glen Johnson and Tarver the 3rd time round? Didn't look like he had an aura of confidence there.

[redrooster]

Roy Jones supremely confident before his fights? What about against Glen Johnson and Tarver the 3rd time round? Didn't look like he had an aura of confidence there.



Cut out the crap; I got the lowdown on everything right down to the details of the first and second Duran fights. Leonard had no confidence at all and because of it, held up the Hagler fight for years. He was just a relic by that time, not just "a little past it"

Leonard isn't made to fit Jones' shoes just in the courage department alone. Roy Jones ever make Tarver wait ten years for a rematch? That is just ridiculous and even worse the way his fans just turn the other way pretending not to notice.

You saw how fast Norris made him fall apart when Terry wasn't even given a minute chance to win. With Hagler-Leonard you could at least say it was close either way. Can you say that of Terry Norris and Leonard?

We are talking the same odds which had to be overcome and the simple truth is that Norris won decisively whereas Leonard did not; there was controversy involved. In fact, this was the most controversial fight EVER.

Norris-leonard wasn't even a fight because Terry made it that way. Fact is, Terry made Ray Leonard fight his fight and there was nothing he could do about it.

By the third round the fight was already over so I would say there is no way Leonard is an all time great. He's not a top two welter at all. The problem is that no one here knows anything about any other welterweight before 1980 and because of people's ignorance of the division and previous title holders, Leonard's reputation has greatly benefitted because of it.

[Stonehands89]

By every conceivable advantage you mean a smaller ring and a 12 round fight. Wow, the deck was sure stacked against Hagler, who was the naturally bigger fighter, had 2 previous fights that were 12 round affairs, and he was the reigning middleweight champ with 12 title defences.

Its simple, Leonard should not have beaten Hagler, who was the bigger fighter and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time. Hagler may have been past his best but to bring that up allows us to also factor in that Leonard had only 1 fight in 5 years. Even if it was a split decision, history and logic tells us Leonard shouldn't have won that fight, much the same way that Duran shouldn't have beaten Leonard first time around but he did. Please don't go discrediting Leonard's win there and saying Duran's close (but clear) losing effort was a better accomplishment.
I acknowledge that it was the capping triumph of a brilliant, though brief career. That's fair. I also acknowledge that many believe it was a non-win that he sought every advantage in and of the ring -these are facts.

* the rings wasn't a smaller ring. It was a larger ring. Running requires room.
* 12 round fight -not necessary in 1987, but absolutely necessary for Leonard to win. He would not have won over 15 rounds -wouldn't you agree?
* the gloves were larger.
* Dundee's staged hollering throughout the fight, specifically designed to sway the judges.
* Leonard's refusal to meet Hagler earlier.

And there are more...

[The Predator]

Well, I´m new at this forum and we all have our own favourites in the game but for me Sugar Ray Leonard is the second best boxer all time just after Ali. I have not seen that many fights with Robinson perhaps he was better or as good. Roy Jones is good but feels not as good as Ali and Leonard. This is my opinion and what Leonard did in the Hagler fight was incredible. I can watch that fight over and over again.
Round 9, talk about handspeed.
Just remember that this is my opinion don´t want to make enemies here, just friends:p
The predator

[Stonehands89]

Well, I´m new at this forum and we all have our own favourites in the game but for me Sugar Ray Leonard is the second best boxer all time just after Ali. I have not seen that many fights with Robinson perhaps he was better or as good. Roy Jones is good but feels not as good as Ali and Leonard. This is my opinion and what Leonard did in the Hagler fight was incredible. I can watch that fight over and over again.
Round 9, talk about handspeed.
Just remember that this is my opinion don´t want to make enemies here, just friends:p
The predator
Well, I'm confident that if you stick around the classic section and your mind is open, you'll be changing your top 1 and 2 spots and join (most of) us as we drink from the fountain of wisdom and pugilistic history.

You'll soon find that the top one or two spots can rightly be claimed only by the following:

Robinson
Armstrong
Greb
Pep
Langford

---and very few others. No Heavies and no one with less than 50 fights.

[Addie]

I acknowledge that it was the capping triumph of a brilliant, though brief career. That's fair. I also acknowledge that many believe it was a non-win that he sought every advantage in and of the ring -these are facts.

* the rings wasn't a smaller ring. It was a larger ring. Running requires room.
* 12 round fight -not necessary in 1987, but absolutely necessary for Leonard to win. He would not have won over 15 rounds -wouldn't you agree?
* the gloves were larger.
* Dundee's staged hollering throughout the fight, specifically designed to sway the judges.
* Leonard's refusal to meet Hagler earlier.

And there are more...

* Marvin Hagler was past his best, but Ray was in even worse shape.
* Everybody thought Hagler would win. Sugar defied the odds.
* Hagler was the much bigger man.
* Hagler was the far more active fighter.

Anybody trying to discredit Sugar Ray's victory over Hagler are one of two things.

* They resent Sugar for beating their favourite fighter.
* Uneducated.

[Stonehands89]

* Marvin Hagler was past his best, but Ray was in even worse shape.
Wrong. Leonard spent months studying and training for this bout. He was obsessed with beating Hagler. He was in about the best shape of his career for this fight.

* Everybody thought Hagler would win. Sugar defied the odds.
So? This merely asserts Leonard's motivation.

* Hagler was the much bigger man.
And he was stronger. So? These aren't necessarily determining factors in the ring.

* Hagler was the far more active fighter.
In the previous 2 years, Hagler fought 14 rounds in 2 bouts. And he was fading fast ... which is why Ray chose that time to fight him. Because he saw that Marvin was slowing down precipitously. As late as 1985, Ray wasn't eager to fight him.

Anybody trying to discredit Sugar Ray's victory over Hagler are one of two things.

* They resent Sugar for beating their favourite fighter.
* Uneducated.
Idiocy.

Anyone denying that Ray's victory is not only controversial, but also mitigated by opportunistic pre-fight, mid-fight, and post-fight maneuvres that would make the Clintons blush.... is naive.

[Addie]

Wrong. Leonard spent months studying and training for this bout. He was obsessed with beating Hagler. He was in about the best shape of his career for this fight.


So? This merely asserts Leonard's motivation.


And he was stronger. So? These aren't necessarily determining factors in the ring.


In the previous 2 years, Hagler fought 14 rounds in 2 bouts. And he was fading fast ... which is why Ray chose that time to fight him. Because he saw that Marvin was slowing down precipitously. As late as 1985, Ray wasn't eager to fight him.


Idiocy.

Anyone denying that Ray's victory is not only controversial, but also mitigated by opportunistic pre-fight, mid-fight, and post-fight maneuvres that would make the Clintons blush.... is naive.

Excuse me?

Sugar Ray Leonard deserves credit for the win, regardless of how you felt he may have tried to gain an advantage. He also deserves credit for overcoming the naturally bigger man and the more active man. You saying Ray Leonard was in better shape purely on the basis that he was "said" to be obsessed with beating Hagler is nothing but speculation.

Overriding point is, Leonard deserves nothing but credit for beating a man nobody thought he could beat. End of story.

[Robbi]

* Leonard's refusal to meet Hagler earlier.

This is a myth. In hindsight it certainly looks that way as Leonard caught Hagler at the right time when he pulled off the upset combined with earlier negotiations which fell through back in 1982.

But Leonard was willing to meet Hagler halfway, which would have meant a fight at 154lbs. Leonard felt at the time that going all the way up to middleweight was a bridge too far as he would be losing speed and natural strength. Hagler the same reasons coming down in weight. And in no way am I siding with Leonard, but Hagler actually managed to weigh as low as 157lbs for his fight with Hamsho. Who knows if coming down another 3lbs would have been extremely difficult.

