Duran Leonard Hearns Hagler [Archive]

Sugarj

03-31-2008, 07:13 PM

Leonard for me, that said they are all legends. Duran was not at his best against these guys though due to the higher weight.....he obviously got a close decision against Leonard, but was owned in the rematch and later lost a decision. All the ballyhoo about his weight being a factor in the rematch for me was just an excuse, he was fighting very well, looking lively, his body looked toned and strong and he was only slightly outclassed by someone whos style had changed too dramatically for him to adjust to.

Hagler closely outpointed him and Hearns KO'd him in two.

Duran's reputation was built at lightweight but even there he was KO'd by Esteban DeJesus....I think in one! He has a good claim to best lightweight of all time but I'd still rate Leonard above him.

I scored the Leonard vs Hagler fight for Leonard, when I first watched it I thought it was clear but on second and third viewing it was a close one, maybe 115 113. Its just that Hagler didn't start fighting till round five. That said even the biggest Hagler fans couldn't argue that Marvin looked very good that night, his hooks were so slow and telegraphed and he barely slipped a single Leonard punch all night. Leonard hit him with 4 punch + combinations and every sucker punch in the book, Hagler even amateurously spun fully round after missing with a right hook. He wasn't the same as the 1985 Hagler who met Hearns. That Leonard did this after a lenghthly layoff is a testament to his worth in this company!

Silencers

04-01-2008, 02:00 AM

Leonard for me, that said they are all legends. Duran was not at his best against these guys though due to the higher weight.....he obviously got a close decision against Leonard, but was owned in the rematch and later lost a decision. All the ballyhoo about his weight being a factor in the rematch for me was just an excuse, he was fighting very well, looking lively, his body looked toned and strong and he was only slightly outclassed by someone whos style had changed too dramatically for him to adjust to.

Hagler closely outpointed him and Hearns KO'd him in two.

Duran's reputation was built at lightweight but even there he was KO'd by Esteban DeJesus....I think in one! He has a good claim to best lightweight of all time but I'd still rate Leonard above him.

Duran didn't lose by KO at lightweight, De Jesus knocked him down in the first and won a decision in their first fight, Duran avenged that loss by knocking De Jesus out twice.

Leonard wasn't owning Duran in their second fight, it might have looked that way because of all the taunting Leonard was doing but Leonard wasn't ahead by much. Leonard admitted himself that he wanted to fight Duran as soon as possible because he knew Duran ballooned up in between fights.

Hagler gave him too much respect and could've won more decisively I think and Hearns' style was totally wrong for Duran.

wmute

04-01-2008, 02:13 AM

my real ranking

Duran > Leonard > Hagler > Hearns

favorite to least favorite

Hagler > Duran > Leonard = Hearns

Hearnsz

04-01-2008, 05:46 AM

Alot of people say Duran is the best, probably because of his impressive lightweight carreer I guess. But I think he lost twice vs Leonard, and he also lost vs Hearns and Hagler I believe. I know it's because he always ate till he was like 240lbs between fights and was getting bored with training... Too bad Leonard had such a short carreer though...

Sugarj

04-01-2008, 09:47 AM

I was obviously wrong about Duran being KO'd by DeJesus, I must have got mixed up with the first round knockdown. He was definately KO'd by Hearns though!!!!!

As for the Leonard rematch 'owned' was probably, I suppose a bit optimistic prior to rounds five and six and my later assertion of 'slightly outclassed' was closer to the mark. As I said before though, there was nothing much wrong with his shape that I could notice.

toolboxdiver

04-01-2008, 02:24 PM

slicksouthpaw16

04-01-2008, 02:38 PM

Skill wise goes to Hearns easily. Overall greatness for me would be Ray Leonard or Duran.

PED User

04-03-2008, 11:00 PM

Skill wise goes to Hearns easily. Overall greatness for me would be Ray Leonard or Duran.

Skill-wise, no one is "easily" the best.

Hearns was very difficult to outbox from the outside, as he outboxed Leonard and Benitez from the outside.

Hagler was an extremely versatile boxer puncher. Duran did nearly everything well in his prime. Good power and speed, pressure, box behind the jab (Dejesus rubber match), slip punches, roll with punches, etc...Leonard could box or brawl as well.

AntonTheGreat

04-04-2008, 12:04 AM

And Trailing In 5th Wilfred Benitez!!!!!!!!!!

wmute

04-04-2008, 12:36 AM

Skill wise goes to Hearns easily. Overall greatness for me would be Ray Leonard or Duran.

skills are not only boxing from the outside

wmute

04-04-2008, 12:37 AM

And Trailing In 5th Wilfred Benitez!!!!!!!!!!

Not so far from Hearns either.

LOL @ the young pibe, that is a lot of hair right there

Hearnsz

04-04-2008, 05:19 PM

I'm not sure if Leonard's power is underrated though. He wasn't the knockout artist but when he landed a clean punch, his opponent wasn't able to think straight anymore.
I'm thinking of Leonard vs Hearns I where hearns was leading with 6 points on each card or something, and Leonard scored TKO in 13/15 round

PED User

04-04-2008, 05:47 PM

I like Duran as a lightweight and he is one of my favorite fighters
as a middleweight Marvin Hagler had a longer reach than Hearns, a granite chin and great movement that is one of the reasons he was so devistating in the middleweight division

Hagler's reach is listed @ 75 inches, and Hearns's @ 78 inches.

