Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
Duran fought only 2 world champions at lightweight out of 70 something fights...the rest were mediocre.
If that's not overrated i don't know what is
Going into the Leonard rematch, Duran had met Buchanan, DeJesus, Suzuki (Guts Ishimatsu), Mamby, Palomino and Leonard, and had a 7-1 record against World title holders, including avenging the one defeat (against DeJesus) Twice! ;)
This is what i mean, Duran only fought a handful of guys who were actually world caliber (world champions)....and he lost against one of them. The Ken Buchacan fight was also contreversial aswell.
Imo, it's not exactly impressive to have 70 fights and fight only 4 world champions and lose to one of them.
Anyway he fought SRL at WW
He fought six, when there was a maximim of two world champs in each division. And because he dominated the Lightweights; himself, DeJesus and Suzuki (Guts Ishimatsu) were the only champs between 73 and 78, and Duran was 3-0 against them two fighters in that period. As well as beating 140lbs World title holder Mamby...
It dosen't take away the fact that he fought countless bums and defended his crown against average fighters with 25-4-0 records....The best guys he beat (Mamby etc) weren't exactly worldbeaters too, as far as i can see.
He was a great champion in a mediocre era imo
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
It dosen't take away the fact that he fought countless bums and defended his crown against average fighters with 25-4-0 records....The best guys he beat (Mamby etc) weren't exactly worldbeaters too, as far as i can see.
He was a great champion in a mediocre era imo
Duran fought the best there was in a strong division, even non title fights, he fought the calibre of Mamby, Virut and Palomino. The likes of Lampkin, Suzuki (Ishimatsu), DeJesus and Buchanan would be top notch contenders at 135lbs IMO today, and Duran beat them all.
Duran and Benny Leonard were easily the finest fighters ever at 135lbs IMO.
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Every great fights mediocre oppenents during their reign, look at JCC and the cab drivers he fought ;D
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
It dosen't take away the fact that he fought countless bums and defended his crown against average fighters with 25-4-0 records....The best guys he beat (Mamby etc) weren't exactly worldbeaters too, as far as i can see.
He was a great champion in a mediocre era imo
Duran fought the best there was in a strong division, even non title fights, he fought the calibre of Mamby, Virut and Palomino. The likes of Lampkin, Suzuki (Ishimatsu), DeJesus and Buchanan would be top notch contenders at 135lbs IMO today, and Duran beat them all.
Duran and Benny Leonard were easily the finest fighters ever at 135lbs IMO.
I think Pernell Whitaker would have beat Duran and Benny Leonard IMO at 135, they would have not hit Whitaker
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
Very overrated. He was a good fighter. But not a great one. His constant retirements and ducking of fighters hurt him.
wtf? he beat the greatest fighters of his generation and all hof
duran
hearns
benitez
hagler
Lets look at that list.....
Duran-Roberto Duran won the first of the three fights, bout #2- Look into the reasons he really quit that fight....I believe him...Bout #3-Two old guys scrapping it out for 12 rounds...
Hearns- If SRL would have fought Hearns five years earlier when Hearns wanted the fight, do you actually believe SRL would have won then??? Me, HELL NO!! Hearns would have knocked him out like everyone else...
Benitez-Only credible win out of the 4
Hagler-GOT RIPPED OFF!!!!! I fell you have to fight the whole fight to win a fight....30 second bursts just dont cut it in my book....There is 3 mins in a round!!
So yeah, I agree that SRL was overated, A good fighter, but overated...He cared more about the money than he did the fights, this is why he ducked fighters in their prime to later take them out when they were out of their prime....
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Minus the first Duran fight, the best P4P from 1979-82. After that the constant retirements and comeback just sucked as he went 4-2-1. IMO
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxingCoachBW
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
Very overrated. He was a good fighter. But not a great one. His constant retirements and ducking of fighters hurt him.
wtf? he beat the greatest fighters of his generation and all hof
duran
hearns
benitez
hagler
Lets look at that list.....
Duran-Roberto Duran won the first of the three fights, bout #2- Look into the reasons he really quit that fight....I believe him...Bout #3-Two old guys scrapping it out for 12 rounds...
Hearns- If SRL would have fought Hearns five years earlier when Hearns wanted the fight, do you actually believe SRL would have won then??? Me, HELL NO!! Hearns would have knocked him out like everyone else...
Benitez-Only credible win out of the 4
Hagler-GOT RIPPED OFF!!!!! I fell you have to fight the whole fight to win a fight....30 second bursts just dont cut it in my book....There is 3 mins in a round!!
So yeah, I agree that SRL was overated, A good fighter, but overated...He cared more about the money than he did the fights, this is why he ducked fighters in their prime to later take them out when they were out of their prime....
Cc for not being blind to the facts. Unlike some of these other Leonard groupies.
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Im not a groupie, Had a pro licence longer than youve lived. Were talking about a bunch of fighters and 1 in particular who we might not see the like of again. you werent there to see it shame for you.
