Sugar Ray Leonard vs Aaron Pryor @147

[walshb]

Pryor's real limit was 10 stone and I think the guys mentioned above, Honeygan/Curry/Starling would all have been too much for him. Now Ray would have beat those guys too I say. Ray was top 3 ever at the weight. Aaron just not natural or big enough to cause Ray trouble. The single most important element in boxing is to get your opponents respect and Aarons lack of a real punch moving up mean Leonard will never fear a mix up, can't be outreached, can't be outsped and definitely cannot be outboxed..

Oh and can't be KO'd

[Roberto Aqui]

career durability is not something to be regarded in a fantasy fight format.
greg

It sure is when the fighters are peers in the same era and one fighter is calling out the other. Ray's lack of career durability queered any possiblity of the fight being made. He retired after 3 yrs of title fights. Pryor had only held a belt for 2 yrs when Ray retired and after the Duran bouts was busy calling out Leonard, so Pryor's window of opportunity for a crack at Leonard was only one year.

Pryor would go on to defend his title for 3 more years after Leonard retired.

Now, in an odd stat, both could only manage 40 fights which is a very short career by most standards. Thing is that Ray padded his record with and additional 7 more fights against the big fading names rather than the creme of the divisions to match Pryor who was less effective in his very brief comeback because of the drug problem.

Now of course I would favor Leonard best to best, but remember that Pryor was a very awkward tough fighter who never lost a title fight and usually won by KO. If an older Duran could beat a prime Leonard, a prime Pryor might be a good bet if the odds were right.

And of course, Pryor never called out Duran. He weren't no fool!

[wpink]

Aqui,

Your smoking big time crack....First off, they use to sparr when they both were coming up, Ray leonard use to put in Aaron repeatedly dropping him because Aaron Pryors balance was bad and he would come in with that windmill stuff which especially in sparring was ineffective because they had head gear and all Pryors punches were landing on the headgear, this comes From a ex boxer that use to spar in palmer park md with Ray leonard named Jimmie Matz who since moved back to Kc....he sparred with Ray leonard again to get him ready for Tony Chavarini. We worked out together at Golds Gym and when Ray leonard helped support the Junior Golden Gloves Jimmie brough ray into Golds to shoot some ball and work with people on technique, so I believe him, especially when you couple this with Aaron's own words which you can see on HBO where are they now/ Aaron Pryor, where he states that Ray leonard use to "lump him up pretty badly, but he got some good shots into".

Now all that aside, you think for one second that Aaron pryor who has no defense and no reach would have a chance against ray leonard at welterweight your losing all recent gained credibility with me. First off his best effort ever was Arguello and in the 1st fight Arguello stunned Pryor repeatedly, and hit him at will, this was when he was on his way out and moved up for the first time at jr welter. Ray leonard hit much much harder, had more speed, and more reach than Arguello. Now you keep pointing to Duran as a reference for pryor having some success at welter. Two different type of fighters, and remember styles makes fights. What made duran so successful in the 1st fight simply was that duran has great defense and ray leonard decided to brawl. Also, even though Duran had great success after the 4th round leonard brought it right back to duran, in a way that it took a fighter with the defense, jaw (except for hearns fight) to with stand what leonard was dishing out that night. It is funny that people keep pointing the duran fight like he whipped Ray leonard ass, and I thought Ray won after I really studied each round, and everyone I had look at the fight who even do not like ray all thought ray won when they really studied each round. I brought this up in a previous post, and there were very good discussions, and most had it very close. Those that simply pointed to the fact they had Duran winning, I bet (only they would know) that they did not take me up on the bet that if they replayed the tape and took out a sheet of paper and judged each round that it would be a very very close fight and it would come down to round 1 round 11 and 13 who you thought won....

Back to Duran being a reason for Pryor to have success. Aqui, look at the fight that leonard had with Duran the fight time, He missed duran repeatedly with over hand rights, that every opponent that fought Pryor with hit him with, duran got underneath these punches the first time. Pryor had no defense ever, so it is hard to fathom that he would all of a sudden develop a defense in a fight with Ray leoanrd. Ray beat every welter he ever faced, all styles, he beat sluggers, boxers, guys with reach, guys with size, he beat guys with physical advantages over him, he beat guys he was naturally bigger than. Finally, after he fought Duran the first time he dug deep and realized he had what it took to deal with Adversity, and repeatedly come up with ever it took to beat fighters such as Duran, Benetiz, Kalule, Lalond, Hagler, Heanrs. I do not think Pryor would beat any of these fighters and he would go to sleep versus duran, leoanrd, heanrs and hagler.