Hearns's reach and outside boxing ability is why Hagler fought him the way he did, rather than Hagler box like he usually did.

HappyBoxingFan

04-04-2008, 05:50 PM

Indeed that was an awesome time for middleweight boxing. Mostly I can easily pick the - in my eyes - better fighter between a few legends. But these 4 were really worth eachother.

I'd say:
Power:
1. Hearns
2. Duran
3. Hagler
4. Leonard

Boxing:
1. Leonard
2. Hagler
3. Hearns
4. Duran

Overall:
Thats the question in the poll... I'd say Hearns but I'm still not sure...

Wha? Hagler's power is far and away better than the other three.

PED User

04-04-2008, 05:53 PM

Wha? Hagler's power is far and away better than the other three.

No it wasn't. Hearns was the biggest puncher of them. He's arguably the hardest puncher ever at 147. His right hand is one of the most devastating punches in boxing history (and had a great left hook to the body too). It wasn't the same when he moved up in weight, but still good enough to knock Duran half-conscious at 154, knock Shuler unconscious at 160, drop Roldan numerous times @ 160, stop fighters above 160, etc...

Hagler, Duran, and Leonard all had good power, but Hearns was the biggest puncher of them.

wmute

04-04-2008, 06:09 PM

Hagler's reach is listed @ 75 inches, and Hearns's @ 78 inches.

Hearns's reach and outside boxing ability is why Hagler fought him the way he did, rather than Hagler box like he usually did.

Hagler was not boxing as much by 1985

PED User

04-04-2008, 06:15 PM

Hagler was not boxing as much by 1985

His last 5 fights were the Hamsho rematch, Roldan, Duran, Scypion, and Sibson.

None of Hagler's game plans there were remotely close to the intense, balls-to-the-wall attack that he showed against Hearns.

The Hamsho rematch was the most aggressive Hagler of these fights, and that was still a long ways from the Hearns of the Hagler fight.

Even in the next Hagler after Hearns, against Mugabi, Hagler was more patient for the majority of the fight, jabbing Mugabi silly from the outside, before he decided to break Mugabi down up close in the 9th and 10th rounds.

slicksouthpaw16

04-04-2008, 07:57 PM

Skill-wise, no one is "easily" the best.

Hearns was very difficult to outbox from the outside, as he outboxed Leonard and Benitez from the outside.

Hagler was an extremely versatile boxer puncher. Duran did nearly everything well in his prime. Good power and speed, pressure, box behind the jab (Dejesus rubber match), slip punches, roll with punches, etc...Leonard could box or brawl as well.

Hearns at welterweight was definitely ''easily'' the best. Outside game over everyone on the list, pound for pound power over everyone on the list, reflexes, speed (IMO) over everyone on the list, accuracy, ect. The only thing that Hagler and Leonard had over peak Hearns at welter weight was inside fighting.

Hearns out boxed Ray Leonard and he would have out boxed Hagler if Hagler didn't make it into a brawl. Hagler knew that if he had boxed with Hearns, then he would have lost, which is why he went after Hearns and didn't fight a technical fight.

PED User

04-04-2008, 08:10 PM

Hearns at welterweight was definitely ''easily'' the best. Outside game over everyone on the list, pound for pound power over everyone on the list, reflexes, speed (IMO) over everyone on the list, accuracy, ect. The only thing that Hagler and Leonard had over peak Hearns at welter weight was inside fighting.

Hearns out boxed Ray Leonard and he would have out boxed Hagler if Hagler didn't make it into a brawl. Hagler knew that if he had boxed with Hearns, then he would have lost, which is why he went after Hearns and didn't fight a technical fight.

Skills are not just boxing from the outside. Fighting on the inside takes skill. For instance, positioning yourself on the inside so you can be effective at a certain angle and the other guy can't. Knowing the angles. Shortening up your shots so you don't need as much room for your punches to have power. It takes a lot of skill to fight on the inside, just as it does to fight from the outside. It showed the skills and versatility of Hagler to show that he could go so differently from how he usually fought, to find another game plan and defeat a great fighter like Hearns using another style.

slicksouthpaw16

04-04-2008, 08:25 PM

Skills are not just boxing from the outside. Fighting on the inside takes skill. For instance, positioning yourself on the inside so you can be effective at a certain angle and the other guy can't. Knowing the angles. Shortening up your shots so you don't need as much room for your punches to have power. It takes a lot of skill to fight on the inside, just as it does to fight from the outside. It showed the skills and versatility of Hagler to show that he could go so differently from how he usually fought, to find another game plan and defeat a great fighter like Hearns using another style.

Hearns was above his weight but still a good fighter. At welter, Hearns punished fighters that attempted to get on the inside because they would be directly in range of his punches. I didn't see much skill at all from Hagler in that fight. He simply out lasted Hearns in a brawl. He didn't show any craftiness or boxing ability, he just went for broke and laid it all out there. I take nothing away from Hagler because he did a great job, but i didn't see any ''versatility'' there.

Pound for pound, Hearns was the better fighter. He also wasn't just an outside fight either. His left hook and straight right hand to the body was devastating. Thats why Hearns skill wise is over everyone on the list in my opinion. He could do it all and was the most effective at doing it.

