ray leonard is not ray robinson

Sugar Ray was the only fighter ever who, when backing up, could knock out an opponent.

The Greatest, quickest, most risk-taking boxer, ever!!!

lightning fast hands and a real student of the science

If Ray Leonard ever got you in trouble you were done. Had more power than anyone realized until the hearns fight. Fought Duran tough when Duran was in his prime and vastly more experienced. Fough all of the best in possibly boxings greatest era. Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, Duran and ducked no one.

Why so low down here? Sugar Ray was to the middleweight division what Ali was to the heavyweight. He oozed style and class.

Absolute class , he won is so many different weight classes that he defied science a true great.

Didn't beat hagler and he lost to hearns in the second fight leonard is a fraud.

I agree with Randyman for the same reasons and my rating is a tempered one...his greatness is unquestioned, however....I too was disappointed with Ray Leonard's apparent ducking of rematches. The fact that he didn't give Wilfred Benitez a rematch after beating him for the title in a controversial fight. I didn't recall that ever happening before. Up to that point wasn't it customary that if you didn't knock the champ out it was tough to win? Seemed it was also the custom that if you didn't win by KO, your first defense was against the former champion just to prove you were truly worthy? The fight went 14 rounds...stopped by the referee after the bell. A fighter is supposed to get 60 seconds on the stool after the bell right? I'm not sure who was winning....I really liked Benitez. I think he was jobbed out of it because boxing would make a lot more money on "Sugar Ray". At least that's how I felt at the time. I gotta give Ray his due...I met him a few months ago in Minneapolis...He's a great guy. Deserving of his status as one of the great champions of all time. Not the Greatest however....but great.

Ray Leonard entertained me more than any other boxer. In my opinion he made 2 mistakes in his career in the ring. The first was fighting in a way that suited Duran in their first fight (although in many people's eyes this ultimately made him a better fighter), and the second was not retiring for good after Hagler. I never enjoyed any of the fights after Hagler because in my mind he had achieved everything and the only way was down after that. Leonard may or may not have 'ducked' return fights, who really knows apart from Leonard himself, but I would never question his courage, and to call him a sissy is unbelieveable. I believe he made his decisions based on whether he felt he could win at that time in his and his opponents career. And remember he had injuries that forced some of his 'retirements'. He did make several stipulations before he fought Hagler like the number of rounds and the size of gloves etc, but the fact is he got the decision, and people forget that Hagler was naturally a much bigger man. Even as a big Leonard fan I still think that decision was debatable, but Leonard was a master at simply looking good in a fight, and tipping the scales in his favour. In my opinion that was part of his talent in winning boxing matches, but that shouldn't blind people to his skill, amazing fast hands and reactions, his ability to take a punch, or his courage. I reckon Angelo Dundee was a pretty good judge of a fighter: "Thats why Leonard beat Hagler -because he was a great athlete. He was in good physical shape all the time. We converted that into boxing shape for the Hagler fight. Everybody said he couldnt do it, but I knew he was trained."

What other boxer could move through the weight classes and take out great champions like Roberto Duran, Hitman Hearns and Marvin Haggler the way Sugar Ray Leonard? Nobody else ever has!

I was never consistent with Leonard-sometimes hoping he'd win or lose.My man was Duran-and in their second fight,I thought Leonard took excessive movement to an extreme against a smaller guy who clearly wasn't in peak form . In any case, the guy was incredible-and I still can't see the other side...Leonard whipped Hagler's tuchis(!) after taking off three years.

every great fighter he fought beat the hell out of him in the fight, he retired 5 times, he retired after every time he lost (cuz hes too much of a sissy to cope with a loss), he wus able to choose wut size ring, # of rounds, where the fight wus, and wut judges in the hagler fight to gain every possible advantage, he cheated his camp members out of their money, he is the biggest sell out in boxing history, and to top it off he wus a coke addict. as for his fighting style, piddy paddy, run run run, and as a sign of desperation: aggressive punching. just like michael spinks, he cant handle losing and when he does, he has to quit and cry instead of going on fighting. how can anyone call sugar ray leonard a great fighter after he did all that?