Pryor vs Leonard is such a far fetched dream at that time, that I am so unsure why people keep bringing it up. He never proved anything at welter. He never beat one top welter ever, and you want to say he had a good chance at beating ray. Duran beat Palimino, leading up to Ray and then went on to beat Barkley, and Moore. I think your giving to much credibility to somebody talking stuff in a press conference and proved nothing. Remember Mayorga mouthing off against DLH, this would be even worse beating than that would be at Mayorga hit harder than Pryor did, had more reach, DlH was in active,,,,,,Your talking about Ray leoinard that just beat Tolmmy hearns and was at that point in his career the best fighter in boxing, it probably would not last more than 3 rounds....At that point in Ray's career there were probably only Ray Robinson that would beat leonard at Welter weight. We all were robbed of leoanrd during his peak years, but you can get a glimpse of how good he was if you get his dvd's from 76 -81.

Last thing Pryor only had the windmill, that remember leonard sparred with him, and would be completely ready for this, and your talking about arguably the greatest fighter ever with the ability to put his punches together in combinations, and the only way Pyror would beat him is to get inside rays reach and speed and put punches together and oh yes, leonards jaw at welter was unmatched as he never went down until he retired....

Get your facts str8 aqui, I was really starting to give you some credit, but your way way way off by giving Pryor some undeserved chance against Ray Leonard at Welterweight. 3 rounds or less ko with ease.

[The Shoemaker]

Pink,
You're not winning an arguement with Roberto. Once he hates a fighter throw out the objectivity. Him and I once argued about Larry Holmes vrs Jerry Quarry. From a style matchup, can you think of a more one-sided fight ? You have a counter-puncher, who couldn't slip a jab if their was a hole in the ring, who has short arms and cuts easy. Fighting against the fighter with arguably the greatest jab in heavyweight history. Jerry would be sliced to shreds by the third round. And do you want to know his "logic" behind the arguement ? Basically stating that Holmes wasn't any good because Tyson destroyed him (I guess being 39 years old and innactive for two years never crossed Roberto's mind- hell, that would be like using Berbick and Holmes as evidence that ali wasn't any good). Now he is trying to argue that a face-first blown up lightweight is going to beat Leonard at 147. Once he hates fighters, nothing changes his mind, he's never wrong. Like my Larry holmes-quarry arguement, you aint winning this one.

[Roberto Aqui]

Ray leonard hit much much harder, had more speed, and more reach than Arguello.

Well, 2 of 3 is pretty good for you, congrats. Arguello is listed at 76" reach to Leonard's 74" reach.

Pryor also won some matches against Hearns in the amateurs and more than held his own against Leonard, so it's not surprising that you are so blinded by Leonard to understand that Pryor wanted a piece of Leonard. Most in boxing save the pantywaists would have preferred that fight to Leonard's Bruce Finch defense before he retired.

Leonard never beat ONE middleweight pryor to his Hagler match either. Just because a jr welt was defending his hard earned title rather than abandon it and never get another title shot is perfectly justified.

Me stating that I'd favor Leonard in a prime match against Pryor ain't good enough for for Leonard's pink wrapped fans. They want me to worship at the sacchrine altar confection they've whipped up. There was only one sugar, the real sweetness, the real Sugar Ray as in Robinson. Leonard was no more than a talented but artificially whipped up modern American marketing phenom, not much different than Donald Trump. He could've called himself Babe Leonard.

Leonard also benefited immensely from the presence of Duran, Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler, but I rank Duran, Hagler and Hearns over him on all time lists, so get over it.

[Roberto Aqui]

Him and I once argued about Larry Holmes vrs Jerry Quarry. From a style matchup, can you think of a more one-sided fight ? You have a counter-puncher, who couldn't slip a jab if their was a hole in the ring, who has short arms and cuts easy. .

You're welcome to go revisited that debate, not argument, on the relevant forum. I suspect your memory will fail you yet again.

[hawk5ins]

"Leonard never beat ONE middleweight pryor to his Hagler match either."

Marcos Geraldo was a Middleweight. And one who actually moved up to compete at Lightheavyweight.

"Most in boxing save the pantywaists would have preferred that fight to Leonard's Bruce Finch defense before he retired."