I see what you are getting at though.

wmute

04-04-2008, 09:10 PM

His last 5 fights were the Hamsho rematch, Roldan, Duran, Scypion, and Sibson.

None of Hagler's game plans there were remotely close to the intense, balls-to-the-wall attack that he showed against Hearns.

The Hamsho rematch was the most aggressive Hagler of these fights, and that was still a long ways from the Hearns of the Hagler fight.

Even in the next Hagler after Hearns, against Mugabi, Hagler was more patient for the majority of the fight, jabbing Mugabi silly from the outside, before he decided to break Mugabi down up close in the 9th and 10th rounds.

I agree with this, but the previous post sounded like like Hagler played the moving counterpuncher for the previous years, then woke up one day in 1985 and decided to pressure Hearns.

ksjb85

04-04-2008, 10:19 PM

Hearns was above his weight but still a good fighter. At welter, Hearns punished fighters that attempted to get on the inside because they would be directly in range of his punches. I didn't see much skill at all from Hagler in that fight. He simply out lasted Hearns in a brawl. He didn't show any craftiness or boxing ability, he just went for broke and laid it all out there. I take nothing away from Hagler because he did a great job, but i didn't see any ''versatility'' there.

Pound for pound, Hearns was the better fighter. He also wasn't just an outside fight either. His left hook and straight right hand to the body was devastating. Thats why Hearns skill wise is over everyone on the list in my opinion. He could do it all and was the most effective at doing it.

I see what you are getting at though.
im gonna go ahead and disagree with that. Hearns was not an inside fighter by any strech of the word. his 3 major loses come from guys who fought him on the inside. His defense was his offense, which was to keep you away with that long reach until he could nail you with one good one. Leonard, Duran, and Hagler could all go from inside to outside pretty easily in their primes. Hearns was at his best when he was allowed to box on the outside, ex: Duran, Benitez, Cuevas. But when he fought guys who swarmed him he just couldn't take it for too long. Hagler knew that boxing hearns he would lose on points, so he fought him inside so vicously to the point that Hearns couldn't do anything BUT brawl with him. same thing with Duran against Leonard in Montreal. Leonard was getting a boxing lesson by Hearns and realized he was gonna have to get inside, then not too long after that Hearns got KO'd. Benitez slipped all of Hearn's punches but he's the exact oppisite, a defensive fighter who couldn't dish it back and lost becuase of it. if he was more agressive and had a harder punch he might have been able to take Hearns.

lee majors

04-05-2008, 02:45 AM

Hearnsz

04-05-2008, 05:55 AM

hagler beat all their ass, and didn't have to have a second fight for redemption,leonard vs Duran 2. They never really respected hagler and the fact that they gave him that lost on his last fight/title defend speaks volumes.
Hagler lost to Leonard I think
And about the redemption fight of Leonard vs Duran, Leonard also won the 3d match though. If he only won the second I'd agree with you that the first was worth more.
Leonard only lost to one of these guys (Duran, but won twice vs him afterwards)
and one draw to Hearns (but Leonard won the first match).
Hagler only lost once I believe, vs Leonard.
Duran lost vs all.
Hearns lost vs Hagler and Leonard, and one draw vs Leonard.

But I guess the only fighter out of his prime during these fights was Duran. I guess in these fights I'd rank it like: Hagler > Leonard > Hearns > Duran.

But ofcourse the fights vs others also count and that's where especially Duran gets extra credit.

El Dominicano

04-05-2008, 06:22 AM

This is a very hard choice imo...
Leonard is my personal favorite but I'm not sure who's the best...
Good and bad things that probably are important:
- Duran's "jungle intensity", thus his power. (also his urge to eat.)
- Leonard's amazing boxing skills (and showmanship.)
- Hearn's height advantage.
- Hagler's impressive record.

Duran was the best simply because he was a natural 140 pounder and the little guy K.O'd big dudes in the MW division! U must understand that Duran was the smaller guy out of the 4 yet he gave them HELL!!

El Dominicano

04-05-2008, 06:26 AM

Hearnsz

04-05-2008, 09:24 AM

TheGreatA

04-05-2008, 10:16 AM

I know Duran was 140 natural. But I always figured (I'm probably wrong about this tho) that a brawler like Duran would do better at higher weight. And that height was important aswell. Perhaps Hearns would have done awesome in cruiser/heavyweight...!

Hearns did have a decent career at cruiserweight with several 1st rd KO's. He was getting too old at that point to make a real impact though.

Tommy Hearns had awesome power at any weight. I think he punched harder than Hagler, even at 160.

Hearns' cruiserweight fights:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6k7zrzlI0Og&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6k7zrzlI0Og&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
vs Maynard

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wtg7DixMzBs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wtg7DixMzBs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
vs Ward

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZpCroOnrleQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZpCroOnrleQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
vs Lapaglia

ksjb85

04-05-2008, 02:35 PM

ksjb85 ur WRONG. It was Leonard who decided to go toe to toe with Duran! It was Hearns who decided to go toe to toe with Hagler. Do ur research bro. Leonard b4 the fight told everyone he was gonna beat Duran at his own game remember??? Hearns said it was gonna be a WAR1 he didn't plan on boxing.

regardless if they wanted to or not, they wren't gonna be able to box themselves out of those earlier rounds with prime brawlers like that. Leonard knew who he was fighting. At any given moment he could've siwtched back to boxing him from the outside, he knew he'd lose based of the earlier rounds and had to brawl with Duran to get himself back in the fight. Hearns shouldn't have brawled with hagler either but he wanted to prove a point and lost also.