The fight not coming off when Hagler was closer to his peak or arguably in his peak was a stale mate. Hagler refused to face Leonard just as much as vice versa.

[Stonehands89]

Excuse me?

Sugar Ray Leonard deserves credit for the win, regardless of how you felt he may have tried to gain an advantage. He also deserves credit for overcoming the naturally bigger man and the more active man. You saying Ray Leonard was in better shape purely on the basis that he was "said" to be obsessed with beating Hagler is nothing but speculation.

Overriding point is, Leonard deserves nothing but credit for beating a man nobody thought he could beat. End of story.
You're not excused! You are reframing my statements inaccurately and then addressing those. That's fallacious argumentation.

Where did I say that Leonard did not deserve credit for the win? I said it was controversial -and that is a fact. I do credit him for the win and have called it a well-suited cap to a brilliant career. But that win warrants an asterisk.

I said was that Ray was obsessed with beating Hagler, but I also said that this went beyond mere feeling -he put it into action with strategy and serious training for months. That's not "speculation based on the opinion that he was obsessed." He was in excellent condition in every way and it is simply wrong to assert that he was in "worse shape" than Hagler.

Your overriding point is nothing more than your overriding point. And if it were the "end of story", we wouldn't be debating it now.

It's clear to me that you are far more of an apologist for Leonard than I am a detractor. I'm a fan of both Hagler and Leonard -but an honest one who looks at the total picture without closing my eyes to facts and factors that may be uncomfortable.

[Stonehands89]

This is a myth. In hindsight it certainly looks that way as Leonard caught Hagler at the right time when he pulled off the upset combined with earlier negotiations which fell through back in 1982.

But Leonard was willing to meet Hagler halfway, which would have meant a fight at 154lbs. Leonard felt at the time that going all the way up to middleweight was a bridge too far as he would be losing speed and natural strength. Hagler the same reasons coming down in weight. And in no way am I siding with Leonard, but Hagler actually managed to weigh as low as 157lbs for his fight with Hamsho. Who knows if coming down another 3lbs would have been extremely difficult.

The fight not coming off when Hagler was closer to his peak or arguably in his peak was a stale mate. Hagler refused to face Leonard just as much as vice versa.
This is lifted from an article in the "Sweet Science" by George Kimball:

The aftermath of Hagler’s devastating win [over Hearns] produced an immediate guessing game of “Who’s Next?”

The most likely suspect immediately took himself out of the running.

“If I ever needed a reason to stay retired, that was it,” said Ray Charles Leonard.

...so there you go.

[redrooster]

* Marvin Hagler was past his best, but Ray was in even worse shape.
* Everybody thought Hagler would win. Sugar defied the odds.
* Hagler was the much bigger man.
* Hagler was the far more active fighter.

Anybody trying to discredit Sugar Ray's victory over Hagler are one of two things.

* They resent Sugar for beating their favourite fighter.
* Uneducated.

Whar do you make of the comments between Ryan and Clancy heard in Round 6 when commentator Ryan quoted him as saying "Sugar Ray said Marvin had lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of Hagler". It's right there on the tape which only proves my point all along so there's no use denying it any further.

I saw Marvin training for this fight and watched as Marvin spent the evening in an exercise in futility reaching his sparring partners-more proof Marvin should not have been in the ring at all.

I saw him in training and you didnt so please refrain from saying the rest of us are uneducated. It is you who need enlightenment on the subject.


I also remember many people I ran into telling how RAY was going to beat him so the phrase "everybody thought Hagler would win" is utterly false.

When you say the word "everybody" please keep in mind this only applies in the case of Terry Norris. It was Norris that defied the odds when everybody (but myself) picked Ray to win. Sugar had much the greater experience but none of that mattered to Terry.

Was leonard past it as all his supporters like to say? Far from it! After his last fight concluded, Tim Ryan congradulated him saying "that was an absolutely masterful performance" and which Ray very much agreed.

Regarding Hagler, just remember Leonard was inactive because he CHOSE to be during the prime of MMH obviously he continued his career which was suppossed to be for one fight only but we know it really wasn't.

In effect, admitting that you are waiting for Hagler to slow and continuing your career after Hagler retires tells you that Leonard didnt want any part of him but for his fans beating his shell is as good as the real thing.

[Robbi]

This is lifted from an article in the "Sweet Science" by George Kimball:

The aftermath of Hagler’s devastating win [over Hearns] produced an immediate guessing game of “Who’s Next?”

The most likely suspect immediately took himself out of the running.

“If I ever needed a reason to stay retired, that was it,” said Ray Charles Leonard.

...so there you go.

Thats when Leonard was retired, but that doesn't squash my take on it when it was due to happen in 1982.

[JohnThomas1]

But Leonard was willing to meet Hagler halfway, which would have meant a fight at 154lbs. Leonard felt at the time that going all the way up to middleweight was a bridge too far as he would be losing speed and natural strength. Hagler the same reasons coming down in weight. And in no way am I siding with Leonard, but Hagler actually managed to weigh as low as 157lbs for his fight with Hamsho. Who knows if coming down another 3lbs would have been extremely difficult.


SRL was actually joking about trhe catchweight, as well as building the fight up and catching some attention on the matter. He had intentions of facing Hagler at 160 and had already tested the water at 154 as a possible precursor. The retina is of course a true story, Leonard was at his peak and not about to release his grasp of higher greatness for no small reason.

[redrooster]

SRL was actually joking about trhe catchweight, as well as building the fight up and catching some attention on the matter. He had intentions of facing Hagler at 160 and had already tested the water at 154 as a possible precursor. The retina is of course a true story, Leonard was at his peak and not about to release his grasp of higher greatness for no small reason.

He said he was joking about the catchweight due to all the flack he'd been getting. Leonard had never been the subject of ridicule until after Norris finished with him. I doubt he would put Larry Merchant in front of Hagler on HBO to ask, only to say it was all a joke.


Did Leonard ever make good on his promise to meet a champion at a catchweight? Yes. Being that he wasn't as strong as past champions, he needed more help to compete and less demanding opposition, such as Donny Lalonde.

The retina of course was a cover up. Tackling Hagler & Hearns when he did made his career look much better than actually was. But we have Terry Norris to thank for exposing just how inept Ray Leonard really was in a fight. This fight revealed why SRL was so choosy with opponents.

[Stonehands89]

Thats when Leonard was retired, but that doesn't squash my take on it when it was due to happen in 1982.
I wrote this: "* Leonard's refusal to meet Hagler earlier."

... you response to it began with this: "this is a myth."

"Earlier" means before 1987. That last rebuttal solidly illustrates that Leonard was not willing to meet Hagler until Leonard was convinced that Hagler had slowed down. Leonard's apologists continue to run from Leonard's own words and admissions in their insistance on glorifying his career. See selfkill's posts for an example.

In my book, Leonard's unwillingness to meet Hagler earlier as well as the several other hard-line negotiations that Trainer insisted on taints the victory. Which is why I continue to assert and believe that Duran's 1983 loss was more impressive than Leonard's 1987 win because 1. Duran was in there for 15 rounds. If Hagler insisted on 15, there would have been no fight. 2. Duran challenged a younger and therefore more dangerous version of Hagler. 3. Duran fought him inside the perimeter.

[Addie]

You're not excused! You are reframing my statements inaccurately and then addressing those. That's fallacious argumentation.

Where did I say that Leonard did not deserve credit for the win? I said it was controversial -and that is a fact. I do credit him for the win and have called it a well-suited cap to a brilliant career. But that win warrants an asterisk.

Then there is no arguement. All my point has been throughout is that Leonard deserves credit, and some people here are denying him that.