Actually, most have preffered SRL had faced anyone other than Finch. But given Ray had just beaten Ayub Kalule for the Jr. Middleweight crown and then Hearns in a unification bout, no one complained that Ray was taking an easy defense. He'd earned it.

I posted this earlier:

"Why didn't Ray face Pryor? Do a timeline parralleling both of their careers and you can see why it didn't happen. The SIMPLE fact is, is that in order for Pryor to have been seen as a viable threat to even challenging Leonard, he would have needed the Arguello win under his belt first. Ray, who was scheduled to make a defense agianst Roger Stafford in Mid 1982, pulled out of that bout becuase of troubles with his vision and ultimately retired becuase of a detached retina."

Ray never avoided Pryor. He didn't need to avoid him. Had Ray no retired becuase of he eye, yes, a Pryor fight would have come off. But only if, Pryor doesn't have the drug issues he did eventually have. There are no assurances agianst that not happening.

Pryor could call out Ray until he was blue in the face, but the simple fact is, Ray did not need Pryor. Pryor needed Ray. Just as muhc as he needed Arguello. And In order to get to Ray, and have the public ALSO want it, he needed to have Arguello UNDER his belt first.

As I just said, becuase of Ray retiring becuase of his eye and Pryor not beating Arguello until AFTER Ray retired, it didn't happen. No one really argues this who thinks about it.

Quarry beats Holmes? Really?

And what does career durability mean agian?

Hawk

[Roberto Aqui]

Marcos Geraldo was a Middleweight. And one who actually moved up to compete at Lightheavyweight.

Please, Geraldo was a journeyman fighter who had been KOed 10x by other journeymen and novices before he ever got in with Leonard. He made the distance with Leonard BTW.

The gist was that Leonard had never faced much less beaten a contender type middle prior to Hagler. So by pink excuses, that fight should've never even been considered much less made.

Career durability is self explanatory. Leonard had a short career, was always having to retire with problems, and was completely shot after a short career. How many talented fighters like Leonard are lost in the mists of time because they lived in a tougher era where opportunities weren't handed out on silver platters and are now forgotten relics?

I really resent pointing out the obvious to those who should know better and conclude I must hate Leonard. I did lose much respect for Leonard because of his boxing politics, but I feel like I'm the guy who is balanced here and sees not only the talent and the grit, but the warts as well.

[hawk5ins]

"Leonard never beat ONE middleweight pryor to his Hagler match either."

Ray did beat ONE middleweight prior (or Pryor) to facing Hagler. It was Marcos Geraldo. Geraldo was a Middleweight.

So your statement is innaccurate.

If you now want to change the meaning of your original statement or clarify what you meant, than go for it.

But the above statement is false. Completely and totatly.

Hawk

[wpink]

Aqui,

I am going to go there,,,people so bear with me. I read your post through out, and I boxed before, i have grown up with atheletes, boxers, and I have been on many boxing boards, but I with all honestly have never read some of the most inaccurate, un supported, unknowlegable stuff in my life, not only about Ray leonard but about any one that you dont favor. My pops alwasy told me who is the bigger dummy, the dummy or who argues with a dummy. I guess I will be the bigger dummy because I have to respond to you post.

1st off.. Pryor admitted himself that ray leonard beat him up pretty badly when they use to spar, and I have a eye witness. You can go to HBO where they are now documentarty and he openely admites this. So your unsupported information only backed by the fact that pryor wanted to fight him, is weak, and really shows where what deck of cards your dealing with.

2nd. Ray leonard never beat a middleweight...hmmm Geraldo, was a ranked fighter, Lalond was bigger than a middle, and then there was hagler.

3rd. You say things out of frusteration and because you have been proven post after post by everone that you know nothing about boxing. I tried to give you credibility but you saying that Ray leonard who since 1970 has beaten the best group of fighters out there, and not one other person has beaten 4 top hall of famers top 20-30 fighters pound per pound ever. Espeically not since 1970 but I guess since he is not of latin descent, or not on of your favorites you can say that he is media hype. Hmmmm well he beat your boy duran 2 out of 3 times, ko hearns when they are at their peak, ko'd kalule who had never been knocked down amatuear or pro and ray moved up and did this, came out of retirment after only 1 fight in 5 years and beat hagler. He also stopped benetiz, who beat duran. So you want to rank ray leonard behind all of these fighters that he beat, hmmmm this again shows your boxing IQ.

I am sorry people becaue I really enjoy our discussions, I do not need agreement or yes people as I have had many back and forth discussion with people like hawk, gordoom etc... but this joke Aqui, is just ridiculous. This is not opiniions he is stating, he is flat out inaccurate, biased and wrong.