PED User

04-05-2008, 07:10 PM

ksjb85 ur WRONG. It was Leonard who decided to go toe to toe with Duran! It was Hearns who decided to go toe to toe with Hagler. Do ur research bro. Leonard b4 the fight told everyone he was gonna beat Duran at his own game remember??? Hearns said it was gonna be a WAR1 he didn't plan on boxing.

Hearns may have said he didn't plan on boxing, but nevertheless, he tried to box Hagler in the middle of round 1. He was having some success in the middle of the round, landing some nice rights and circling Hagler, but Hagler cornered him. Once Hearns got off the ropes late in round 1, his legs were doing a dance and never the same.

Hearns later said he had to fight Hagler to get his respect, otherwise he would've been mowed over.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FuYclaefqPQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FuYclaefqPQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

PED User

04-05-2008, 07:17 PM

Hearns was above his weight but still a good fighter. At welter, Hearns punished fighters that attempted to get on the inside because they would be directly in range of his punches. I didn't see much skill at all from Hagler in that fight. He simply out lasted Hearns in a brawl. He didn't show any craftiness or boxing ability, he just went for broke and laid it all out there. I take nothing away from Hagler because he did a great job, but i didn't see any ''versatility'' there.

Pound for pound, Hearns was the better fighter. He also wasn't just an outside fight either. His left hook and straight right hand to the body was devastating. Thats why Hearns skill wise is over everyone on the list in my opinion. He could do it all and was the most effective at doing it.

I see what you are getting at though.

It showed Hagler's versatility that he was able to a brawl like that and win in impressive fashion. It showed that Hagler, who was traditionally a boxer-puncher and counterpuncher, could apply the pressure and overwhelm a terrific fighter and puncher in Hearns.

There's lots of ways to beat fighters. It shows versatility when you use different ways to beat different fighters. Hagler did that when he outboxed numerous guys and outslugged Hearns. Leonard did that as well when he outboxed numerous guys and beat Hearns by applying the pressure, when he couldn't outbox Hearns. Duran did that throughout his career. Early on he was more aggressive and balls-to-the-wall. In other fights, such as the Dejesus 3rd fight, he was more patient and boxed behind the jab before turning it up. Later in his career he had to tweak his game a little, you saw the skills he had that enabled him to succeed at a higher weight class at an older age.

All of the Fab 4 were very skilled.

mcentepede

04-08-2008, 03:14 PM

I would rank them this way folks: Hagler, Leonard, Duran, Hearns
Hagler is probably the second best middleweight ever, going by the tapes I think Sugar Ray Robinson is the best overall fighter ever. Leonard is the best fighter of our generation as he looked good on t.v. But he looked bad in his last 2 fights and he got stopped by Camacho. At least Hagler went out controversially. Duran is arguably one of the most ferocious Latinos of all time and would have been tuff for anyone at lightweight to beat. Hearns had the power but not the chin.

luke_ski

04-08-2008, 09:49 PM

1. Hagler
2. Hearns
3. Duran
4. Leonard

Hagler had the most success out of all of these fighters. Yes he lost to Leonard, but it was close, and if the fight had been 15 rounds instead of 12, we would have walked away with a win. He also had the good sense to quit while he was (somewhat) ahead, and spared us (unlike the other three) having to watch him fight into his 40s.

Hearns was just a monster in terms of power. He dispatched Duran the fastest out of all of these guys. I really wanted to see him pull through in the first Leonard fight, and I felt he was robbed in the rematch. And as for the Hagler fight, Hearns was in unfamiliar territory in terms of his weight, and wasn't prepared for Marvin Hagler's immediate onslaught. I don't like the "what ifs" people have about this fight. It tarnishes Hagler's win. Although, Hearns did give Marvin a decent couple rounds, and nobody can question either fighter.

I feel that Duran is an underrated boxer. Sure, he's a fighter, but I think he's a skilled boxer, and can go toe to toe with any of the three on the list. He outpointed Ray, and nearly took Hagler's titles. And although all three did deafeat him at various points, a solid win over Roberto Duran is something that very few people achieve.

I put Leonard last probably out of bias. I admit it. I just don't like the antics, the ****iness he exhibited against Duran and Hagler, I'm not a fan. And as for his comeback, sure there's the win over Hagler but after that what? A draw against Hearns (he barely earned that), and a win over and aging Duran. Losses to Terry Norris and Camacho probably lost him a few fans. Good thing he retired before further embarrassing himself.

