Was Leonard the complete fighter?

[butterfly1964]

Let's see. Two fisted power, blinding handspeed, excellent mobility, tight defence, solid chin, technically proficient, mixed attack to head and body, adaptable to the highest levels of swarmers (Duran), southpaws (Hagler, Kalule) punchers (Hearns) and boxers (Benitez). Leonard won going forward (Hearns), on the backfoot (Hagler) and the chess match (Benitez). Leonard also showed the ability to come from behind to win, get off the deck to win, win rematches and holds stoppage victories over 3 different triple weight champions. He also holds KO victories over two men who held the light-heavyweight title. I'd say he's pretty complete.

...

[wmute]

My favourite fighter of all time, he was the closest thing to a complete fighter outside of Ray Robinson.

He could box, he could brawl, he could make you look ******, there wasn't much that he couldn't do, he was also a terrific athlete, anybody who doesn't have him in their top 10 all time P4P list is crazy.

I would say he was more complete than robinson (mind: more complete, not better), because robinson's defense was not up to par with the rest of his characteristics. on the other hand robinson was knocking out middleweights with one punch...

[scap]

Leonard's best attribute was his brain.

He was smart, he finished rounds with his bull**** shoeshine and stole god knows how many rounds.

He dictated terms (Hagler) to suit his strengths.

He in my mind above all esle was the ultimate thinking mans fighter. He knew who to stay away from and who to challenge, he knew who he needed to wait it out on and who to go after.

All that talent was fine and dandy but Ray Leonard was smart and that above all else is what I will remember.

[The Noose]

yes it does take away if somebody walks away from a competive bout the scorecards where 4 rounds to 2 and 4 rounds to 3 it was almost a draw, duran took the money and ran it was a fixed fight period duran took the money and ran look at this does this look like some great achevmant

My argument that Duran quitting takes absolutly nothing away from Leonard.
He boxed brilliantly and was ahead on all 3 scorecards, u cant logically take anything away from Leonard because his opponent quit.

IMO its madness for some people to try and discredit Leonard for losing against Duran, who is without question an all time great fighter.
Leonard's style was obviously boxer/puncher, not brawler or slugger, which is the unfamiliar style he adopted for the first Duran fight, and he still fought a very close 15 round loss. Which is an achievement in itself.

Remember, Duran went on to fight and beat fully fledged middleweights.

[titoi]

With Duran he fought the wrong fight. Not that thats an excuse, but Duran was never as good again. IMO that was Duran at his best post lightweight. And who else could of fought with Duran for 15 rounds non-stop like Leonard did?
Not too many.

Agreed. But head to head at their best the smaller, less physically gifted man won. That's big to me.

I dont see how the Hearns victory was 'dicey'. He was outboxed but hurt him more than once and finished him off when he had to. Hearns was at his best and unbeaten. He is an all time great welter, and Leonard stopped him. Credit where credits due.

Maybe I overstate the case and I certainly don't take credit away from Leonard. It was only "dicey" in the sense that Hearns had pretty much beaten SRL in every way and only needed to stay away in the last few rounds. He failed to do so and lost. I tend to think that had they done it again, Hearns wouldn't have made the same mistake and submit that may be why the rematch never happened until Hearns was no longer a real danger.

Against Hagler he came out of retirement to face the larger stronger fighter, who although slower and past his best was still a big favourite to win. Again, he deserves credit.
He was beaten by Duran who was smaller, but beat both Hagler and Hearns who were not only much bigger but were prolific KO fighters.

Again, I don't take away credit from Leonard. He always did what he had to do to win. But compare how Leonard fought Hearns with how Hagler did. Smarter? Definitely. But subjectively I prefer Hagler.

[The Noose]

Agreed. But head to head at their best the smaller, less physically gifted man won. That's big to me.

They were at their physical peaks, but that doesnt mean they fought their best fight. And Leonards best fight was to box and out manuver Duran, which he chose not to do in their first fight.

It was only "dicey" in the sense that Hearns had pretty much beaten SRL in every way and only needed to stay away in the last few rounds. He failed to do so and lost. I tend to think that had they done it again, Hearns wouldn't have made the same mistake and submit that may be why the rematch never happened until Hearns was no longer a real danger.

Im not sure if he had really beaten Leonard in every way. He started off as the aggressor, but was unable to hurt Leonard, and was hurt himself, so he had to survive by moving away from Leonard and using his great jab.
IMO its possible that if they had fought soon after Leonard would again be able to hurt Hearns. But im not sure Leonard would win.

Again, I don't take away credit from Leonard. He always did what he had to do to win. But compare how Leonard fought Hearns with how Hagler did. Smarter? Definitely. But subjectively I prefer Hagler.

Who doesnt love a explosive brawl. I agree with u.
But Leonards amazing comeback against an ATG at his peak in Hearns was one hell of an achievement.

[wmute]

Leonard's best attribute was his brain.

He was smart, he finished rounds with his bull**** shoeshine and stole god knows how many rounds.

He dictated terms (Hagler) to suit his strengths.

He in my mind above all esle was the ultimate thinking mans fighter. He knew who to stay away from and who to challenge, he knew who he needed to wait it out on and who to go after.

All that talent was fine and dandy but Ray Leonard was smart and that above all else is what I will remember.

the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth

[shortright]

leanord fought a whole lot better in the first fight then in the second fight, he gave the fight to duran on short notice and duran decided to take the money and run cause he didnt want to train and didnt have enough time to train, asking some one to beat leanord twice in 5 months is alot to ask i didnt see leanord fighting hearns twice in 5 months

[wdl1]

The statement regarding Leonard`s smart`s makes a lot of sense. Blinding speed,good power and knowing when to dig to that body,snappy jab. But Ray,would always come out,wide-eyed studying his opponent,figuring him out. After a couple of rounds,he`d come back to his corner with a little smirk after figuring out his opponent. He would always have that edge on a guy,and he was great at making adjustments during a fight.After the first Duran fight(when he tried to prove his machismo),he stayed incredibly focused. And he was nail tough,when he had to go to the well,he could really bring it.

[QueensburyRules]

leanord fought a whole lot better in the first fight then in the second fight, he gave the fight to duran on short notice and duran decided to take the money and run cause he didnt want to train and didnt have enough time to train, asking some one to beat leanord twice in 5 months is alot to ask i didnt see leanord fighting hearns twice in 5 months

- -He fought better in the first because Dran forced him into a firefight for his very life and soul.

The 2nd he knew Duran had spent his entire camp dropping 50lbs in a division he never fought in again, so he was able to shoeshine a bellyaching Duran who'd inhaled two whole as in WHOLE g****fruits and two full steak dinners hours before after the weigh in.

Btw, it was Cosell making up the bogus No Mas comment dutifully copycatted by the vacuous media.

What Duran said was "I ain't fighting this clown" in Spanish as he dismissed him on the way to his dressing room bathroom to salve the savage uproar of bowels.

It was not a topic the press could talk about except to relabel as esoteric "stomach cramps."