Leonard would have less critics had he fought and lost to Nunn.

[K-DOGG]

i've read that sugar ray leonard was asked what he thinks of floyd mayweather's decision to retire after the dela hoya fight and how many people dont believe PBF would keep his word to retire for good, leonard said his ego keeps him from coming back in the ring and how he felt to looked back and should have never fought Norris and Camacho where he absorbed the worst beatings in his entire career, now my point is, if Leonard after the forgettable trilogy with Duran, continued to fight on and took on the top middleweight in the early 90s, IBF champ Michael Nunn, I think he would answer those critics who after all these years referred to him as a phoney and protected fighter, by taking on a young, respected title holder at the peak of his career, I see Nunn boxed his way to a one sided decision victory over Leonard, but sugar ray would gained more respect from his harsh critics in losing to Nunn than Norris and Camacho, keep in mind Norris became a star because of his win over Leonard and he feasted on smaller welterweights instead of taking the bigger challenge at middleweight, also, when trinidad got embarassingly beaten ny winky wright, his legacy isnt tarnish a bit coz he lost to a man long hungry for recognition, that same applies to Leonard if he fought and lost to Nunn instead.

ehhh, not really. Not the way you draw it out, no. Taking on and losing to Nunn would have been no different than taking on and losing to Norris IMO.

If Ray really wanted respect in his second career, he wouldn't have retired after Hagler and defended the Championship. Probably first against Hagler in a rematch and if that fight couldn't have been made, then the rematch with Hearns, who ended up winning the WBC belt after Leonard gave it up anyway. Other opponents would have been the newly crowned WBA titlist, Kalambay or perhaps Mike McCallum, and yes a young Nunn etc.

But not the way you draw it up.

[Emon723]

well, leonard, if i could recall, retired on 5 different occasions only to come comeback, and he did say he hasnt made 154 lbs limit for a long time when he fought norris which was a mistake on his part, thats why i guess Nunn would have been a logical choice on an opponent had he continued.

[BORIQUA POWER]

duran leonard trilogy = unforgettable? explain please

[BennyST]

If Ray really wanted respect in his second career, he wouldn't have retired after Hagler and defended the Championship. Probably first against Hagler in a rematch and if that fight couldn't have been made, then the rematch with Hearns, who ended up winning the WBC belt after Leonard gave it up anyway. Other opponents would have been the newly crowned WBA titlist, Kalambay or perhaps Mike McCallum, and yes a young Nunn etc.

Do you mean the rematch with Hearns in which Leonard was beaten to a pulp for eleven rounds and knocked down twice throughout only for the judges to give him a draw based on a good last round? People get angry about the Hagler fight, which was too close to get angry about, and in which Leonard actually did enough to win it but forget that when Hearns and Leonard did have a rematch Hearns dominated the fight, winning nearly every round, only to get completely screwed with a draw.

Argh, anyway, thats not really the point of this thread is it? Leonard, despite some thinking the contrary, was a very tough, hard, competitive fighter who had a real fighters instinct. I'm not even exactly sure what this thread is about? Leonad fighting Nunn? Gaining respect from it? How? He would have been beaten probably worse by Nunn than he was by both Norris and Camacho!

Nonetheless, I don't see how any of this reflects on his standing as a brilliant fighter. His best days were as a welterweight and he came back and did amazing things after that weight as well. Sure, Hagler was old and tired but Leonard put on a show that was deserving of the win and although many people cry "Robbery!", it was not at all close to being a robbery of any type whatsoever! The fight should maybe have been called a draw, but, a point or two either way at most would be acceptable. Anything more than that is getting silly and a robbery is when someone wins most of the rounds of the whole fight and loses ie. Hearns/Leonard 2!

duran leonard trilogy = unforgettable? explain please

Ummm, don't you mean "Duran Leonard trilogy = forgettable? Explain please?"?

Obviously, the first fight was one of the greatest fights in the history of boxing and probably the best welterweight title fight ever! For an actual fight, it showcased skills of offense and defense, the likes of which, I don't believe will ever be seen in another fight by two fighters!

Sadly, that fight was basically the last of Durans truly motivated, hungry fights and nearly every fight after that he looked to be half the fighter he had been. The second fight with Leonard he looked bloated and like he didn't really want to be there and the third was after his last great effort and brutal war with Barkley at the very old of age of 38. So, in a way, it was a forgettable trilogy apart from the first fight. It was just the infamy of the second fight and that Leonard didn't give him a rematch for nine years after getting one himself after only five months which made it an unforgettable trilogy.