Scoooter

04-09-2008, 12:05 AM

1. Duran
2. Leonard
3. Hagler
4. Hearns

Syntax Error

04-10-2008, 03:36 PM

Out of the 4, Leonard is the best, but in an overall P4P sense, Duran is way ahead of the other 3.

wpink1

04-11-2008, 05:03 PM

I would rank them Sugar Ray Leonard, then Duran (very close second) then Hagler, then Hearns. Reason for Leonard being #1 well hmmmm who else beat the rest of the them. Leonard beat everyone on here, regardless of your views, biases etc...Stopped hearns during their peak years...lost a very very very close fight to Duran, then came back and humiliated him making him quit, and also beat duran much later in their careers, He moved up and after only 1 fight in 5 years he beat Hagler at middlweiht when he retired as a Welterweight champion...... There is also the great benitez Leonard stopped when he was undefeated as a 2 division champ...This benitez later beat duran, and had a close decision loss to hearns.

Hearnsz

04-26-2008, 08:37 AM

Many people consider Thomas Hearns one of the best welter/middleweights of all time. Yet, in this poll he's rated last. That really shows what a great era of boxing that was :)

poet682006

04-26-2008, 02:23 PM

I'm going to assume this is pound for pound since Hagler was strictly a Middleweight and the other three didn't fight in that division until they were past their best. So here goes:

Pound for pound

1. Duran
2. Hagler
3. Leonard
4. Hearns

Poet

Panamaniac

04-26-2008, 04:06 PM

Duran
Leonard
Hagler
HearnsDespite losing to each of the others (past his prime) and defeating only one of them, he is ranked in the top ten all-time p4p of most boxing historians and journalists. Why? Because unlike the others, Duran is legend.

Hearnsz

04-26-2008, 07:06 PM

Yes when I ask you to rank them I mean p4p ofcourse. I just choose those 4 because they have all fought eachother and are known by even a boxing newbie.

Hagler★

04-27-2008, 06:38 AM

im goin with
Hagler
Leonard
Duran
Hearns

hemichromis

04-27-2008, 11:32 AM

Hearns is my fav

Hagler is the best

p4p duran was best

BennyST

04-28-2008, 07:54 AM

So are we talking P4P or just the best at the time between the four of them? If we are talking P4P I would rank them as:
Duran
Leonard
Hagler
Hearns

If we are talking about the best between the four fighting each other then it would probably be:
Leonard
Hagler
Hearns
Duran

Unlike most I see the losses and wins as something like this; Leonard beat all of them but also lost to Duran and, despite the ridiculous draw, was thoroughly beaten by Hearns in their rematch. Nonetheless, he is the only one of them to have beaten all the other three. His win over Duran in the rematch was spectacular, but slightly tainted by Duran being not at full fitness, but, I still think his best win was against Hearns at 147. They were both at their peaks and he was getting thoroughly out-boxed throughout the early rounds until getting the amazing come back KO.

Hearns was devastating despite being KO'd by both Leonard and Hagler. I do believe that if Hearns had fought Leonard at 154 the first time he would have beaten him quite solidly as he showed more stamina at that weight. This was Hearns' best weight and only fought Duran at it unfortunately (well, unfortunately for Duran anyway:lol1:)...obviously that didn't happen though so it makes no difference. Best win was obviously the great two round KO of Duran. As no one else has been able to get close to doing this, it was the most dramatic win of all of them along with his loss to Hagler.

Hagler was only at MW the entire time unlike the other three who moved up in weight. Had close fights with both Duran and Leonard, which he won and lost respectively, and gave a thorough beating to Hearns in the greatest short fight ever. Unlike many people I do believe he lost to Leonard, being stupid enough to try and out-box him as a righty for the first few rounds. Quite easily one of the best MW's ever and was very underrated during most of his career.

Duran was obviously at the tale end of his prime when moving up to fight Leonard the first time, winning and then losing in the infamous and ridiculously named 'No Mas' fight. Gave Hagler a very tough fight being the only one to go the fifteen rounds with him in a title defense and showed that Hagler was vulnerable to right hand counters. Was horribly and not surprisingly KO'd by Hearns, who was the only fighter to ever do so before or after, in two rounds. As mentioned previously by someone, Duran was the only fighter who was well above his natural weight and age when fighting against the others which obviously comes into play as he had fallen into terrible training routines and coming overweight for most fights. In a way it also shows how great he was though as few were able to hang with these guys while in their absolute peaks with full fitness and natural weights.

wpink1

04-28-2008, 10:27 AM

I think you have to go, Leonard, duran, Hagler then hearns....Leonard beat all of them. No one else can say that. Duran beat a prime leonard, and even though he fought hearns and hagler at or before the age o 32 so these fights are relevant, you can not say he was at peak weight. I think peak duran was lightweight then the fight vs Leonard 1 and 2. yes I said the 2nd fight. Duran was in peak form, he just could not deal with the movment and became frusterated, there was no cramps. Duran has admitted that himself several times. I have it on video and in his own autobiography.

Hears was probably the most devastating of them all, but he lacks that big victory, and failed in his biggest 2 fights. I agree at 154, Leonard and he would have been a bit tougher for leonard to beat him. However what few fail to recognize is that, in every encounter, when they are involved in solid back and forth action, leonard is the one that came out the better. Even in the fight when he dropped leonard twice, those where from the outside and ray was clear when he got up. When ray got to him, he was hurt, dazed. So I am not so sure that simply because Hearns was stronger at 154 he would beat Ray, Remember Ray during his peak years had one of the best jaws around, he never went down, and Hearns would sitll have to find a way to deal with leonards power, which also would be greater at 154. It goes both ways.