I said was that Ray was obsessed with beating Hagler, but I also said that this went beyond mere feeling -he put it into action with strategy and serious training for months. That's not "speculation based on the opinion that he was obsessed." He was in excellent condition in every way and it is simply wrong to assert that he was in "worse shape" than Hagler.

My opinion is that he was in worse shape. He was less active than Hagler.

Your overriding point is nothing more than your overriding point. And if it were the "end of story", we wouldn't be debating it now.

Okay?

It's clear to me that you are far more of an apologist for Leonard than I am a detractor. I'm a fan of both Hagler and Leonard -but an honest one who looks at the total picture without closing my eyes to facts and factors that may be uncomfortable.

Marvin Hagler agreed to get in the ring with Leonard and then he lost on points.

[Addie]

Whar do you make of the comments between Ryan and Clancy heard in Round 6 when commentator Ryan quoted him as saying "Sugar Ray said Marvin had lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of Hagler". It's right there on the tape which only proves my point all along so there's no use denying it any further.

I saw Marvin training for this fight and watched as Marvin spent the evening in an exercise in futility reaching his sparring partners-more proof Marvin should not have been in the ring at all.

I saw him in training and you didnt so please refrain from saying the rest of us are uneducated. It is you who need enlightenment on the subject.


I also remember many people I ran into telling how RAY was going to beat him so the phrase "everybody thought Hagler would win" is utterly false.

When you say the word "everybody" please keep in mind this only applies in the case of Terry Norris. It was Norris that defied the odds when everybody (but myself) picked Ray to win. Sugar had much the greater experience but none of that mattered to Terry.

Was leonard past it as all his supporters like to say? Far from it! After his last fight concluded, Tim Ryan congradulated him saying "that was an absolutely masterful performance" and which Ray very much agreed.

Regarding Hagler, just remember Leonard was inactive because he CHOSE to be during the prime of MMH obviously he continued his career which was suppossed to be for one fight only but we know it really wasn't.

In effect, admitting that you are waiting for Hagler to slow and continuing your career after Hagler retires tells you that Leonard didnt want any part of him but for his fans beating his shell is as good as the real thing.

The majority of Boxing fans and experts believed Sugar Ray Leonard would lose. It's only in victory that he is scrutinized.

[Stonehands89]

Marvin Hagler agreed to get in the ring with Leonard and then he lost on points.
You say in your last post that "my only point is that Leonard deserves credit." Okay, I agree.

However, in a preceding post you say that "Overriding point is, Leonard deserves nothing but credit for beating a man nobody thought he could beat. End of story."

And that I don't agree with. So, which is it...?

[redrooster]

The majority of Boxing fans and experts believed Sugar Ray Leonard would lose. It's only in victory that he is scrutinized.

Accrding to who? That wasn't the impression I had. and why didnt you address the rest of my post? Hell, you must be scared shitless to address it.

[Addie]

You say in your last post that "my only point is that Leonard deserves credit." Okay, I agree.

However, in a preceding post you say that "Overriding point is, Leonard deserves nothing but credit for beating a man nobody thought he could beat. End of story."

And that I don't agree with. So, which is it...?

They are both exactly the same. Leonard deserves nothing but credit for the victory. It isn't hard to comprehend. The man beat a world class fighter above his natural weight when he himself was on the slide. Give the man a break.

[Addie]

Accrding to who? That wasn't the impression I had. and why didnt you address the rest of my post? Hell, you must be scared shitless to address it.

You are notorious for being anti-Leonard so not a lot you will say on him holds much ground as far as I'm concerned.

[Stonehands89]

They are both exactly the same. Leonard deserves nothing but credit for the victory. It isn't hard to comprehend. The man beat a world class fighter above his natural weight when he himself was on the slide. Give the man a break.
They are both not exactly the same. I never disagreed that Leonard "deserves credit". But to say that he deserves "nothing but credit" is a poor attempt to ignore the legitimate criticisms that question the purity of that victory. I tell you that someone who says that Leonard deserves nothing but credit for the Hagler win is either a. an apologist or b. naive or c. BOTH.

In addition, if you see no difference in the competing meanings of your 2 phrases about credit, then I'd question your education.

[Addie]

They are both not exactly the same. I never disagreed that Leonard "deserves credit". But to say that he deserves "nothing but credit" is a poor attempt to ignore the legitimate criticisms that question the purity of that victory. I tell you that someone who says that Leonard deserves nothing but credit for the Hagler win is either a. an apologist or b. naive or c. BOTH.

In addition, if you see no difference in the competing meanings of your 2 phrases about credit, then I'd question your education.

Nevermind. :huh

[Stonehands89]

Nevermind. :huh
Suggesting that those who disagree with you are "uneducated" is not advisable for several reasons. What happened here is that your measure was measured back unto you.

Anyway, good luck.

[redrooster]

You are notorious for being anti-Leonard so not a lot you will say on him holds much ground as far as I'm concerned.

Just like I said you're gutless and won't answer it. You know I can't respect a person like that. I put it out for you in black and white to address in front of everyone and you simply skipped over it as I knew you must. I guess to not acknowledge it and then continue with the charade is better than admitting to the embarrassing facts.

Since we both now know you're gutless I must ask why do you continue to carry on as though all criticsm is due to the blind bias of hating? I'm being perfectly honest and just pointed to something that was said on a tape so you can't very well blame me for it.

I gave you the evidence so please stop this charade. If you can't handle the truth about it just tell me it pains you to admit how cowardly leonard really was and that he couldnt handle even someone of Norris' caliber. That way you shut your trap once and for all.

Remember too that not everyone on this forum as as dumb as you'd like them to be.

[redrooster]

:lol: Selfkill knows he got himself into something he can't finish. I expect him to just ignore me from now on. He'd better unless he wants more of the same. :yep

[Addie]

Suggesting that those who disagree with you are "uneducated" is not advisable for several reasons. What happened here is that your measure was measured back unto you.

Anyway, good luck.

You started using so many big words I thought I would do myself a favour and bow out of this one.

Congratulations on your victory. :good

[redrooster]

You started using so many big words I thought I would do myself a favour and bow out of this one.

Congratulations on your victory. :good

Hey gutless you still feel like bragging how tough your guy is. You shouldn't after what I did to you.

[redrooster]

Come on you stupid punk answer!!

[redrooster]

If you don't I'm going to step all over you in front of everyone.

[redrooster]

And this time I won't be nice about it like before.

[Addie]

Come on you stupid punk answer!!

My views haven't changed. I just felt our discussion was becoming more about who was better versed in the english language rather than having anything to do with the sport of Boxing.

Sugar Ray Leonard beating Marvin Hagler was a remarkable achievement, and regardless of what advantages either fighter had, I would prefer to concentrate on the facts. Leonard was the smaller man and the less active fighter, which makes his victory even more impressive.

[redrooster]

^ Being choosey about what to answer is you ONLY hope! You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge what's said on the tape. No need for any admissions now-to me that was your give up call.

[redrooster]

My views haven't changed. I just felt our discussion was becoming more about who was better versed in the english language rather than having anything to do with the sport of Boxing.

Sugar Ray Leonard beating Marvin Hagler was a remarkable achievement, and regardless of what advantages either fighter had, I would prefer to concentrate on the facts. Leonard was the smaller man and the less active fighter, which makes his victory even more impressive.

Yeah it reminded me of the SMALLER Leon Spinks beating Ali. That impress you too because it was the same thing essentially-timing.

Except Leon had the guts to give a rematch.

[Addie]

^ Being choosey about what to answer is you ONLY hope! You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge what's said on the tape. No need for any admissions now-to me that was your give up call.

Perhaps Sugar Ray Leonard took advantage of Hagler whilst he was on the slide, but that isn't justification for discrediting the victory.

[Addie]

Yeah it reminded me of the SMALLER Leon Spinks beating Ali. That impress you too because it was the same thing essentially-timing.

