Would Leonard be top 10 p4p without Hagler??

Or would he be just a great champion..

Watched a show on HBO where observers said he needed it to be a bonafide great and finish his legacy!!!

Did Leonard really need it ??

A contentious win for sure anyway...

Think it probably was the difference in him being top 10..

He's slightly outside the top 10 for me (about 12), but no is the general answer to your question. Hagler was well past his best, and although shaking off the ring-rust was a great feat, Leonard's legacy was entirely secured by his welterweight exploits, where he is a consensus all-time top 3 merchant. Hagler's loss to Leonard doesn't detract that significantly from his legacy, nor should it add too much to Ray's, unless we're going to perform a similar act of subtraction for his performances in Hearns II and against Norris.

A fighter's legacy rests with the main body of his career. Just occasionally, as with Foreman and Jofre, you come across a genuine career in two acts, both of which must be considered with equal balance. Such, in my opinion, is not the case with Ray.

I watched legendary nights on HBo about his fight with Hagler...Certainly an interesting show and the view ws he needed it to finish his legacy...

However you look at it..was a great win....

I have Leonard no4 on my list....Benitez, Hearns and Duran were terrific wins...always felt sorry for Wilfred..Beaten at 147 by the great Leonard and 154 by the great Hearns...no luck for some!

It's all about opinions though and yours is most welcome.

Leonard would of handled any current ww imo

You're probably right...although he'd have to unlock Floyd and he might struggle to do that...

I'd have him winning a close decision though...

Beats Manny for me by unanimous verdict...

Benitez, Hearns and Duran are better wins for me; you called it right.

Number 4 all-time p for p, Truss? Too much of a step for me; thirty-odd fights are just too few for such an accolade. Accept the greatness of his wins, but not sure that he can be vaulted over men such as Greb, Charles or Pep, who had victims at least as distinguished, but rather more of them, accumulated over a longer period.

Great welter, however, beyond any doubt. Totally agree that he would have handled the current generation with some aplomb.

I've always leaned to modern fighters as you know ahead of the great but less footage types...

Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Benitez were all greats.....Charles and Greb are in my top 10....

Just that those victories plus his talent and skill make me have him that high..

But I wouldn't argue with those who put the names you mentioned higher.....

Although I used to campaign for Ray Leonard as a top ten man, as time has gone on he's dropped a little down my list and now resides outside that select group, so I can't answer directly. However, when I evaluate him, like captain says it tends to be his fantastic wins down at Welterweight which dominate my thoughts; Benitez, Duran and Hearns, all in or around their primes and all world champions when he beat them. Far outweights the victory over Hagler for me. A lot gets made of Leonard's inactivity before facing 'Marvelous' but the truth is that Hagler himself had only fought once in the two years which separated the Hearns and Leonard fights. Not a recipe for success when you're in your mid thirties, as Hagler was.

Wherever you rank Leonard, I don't think the Hagler win (a point of contention in itself) can really boost his standing any more than two or three spaces. For those who have him in their top ten, I imagine it's his 147 lb days, rather than his return, which forces them to do so.

I've always leaned to modern fighters as you know ahead of the great but less footage types...
.........................................................
Leonard - beats any current ww
Hagler - imagine him with the Sturms of the MW div?
Duran - Would beat any current lightweight or any of the last 20 years imo
Curry would beat Mayweather though - stop laughing

Although I think he would win, Duran would have absolute fits with Whitaker and I think De La Hoya would have given him a tougher fight at that weight than most think.

Although I think he would win, Duran would have absolute fits with Whitaker and I think De La Hoya would have given him a tougher fight at that weight than most think.
...................
i agree stylistically it's an hard fight for Duran, but he handled Leonard who is a league above Whitaker imo, and would beat the defensive genius on a close points nod.

Think is though he beat Tommy who's jab would make the 5ft 6in featherfisted Whittaker squirm all night.............

Hearns was the best win of his career.....

Leonard beat 4 hall of famers all close to their primes except for Marvin who if we are honest had some bad nights....Duran and Vito were poor fights..

Leonard was a great without the Hagler fight. One of those that transcended the sport and recognisable outside of the boxing fraternity. I know that this does not mean he is a great in itself per se, and could just be clever marketing, but he did get there on talent. For me, a top ten or there abouts without the Hagler fight.

Was leonards win over Duran that fantastic though? Cleverly engineered a quick rematch knowing Duran wouldn't be in as good shape, got the win due to durans lack of temparament as much as anything else. Beating a guy is not quite the same as the guy throwing his hands up, saying "I can't be doing with this" and walking off. Great win on his paper record and a notorious moment in the sports history, but doesn't overly impress me. Hearns 1 was by far his greatest hour. He wouldve been top ten for (just) without Marvin. That victory is just the cherry on the cake that elevates him a place or two higher. And yes he'd have handily beaten any of today's ww's IMO.

