[john garfield]

...do against today's best lightweights?

 

[john garfield]

No opinions from guys who've clearly studied the sport's golden age?

 

[Chatty]

I never gotten round to studying Leonard in any great depth so Its probably not best that I make an assumption based on bits and bobs. I will say that I think the current lightweight division is pretty weak and that from what I've seen Leonard looked like a masterful boxer so I'd be inclined to pull for Benny but I'll wait until I've watched a bit more of him/read up on him further before I made a concrete decision.

 

[john garfield]

Plus, as spindly and as little like a fighter as Benny looked, he could crack big time. He made dogged tough guys look they stepped on the third rail when he tagged 'em.

 

[GazOC]

Good punch, good movement, good stamina and ring smarts. Far too good for any of todays 135lbers IMHO.

 

[Flea Man]

Seeing as how he handled welters even someone the size of Broner or Burns wouldn't be too big an obstacle for him.

 

[JamieC]

What he'd even beat The Problem Broner?

Pretty weak division and hes one of the GOATs

 

[Danny]

Pretty much gonna reiterate what has already been said. When he hit his stride when he left his teen years, he was pretty much a complete fighter at the top level. Speed, ring craft, footwork, movement, power, toughness, adaptability, and as mentioned handled guys a lot bigger than him anyway, so would be used to guys coming in the ring as a welterweight like Broner. He'd outbox or out-punch anybody in today's lightweight division. A genuine top 10 great for me and for too good for the 135 belt-holders of today.

 

[scribbs]

I don't like comparing fighters from different era's to be fair. It's more acceptable IMHO to compare fighters who fought at same time but never fought each other.

But what I will say is Leonard fought in a tough era when generally there was one champion so they had to fight who was out there. The stories I have in my mind is of the Lew Tendler & Ritchie Mitchell fights were Benny was hurt & floored but used his head & voice to talk his way out. He also reigned for about 7 years & fought the top guys, usually more than once & did very well.

Today's fighters tend to have a handful of top rated fights but can get away with ignoring certain fighters due to the proliferation of sanctioning bodies, TV deals & promoters (Hey, Frank Warren) who wish to keep their meal ticket.

Style's also make fights & I tend to go on the train of thought that the olden day fighters fought more regularly so would be more adaptable to fighting much like a team sport player will only gain form by playing competitive matches. Also, I don't think that modern training methods will give an advantage, too much emphasis is put on that IMO.

Today's lightweights are a weak division, let's be honest the UK has Ricky Burns has it's top fighter at the weight but I don't see him beating Broner but neither do I see Broner beating Marquez if he was still at Lightweight.

Basically this is a cop out but If you pushed me then Broner with a bit more experience may have a chance of winning(?) one fight against Leonard but that would be in a series of fights (Trilogy) but that's a very big push.

Leonard is held in high regard & looking at the info available it's difficult to argue with that, it's just a shame more footage is not available. I go by the opinion that in order to evaluate a fighter you have to at least have viewed at least 6 or 7 fights & more if possible to get a feeling of a fighter.