Hagler coming straight forward was a beast, but Duran showed that boxing him, could beat him. I think peak leoanrd beats Hagler when ever they fight, if he boxes. Leonard was shot in 87 when they fought, and no Hagler was not shot. Contrary to false information, Hagler was in the twilight of his career. He had just beaten a string of his toughest opponents all by ko. He was well rested only 32 years of age. Yes he probably slowed, but every one does at age 32. Compare Haglers drop off, to Leonard drop off due to inactivity (which no one does) and you will see that it is a bump. Leonard was no where near as fast, no stamina, a shell of himself and still boxed circles around hagler. A 1982 fight, would be the same only a faster version of the fight in 87, and hmmm Ray would have had more stamina and been more active. I struggle to see how people think only Hagler would have been better in 82 had they fought. Think about how Hagler looked in 83 vs Duran, who was not a solid middleweight and no where near the boxer that Ray was at the heavier weights. Think about how ray was able to go toe to toe with Duran for 15 rounds, and close the show vs Benitez and Hagler in the later rounds...Then carry that forward to Ray in 87, when he was visably worn out in round 7....hands down at his side about to faint in round 9, then fell after the end of the fight, from exhaustion. Ray was a shell of himself in 87. He simply knew that hagler had to get set and step before punching, and Hagler liked to counter, where ray made him lead (lunge), and because of rays movment in and out, when hagler went to counter, ray was outside of haglers range, further than hagler was used to, thuse making hagler punches longer in arc than he was used tooo, thus making the puncher longer with less snap and appearing much slower than the short accurate powerful counters that straight ahaead fighters (mugabi, hearns) placed themselves inthe position to catch.

PED User

04-28-2008, 05:12 PM

wpink1

04-28-2008, 05:40 PM

I honestly have reviewed that Hagler fight vs Leonard and hagler in 83 vs Duran, and Hagler had the same speed. What was different is that in the 1st four rounds hagler played around with ray and Ray moved in and out on his toes. Round 5 Hagler showed a lot of speed coming after ray. Ray came down off his toes, and these were much shorter crisper punches, and they looked just as fast as he was before. Now the difference is that Leonard held inside, moved to either the right or the left side of hagler, in rounds 10-12 ray was on his toes again.....Keep in mind the rounds ray was flat footed, Hagler won....

Some people make a big deal out of Ray not being stopped. Well outside of his comeback fiasco vs Kevin Howard, up until that point Ray had never even touched the canvass, before. So I find it hard, to suggest that he would be stopped.

I think Ray would have won a overshelmingly lopsided victory vs hagler had they fought in 82. Ray would have been much faster than the ray that Hagler faced, as hagler would be too. I think in the speed category this would favor Ray as he has much more to gain by having his speed back in check. As for power, Ray had a stellar chin and hagler while being a great Ko artist, his punches came from accumalation. I dnt think Ray would fight the type of fight w/ hagler that would allow him to be worn down. I think you would see much like Leonard Duran II. As for stamina, they both would have had greater stamina, but again this favors Ray as if Ray got the bigger ring (which he most definately would have asked for) he would box haglers ears off, much more decisive than he did in 87. I would be ugly, not hurting hagler, but stunning him, landing shots at any time he wanted too. Hagler has never shown the ability to cut off the ring, and he would be in a situation where he would have to follow Ray the entire night........

hemichromis

04-28-2008, 07:08 PM

anyone of them could easily dominate their weight class at almost any other point in history. they just happened to come at the same time.

VERSION1 (V1)

04-30-2008, 09:26 PM

MARVELOUS Marvin Hagler went 2-1 imo he went 3-0 vs the rest

Hearnsz

05-01-2008, 06:38 PM

Panamaniac

05-02-2008, 01:42 AM

According to this poll it goes like this:
1. Roberto "Hands of Stone" Durán
2. "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler
3. "Sugar" Ray Leonard
4. Tommy "The Motorcity Cobra" Hearns

So do the majority of you folks agree with this?If you polled the the entire web repeatedly, Duran would invariably be #1, Hagler and Leonard are pretty much interchageable and would take turns being #2 and 3, and Tommy would invariably be #4.

Hearnsz

05-03-2008, 08:20 AM

If you polled the the entire web repeatedly, Duran would invariably be #1, Hagler and Leonard are pretty much interchageable and would take turns being #2 and 3, and Tommy would invariably be #4.

Hmm currently in this poll Duran (20) and Hagler (19) are closer to eachother than Hagler and Leonard (16) ...

I know Duran is probably the more legendary fighter but lots of people seem to think Hagler was better...

Hearns indeed seems to have stranded last... I didn't really expect that. I tought Leonard would be last. Then again they are all pretty damn impressive.

bishop2006

05-03-2008, 08:46 AM

Hearnsz

05-03-2008, 08:58 AM

True,
Also many people admire Duran for his incredible carreer as a lightweight and then still doing good at welter/middle. Because he still had that knockoutpower in those higher weightclasses.

But Hearns started in welter and went up to CRUISER where he still had 1 round knockouts. That's pretty awesome imo. He's deffenately the hardest puncher of the 4 imo. Maybe even the hardest p4p ever.

wmute

05-03-2008, 11:55 AM

Although I disagree, seeing Hagler ranked above Leonard makes me feel good.

