Are we all deluded about Sugar Ray Robinson?

[StarshipTrooper]

Where did idea that Leonard was a "pitty-pat" puncher come from? The Hagler fight? When I hear that I begin to wonder if the only Ray Leonard they've seen is the comeback version. I'm sorry but prior to his first retirement Leonard had a hell of a punch. Was it on Robinson's level? No, but VERY few fighters could punch with Robinson at Welter so that's hardly an indictment of Leonard.

It just seems like this one of those myths that have cropped up in recent years around Leonard.....Like the one that says he was a "runner" or "dancer" ect. Well, if all you've seen of Leonard are Duran II and Hagler maybe you could get that impression. The problem is neither of those fights are "typical" Leonard fights. If you watch a good selection of Leonard's pre-first retrirement fights you'll realize that his tactics in Duran I was his NORMAL style of fighting. He was a boxer-puncher prior to the first retirement NOT a dancer.

Poet

[BennyST]

Where did idea that Leonard was a "pitty-pat" puncher come from? The Hagler fight? When I hear that I begin to wonder if the only Ray Leonard they've seen is the comeback version. I'm sorry but prior to his first retirement Leonard had a hell of a punch. Was it on Robinson's level? No, but VERY few fighters could punch with Robinson at Welter so that's hardly an indictment of Leonard.

It just seems like this one of those myths that have cropped up in recent years around Leonard.....Like the one that says he was a "runner" or "dancer" ect. Well, if all you've seen of Leonard are Duran II and Hagler maybe you could get that impression. The problem is neither of those fights are "typical" Leonard fights. If you watch a good selection of Leonard's pre-first retrirement fights you'll realize that his tactics in Duran I was his NORMAL style of fighting. He was a boxer-puncher prior to the first retirement NOT a dancer.

Poet

Absolutely man. So few people get that for some reason. People think of him as the quintessential 'boxer' in the purist sense, jab, jab, move, jab jab, flurry, move, but he was as pure a boxer-puncher as there is.

[BennyST]

I'm not going to get in to the specifics of this post because I'm being lazy right now. but this thread is about someones opinion regarding robinson and leonard. not hearns. and me saying leonard go outboxed by hearns is more relevant to the topic then you rambling on about hearns.

Yet it was you bringing up Hearns as the reason that Robinson would outbox Leonard, despite it being Leonard and Robinson that fought the same rather than Robinson and Hearns. Simple enough for you?

Robinson doesn't have any of the same strengths that allowed Hearns to out-box Leonard so your theory doesn't really work. If you are going to randomly say "Fighter A got outboxed by Fighter B (despite the fact that one could be a shortass brawler and the other a tall lanky boxer) therefore Fighter C would beat Fighter A" even though B and C are nothing alike and fight nothing alike.

Does that not make any sense to you?

To me, it's like saying Pac would KO Paul Williams in two rounds because Sergio Martinez did. They're both southpaws after all.

[BennyST]

I reckon he had a pretty good punch! Knock outs from 147 to 168, and against great champions.


Arguably one of the top 5-10 one punch knock outs ever....

[Ray Corso]

them_apples; Moving your opponent means that your contact enables them NOT to return a punch not literally move them. Their are punches that can move you and their not pushing anyone. As to me I fought from 1964 to 1968 in the amatuers and pros. I ran a boxing gym in Hamden Ct. for many years were many state, regional and national champions were trained, by me. The gym exsist today and is operated by one the young men who trained under me over 30 years ago. I had many contenders and world champion come to me for finishing up training and advices for nearing fights. I've worked corners all over the world in world title fights and trained at the Olympic training center in Colo. Springs as the Region One USA coach. I managed, trained and handled fighters from 1964 thru 1986 when I retired from the sport.

So now that you know something about my boxing career tell me something about your amatuer and professional career? Where do you train and who are your mentors? What fights have you participated in as a fighter, trainer or manager? Ray Corso

[joseph5620]

I think it just boils down to the fact that the uneducated try and talk about things they know nothing about.

That's a big problem on this site and especially youtube.

If you're uneducated about something, why comment?

That is so true and extremely annoying.

[joseph5620]

In short, yes.

It's been a custom to over glorify the history of the sport because it is indeed so rich. However, yes, people get blinded by it and will refuse to admit that they had flaws and could be beaten by people who came after them.