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrap
Im not a groupie, Had a pro licence longer than youve lived. Were talking about a bunch of fighters and 1 in particular who we might not see the like of again. you werent there to see it shame for you.
I seen Leonards fights. I stand by my opinion. The fact that you once fought dosn't really impress me since I learn to box at 7 years old and have fought in a ring as well. Leonard was good. But not great
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
[quote=fatsandy ]
Even though SRL was before my time..I always thought of him as a GOAT then I seen a special on a Guy called the HAWK , I watched the HAWK call SRL out while they both were HOT commodities and SRL totally ignored him..as of that moment (in my mind) the GREAT SRL was a coward... I could see him as nothing more after that.... Can someone shed any light on this for me?
I think the description of coward is a bit harsh. No one who fights Duran, Hearns and Hagler can ever
be called a coward. As for the Hawk, i think as a welter he would have struggled with Ray,Tommy and
Roberto imo.
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
I've been ripped apart for this before but I'll say it again. I think that Ray Leonard is the closest boxing has ever come to seeing a second comer of Ray Robinson. I really beleive so. He was a great amatuer with blinding speed and great combinations. Unfortunately for Leonard, politcis got in the way. Why he only had 40 fights I'll never know. I know he wanted to protect himself but he could have been one of the all time greats. His win over Hearns is straight from a Hollywood movie. That fight gives me goosebumps like no other. But the fact that he fought so little, and seemed to have it in for him as far as getting BS decisions goes hurt him. He had all the tools in the ring, ALL of them. He was such an entertaining fighter, you watch his combos and they are virtually the same combos Ray Robinson was famous for. But Ray Robinson was a fighting champion who had the benefit of rivalries. Had he fought after 1982, and fought Duran, Hagler or Leonard more then he already did, and won a number of those fights. No question he is top 10 all time in terms of acheivements and in ring ability. But he only has 5 BIG wins (Hagler, Hearns, Duran twice and Benitez) and 2 he didn't deserve (Hagler and Hearns). If he had fought all the way through his prime he would undoubtedly be top 10 of all time imo, but since he didn't he isn't top 10 imo. He is still high up there because of what he could do in the ring, but he didn't do it enough.
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
S R K O Well put, Id go along to a degree with that assesment.
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondRoundKO
I've been ripped apart for this before but I'll say it again. I think that Ray Leonard is the closest boxing has ever come to seeing a second comer of Ray Robinson. I really beleive so. He was a great amatuer with blinding speed and great combinations. Unfortunately for Leonard, politcis got in the way. Why he only had 40 fights I'll never no. I know he wanted to protect himself but he could have been one of the all time greats. His win over Hearns is straight from a Hollywood movie. That fight gives me goosebumps like no other. But the fact that he fought so little, and seemed to have it in for him as far as getting BS decisions goes hurt him. He had all the tools in the ring, ALL of them. He was such an entertaining fighter, you watch his combos and they are virtually the same combos Ray Robinson was famous for. But Ray Robinson was a fighting champion who had the benefit of rivalries. Had he fought after 1982, and fought Duran, Hagler or Leonard more then he already did, and won a number of those fights. No question he is top 10 all time in terms of acheivements and in ring ability. But he only has 5 BIG wins (Hagler, Hearns, Duran twice and Benitez) and 2 he didn't deserve (Hagler and Hearns). If he had fought all the way through his prime he would undoubtedly be top 10 of all time imo, but since he didn't he isn't top 10 imo. He is still high up there because of what he could do in the ring, but he didn't do it enough.
:coolclick: Good points all the way around...& I don't think that he beat Hagler either.
Re: Just how good was Ray Leonard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondRoundKO
I've been ripped apart for this before but I'll say it again. I think that Ray Leonard is the closest boxing has ever come to seeing a second comer of Ray Robinson. I really beleive so. He was a great amatuer with blinding speed and great combinations. Unfortunately for Leonard, politcis got in the way. Why he only had 40 fights I'll never no. I know he wanted to protect himself but he could have been one of the all time greats. His win over Hearns is straight from a Hollywood movie. That fight gives me goosebumps like no other. But the fact that he fought so little, and seemed to have it in for him as far as getting BS decisions goes hurt him. He had all the tools in the ring, ALL of them. He was such an entertaining fighter, you watch his combos and they are virtually the same combos Ray Robinson was famous for. But Ray Robinson was a fighting champion who had the benefit of rivalries. Had he fought after 1982, and fought Duran, Hagler or Leonard more then he already did, and won a number of those fights. No question he is top 10 all time in terms of acheivements and in ring ability. But he only has 5 BIG wins (Hagler, Hearns, Duran twice and Benitez) and 2 he didn't deserve (Hagler and Hearns). If he had fought all the way through his prime he would undoubtedly be top 10 of all time imo, but since he didn't he isn't top 10 imo. He is still high up there because of what he could do in the ring, but he didn't do it enough.
Great analysis,valid points.Cool Click!