It's easier for me to say now what a great fighter Sugar Ray Leonard was in his prime. I didn't appreciate him at the time because I was(and still am) a huge fan of Roberto Duran, who beat Leonard in their first fight but lost in embarrassing fashion in the second fight in the infamous No Mas fight. Being a fight fan is not too differant than being a football fan, you can HATE the opposing side. But looking back at Leonards overall career he fought some of boxing's greatest fighters including Armando Muniz, Wifredo Benitez, Tommy Hearns (twice), Marvin Hagler as well as Duran (three times). He won titles in Welterweight, Jr. Middleweight, Middleweight, Supermiddleweight and Lieght Heavyweight and established himself as an all time great. And while I will always maintain that Duran was the greater fighter overall (I never give up) I will give Leonard his due.

Sugar was about great. I say that because he had more retirements that shoes. Why retire all those times. No one will ever know what happens in a Duran-Leonard III in 1984 because Leonard retired-again. Sure he was sick with his hands but no one ever really dominated a prime Sugar Ray Leonard and you cant argue with that. Not much to say.

what a lack of knowledge of boxing criteria!?

roy freddy you are full of crap,sugar beat benitez,hearns at their peak.he boxed beutifully the 2nd time and humiliated duran,made him quit,and like it or not he outsmarted hagler.that is 4 hall of famers that he beat.give the guy credit.

The Greatest Middleweight of all time would not have done the things that Sugar Ray Leonard did to boxing. This man was an absolute insult to boxing!!!!He never ever once defended any title that he won and was a sheer creation of ABC and Roone Arlidge and the powers that be. He fought Hagler because he knew Hagler was old and ready to retire and he only fought Hagler because he saw how well Duran fought him. He never ever wanted to tangle with Duran. He tried to duck fighting the first fight with him. And when he got his rear end kicked he wanted to retire but good. But his highly paid management team convinced Ray that Duran was partying and gaining weight like crazy. They bluffed a foolish Duran Manager to sign the fight too too soon. Duran had to lose an impossible 50 pounds in less than two months. No human being can do this no matter how good he is. Ray Robinson would have demolished Ray Leonard. A short Hector Camacho knocked the hell out of him and Terry Norris also beat him convincingly. Marvin Hagler was robbed and so was Tommy Hearns in his second fight Ray Leonard was a very great media creation with a lot of advantages over almost every one that he fought!!!!!

Sugar Ray Leonard was arguably the best fighter of the 1980s. Though it is still up for debate by others how great he actually was, Leonard beat all three of his great rivals during this great decade of boxing (Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, and Thomas Hearns). But what defined this man wasn't so much his considerable speed and energy inside the ring. Rather, it was his brilliant ability to play mind games against any opponent. Who can forget how Leonard came back from a certain loss to knockout the 'Hitman'? Or when a come-from-retirement Leonard outsmarted the great Marvin Hagler- going so far as to stand at the center of the ring to mark his territory at the start of the fight? Though he ended his career embarrassed by Hector Camacho, and also undoubtedly lost his second fight to Hearns (yet was given a draw), Leonard's ring career was amongst the most eventful and successful ever in how it impacted the sport of boxing.

An All-Time Great. However, mistachill, the second Hearns fight was NOT close. Leonard was decisively beaten. That decision was a robbery. Hearns was just tailor made to outbox Ray. In the first fight Ray needed a KO to win and he got it.