Except Leon had the guts to give a rematch.

Leon Spinks was in his prime years, whereas Muhammad Ali was a ridicliously shot fighter during this time in his career.

Sugar Ray Leonard didn't give Marvin a rematch, but is that justification for discrediting his victory? I'm not convinced.

[redrooster]

Perhaps Sugar Ray Leonard took advantage of Hagler whilst he was on the slide, but that isn't justification for discrediting the victory.

Well, isn't that what people do when it comes to Terry Norris? His victory over Ray was even more overwhelming especially when you think of the vast edge in experience that went to leonard and his amazing 11 year win streak.

Moreover this wasn't just some mere split decision. Terry Norris fucked up Ray Leonard and sent him into retirement. He stopped his streak of comeback fights altogether.

[redrooster]

Leon Spinks was in his prime years, whereas Muhammad Ali was a ridicliously shot fighter during this time in his career.

Sugar Ray Leonard didn't give Marvin a rematch, but is that justification for discrediting his victory? I'm not convinced.

Leon Spinks was a guy with 7 pro fights and just over one year experience! How can you even say something like this to me? To me, the Redrooster!!!

I can't believe I'm having a conversation with a child. This is a fucking joke!

[Addie]

Well, isn't that what people do when it comes to Terry Norris? His victory over Ray was even more overwhelming especially when you think of the vast edge in experience that went to leonard and his amazing 11 year win streak.

Moreover this wasn't just some mere split decision. Terry Norris fucked up Ray Leonard and sent him into retirement. He stopped his streak of comeback fights altogether.

Terry Norris has Sugar Ray Leonard's name on his resume, but most of us widely consider that version of Ray to be shot and therefore makes the victory a lot less impressive.

Sugar Ray Leonard was past his best when he defeated Marvin Hagler. I don't think there was any evidence suggest to Marvin was a shot fighter, and he was a natural middleweight whereas Ray had been campaigning at welterweight. In addition, Leonard was coming off a lay off.

[Addie]

Leon Spinks was a guy with 7 pro fights and just over one year experience! How can you even say something like this to me? To me, the Redrooster!!!

I can't believe I'm having a conversation with a child. This is a fucking joke!

It seems to me that the reason you discredit Sugar Ray's victory is because you considered that version of Marvin Hagler to be shot. If that's the case, I disagree with you.

[Stonehands89]

Leon Spinks was a guy with 7 pro fights and just over one year experience! How can you even say something like this to me? To me, the Redrooster!!!

I can't believe I'm having a conversation with a child. This is a fucking joke!
...I think someone should write a letter to Bedlam on behalf of Rooster and request that they suspend computer privileges.

[redrooster]

It seems to me that the reason you discredit Sugar Ray's victory is because you considered that version of Marvin Hagler to be shot. If that's the case, I disagree with you.

Look here, I saw Marvin in training I told you this but you skipped right over it. What's the matter did you forget? The fact that Marvin couldnt hit 3 sparring partners is nothing to sneeze at! When I saw it I felt that Marvin didnt belong in the ring and that his days as champion were numbered. Believe me I know shot when I see it even if the rest of you, especially you followers of leonard dont. Keep in mind that I didnt know how much longer he planned to be around or what kind of condition Leonard was in.

[redrooster]

Terry Norris has Sugar Ray Leonard's name on his resume, but most of us widely consider that version of Ray to be shot and therefore makes the victory a lot less impressive.

Sugar Ray Leonard was past his best when he defeated Marvin Hagler. I don't think there was any evidence suggest to Marvin was a shot fighter, and he was a natural middleweight whereas Ray had been campaigning at welterweight. In addition, Leonard was coming off a lay off.

Alright then tell me who said leonard was shot going into the Norris fight. Give me his name and I'll check it out to see if it's true. If what you are saying is true then why was Ray the favorite going in? You honestly don't expect me to believe he was shot just because you say so.

I saw the end his last fight where Tim Ryan told him "an absolutely masterful performance" and on the cover of KO magazine "Can Sugar Ray actually lose?"
not to mention inside an article being congradulated by Farhood who said "Sugar Ray fought the perfect fight"

Where is your evidence???

When you're on your toes for 12 rounds straight, your legs show no signs of aging, you show no signs of wear or slowing, you don't lose a round, then you are not shot!

Who said Ray was shot at the conclusion of the last Duran fight? In fact he played with Duran, mocked him, taunted him, humiliated him, daring him to strike.

Unlike your assessment of the Hagler-Leonard fight, I found that no one was going against Ray to win so how is it that Leonard becomes shot after losing??

Now it's your turn. So you don't think there's any evidence Hagler was shot. Go to the 6th round of the fight and listen to the comments the last 20 seconds of the round: Tim Ryan "Sugar Ray said Hagler had lost a lot of speed and said he was counting on the slowness of Hagler"

I know you've heard it before but like the liar you are you still tell me "I don't think there was any evidence to suggest Marvin was a shot fighter"

Not only that but Ray was seen on television by yours truly days before the fight walking up to juan Roldan then telling him "thanks for softening him up for me buddy"

Need I say more?

Of course you are oblivious to this fact and if you're a leonard fan like yourself you'd want to be.

What else now? That's right, Hagler lost two of his belts entering the ring as WBC middleweight champ, not undisputed champion as he'd been the previous 6 years. And why should he if he' not planning to continue fighting. Why fight the organizations who've taken your belts as he'd been known for doing when you're about to retire?

Like I said Ray could have taken this fight before but he was smart and didnt because he knew when it came to Hagler, Leonard would always be second best. Hagler and now Hearns were the two best fighters when they met and leonard wouldn't make ANY noise about coming out of retirement.

[Robbi]

In my book, Leonard's unwillingness to meet Hagler earlier as well as the several other hard-line negotiations that Trainer insisted on taints the victory. Which is why I continue to assert and believe that Duran's 1983 loss was more impressive than Leonard's 1987 win because 1. Duran was in there for 15 rounds. If Hagler insisted on 15, there would have been no fight. 2. Duran challenged a younger and therefore more dangerous version of Hagler. 3. Duran fought him inside the perimeter.

I like your factors, but your telling me a win is better than a loss?. The Hagler who Leonard fought wasn't a million miles away from the one of three years earlier. He certainly slowed down and was more hittable. I could also argue the case that Duran had momentum going into his fight with Hagler, something Leonard never had at all. His previous fight was three years earlier and his showing against Howard was average. Leonard had one fight in five years, was dropped by a mediocre jr middleweight, factors which wouldn't give any fighters confidence going into a superfight. Both Duran and Leonard had never fought at middleweight prior to facing Hagler. Evens. Leonard being naturally bigger probably means he has a slight advantage. We can go round in circles about this, but Leonard won, Duran never. And most observers had Duran winning 5-6 rounds against Hagler over 15. Who's to say Leonard would not have beaten Hagler over 15? Thats just speculation. Considering Hagler's being 'shot' to some in hindsight he might have been blowing as much as Leonard down the stretch of a 15 rounder. And Leonard managed to get a second wind on a couple of ocassions, thus it's hard to argue he would have gained another.


End of the day, Leonard won and Duran never. The biggest factor for me is that Duran wasn't rusty, Leonard was going in. Yes, he did keep in shape for about a year before the first bell rang against Hagler, but no their is no substitute for the real thing.

