Was Leonard the complete fighter?

[The Noose]

I was thinking that there was not much he couldnt do.

Obviously he had great speed and amazing footwork. Great chin, and very good power. He did get hit too much either.

Seeing as he fought and beat some of the greatest fighters of the modern era, why is he never mentioned as one of the best p4p fighters ever?

Duran seems to get more of a mention than Leonard. As does Armstrong and many others who although great, didnt have near the skills and overall talent as Sugar Ray Leonard.

[CletusVanDamme]

I was thinking that there was not much he couldnt do.

Obviously he had great speed and amazing footwork. Great chin, and very good power. He did get hit too much either.

Seeing as he fought and beat some of the greatest fighters of the modern era, why is he never mentioned as one of the best p4p fighters ever?

Duran seems to get more of a mention than Leonard. As does Armstrong and many others who although great, didnt have near the skills and overall talent as Sugar Ray Leonard.

Leonards multiple retirements hurt his overall standing. He is the second best Welter ever at the least. Which should put him in the pound for pound top 5 or so.

[Bucktown Beast]

Leonard is pretty damn close...chin, stamina, speed, footwork and power were all exceptional. Not to mention his level of competition is as good as it gets.

He was quite susceptible to right hands though. Thats about the only weakness in his game I can think of. But as Cletus said, his intermittent career may have affected his overall standing. Or you can say that his short career may have actually increased his legend.

[brownpimp88]

Most people wont come forward and admit this but, sugar ray leonard has beat more elite fighters than willie pep and his own brother, benny leonard..

[titoi]

Leonard, at his absolute prime, was beaten by a smaller, slower, "less complete" and post-prime Duran (by the time they fought, Duran already had nearly twice the number of fights Leonard would complete over a long career).

Leonard's first victory over Hearns was pretty dicey and he wouldn't give a rematch until Hearns was cooked. His victory over Hagler was a horrible sham that ashamed and appalled most everyone who likes the sport.

So, was he a great, complete fighter? No doubt. Was he the best of a great era? Not in my book. And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

[brownpimp88]

Leonard, at his absolute prime, was beaten by a smaller, slower, "less complete" and post-prime Duran (by the time they fought, Duran already had nearly twice the number of fights Leonard would complete over a long career).

Leonard's first victory over Hearns was pretty dicey and he wouldn't give a rematch until Hearns was cooked. His victory over Hagler was a horrible sham that ashamed and appalled most everyone who likes the sport.

So, was he a great, complete fighter? No doubt. Was he the best of a great era? Not in my book. And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

Duran may have been out of his best weight class, but he was still young. Leonard beat benitez fair and square and he also beat ayub kalule, a guy that is top 15-20 of all times at 154.

[Bucktown Beast]

And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

Yea I heard that argument brought up alot. The fight stipulations were always his final saying...You could only fight him if you fought in the ring size he chose, for how many rounds he chose, on the date he chose etc

[titoi]

Duran may have been out of his best weight class, but he was still young. Leonard beat benitez fair and square and he also beat ayub kalule, a guy that is top 15-20 of all times at 154.

30 isn't young if you've had seventy odd pro fights.

But I agree about Benitez - he beat him very well.

I'm not saying Leonard wasn't great - just that he was great with an asterisk ;^>

[Dynamite76]

He was definitely the complete fighter, but at times, his defense wasn't the best, and if he did certain things right in the first Hearns fight, Hearns would've been out by the eighth round.

[The Noose]

Leonard, at his absolute prime, was beaten by a smaller, slower, "less complete" and post-prime Duran (by the time they fought, Duran already had nearly twice the number of fights Leonard would complete over a long career).

Leonard's first victory over Hearns was pretty dicey and he wouldn't give a rematch until Hearns was cooked. His victory over Hagler was a horrible sham that ashamed and appalled most everyone who likes the sport.

So, was he a great, complete fighter? No doubt. Was he the best of a great era? Not in my book. And I think meat-and-potatoes boxing fans can't help but note that too many of his greatest victories had weird asterisks attached.

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.

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.

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.