Pryor had one victory against hearns in a close match as an amature, I have the tape. One thing you probably didnt know is that hearsn as an amateur did not have power, and simply boxed and pryor out boxed him, now bring this up to pros and pryor goes to sleep. Arguello, may have 76 in reach I assumed that he had shorter reach, but I guarantee you this, ray leonard was faster, more powerful, much bigger, and at the top of his game in 82, and pryor would not have seen the 4th round.

Hawk and other got it right, when we all know business, and try to educate you and say the there is no reason for ray to have even considered Pryor. None. He never set foot at welter. Just because he beat an aging legend who moved up to Jr welter after Ray leonard retired, what does that have to do with leonard avoiding him. Get your facts str8. So i guess you got frazier above ali, who ali beat 2 out of 3 times, Dejesus above duran - who duran beat 2 out of 3 times, etc...your rationale behind leonard is based solely on your hatred and not facts or intelligence.

Nuff said.

[Sharkey]

Just who would be the 4 top 20-30 p4p fighters ever Ray Leonard beat?

[hawk5ins]

Duran, Hearns and Hagler

But 4 is an increidble Stretch.

Benitez making the top 50 is IMO an incredible stretch as well.

The Dragon doesn't make My personal top 60.

Hawk

[starlingstomp]

Kalule was also certainly a proven middleweight contender when Ray stopped him.He held hte commonwealth title and had beaten Seales, Finnegan, Robles, Johnny Baldwin, David Love and Monty Betham, among others.

He was one of a few fighters that were just behind Marvin in terms of deserving a shot at the title.That he choose the 154 route means little to me as i don't see the outcome of their fight being any different had he weighed in 6 pounds heavier.

[Sharkey]

I see. Such things being rote, (no misspelling) and used here and there was my reason for asking.

[hawk5ins]

Geraldo may have been a Middleweight when Ray faced him, but Kalule was a Middleweight contender before he won the Jr. Middleweight title.

So that does indeed count.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

I have no reason to guess that Pryor would fare well at 147 against Carlos Palomino let alone Ray Leonard. At 147 Leonard would have to be the pick..given Pryor never fought and beat a 147 ponder as good as Ray. Syllogistic experiments, analogies to Leonard's foes or the like seem to not be evidence backing actual Pryor aptitude.

Similarly, this applies to Leonard and his alleged 'best comp' defeated designation which seems as legitimate as 'meanest dog' or 'angriest old man'.

P4P, I think Pryor could win. That is another argument.

[hawk5ins]

I agree that Ray did NOT face 4 all time top 30-40 fighters.

You may not agree with my 3 inclusions. Heck you may only see it as 1.

I do see the aforementioned 3 though.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

I begrudge no one their views of the world. Especially those who know tons about that which they speak...such as you.

He faced very good and great fighters. Either way it means little to this matchup in my eyes. The burden of proof lies in defining Pryor, not Leonard.

[hawk5ins]

It is certainly not a FACT that Ray defeated 3 or 4 top 30-40 All time greats as where one rates Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez is open for debate.

Opinions passed off as facts, I find annoying.

I also have issues with downplaying the value of one fighter for one arguement and then citing his pound for pound value to endorse another.

And AGAIN, I see no value in tearing apart Pryor's value to illustrate one's point that Leonard would defeat him.

I think SRL is indeed an all time great but the way I hear Pryor being described here, makes me think that EVERY possible Leonard opponent is no better than Bruce Flinch.

On the other hand, just becuase SRL DOES face a Flinch, doesn't mean he's ducking Pryor simply becuase "everyone would rather have seen Ray face Pryor over Finch". That type of logic is a bit.....silly. Especially when you are coming off of back to back fights with the likes of Kalule and Hearns.

The two extremes of absurdity wrapped up into one neat and tidey thread.

(Of course I'm referring to Sharks and myself. Of Course.)

Hawk

[wpink]

Good points, I Agree Benetiz is not in the same class but he is a hall of famer and is great, he also beat duran. I am not sure it the "dig" was directed at me when it was mentioned "I also have issues with downplaying the value of one fighter for one arguement and then citing his pound for pound value to endorse another". I have always said that Duran is looked on much more favorably than his records versus other greats suggest, but that being said, If you look at every post, I said that he still in # 8 in my all time top 10, just not above Ray, I have never waivered. I can not understand how he loses twice to ray and won once that was close, and when ray chose to throw away his strenghts and fight toe to toe, but he he chosen above ray for the simply fact that he moved up and beat ray...Then on the other hand ray does not get the same benfit of the doubt when this discusssion transfers over to hagler. That is the root every debate I have, be consistent in comparisons. This is not directed at you Hawk, just many that are not consistent all the way around.