[Stonehands89]

I like your factors, but your telling me a win is better than a loss?. The Hagler who Leonard fought wasn't a million miles away from the one of three years earlier. He certainly slowed down and was more hittable. I could also argue the case that Duran had momentum going into his fight with Hagler, something Leonard never had at all. His previous fight was three years earlier and his showing against Howard was average. Leonard had one fight in five years, was dropped by a mediocre jr middleweight, factors which wouldn't give any fighters confidence going into a superfight. Both Duran and Leonard had never fought at middleweight prior to facing Hagler. Evens. Leonard being naturally bigger probably means he has a slight advantage. We can go round in circles about this, but Leonard won, Duran never. And most observers had Duran winning 5-6 rounds against Hagler over 15. Who's to say Leonard would not have beaten Hagler over 15? Thats just speculation. Considering Hagler's being 'shot' to some in hindsight he might have been blowing as much as Leonard down the stretch of a 15 rounder. And Leonard managed to get a second wind on a couple of ocassions, thus it's hard to argue he would have gained another.


End of the day, Leonard won and Duran never. The biggest factor for me is that Duran wasn't rusty, Leonard was going in. Yes, he did keep in shape for about a year before the first bell rang against Hagler, but no their is no substitute for the real thing.
Robbi. I disagree all over the place.

[Robbi]

Robbi. I disagree all over the place.

No problems. I liked your reply. Short and sweet. Sometimes an in-depth reply looks good on paper, but a short one can be as equally effective.

I'm sure you don't see my views as outright ridiculous even though you disagree, just like yours aint either.


Both great efforts by Leonard and Duran. That we can agree on.

[Stonehands89]

No problems. I liked your reply. Short and sweet. Sometimes an in-depth reply looks good on paper, but a short one can be as equally effective.

I'm sure you don't see my views as outright ridiculous even though you disagree, just like yours aint either.


Both great efforts by Leonard and Duran. That we can agree on.
Well, I don't want to bore the forum by repeating myself. I think that you know why I hold that Duran's surprisingly competitive loss outshined Leonard's controversial win.

I respect your positions always, but your post falls short in my opinion for many reasons. Among them these:

1. A win isn't per se better than a loss. If Butterbean fought Holmes for only 4 rounds and won, that is less impressive than Holmes' gallant loss to Spinks in the rematch. Given the circumstances of the two Hagler fights, I don't see how anyone cannot have serious pause when making comparisons about which performance was more courageous or impressive. Intelligent minds may differ, but to just say Duran lost, end of story, tells me that someone smokes too much marijuana.

2. Mike Trainer took a hard line on behalf of Leonard in negotiations with the Petronelli's over the 12 vs. 15 rounds. The Petronelli's believed that if they pushed the issue, the fight would have been off and Leonard would have run around saying "Hey, who's ducking who?"

Leonard collapsed in the ring at the final bell. There is no way he would have went 15. He knew it, his people knew it, and you know it. Hagler regrets that and the three other major, major concessions that he made. And he should. He was right when he said that all that's in his skull is a boxing glove.

Duran didn't give a fuck about concessions. He fought a dominant and near-prime undisputed Middleweight Champion of the world and never averted his gaze from that bald head. See, there's a big difference, fight fans.

3. There is nothing "Evens" about your statement that both Duran and Leonard never fought as MWs before Hagler. Leonard had plenty of time to preserve himself, study, and train like a Spartan for his great mission -and he jumped up only 13 pounds in weight (and part of that was natural growth)! A full-grown, fully matured Duran was 135. He was fighting 25 pounds over that. "Evens" my butt!

All together now:
Duran didn't give a fuck about a "larger ring" and "pillow gloves" and "3 less rounds" and "Hagler getting old and slowing down" and his "corner yelling scripts" and "riding bicycles" in a boxing ring.

Again!
Duran didn't give a fuck about a "larger ring" and "pillow gloves" and "3 less rounds" and "Hagler slowing down" and his "corner yelling scripts" and "riding bicycles" in a boxing ring.

One more time, fight fans!
Duran didn't give a fuck about a "larger ring" and "pillow gloves" and "3 less rounds" and "Hagler slowing down" and his "corner yelling scripts" and "riding bicycles" in a boxing ring.


...See what you made me too Robbi? I didn't want to bore the forum by repeating myself and you go and make a liar out of me.

[redrooster]

^ Cant argue wth that

[Stonehands89]

^ uh-oh

[JohnThomas1]

It seems to me that the reason you discredit Sugar Ray's victory is because you considered that version of Marvin Hagler to be shot. If that's the case, I disagree with you.

You can't argue with an OC like Rooster per anything to do with Leonard mate, he's a riot :lol:

Might pick out a few points meself when i come back with some food :yep

[redrooster]

You can't argue with an OC like Rooster per anything to do with Leonard mate, he's a riot :lol:

Might pick out a few points meself when i come back with some food :yep

Mr. Chicken isn't going anywhere near this. He skillfully ducks around the facts the way Sugar ducks live opponents. Truthfully, I don't expect him back.

[JohnThomas1]

Mr. Chicken isn't going anywhere near this. He skillfully ducks around the facts the way Sugar ducks live opponents. Truthfully, I don't expect him back.

I think he just can't be arsed arguing with you on this particular topic. Maybe he and i should do some tag teaming.

[JohnThomas1]

By every conceivable advantage you mean a smaller ring and a 12 round fight. Wow, the deck was sure stacked against Hagler, who was the naturally bigger fighter, had 2 previous fights that were 12 round affairs, and he was the reigning middleweight champ with 12 title defences.

Its simple, Leonard should not have beaten Hagler, who was the bigger fighter and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time. Hagler may have been past his best but to bring that up allows us to also factor in that Leonard had only 1 fight in 5 years. Even if it was a split decision, history and logic tells us Leonard shouldn't have won that fight, much the same way that Duran shouldn't have beaten Leonard first time around but he did. Please don't go discrediting Leonard's win there and saying Duran's close (but clear) losing effort was a better accomplishment.

I like this post a lot upon going back and inspecting.

[Pat_Lowe]

I like this post a lot upon going back and inspecting.

lol thanks I try, I gotta put in a good word for Leonard here and there as it seems the critics are almost starting to outnumber the fans. Perhaps roosters ramblings have finally gotten to people :shock:

[redrooster]

I think he just can't be arsed arguing with you on this particular topic. Maybe he and i should do some tag teaming.

He needs all the help he can get at this point. Not that you'd be able to help him any.

F#@ him. I could see that he was beginning to get cold feet yesterday and by this morning he was trying to respond to my goading but the poor guy was so confused he couldn't figure out what to say. He's having an even tougher time now the way I lined everything up for him.

I told him okay then if you really believe everything you say then put your money where your mouth is and dig yourself out of the hole. He probably won't show up on the classic forum anymore because he doesn't have the nerve to face me.

[JohnThomas1]

One is that he never fought the best of Marvin Hagler (by choice) and two, he was brutally outclassed by Norris.


Hagler never fought the best of Leonard either. To do so he would have to go back to 147 :good

Hagler never fought the best of Michael Spinks or Dwight Qawi either, well he never fought them at all! This would have been akin to the mountain Leonard would climb. Before you say Hagler was a totally natural 160 i will counter Leonard was a totally natural 147. The difference is that Leonard was driven to chase higher greatness in divisions north of his own.

On the Norris front, well this showed Leonard that his ship had indeed sailed into the night and he could no longer cut it with top level fighters anything like he previously had - ever again. Similar events might be Jones - Tarver II, Louis - Charles, etc. There comes a time.....

It's simple, Norris should not have beaten Leonard who, was a five time champion and arguably the greatest welterweight of his time. Remember, Norris was at a severe disadvantage in terms of overall experience and was faced with a living legend on the heels of a most brutal knockout loss to Julian Jackson.

Arguably the greatest Welter of his time? Already one see's you have no perspective or balance regarding SRL whatsoever.

On the heels of the Jackson KO? What the hell? Norris had since won 5 fights after the Jackson stoppage including KO'ing Mugabi in but a single round to win the 154 title. We really aren't that stupid dude.

