- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 45,405
- Reaction score
- 20,891
prime 4 prime, no one fucks with RJJ but overall, sugar ray leonard's legacy shits on roy's.
one barely made MW and had very few fights but fought and beat some superb fighters, the other started at MW and beat possibly 2 fighters who may well be in higher regard than any of Leonards wins
Who did RJJ beat that is held in higher regard than Hagler, Hearns, and Duran?
.I mean, resume wise, Ray fucking destroys Roy. He's the only one of the Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, and Benitez group who managed to get everyone else and put an L on their record, only Duran gave him a blemish.
Im sure he means Toney and Hopkins.
Im sure he means Toney and Hopkins.
Who did RJJ beat that is held in higher regard than Hagler, Hearns, and Duran?
I don't like when people use name recognition as a sign of greatness. Thats more of a sign of popularity.
Hearns,hagler and Leonard are indeed great but hold them to the standards of a modern fighter instead of viewing their career as a highlight and see what happens. Judge Hearns on where he was when Ray fought him,not his entire legend.
I think James Toney is as good a win as Hearns. Hearns is just more liked.
I know, but Toney and Hopkins are definitely not more highly regarded by most fans than Hagler, Hearns, and Duran.
Then you don't know boxing well. You can't have a better win than James Toney and Bernard Hopkins.
The fab 4 is just boxing folklore. There were others boxers that made that time period great,
like Arguello, McCallum, Pryor, Starling, Curry, Sanchez, Jackson, Honeyghan.
Hearns was the #1 p4p fighter in 1981 when he fought Leonard, at 32-0 with like 30 knockouts.
Toney was 44-0. Him and Roy were looked at as the best fighters on the planet and it was looked
as a historic fight as you can see here:
Merchant is even using Leonard-Hearns as comparisson.
I don't know how Hopkins was looked at that time, but we know how Hopkins is looked at today.
And he had a clean record except from his first pro fight.
James Toney was not 44-0, he already had two draws when he fought Roy Jones. He also lost his next fight to Montel Griffin. Then he lost a year later again to Montell Griffin.
Thomas Hearns was undefeated when SRL beat him. Hearns continued to win all of his fights for 4 years until he lost again...to Hagler.
Hopkins was not yet in his prime when he lost to Roy Jones, he actually continued getting better.
Lol, thanks for attempting to educate me. But you're wrong all the way.
What do Toney's later fights have to do with anything? He was undefeated when he fought Roy. That was your argument.
He wasn't the puncher that Hearns was, but he brought something different to the table.
Hopkins was pretty much in his prime. He didn't get better with age, he just had to adjust his style to his age.
Do you really think the 2003 version of Hopkins would do better against Roy?
Your first post to me was telling me that I don't know boxing. You can disagree with my opinion when it comes to subjective matters. But so far, only you have been objectively wrong.
Toney had two draws. He was not 44-0 like you claimed, he was 44-0-2. That makes you wrong, that is not a debatable thing. That's the only incorrect statement that has been made.
You can disagree with me when I say that Hopkins got better, since that's just an opinion.