No one is suggesting Leonard wasn't great before Hagler...but becoming middleweight champ by beating one of the best middles in history probably put an icing on the cake as to legacy etc...

Me I think it made him top 10..

The Hagler win does without doubt add to his legacy and puts him in contention for a top ten spot but at the current time have him anywhere between 9-12 behind the almost unbreakable 8 of:

Robinson
Armstrong
Greb
Ali
Duran
Tunney
Charles
Jofre

How is Tunney in there ??????

Dominated a very strong era in the light heavyweight division before stepping up and beating Dempsey

not in most people's top 10.....Dempsey was past it too....

Case for Spinks in the top 10 then as well.

On a par with the Hagler win nonetheless if not slightly better

Spinks is no where near the top then, be serious

Why...unbeaten top 3 light heavy who beat a Dempsey type figure...

For nigh on ten years at the top of the sport....

Don't see how Tunney is so far ahead......

Spinks didn't lose to a middleweight and we all know he beats Marvin if he fought one...

no way is Tunney top 10.

When that middleweight is Harry Greb and it's coupled with 5 wins over said Middleweight it's hardly something to use against them is it now.

Spinks beat Holmes and i'll use the term beat loosely here but the Tyson fight proved his credentials at heavyweight were very low

In my opinion Tunney is head and shoulders above Spinks behind only Charles as a light heavyweight, beat far better opposition and can't agree with Spink being a top 3 at the weight, is behind Charles, Tunney and Moore for starters

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:not in most people's top 10.....Dempsey was past it too....

Case for Spinks in the top 10 then as well.

In fairness though, Truss, I'd argue that Tunney's wins at 175 lb trump Spinks'. Greb, despite being a career Middlewight, still represents a better Light-Heavyweight than anyone Spinks beat, as did Loughran, with whom Tunney boxed a draw. Tunney's 'second tier' of wins at 175 lb (such as Carpentier and Levinsky) are at least on a par with Spinks' second tier such as Johnson and Lopez, too.

As for their respective Heavyweight careers, it's true that they both took the crown from an all-time great Heavyweight who'd probably seen better days, but the fact that Tunney went out at the top rather than being splattered in a single round (as Spinks was) puts an end to any hope of Spinks being ranked higher, for me. Magnificent fighter, but a level below Tunney, I believe.

Would add that Tunney doesn't personally make my top ten, but he doesn't miss out by much and has a significantly better claim than Spinks as far as I can see it.

Yes but who's to say Spinks doesn't go 15 years unbeaten at 175....

Fact is i'm not suggesting tunney isn't slightly higher...just suggesting he has a case if Tunney has...

In other words no to both of them..

Unless you want the Fitz types outside the top 10.....

I don't see a case for Spinks at all, his best wins don't come close to comparing with those of Tunney and thus doesn't come into my consideration for a top 20 spot let alone a top ten spot

Fitz I have at 9 alongside the two Leonards and Langford making up the 9-12 bracket

TRUSS how can your views of Lennox be taken seriously when you seem to have a genuine hatred of the guy. He's the best ever boxer from these shores in many people'e eyes, and you don't seem to have any respect for him. Baffling

I don't hate Lewis..

Trussman66

I would have Leonard just outside the top 10 without Hagler...With the win have him no6 behind Robinson, Mayweather, Ali, Greb and Armstrong. Also have the underrated Tommy Hearns in the top 10.

P.S. How did Lennox Lewis get into this thread when we are discussing Leonard?

The genius of PBF wrote:Also have the underrated Tommy Hearns in the top 10.

You're a funny guy, PBF. I like you!

On a serious note, have to say that while I respect all opinions I find that one a bit strange.

88Chris05 wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:Also have the underrated Tommy Hearns in the top 10.

You're a funny guy, PBF. I like you!

On a serious note, have to say that while I respect all opinions I find that one a bit strange.

I will make my top 50 p4p list soon on here when I have time. Got robbed in the 2nd fight against Leonard, beat Benitez and destroyed Duran who most people have in their top 10. Hearns has a case for top 10...definetly in the top 20 though.

The Duran win was at 154lbs well above his natural weight of 135lbs, lost his two biggest fights against Leonard and Hagler, also beaten twice by Barkley. An all time great without doubt but not at the upper echelons.

The genius of PBF wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:Also have the underrated Tommy Hearns in the top 10.