Panamaniac

05-03-2008, 04:37 PM

I dont know why Duran is winning the poll,he got beat by Hagler,Leonard and Hearns,and was a special lightweight,but didnt follow up in the other weight classes,i like Hearns style the best,but Leonard beat them all,he always found a way,even if i think Hagler deserved the decision,Leonard came of a huge layoff to beat the MAN at middleweight,the best middleweight ever,so im gna have to go with LeonardDuran would outrank the others in any context simply because he brought - even in his darkest hour - excitement and drama to the ring. He has rarely, if ever, been a party to a dull fight. The guy was a crowd-pleaser who captured two world titles way past his prime and had arguably the longest career ever in boxing. His achievements are the stuff that legends are made of.

Hearnsz

05-03-2008, 05:46 PM

Hmm I personally found Leonard was the most exciting fighter to watch. He also brought great drama with him vs Duran and him vs Hearns.
But yea Leonard's carreer was also very short. Especially when you compare it to Duran's which is simply oldschool :)

wpink1

05-03-2008, 06:26 PM

Thats a dream that panamiac (Duran from Panama). Tell us all just who at lightwieght that was so good that Duran beat. Can you tell us how many people that Duran beat at lightweight AFTER he became a champion, with a record of .500 or less. Then while your researching this on Box Rec, compare this to Leonard who continously fought better and better opposition.

Leonard beat all of the others, and no one else can say that, in fact Duran got BEAT by oll of the others. Hmmmm Durans sole claim to fame, is two things, his 70-1 record at lilghtweight which I challenge Panamiac and others to go look at his quality of opposition and say it was great.

Secondly, he did Beat Leonard at welter. No doubt about it! He deserves credit for a legendary win. However, you have to factor in also duran moved up and accomplished this. While your considering this, factor in that Leonard CHOSE to forgoe his boxing style and slug with Duran toe to toe. Duran did not force him to, You can not go back and find a round here Leonard TRIED to move and Duran cut off the ring. Duran won a decision by 4 points total between 3 judges. 4 points. And each of the judges gave Duran the 1st round, a round in which he never landed A SINGLE PUNCH TO THE HEAD. NOT ONE! Once Ray came out to box him the second and 3rd fights, Duran had nothing to offer, in fact he quit...... Factor in Durna then got beat by Benetiz, ko'd in 2 rounds by Hearns, and beaten by Hagler...Hmmmmmmm

Also Panamiac and others will TRY to say well Duran was not prime, (he was when he got beat by Dejesus wasnt he), and he moved up. I challenge them to consider the facts.

1. Duran had no amateur career vs leoanrd who had 150 fights as an amateur, which leads to show that by age 30 who would have been more worn out?

2. Duran moved up at age 29 as did Leonard, Mayweather, Jones, Whitacker, DLH etc... Duran was not a shot fighter when he moved up he had no amateur career, had 70 fights as a pro and many at least 1/2 were vs horrible (amateur level) fighters. FACTS!

3. We judge all fighters based on Jones, Whitacker, Leoanrd, DLH, Mosley, Mayweather based on how successful they are when they move up the weights. They all fared better than Duran who vs the better fighters he had a record of 3-5. 1-2 vs Leonard, 0-1 vs hagler, 0-1 vs hearns, 0-1 vs benitez, 1-0 vs moore, 1-0 vs barkly. What other figher who has moved up around the same age could have a record so horrible and fought the bums he fought at lightweight, and still be thought off as hight as panamiac.

4. Got brutally ko'd in 2 rounds by hearns.

Spambo boy

05-03-2008, 06:40 PM

I rank them like this:

1) Duran
2) Hagler
3) Leonard
4) Hearns

I put Duran at number one because him rising from lightweight to middleweight and winning titles along the way was an incredible achievement, pound for pound, he is the best of the four IMO.

It was hard to pick between Leonard and Hagler but I feel that Hagler accomplished more in his career than Leonard, I would probably rank Leonard above Hagler if he hadn't suffered the detached retina that kept him out of the ring.

I would agree with that.

Well thats for active fighters. Hagler, Lennox and Joe Louis are my all time favorites......

LOL at Lacy and Lennox

poet682006

05-03-2008, 07:35 PM

BennyST

05-03-2008, 10:53 PM

Most boxing historians consider Duran to be the greatest Lightweight ever. That's not enough for you? I would think that people who are experts when it comes to boxing ought to carry SOME weight.

We do NOT judge fighters based on how they did when they went up in weight. It may have SOME consideration but for the most part fighters are judged by how the did at their best weight. By your criteria Hagler was nothing because he spent his entire career at Middleweight. Hearns isn't judged by what he did at Middleweight and Lightheavyweight. His high standing is solely based on what he did at Welterweight. I really think you need to reavaluate how you go about judging fighters.

Poet

PS. Nothing Leonard did post Welterweight was anything to hang his hat on: A gift draw in the second Hearns fight, barely eeking out a past it Hagler, TKOing a tomato can Lightheavyweight in Lalonde, and Norris and Camacho. Need anymore examples?

:lol1: He's baaaaaaacckkkk!

Don't bother Poet mate. That one's a lost cause.