[Sharkey]

I rate Duran better than Leonard because he was better than he was at 147 at 135, and while at 147 he beat Leonard and lost to him. While Leonard won two bouts, they were both over the hill in their third fight, so Leonard wins only 'better fighter after 1989".

Leonard did not fight the fight he did because he wanted two, he was not, in my opinion able to figure out how to tackle Duran. In fight two he stuck and move, and still was up at most 4-2-1 at the time of Duran's quit-job.

Factor that if Duran at 135 was better than at 147, in a p4p sense, then, the Duran at 135 was a better relative fighter than he was when he beat Leonard.

If Leonard gets credit for beating Duran at Leonard's peak weight, while much younger than Duran...and that makes him superior in your eyes...I expect you to rate Mike Dokes ahead of Leonard, for surely had they fought in 1983, Dokes would win.

As for Leonard-Hagler, Hagler and Leonard were both not quite what they once were. As such, I think in say, 1982, Hagler who was then still fast and agile, would be much harder to run from than he was in 1987 for Leonard. All credit to Ray for the win, but in this case, Ray's win over at least a declining Hagler does not make him a great middle...for he proved mostly he could beat Marvin. More fights at that weight would have legitimized his standing as a middleweight. If we say Ray himself was declining, we don;t have to argue any further for Ray as a middle, for a declined Ray will not stand up to a peak Greb..or Zale..or LaMotta..or Hagler or peak Leonard. Peak Leonard never fought at 160 of course, so arguing his middleweight greatness relative to Hagler hinges only on their fight. Which most agree consisted of a still formidable but slow Hagler fighting retardedly and losing to a guy who showed him movement.

Larry Holmes was still very good when he fought Spinks. And he lost. However, no one is about to argue Mike Spinks is a better heavy than Larry. More to the point, Ray Robinson was not shot when he lost to Basilio. Had Ray retired then and there, would Basilio outrank Robinson as a middle?

[Sharkey]

says Leonard was better p4p than Marvin..I get that. Just like Duran being better p4p than Ray.

[wpink]

Sharky great great points kudos,,I dont agree and will argue that but well supporte.

I agree that duran at 135 was a monster but he best victories were versus buchanon and dejesus where were not on the same level as hearns, Duran himself, benetiz and hagler. Now you can easily counter that well duran also moved up and beat leonard. No doubt. I gave ray the fight but whatever the case is it is a L on ray leonards record. One thing about that fight. Ray leonard chose to fight durans fight. there was no figuring out. Look closely at the 1st round..ray counter him spun off the ropes showed hand speed, but yes he did miss a lot but ray stayed in the middle of the ring. Key point he tried to get off the ropes. You never saw ray try to spin off the ropes after that. Not one time. He got stunned in round two and the rest of the fight except for round 5-7 which ray won by using left hook leads and the fight was in the middle of the ring....he also showed duran a little movement, nothing major. Duran even became frusterated and started mocking ray....However, the point is Ray did not try one time, i mean try, not successfully try, I mean simply try to spin off the ropes. He layed their took the punches, and countered. You tell me what happened after the 4th round. It became an even slugfest with Ray actually winning the majority of the last 11 rounds on each judges scored card. So there was not some issue with ray not figuring duran out. Duran clearly brought it to ray, you can not dispute that. However, did not attempt to figure duran out he simply slugged with him and tryed to show who would win.

One final note on duran fight. Ray and Dundee made a horrible calculation that they could ko duran by 4, that was their plan going into the fight.