Its time to sort out myth, facts, reality, distortion: 1) Favorable decisions: Please show me a fight were he clearly lost but was given the decision! Hagler? HearnsII? Duran III? Take out a piece of paper, breakout the video tape, watch the fights and score them yourself. If you have an ounce of objectivity you know what you'll find? Hagler & Hearns II were VERY CLOSE FIGHTS THAT COULD'VE GONE EITHER WAY!!!!!!!!!!! Again, you need to actually SCORE THE FIGHT to know what I'm talking about. Until you do that, I don't want to hear about gift decisions. Your PERCEPTION and how you score a fight are two different entities. 2) Media creation - the media didn't create his TKO victory over hall of famer Wilfred Benitez in his prime. The media didn't create his TKO over future hall of famer Thomas Hearns in his prime (and if it went the distance he WOULDN'T been given a gift decision because he was behind on all three score cards). The media didn't create his 9th round TKO over Ayub Kalule (who was 36-0 at the time and had held the super welterweight belt for almost 3 years when they fought). The media didn't make Duran say no mas. And for those who claim Duran kick his butt in their first fight, again, watch it and score it. That was a close fight too and he DIDN'T get the benefit of the decision. Reality - Leonard was given the benefit of the doubt in exactly TWO close fights: Hagler and Hearns II. No matter who you think won those fights, here's the reality THEY WERE BOTH CLOSE FIGHTS! They weren't robbed like Whitaker was again Chavez. Leonard was a great fighter. Not in the same class as Robinson, Ali, Louis, etc., but has a resume few of his contemporaries can match - whether his detractors want to admit it or not.

had the speed, weman, marketting and ets. He really worked boxing to the fullest

Can't stand a fighter who gets decisions because he a marketable commodity instead of a great fighter. As Ray Leonard said it best there is only one fighter who was sweet as Sugar, Ray Robinson. Ray Leonard is just a poor version of him

for those of you who don't know boxing let me tell you this he retired so many times because he had an eye problem thats why he retired so many times i think he was the greatest middleweight around! duran had a hard time beating him in the first fight and in the second fight he quit with that no mas and duran was fighting longer than leanord since 1967. he played with his opponents heads he taunted them and he made people quit (like duran for example) i think he's the fastest the most intellegent and strongest middleweight ever!

Never have I seen a fighter "win" so many matches that he actually lost. It was clear that HBO and Boxing thought Leonard would make them big money. The Hagler fight was especially a bad call. I was surprised that he didn't "win" all his fights.

SUGAR beat Duran and Hagler. Enough said.

To paraphrase the exceptional Ralph Wiley; two things were obvious at the end of the Montreal fight: 1. That Duran had won 2. That he would never beat Leonard again. Duran made a man out of Leonard. He did a good job b/c Leonard was the best of a very good time. Top 2 or 3 Welter ever. And after Duran taught him to trust himself, he was rivaled only by Ali on in-ring smarts.

He took skill and conditioning way beyond what his in-born ability should have allowed. Lured in by the money he, like so many prize fighters, carried his career on after he should have walked away, but he never failed to make a respectable showing (like Holmes vs. Tyson) and despite his occasional antics in the ring (the mental game is SO important) he never failed to act like a gentleman.

Leonard sucked and was a wet rag. He only had one real fight and that is when the Great Roberto Duran beat him to the ground. that was the only fight he had and he got beat. He did dance and waltz nicely though. He does not rate anywhere in the top ten of all time. The top bottom yes.

I think he is remembered more for the end of his career(if his career is finally over,)than the beginning.The most impressive thing I saw Leonard do was stand toe to toe with Duran an entire fight.He lost,but not many fighters could go to a decision with Duran in those days.

Ray was a damn good fighter(until he embarrassed himself at the end). I have one thing to say about the No Mas thing...the one time Duran and Leonard fought where they were both healthy mentally and physically Duran won in a decisive fashion. Leonard was, as I said before, damn good though.

What a showman Sugar Ray was. For him it wasn't enough to beat someone up physically - his goal was to make his opponents look silly in the process.

Sugar Ray never seemed to dominate the incredible fights that he won -- maybe that's what makes him (and Holyfield) so great. A very smart fighter, first and foremost.

great speed, and really developed his power in later years, a showman who always backed it up...didn't know how to say "no mas".

Another true champion -- maybe the best pound-for-pound ever.