You're a funny guy, PBF. I like you!

On a serious note, have to say that while I respect all opinions I find that one a bit strange.

I will make my top 50 p4p list soon on here when I have time. Got robbed in the 2nd fight against Leonard, beat Benitez and destroyed Duran who most people have in their top 10. Hearns has a case for top 10...definetly in the top 20 though.

Hearns was dominant when he held all the physical advantages over opponents; less so when he didn't. The first fight with Leonard and the Middleweight contest with Hagler, ultimately, were the two greatest challenges of his career, and he won neither. May have come within a round or so of beating Leonard in 1981, but the harsh reality is that he didn't.

Fantastic fighter and a nailed-on all time great, but I think a top ten (and even a top twenty) placing for him is very, very generous. That said, I'll be looking forward to your top fifty list mate, sure it will spark some good debate!

When you consider Leonard's record, after the "big 4" wins of Hearns, Duran, Benetiz and Hagler, he doesn't have any depth to it whatsoever. Losing 25% of his good wins bumps him down a few spots, possibly from borderline top 10 to the 20-30 range IMO.

Oh okay Duran was splattered above his natural weight...yet the welterweight Hearns lost to Hagler and then Barkley at middle after battering him senseless and then at 175...

No hypocrites on here

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oh okay Duran was splattered above his natural weight...yet the welterweight Hearns lost to Hagler and then Barkley at middle after battering him senseless and then at 175...

No hypocrites on here

Trussman, I was simply pointing out that Hearns was nowhere near as dominant when he didn't hold the physical aces over an opponent, which is undeniable. Duran, fighting at 154 lb, was at a distinct disadvantage. I wouldn't say that Hearns was at a similar disadvantage when he stepped up to 160 lb, given that he was later able to win a legitimate title at Light-Heavyweight.

Besides, Duran dominated men his own size for the best part of a decade at Lightweight, something Hearns never did. Duran was primarily a Lightweight, and won the fights which define him there. Hearns was primarily a Welterweight (or at least, was at his best at Welterweight), but lost his most defining fight at that weight.

Apologies if that's not what you're suggesting, but Hearns just can't be above Duran in the all-time pound for pound stakes. At least in my eyes, anyway.

Didn't hold the physical aces over Andries and Hill.....

As for barkley didn't he absolutely cream him till he walked into a swinging right..

Or am I thinking of another fight.

You're a very astute guy with interesting opinions...

However sometimes you use different sticks to measure fighters..

Chris

Do you not think that Hearns was the best pure boxer out of the fab four?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't hold the physical aces over Andries and Hill.....

As for barkley didn't he absolutely cream him till he walked into a swinging right..

Or am I thinking of another fight.

You're a very astute guy with interesting opinions...

However sometimes you use different sticks to measure fighters..

Not really. I acknowledge that Duran was absolutely blown out of the water by Hearns at 154 lb. But in my opinion (and it is only my opinion, at the end of the day) Duran fighting at 154 lb was at more of a disadvantage than Hearns was fighting at 160 lb. And as I said, Duran spent almost a decade dominating the men who were his physical equals. The same can't be said of Hearns, brilliant though he was. You could argue, of course, that he was unlucky to have Leonard at 147 lb at that same time, but for me his loss in that fight and the Hagler war end any hopes he has of being ranked in the same bracket as Duran.

Of course he was..I like Chris but his argument stinks...Hearns was less effective against bigger foes etc....like Hagler against who he fought the wrong fight....Barkley who he was hammering and that is his only evidence!!

Forget he banged out the bigger Andries, Shuler, Roldan and beat Hill....

He was the best boxer out of the 4 you're right.

wow_junky wrote:Chris

Do you not think that Hearns was the best pure boxer out of the fab four?

Very possibly. On any given day, any of Hearns, Leonard or Duran (yes, even Duran) could lay claim to that title. But based on their respective achievements and what they did / didn't do, I have to make Hearns the bottom of the four, though he's only a shade behind Hagler.

88Chris05 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't hold the physical aces over Andries and Hill.....

As for barkley didn't he absolutely cream him till he walked into a swinging right..

Or am I thinking of another fight.

You're a very astute guy with interesting opinions...

However sometimes you use different sticks to measure fighters..

Not really. I acknowledge that Duran was absolutely blown out of the water by Hearns at 154 lb. But in my opinion (and it is only my opinion, at the end of the day) Duran fighting at 154 lb was at more of a disadvantage than Hearns was fighting at 160 lb. And as I said, Duran spent almost a decade dominating the men who were his physical equals. The same can't be said of Hearns, brilliant though he was. You could argue, of course, that he was unlucky to have Leonard at 147 lb at that same time, but for me his loss in that fight and the Hagler war end any hopes he has of being ranked in the same bracket as Duran.