Inactivity was not a factor here since Sugar Ray had been relatively busy over the last four years and showed little or no signs of slippage from his earlier years.

Are you a politition? If not maybe you should apply because your propaganda knows no bounds. 4 fights in 4 years is "relatively busy"??? We can go back a bit and make it 6 in 9 if you like? No fight for over a year coming into Norris. Norris had 19 fights in the time Leonard had 4.

Even if it were a split decision in favor of Norris, history and logic tells us Norris shouldn't have won the fight, let alone turn it into a one sided win the way he did. The important thing to remember is not what should have happend in the fight but rather what actually happened in comparison with what was expected to happen that makes this all the more an impressive achievement for Terry.

Leonards time was up - simple. Norris turned out to be a very decent fighter too.

This was a major accomplishment that went down in the annals of sports history that musn't be ignored. This was every bit as great an accomplishment as was Buster Douglas' miracle win over Tyson and Antuofuermo's miracle draw against Hagler in '79.

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Let's please not downplay the significance of this important victory. I can understand all the hate Terry recieves because of it (destroying one of boxing's most beloved idols) but let's be honest and give proper credit to the man who made Ray Leonard bow in acknowledgement of fistic superiority.

Lets all chip in and help the Duster get over his obsession with SRL might be more the order of the day

:blood

[JohnThomas1]

lol thanks I try, I gotta put in a good word for Leonard here and there as it seems the critics are almost starting to outnumber the fans. Perhaps roosters ramblings have finally gotten to people :shock:

Hahaha, truth be told most just ignore his drool as it's been established he's a troll and nothing more. Others have a bit of fun now and then, while others still may not have worked him out.

[JohnThomas1]

Roy Jones is definitely head and shoulders above the likes of Leonard or Benitez. The thought of ducking another fighter would never occur to him, so great were his talents. He was supremely confident before his fights unlike Leonard who needed assurance from Randy Gordon that he wasn't going to be in over his head facing Roberto Duran (a lightweight)

But back to Roy Jones. In my mind, Roy Jones is vastly underrated because many fans from before the Roy Jones era resent his enormous talents. Deep down they all know how good he was but they don't like to admit it, preferring to cite his lack of competition. Critics who did not like Hagler also resorted to this for many years blaming him for not fighting leonard. Yet I did not hear these same people calling for leonard to summon the courage to challenge him.

This is just wierd because for years i have seen it claimed Jones ducked numerous fighters.

Didn't see you in there defending him once in dozens of chances buddy

:scaredas:

[JohnThomas1]

I saw Marvin training for this fight and watched as Marvin spent the evening in an exercise in futility reaching his sparring partners-more proof Marvin should not have been in the ring at all.

I saw him in training and you didnt so please refrain from saying the rest of us are uneducated. It is you who need enlightenment on the subject.


Prove it :good

[JohnThomas1]

Regarding Hagler, just remember Leonard was inactive because he CHOSE to be


Jeff Chandler suffered the same injury vs your boy Sandoval and never fought again.

End of on that front :good

[JohnThomas1]

Look here, I saw Marvin in training I told you this but you skipped right over it. What's the matter did you forget? The fact that Marvin couldnt hit 3 sparring partners is nothing to sneeze at! When I saw it I felt that Marvin didnt belong in the ring and that his days as champion were numbered. Believe me I know shot when I see it even if the rest of you, especially you followers of leonard dont. Keep in mind that I didnt know how much longer he planned to be around or what kind of condition Leonard was in.

1. You have no credibility whatsoever and taking you at your word is something you won't often find.

2. Even if you saw such an event i for one don't believe you would know Jack Schitt about what you were actually seeing anyway.

[JohnThomas1]

He needs all the help he can get at this point. Not that you'd be able to help him any.

F#@ him. I could see that he was beginning to get cold feet yesterday and by this morning he was trying to respond to my goading but the poor guy was so confused he couldn't figure out what to say. He's having an even tougher time now the way I lined everything up for him.

I told him okay then if you really believe everything you say then put your money where your mouth is and dig yourself out of the hole. He probably won't show up on the classic forum anymore because he doesn't have the nerve to face me.

Self delusion will get you no-where. As if you of all people could debate someone off a forum :lol:

[redrooster]

Prove it :good

How about you trying to dispute it? You wouldn't know where to begin but go ahead and see if you can make me trip over myself.

[redrooster]

Self delusion will get you no-where. As if you of all people could debate someone off a forum :lol:

Well I don't see him stepping in. Do you?

[redrooster]

Jeff Chandler suffered the same injury vs your boy Sandoval and never fought again.

End of on that front :good

That's because Jeff's injury was legit. Leonard's was a cover up to safely manage his career.

[JohnThomas1]

How about you trying to dispute it? You wouldn't know where to begin but go ahead and see if you can make me trip over myself.

Didn't think you could, thanks ;)

[JohnThomas1]

Well I don't see him stepping in. Do you?

Care to bet $100 via paypal he won't return?

Thought not

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

That's because Jeff's injury was legit. Leonard's was a cover up to safely manage his career.
Says who on either front?

You are full of it

:good

[JohnThomas1]

Snapshot of redrooster, upon hearing the Hagler - Leonard verdict

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Not a happy camper

:good

[redrooster]

Didn't think you could, thanks ;)

:lol:

You retard I was hoping you'd say that. Look at the pic in my avatar and see if you feel like repeating those words.

[JohnThomas1]

:lol:

You retard I was hoping you'd say that. Look at the pic in my avatar and see if you feel like repeating those words.

Is that Robbie Sims?

[redrooster]

Is that Robbie Sims? who shows up to watch Simms in training?

[Robbi]

Well, I don't want to bore the forum by repeating myself. I think that you know why I hold that Duran's surprisingly competitive loss outshined Leonard's controversial win.

I respect your positions always, but your post falls short in my opinion for many reasons. Among them these:

1. A win isn't per se better than a loss. If Butterbean fought Holmes for only 4 rounds and won, that is less impressive than Holmes' gallant loss to Spinks in the rematch. Given the circumstances of the two Hagler fights, I don't see how anyone cannot have serious pause when making comparisons about which performance was more courageous or impressive. Intelligent minds may differ, but to just say Duran lost, end of story, tells me that someone smokes too much marijuana.

2. Mike Trainer took a hard line on behalf of Leonard in negotiations with the Petronelli's over the 12 vs. 15 rounds. The Petronelli's believed that if they pushed the issue, the fight would have been off and Leonard would have run around saying "Hey, who's ducking who?"

Leonard collapsed in the ring at the final bell. There is no way he would have went 15. He knew it, his people knew it, and you know it. Hagler regrets that and the three other major, major concessions that he made. And he should. He was right when he said that all that's in his skull is a boxing glove.

Duran didn't give a fuck about concessions. He fought a dominant and near-prime undisputed Middleweight Champion of the world and never averted his gaze from that bald head. See, there's a big difference, fight fans.

3. There is nothing "Evens" about your statement that both Duran and Leonard never fought as MWs before Hagler. Leonard had plenty of time to preserve himself, study, and train like a Spartan for his great mission -and he jumped up only 13 pounds in weight (and part of that was natural growth)! A full-grown, fully matured Duran was 135. He was fighting 25 pounds over that. "Evens" my butt!

All together now:
Duran didn't give a fuck about a "larger ring" and "pillow gloves" and "3 less rounds" and "Hagler getting old and slowing down" and his "corner yelling scripts" and "riding bicycles" in a boxing ring.

Again!
Duran didn't give a fuck about a "larger ring" and "pillow gloves" and "3 less rounds" and "Hagler slowing down" and his "corner yelling scripts" and "riding bicycles" in a boxing ring.