The same thing can be said when it comes to current fighters and the fighters before them. The Klitschko's are a perfect example.

[IronDanHamza]

Where did idea that Leonard was a "pitty-pat" puncher come from? The Hagler fight? When I hear that I begin to wonder if the only Ray Leonard they've seen is the comeback version. I'm sorry but prior to his first retirement Leonard had a hell of a punch. Was it on Robinson's level? No, but VERY few fighters could punch with Robinson at Welter so that's hardly an indictment of Leonard.

It just seems like this one of those myths that have cropped up in recent years around Leonard.....Like the one that says he was a "runner" or "dancer" ect. Well, if all you've seen of Leonard are Duran II and Hagler maybe you could get that impression. The problem is neither of those fights are "typical" Leonard fights. If you watch a good selection of Leonard's pre-first retrirement fights you'll realize that his tactics in Duran I was his NORMAL style of fighting. He was a boxer-puncher prior to the first retirement NOT a dancer.

Poet

Exactly.

I was having a debate with someone on here recently, I can't remember who it was.

But there was saying the difference between Robinson and Leonard is Robinson would always **** whereas Leonard would just outbox to a Decision

Leonard LOVED to ****. He loved a good scrap. He's so far from a conventional pure boxer it's a ridiculous.

It again boils down to my original post in this thread. It's obvious that someone who say's that hasn't seen enough of Leonard. So why comment? I don't get it.

[AntonTheMeh]

Yet it was you bringing up Hearns as the reason that Robinson would outbox Leonard, despite it being Leonard and Robinson that fought the same rather than Robinson and Hearns. Simple enough for you?

lol. simple enough for me? really? let me explain it to you. this is about RAY LEONARD VS RAY ROBINSON. NOT RAY VS TOMMY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

i brought it up because the comparison works. SRR was bigger SRL, and SRR had similar attributes to Hearns.

was that simple enough for you?

Robinson doesn't have any of the same strengths that allowed Hearns to out-box Leonard so your theory doesn't really work. If you are going to randomly say "Fighter A got outboxed by Fighter B (despite the fact that one could be a shortass brawler and the other a tall lanky boxer) therefore Fighter C would beat Fighter A" even though B and C are nothing alike and fight nothing alike.

To me, it's like saying Pac would KO Paul Williams in two rounds because Sergio Martinez did. They're both southpaws after all.

that is not remotely the same thing. it is laughable that you'd actually make that assumption.

Does that not make any sense to you?

no. it doesn't. please explain to me how you can gauge what you're basing your opinion on based on what is most likely later fight film of SRR.

Hearns would outbox Robinson too. There isn't a 147 pound fighter in the history of the sport that could outbox Hearns to a decision. Not Robinson, Leonard, Naploes, Griffith, Rodriguez, no one.

this is irelevant. so lets get **** **** out the way.

Hearns is taller than Robinson; 2-3 inches at least.

bull****. at welterweight hearns was listed at 6'1 and there's always been dispute about whether or not ray was 5-11 or 6'0. so right off the bat your math is wrong.

Hearns is as fast as Robinson.

Hearns has 6 inch reach advantage over Robinson.

true.

Hearns has a better jab

yeah.

boxes at range better, and uses his height and full reach better.

the fact that he might be slightly better then SRR at this doesn't not lend any credence to what you're arguing. its almost as if you're arguing that hearns boxing talent was SO much better then Ray's that arguing that SRR would have had similar success vs Leonard is laughable.

Hearns is also more powerful than Robinson.

i honestly don't know how you can possibly now that. at this point I'm not even gonna try and finish this discussion with this bull**** artist.



the bottom line is THIS IS NOT ABOUT ROBINSON VS HEARNS.

THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY.

[Barn]

Exactly.

I was having a debate with someone on here recently, I can't remember who it was.

But there was saying the difference between Robinson and Leonard is Robinson would always **** whereas Leonard would just outbox to a Decision

Leonard LOVED to ****. He loved a good scrap. He's so far from a conventional pure boxer it's a ridiculous.

It again boils down to my original post in this thread. It's obvious that someone who say's that hasn't seen enough of Leonard. So why comment? I don't get it.

Who doesn't love to ****? It takes an especially disciplined fighter not to.