Side with Chris on this one. Given that Duran was one of the best LWs in history - and THEN went up to be part of the fab-four. Where he was essentially no more than a fat lightweight - yet beat Leonard, pushed Hagler over 15 and beat Barkley. Barkley who outboxed Hearns in their second fight.

Hearns was a beautiful boxer - but- to suggest Hearns - at his best at LMW - was more inconvenienced against Hagler than Duran was against Hearns is shortsighted IMO.

He also got embarassed in the rematch against a non-brawling Leonard...Didn't land a punch in the most humiliating fight I've ever seen with Hearns and LOST to Hagler..

Benitez, Laing, Sims blah de blah..

Duran the best boxer give me a break.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran the best boxer give me a break.

In his Lightweight pomp, I don't think it's such a ridiculous idea, though I do concede that in natural boxing ability I'd have Hearns and Leonard ahead of him more often than not.

Like it or not, Truss, Duran proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that he was a nailed-on top three of all time in one of the classic weight divisions. Leonard couldn't do this, and nor did he really get close to doing it, either. And while we can't ignore Duran's losses to Benitez, Hearns or Laing, I'm sure even you'd agree that he'd seen better days by then, just as Hearns had seen better days by the time Barkley stopped and then decisioned him.

The 'no mas' affair has probably been covered from every single angle possible already, but let's look at the only two fights which mattered between Leonard and Duran (the 1989 fight with porky little Duran up at 168 lb is hardly much of a benchmark). You seem to think that Duran quitting second time out totally moves Leonard in to a different stratosphere to him, which simply isn't the case. At worst, their two meaningful and significant fights simply showed that the two of them were very much equals. Duran's glorious win in the first fight is balanced by 'no mas', whereas Leonard's moment of triumph in 'no mas' is balanced by Duran out-gaming him and out-smarting him a few months earlier. I don't buy this "Leonard fought the wrong fight" excuse. If we used that, then we'd be making excuses for just about every defeat for any fighter. It's very easy in retrospect to say that Leonard lost it rather than Duran won it, but the fact is that Duran was the better man when they first fought.

You forgot to get back over the bigger foes and Hearns struggling...ie Shuler, Roldan, Hill and Andries..

Just an oversight I'm sure.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You forgot to get back over the bigger foes and Hearns struggling...ie Shuler, Roldan, Hill and Andries..

Just an oversight I'm sure.

I never said that Hearns was hopeless or totally outclassed against men over whom he held fewer physical disadvantages, just that he was less dominant against the natural Middleweights / Super-Middleweights than he'd been over the Cuevas', Duran's or Benitez's of this world.

Either way, it's foul to suggest that Shuler, Roldan, Hill or Andries, regardless of weight, meant as much as wins over Leonard or Hagler would have. You've told us plenty of times that Duran beat average opposition at Lightweight; if you're going to build up Hearns' wins over these guys, then you should be positively drooling over Duran's wins against Buchanan, De Jesus and Marcel!

Chris - check out the 'haye ducking vitali' thread, Truss has PMT tonight!

Duran was an excellent boxer and I fail to see how he can be so readily dismissed. Controlled pressure, power, great head movement, much underrated defence - block, parried and dodged punches beautifully whilst positioning himself to land his own - rarely would you see him marked up.

No doubt hearns had quality particularly with his jab and power but he was more reliant on physical advantages than Leonard or Duran. In terms of best pure boxer of the fab 4 SRL is no1 for me - speed, skill, power, chin, definitely the best all rounder and in terms of pure boxing skill he's one of the nest of all time. But for 2nd I find it hard to call between Duran and hearns for different reasons.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Chris - check out the 'haye ducking vitali' thread, Truss has PMT tonight!

Ha ha, have seen it, Sugar Boy. What would we do without Truss, eh? He's nothing if not entertaining and interesting, got to give him that!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He also got embarassed in the rematch against a non-brawling Leonard...Didn't land a punch in the most humiliating fight I've ever seen with Hearns and LOST to Hagler..

Benitez, Laing, Sims blah de blah..

Duran the best boxer give me a break.

Ali lost to Berbick too.

Holyfield to Ruiz, fat Toney.

RJJ to Johnson, Tarver, Lebedev.

Easy to lose when you get old. Even easier when you're essentially a fat old fellow with a thunderous punch. He's a nailed on top 3 LW and for me the best LW of all time.

Would a boxer be regarded as a great if you remove his greatest victory?

What a silly question.