One more time, fight fans!
Duran didn't give a fuck about a "larger ring" and "pillow gloves" and "3 less rounds" and "Hagler slowing down" and his "corner yelling scripts" and "riding bicycles" in a boxing ring.


...See what you made me too Robbi? I didn't want to bore the forum by repeating myself and you go and make a liar out of me.

I know what you mean. Not all wins are better than all losses. Kinda educated enough to know that, thanks very much. "Leonard collapsed at the final bell" I think you may well be the one smoking marijuana. First I knew about that. And read the part abouts "evens" again. I did go onto say "slight advantage to Leonard was he was natutally bigger". Don't you worry I'm not making a liar out of you. Who said that? I did disagree with you however. Get over it. Not everything you say is gospel, even though you think it is.

[Robbi]

Leonard collapsed in the ring at the final bell. There is no way he would have went 15. He knew it, his people knew it, and you know it.

No Stonehands I don't "know it". If I did I would kindly agree. What I can buy into is that Leonard may well have lost the fight had it when three extra rounds. But it's not written in stone that he would have been swiftly dispatched. I did explain that Leonard managed to have a second wind during the late stages of the fight, so who's to say that he couldn't again past 12 rounds?

"1. A win isn't per se better than a loss. If Butterbean fought Holmes for only 4 rounds and won, that is less impressive than Holmes' gallant loss to Spinks in the rematch. Given the circumstances of the two Hagler fights, I don't see how anyone cannot have serious pause when making comparisons about which performance was more courageous or impressive. Intelligent minds may differ, but to just say Duran lost, end of story, tells me that someone smokes too much marijuana"

Regarding the above. I'm afraid to say that the factors when weighing everything up on the scales, the loss Duran was handed to by Hagler simply doesn't merit being more impressive and better than Leonard's win. What happens inside the ring matters most IMO, but other factors need to be considered heavily. A win is better than a loss, that goes without saying. But I do know what you mean about circumstances and some exceptions. I guess we just disagree mate. Don't worry my man, your not a liar. I have covered that previously.

[redrooster]

MIA: Selfkill, John Thomas :yep :!:

:hi: Adios amigos

[Addie]

MIA: Selfkill, John Thomas :yep :!:

:hi: Adios amigos

:yep Some people really take pride in their forum perfomances.

Congraulations for proving once again that you have tunnel vision when it comes to Sugar Ray Leonard's career.

[JohnThomas1]

MIA: Selfkill, John Thomas :yep :!:

:hi: Adios amigos

Oh come on, i didn't emabarrass you that much did i?

Hmmmm, then again on closer inspection....

:good

[JohnThomas1]

2. Even if you saw such an event i for one don't believe you would know Jack Schitt about what you were actually seeing anyway.

Never forget number 2 Sugar Ray Rooster

:good

[redrooster]

:yep Some people really take pride in their forum perfomances.

Congraulations for proving once again that you have tunnel vision when it comes to Sugar Ray Leonard's career.

Hey there buddy. Love the false bravado act. Speaking of tunnel vision you ought to change your name to Self delusional. :yep

Surely you remember everything that happened since yesterday afternoon-you've been curiously silent on matters and don't seem very anxious to catch up on our conversation. I've got all the evidence to back up what I've been saying while you've got what, nothing?

[redrooster]

Come on Selfkill here's your chance to aire your grievances. Out with it.

[Holmes' Jab]

Great to see that roosters obsession with Leonard still lives on. :p :bbb

[JohnThomas1]

Great to see that roosters obsession with Leonard still lives on. :p :bbb

4 years minimum and counting :lol:

[redrooster]

Oh come on, i didn't emabarrass you that much did i?

Hmmmm, then again on closer inspection....

:good

I thought you had killed yourself! Poor John Thomas didn't believe I had evidence of Hagler's sparring sessions with the Weaver Tripletts 3 weeks prior to the Leonard fight.

It exists and only I was witness to it. I'd been toying with you all this time until last night John when I decided to end it. You'd been replying so frequently when all of a sudden you stopped altogether. :lol:

What happened last night?

This hasn't been a very good week starting out for the leonard fans.

[redrooster]

Never forget number 2 Sugar Ray Rooster

:good

Too hard to swallow your pride I suppose. :D This hasn't been a very good day for you has it?

[redrooster]

Hey John, I'm taunting you! What are you going to do about it?

[redrooster]

MIA: Selfkill, John Thomas.


:happy

[redrooster]

Couple of self delusional leonard fans kicking the bucket- courtesy of yours truly.

[redrooster]

Only winners get bragging rights.

[redrooster]

Poster of the year: Redrooster

:happy

[redrooster]

Only winners get bragging rights: Redrooster/Terry Norris


losers get the mourner's bench

[redrooster]

Great to see that roosters obsession with Leonard still lives on. :p :bbb

Thanks Holmes',...hope you have been following. What did you think of the job I did last night on JT & Selfkill? I think it's been a rather humbling experience for both. Neither feels like saying much.

[JohnThomas1]

I thought you had killed yourself! Poor John Thomas didn't believe I had evidence of Hagler's sparring sessions with the Weaver Tripletts 3 weeks prior to the Leonard fight.

It exists and only I was witness to it. I'd been toying with you all this time until last night John when I decided to end it. You'd been replying so frequently when all of a sudden you stopped altogether. :lol:

What happened last night?

This hasn't been a very good week starting out for the leonard fans.

Evidence?

:rofl:rofl:rofl

[JohnThomas1]

Now it's your turn. So you don't think there's any evidence Hagler was shot. Go to the 6th round of the fight and listen to the comments the last 20 seconds of the round: Tim Ryan "Sugar Ray said Hagler had lost a lot of speed and said he was counting on the slowness of Hagler"


Well Leonard said that did he? What did Hagler say of Leonard pre their 1987 fight then? How about we take a little bo peep, just to put you 100% out of your misery ;)

Hagler was at ringside in Worcester, Mass., nearly three years ago when Leonard was knocked down by Kevin Howard before registering a ninth-round knockout.
''He wasn't anywhere near as good as before,'' Hagler said. ''It was like he was saying, 'I'm Sugar Ray Leonard and you ain't supposed to hit me - don't you know who I am? ' He was rusty then and he'll be rusty now. All that time off has to take an effect, but I'm looking at it as if he just got through with a fight.''


Game, set & match

New balls please

:good

[Stonehands89]

I know what you mean. Not all wins are better than all losses. Kinda educated enough to know that, thanks very much. "Leonard collapsed at the final bell" I think you may well be the one smoking marijuana. First I knew about that. And read the part abouts "evens" again. I did go onto say "slight advantage to Leonard was he was natutally bigger". Don't you worry I'm not making a liar out of you. Who said that? I did disagree with you however. Get over it. Not everything you say is gospel, even though you think it is.
You took my retort a bit personally. If I crossed a line, I apologize. I'm no Rooster.

That post wasn't directed at you so much as at apologists in general who fail to promote a position. For the record, I have watched Leoanrd-Hagler about 35 times and appreciate Ray's performance more and more every time. It was genious, even though I still have him down by 1 or 2 points. At times his apologists irk me and so I get more adamant than normal.

First off, I don't believe that I have access to the divine when framing arguments. I do, however, know that I don't defend a position or assault someone's else's position unless I have pretty strong arguments. At times, they are stronger than others, but apologists who throw out careless arguments should be called on that carelessness. Selfkill is alright by me, but he was guilty of that. He wrote "end of story"... so that comment about marijuana was more towards his position, not yours.

The last line of the post about your making a liar out of me wasn't meant to be offensive. I found it humorous because I didn't want to get revved up and said so, but ended up revved up anyway.

You already know I reserve the right to jump on any argument I see as faulty. You may call that arrogance -I call it fun. And I can be expected to have the same treatment returned unto me.