If ray fought hagler in 82 there would be only 1 of two outcomes. Ray leonard wins 10 rounds to 2 or greater, or hagler by late ko. Since the ray leonard of 82 had a great great jaw, I don't see him ko'ing Ray. I say this because hagler had problems with angles and movement. Even when he was younger Antefermo and Duran were somewhat quick fighters. They both cause Hagler major problems. Now if you look closely at the 87 fight leonard copied off of duran tactics, but forcing hagler to lead. Hagler is not a leader, he likes to counter punch at targets in front of him. Ray leonard if you saw the duran II fight, and know anything about ray after the 1st duran fight, he already proved his toughness he would box hagler as he did in 87. Duran II, duran who was at his peak and much quicker than hagler could ever be and tried to cut off the ring, could not touch ray. What do you think hagler would be able to do. The same thing that he did in 87, lead, and rays simple back and forth movement evertime hagler got set would force hagler to lunge, and the ray would tie him up. Simple. It was a simple fight for ray in 87, one that was much closer because he had no stamina and could not continue to move. Look closley he was beathing deeply very deeply as of round 7, and his hands were down at his waste. He fought in flurries, as hagler manager said, but hagler did not have the boxing skills to beat ray. You all say hagler was not what he was, well he had more left than ray did, who was out of boxing for the most of 5 yrs. So styles makes fights and ray has the style to beat Hagler 95 times out of 100. Now your dead on with the fact that Ray was not a great middleweight, in fact that night many middleweights would have beaten ray, just not hagler. He was great but speed was his weakness.

Finally, duran and leonard to me p4p are close only because ray retired and did not have the time frame to show how dominant he would have been at welter and jr middle. We were robbed of his best 5 yrs, fights he would have won were Heanrs 2 by early ko, Cuevas was still barking, Pryor would have stepped up and gotten beat down by 3, Hagler fight would have happend in 83 or 84 and ray would have easily beaten him, the we have the body snatcher that ray would once again have to dig deep as this would be his biggest challenge. If ray would have beaten him then you have the simon brown, norris era comin in that ray would be tested due to age setting in. However ray, was the 2nd greatest welter ever. Get the dvd of his fights from 76-81.

[Roberto Aqui]

3rd. You say things out of frusteration and because you have been proven post after post by everone that you know nothing about boxing..

I wear the kid gloves for you in the interest of board politics.

You can't follow a timeline without mixing it up, go off on unrelated topics, and make up the most childish baloney which you attempt to attribute to me to answer. Forget about it.

You're a one man band for Leonard. Every great athlete has them in every city, but they hardly represent the civic orchestras and professional musicians.

[hawk5ins]

Read what you are saying: You make a point that just becuase you critcize Leonard, that it does not automatically make you a Leonard Hater as some on this board have said you are.

But out of the other side of your mouth, anyone who supports or defends SRL, YOU lable them pantywaists or whatever else.

You don't want to be labled yourself, but feel the need to "lable" anyone who doesn't agree with you?

How about instead of all of that nonsense, you actually take some's post that is directed at you and address it point by point and attempt to debunk their positions?

Would THAT not be a bit more productive?

Hawk

[Roberto Aqui]

You don't want to be labled yourself, but feel the need to "lable" anyone who doesn't agree with you?

How about instead of all of that nonsense, you actually take some's post that is directed at you and address it point by point and attempt to debunk their positions?

Would THAT not be a bit more productive?

Hawk

Indeed it would be more productive, and I've done that ad nauseam over the past 2-3 yrs I've been a board member, so it gets a little old.

I think I'm civil enough, though like anyone, perhaps I've crossed the line on occasion after repeatedly being misrepresented. The bottomline is that in any fantasy contest of fighter A against fighter X, some folk take grave offense if someone says fighterX has a credible chance against a highly favored fighter A and try to twist it around and make sound like that someone actually states that fighterX would beat fighter A. That was the misrepresentation of me above with the claim that I stated Quarry WOULD beat Holmes.

Ridiculous. Bottomline is that I favored Ray over Pryor for all the obvious reasons, but Pryor was another HOF great in the same era and weight subclass as Leonard, tried to make a fight with Leonard, and could've presented enough style problems to give Leonard some trouble and perhaps even upset him. In the Inquisition days, I might end up on the stretching rack for suggesting such a thing.

Much is made of Ray's talent and accomplishments which are considerable, but he did have a short career and had far more opportunities than did most any fighter in history to make his mark compared to a Pryor for example. What if Pryor's manager refused to let Pryor move up a division and challenge Cervantes? What if Arguello decided to do some belt shopping and fought for another belt instead of Pryor's? I'll tell you, Pryor would've just been another ABC champ, and nothing more, and some would call him a bum who never fought anyone. As it is, he doesn't even get enough credit for what he did accomplish.

[hawk5ins]

And if this post here is how you have presented you postions, I certainly would have no issues with you whether I agree with you or not.

But what I had seen in the short time I have been here, is someone who has been consistently abrasive and combative.

I'm not saying one would have to curb their passion and commitment to their postion and just be plain old vanilla, but if the manner with whihc you just posted were a bit more consistently civil, I don't see how too many would have any beef with you.

Pound for Pound, I don't think I have any arguement with your position here. I see Pryor as more of a Lightweight than a big jr. Welterweight. So becuase of that, I think he would have issues at Welterweight with not only an Elite Welter, but one of the best Welters that I have ever seen. This is why my position is that I think Ray would win and rather easily.

Agian, this is MY OPINION. I am not trying to pass it off as FACT.

Some of the facts that I presented have to do with the Timelines and When Ray retired and what Pryor's attractiveness as an opponent for Ray at 147 were PRIOR to him beating Arguello were. I'm not exscusing Ray for not facing Pryor, I don't think the bout was all that an attractive matchup until AFTER Aaron actually beat Arguello.

Whose fault is this? No one's. It didn't work out becuase of timing.

Would Leonard Vs. Pryor have been more attractive than SRL Bruce Finch? Of course it would have. Most any other matchup would have been. But to state that Ray was ducking fighters becuase he took an easy defense RIGHT on the heels of facing Kalule and Hearns isn't all that fair OR accurate.

You place Aaron Pryor in a fantasy matchup with Ross, Chavez, Ortiz, Canzoneri, Benitez, Whitaker, Williams, Duran, a Lightweight Arguello, and other greats around the Lightweight Jr. Welterweight area and I think you have some fantastic matchups that Pryor IMO would come out on top of in many if not the majority of them. That's how muhc respect I have fro Pryor.

I don't think he matches up well at 147 with the all time greats at that weight becuase of size issues. The list of fighters I just rattled off CERTAINLY are in SRL's class pound for pound. And Pound for Pound Leonard Pryor is a fantastic matchup.

I am not Dismissing or discrediting Pryor. He was a Great fighter.

IMO.

Hawk

[wpink]

Aqui,

I have no problem with you last post in fact you voice your well supported opinion and no one car fault you for that. I agree with hawk, if this was how you voice your side in the first place besides totally slamming ray, and pointing out inaccuracies (Aaron got the best of Ray in sparring and he never fought a middleweight before hagler), then I have much respect for your positon about ray leonards short career etc.

His short career is valid and has to be weighed in when your considering his standing versus all time greats. I always argue this, point with everyone so dont be taken back on this. Here is my position.

When arguing all time best fighter I do not think that you look at one fight to consider this, but I also don't think that you make the decision solely based on longevity either. I think all factors come into play. I believe if your talking about top fighters ever you are looking a period of time when they were at their best, and compare this to others and their accomplishments when others where at their best. The key thing here is I personally believe that the true measuring stick is (and this is my opinion, and obviously is up for much debate especially for fighters like larry holmes, and in a way..roy jones) the quality of fighters you beat while at your peak. Some fighters will forever go down as great fighters but not having that frazier or duran, or lamotta to bring out what the public wanted to say was the best in them, and also bring about the greatness and passion of boxing.

Since we are arguing in some sense fighters from different eras, or in this case different weight classes you have to try to get some common measuring stick, and I simply do not think that longivity is the best way. It tells us a lot about a fighter. It tells us that they could deal with a lot from all types of fighters and were consistently at their best. However is that what we are arguing, or are we arguing that for a indefinite period during a fighters career we believe this fighter had the skills, heart, experience, jaw, speed, power, etc,,,to beat others during their best period. 10 years versus 3 years is not the issue here. It is if during Leonards 3 years did he show this ability versus all different fighters, different styles, great fighters, show heart, show the ability to deal with adversity, for more than simply one good night, but for a period where we could gauge his ability. I say yes. I say that this is a a better measuring stick better than Duran having 72 dominant performances but the quality of his opposition that he beat was not that of leonard's.

Now if you want to argue who was the more dominant fighter Leonard is nowhere in the top 50, as he was not around like chavez, duran, robinson, louis. I agree with the concerns about his short career. We were robbed of this piece of the puzzle due to his eye injury. No arguement here from me. However,. again we are talking about pound per pound Ray at his best in your best qualified and objective opinion being considered against other top pound per pound fighters and what they exhibitied inside the ring (not what they could have or should have done). This fact alone eliminates Roy Jones, Sanchez, larry holmes, Chavez. Fighters that may have been better pound per pound than Leonard but they did not exhibit it in the ring versus top fighters, well chavez did fight top fighters (he is hard to rank) but he beat thorughly the b+ fighters, then lost or got very questionable stoppages or draws versus the best fighters.