I see it as quality control.

[Stonehands89]

No Stonehands I don't "know it". If I did I would kindly agree. What I can buy into is that Leonard may well have lost the fight had it when three extra rounds. But it's not written in stone that he would have been swiftly dispatched. I did explain that Leonard managed to have a second wind during the late stages of the fight, so who's to say that he couldn't again past 12 rounds?

"1. A win isn't per se better than a loss. If Butterbean fought Holmes for only 4 rounds and won, that is less impressive than Holmes' gallant loss to Spinks in the rematch. Given the circumstances of the two Hagler fights, I don't see how anyone cannot have serious pause when making comparisons about which performance was more courageous or impressive. Intelligent minds may differ, but to just say Duran lost, end of story, tells me that someone smokes too much marijuana"

Regarding the above. I'm afraid to say that the factors when weighing everything up on the scales, the loss Duran was handed to by Hagler simply doesn't merit being more impressive and better than Leonard's win. What happens inside the ring matters most IMO, but other factors need to be considered heavily. A win is better than a loss, that goes without saying. But I do know what you mean about circumstances and some exceptions. I guess we just disagree mate. Don't worry my man, your not a liar. I have covered that previously.
Robbi, you're a fair man. Again, though, we have a bit of a cultural disconnect here. When I said "you made a liar out of me" -it was self-deprecating humor because it was really my own doing. I said I don't want to be redundant but then when ahead and presented my old arguments anyway.

I remember when I first got on here, someone called me a "c*nt" and I was ready to take a plane to Britain and stab them in the heart. Where I come from, "them is fightin' woids", you may as well call my mother a crack whore.... but across the pond, calling someone that is relatively affectionate! I forgot who it was but they got me hip to the difference!

[Robbi]

You took my retort a bit personally. If I crossed a line, I apologize. I'm no Rooster.

That post wasn't directed at you so much as at apologists in general who fail to promote a position. For the record, I have watched Leoanrd-Hagler about 35 times and appreciate Ray's performance more and more every time. It was genious, even though I still have him down by 1 or 2 points. At times his apologists irk me and so I get more adamant than normal.

First off, I don't believe that I have access to the divine when framing arguments. I do, however, know that I don't defend a position or assault someone's else's position unless I have pretty strong arguments. At times, they are stronger than others, but apologists who throw out careless arguments should be called on that carelessness. Selfkill is alright by me, but he was guilty of that. He wrote "end of story"... so that comment about marijuana was more towards his position, not yours.

The last line of the post about your making a liar out of me wasn't meant to be offensive. I found it humorous because I didn't want to get revved up and said so, but ended up revved up anyway.

You already know I reserve the right to jump on any argument I see as faulty. You may call that arrogance -I call it fun. And I can be expected to have the same treatment returned unto me.

I see it as quality control.

I never knew if you were joking on here or not. It doesn't bother me either. And one thing about me on a boxing forum, I don't get reved up and can handle people very well indeed. Once with Manassa which went totally off the subject from both of us over a few pages, apart from that my track record is faultless. I've been on boxing forums for 8 years and never been banned once. Stonehands, I never took the part about "making you out a liar" offensive "Don't you worry I'm not making a liar out of you. Who said that? I did disagree with you however" IMO I would hardly call my response as taking you offensively. It's polite if anything.

Cheers for the response and responding with a positive vibe and getting your thoughts across.

"I reserve the right to jump on any argument I see as faulty" 100% agreed, but mind yours aint always working correctly. Sometimes others might see yours as faulty. I see them as fair and not wide of the mark most of the time. Opinions and views, facts and fiction. All a rather crazy world we live in.

[Stonehands89]

"I reserve the right to jump on any argument I see as faulty" 100% agreed, but mind yours aint always working correctly. Sometimes others might see yours as faulty. I see them as fair and not wide of the mark most of the time.
"You already know I reserve the right to jump on any argument I see as faulty. You may call that arrogance -I call it fun. And I can be expected to have the same treatment returned unto me." -You may have overlooked that bold print.

I'm only aware that my arguments are faulty if someone brings it to my attention, and those who do are the ones I enjoy the most. This forum would be simply an information exchange without the debates.

[Robbi]

"You already know I reserve the right to jump on any argument I see as faulty. You may call that arrogance -I call it fun. And I can be expected to have the same treatment returned unto me." -You may have overlooked that bold print.

I'm only aware that my arguments are faulty if someone brings it to my attention, and those who do are the ones I enjoy the most. This forum would be simply an information exchange without the debates.

Anyway. Keep up the good work. I do enjoy not just debating, but also agreeing on the same points and expanding them somewhat in return. You have always been in tune with myself on many points in the past. I did enjoy our Whitaker v Duran debate a few months ago. A few pages worth for good measure as well.

[Stonehands89]

Anyway. Keep up the good work. I do enjoy not just debating, but also agreeing on the same points and expanding them somewhat in return. You have always been in tune with myself on many points in the past. I did enjoy our Whitaker v Duran debate a few months ago. A few pages worth for good measure as well.
That one got a little heated -especially between Sweet Pea and I. You were the mediator if I remember correctly, but jumped on any points I made that you saw as off. And you still do and I appreciate it.

PS/ the pic in your avator is not one I've seen. It's a beauty.

[Robbi]

That one got a little heated -especially between Sweet Pea and I. You were the mediator if I remember correctly, but jumped on any points I made that you saw as off. And you still do and I appreciate it.

PS/ the pic in your avator is not one I've seen. It's a beauty.

Stonehands. The Duran v Whitaker discussion at lightweight was myself and you. Pea got involved, although briefly, but it was us with in depth stuff over a few pages. It wasn't really heated. We just bounced off each other throughout our debate.

Yours and Pea's started about Whitaker and Hearns at welterweight. He said he thought Whitaker would last the distance. That was the one got a little heated. Thats the one your thinking about.

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands. The Duran v Whitaker discussion at lightweight was myself and you. Pea got involved, although briefly, but it was us with in depth stuff over a few pages. It wasn't really heated. We just bounced off each other throughout our debate.

Yours and Pea's started about Whitaker and Hearns at welterweight. He said he thought Whitaker would last the distance. That was the one got a little heated. Thats the one your thinking about.
You probably right- but there was more than one Duran-Whitaker debate (or Whitaker-Duran fight. Haha).

[natonic]

Leonard was my hero as a kid, but I couldn't rate him ahead of Ali or Duran P4P. Duran was incredible at Lightweight. I rate Leonard second at Welter (Sugar Ray Robby was best at welter). Great thread discussion.

[redrooster]

^Sanchez was indeed fighter of 1981 because Gomez was favored in the fight. ANytime a man is a solid favorite and you destroy him, as Sanchez did to Gomez, as Norris did to Leonard, and Ali with Foreman, that makes you the best boxer of your time.

They essentially won their respective fights early on, taking the fight to the other man and putting fierce pressure mixed with speed, daring and intelligence making. I think Gomez came out the worst because of all the facial damage while his eyes became mere slits. Leonard merely came out of his fight humiliated and Foreman came out with mental problems afterwards but now he is a nicer guy.

[SorceryatCaesar]

Leonard was really smart.
He won with his brains as much as his physical skills.
The one exception was his first Duran bout - his judgment failed him.

[redrooster]

Leonard was really smart.
He won with his brains as much as his physical skills.
The one exception was his first Duran bout - his judgment failed him.

Have you read this book yet? If so then what can you say about it?

[Robbi]

Have you read this book yet? If so then what can you say about it?

He's the author of the book Rooster.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Click on that link and browse to the bottom of the page.

[redrooster]

^ What amazingly gifted writer!

[JohnThomas1]

Have you read this book yet? If so then what can you say about it?


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