I will sum it up. In ray leonards short career he fought every style imaginable, dealt with every issue you can think of, showed great heart, the ability to slug, box, counter, take punishemnt, come from behind. He understood judges, was the crowd favorite (at first), developed the blueprint for fighters under heavyweight to fight top fights and get top checks...ask dlh and mayweather now who are following it. Ray fought everyone he could whether welter, jr middle, middle and even light heavy....he beat them all. So to me this is a valid example of a boxing career that while it did not last for 60+ fights the quality included in his fights, the substance included, the resume allows for an objective comparison to someone who has 60-90 fights.

One final thing how do we measure a jesse owens versus maurice green? We measure them on how they performed during their best race..their best time. The time it common denominator that allows us to consider a sprinter in the 40's vs a sprinter in 2000. I say in boxing quality of opposition is our "time" factor that we can use when comparing boxers. Now when you have a ray robinson that did both...Hmmm that is why he and ali and louis and are in everyones top fighters...No doubt.

[Roberto Aqui]

Would Leonard Vs. Pryor have been more attractive than SRL Bruce Finch? Of course it would have. Most any other matchup would have been. But to state that Ray was ducking fighters becuase he took an easy defense RIGHT on the heels of facing Kalule and Hearns isn't all that fair OR accurate.
Hawk

Since you appear to be addressing me, then let's be clear here. You just put yourself in the same boat as a few others who make up phony ideas which they attribute to me. I have NEVER stated, nor even believe that Leonard ducked Pryor. Leonard did shamelessly duck some other fighters, the Hearns and Hagler rematches, but not Pryor.

Pryor did attempt to make the fight, but Leonard showed no initial interest and wasn't around long enough to make it happen at any rate as I pointed out in timeline comparisons. There was the single fight against Finch when that could have happened before Leonard retired, not enough time to say he ducked Pryor, but for a guy who loved to leverage other fighters in financial negotiations and made money his bottomline, there is no doubt that a Hearns rematch or a Pryor bout was worth a lot more than a Finch bout.

I suspect that Hearns was the one who detached his retina, and Ray fought Finch as a test fight to see how he would do and retired, but I can't prove it.

[wpink]

aqui,

one good post, then this last post...I will simply suggest to you once again do your research before making post. Leonards eye was originally damaged prior to the hearns fight. If you get the sports illustrated title "the showdown" the week before the fight 9/16/81 it outlines in there that ray had to sit out of sparring for a week going into the fight because of a elbow caught in the eye and blurred vision. So while the world attributes the detached retina to hearns and very well he could have been the final straw it started or leonard 1st became aware of this prior to the hearns 1 fight.

Now for your repeated onslaught of ray (again did he do something to you or a family member,,or did you lose some money against him) Ray ducked Hagler, who was 2 weight classes above him at a weight he never fought, or he ducked hearns when he just tko'd him. Wow! Your rational is like Roy jones ducking Mike Tyson who was a heavyweight champion or contender while roy was light heavy...For ray to even consider fighting Hagler shows the greatness and the expectations that we placed on ray leoanrd a welterweight champion. Other fighters such as trinidad, dlh, moved up to middleweidht through several fights at jr then at middle before facing him, but Ray would have jumped from beating Heanrs or finch directly to hagler.. I guess he is supposed to do this. I think Aqui your expecatations of fighters is what most have issues with, on top of your false statements. Leoanrd should not have been expected to fight Hagler. Also, hagler made no serious effort at fighting leonard after the 1st fight. Hagler was presented an offer from leonard roughly a year after their first fight and he had already retired and went to england. Now Hagler has said that he wanted no part of boxing or leonard any more after the 1st fight, then he retreated and said that he would wait for an enticing offer, but hagler never challenged ray to a rematch, again contrary to your statement and popular demand.

Hearns II in 82 would have been great, and leonard could have fought hearns immediately after that, and had he stuck around for a year or so after then we have serious quesitons, but "HE HAD A DETACHED RETINA" what do you expect of him, to satisfy your hefty demands of him when you on the other hand say that he was a fraud, but you also expect him to fight godzilla, then king kong, then Zeus back to back to back, just like your expecting mayweather....Ray fought probably the toughest group of fights ever between 79-81 then retired...is that not enough...His health is more important than attempting to prove to you or others that he is great champion, especially when he has beaten everyone you continue to name.