Good to see you again Wpink. :fing02:

wpink1

05-03-2008, 11:08 PM

post you have to be the most ignorant fan or close to it of all time. Fighters are not judged on what they do north of their natural weight..hmmmmm You mean Duran is not judged by this, but others are. Mayweather is judged everytime he steps into the ring..and I believe he started at 128. Mosley was undefeated until he reached welter, Duran was not undefeated at his natural weight, now was he...hmmmmm.

I know that many regard Duran as the greatest lightweight or close to it, but that does not mean I have to, and I wont. He IMO is overrated, when you look at his resume at lightweight, something you and Panamaic and other Duran fans...(funny to me to repeatedly see this) refuse to do. You refused to accept that he beat fighters that Leonard, and others would not even use in sparring sessions..hmmm somethintg like a record of 0-3-1, when he was a champion...what a joke.

As for Leonard...I guess you forget or have your blinders own to the fact that He was retired for most part of 5 years, before stepping and up beat hagler. That upset is regarded as one of the greatest upsets in boxing history. Hmmmm..

I speak the facts, you duran fans like to avoid his resume at lilghtweight, or the fact that as he moved up he got his ass whipped, when others who are being judged on this, and moved up at the same age, and had long amateur careers, had much more successful trips up the weight class.

Panamaniac

05-04-2008, 02:08 AM

Most boxing historians consider Duran to be the greatest Lightweight ever. That's not enough for you? I would think that people who are experts when it comes to boxing ought to carry SOME weight.

We do NOT judge fighters based on how they did when they went up in weight. It may have SOME consideration but for the most part fighters are judged by how the did at their best weight. By your criteria Hagler was nothing because he spent his entire career at Middleweight. Hearns isn't judged by what he did at Middleweight and Lightheavyweight. His high standing is solely based on what he did at Welterweight. I really think you need to reavaluate how you go about judging fighters.

Poet

PS. Nothing Leonard did post Welterweight was anything to hang his hat on: A gift draw in the second Hearns fight, barely eeking out a past it Hagler, TKOing a tomato can Lightheavyweight in Lalonde, and Norris and Camacho. Need anymore examples?Nice try, pal, but you can't reason with this one-trick pony, whose sole mission in life is to disparage the legend of Roberto Duran. It would be less of an excercise in futility to shout at a brick wall! He's got such a hard-on for Duran, he lurks these forums for any chance to repeat the same old vitriolic drivel time and again...

TheGreatA

05-04-2008, 09:13 AM

He IMO is overrated, when you look at his resume at lightweight, something you and Panamaic and other Duran fans...(funny to me to repeatedly see this) refuse to do. You refused to accept that he beat fighters that Leonard, and others would not even use in sparring sessions..hmmm somethintg like a record of 0-3-1, when he was a champion...what a joke.

Duran did beat some tomato cans at LW but he also beat many top fighters.
You cannot ignore that.

Ken Buchanan, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu, Saoul Mamby, Ernesto Marcel, all champions and that's not counting the various top LW contenders Duran fought such as Hector Thompson and Edwin Viruet...

wpink1

05-04-2008, 10:09 AM

ksjb85

05-04-2008, 10:45 AM

No panamiac, your just a duran nut hugger whole sole purpose in life is to ignore facts, and try to be a super delegate for Duran.

The Machine. Your absolutely correct, Duran beat many top fighters including Leonard at Welter, then Barkly, and Moore. My challenge is that Duran nut huggers refuse to point out or skip over the fact that Those names mentioned are no better than who Mayweather faced (except for leonard). Out of those 70 fights at lightweight I do not think Ken Buchanan, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu, Saoul Mamby, Ernesto Marcel, equalts the level of Mayweathers victories, or Whitackers, or Leonards. Duran dominated good to average fighters,,,,then a whole slew of fighters he should be embarrased to have on his resume. Then

I challenge Panamiac ( you notice he punks out each time I ask him to go respond to the facts) to go back and review Durans lightweight resume, and the list of fighters he faced after he became champion, and do two things ..and tell us if his resume is favorable to a Leonard or Mayweather etc....

First
Look at the Fights Duran had after he was a champion, and tell us what other champion has fought fighters with losing records when he was a champion....Did Mayweather, Did Leonard, Did Whitacker, Did Dlh, Did Mosley.....No but Duran did all the time>

2. In panamiacs veiw and some others..We should stop revewing Duran at Lightweight (but judge all other fighters on wins and losses after the move up...hmmmm), but hmmmm give him credit for beating Leonard Moore and Barkley. Thus handpicking the fights we wont. In my view you should stop reviwing Duran at roughtly the same age that you do others, to make it consistent, and this age is rougly around the age of 33.

Duran had great fights and is a all time great, but you have to look at everything until he lost relevancy. I think that the after Hagler, Hearns, he became just a fighter fighting for money. I dont honeslty place any value on the 3rd Leonard fiight. So in my opinion they are 1-1. However, What if Mayweather got knocked out by Judah or DLH, would we be saying it does not matter because we only ratehim on what he did in the lower weights? No, we review everything. What about Roy, hell he beat way better competition than Duran faced, and Roy was (outsideof DQ) undefeated until age 34-36. he moved up, but many people discuss Tarver fight. How is that consistent. Beating Toney, and Hopkins then winning the heavywieght title (40 pound jump in weight) is better than Durans victories outside of Leonard.

I have noproblem with Duran being called Great, as I call him great, but its a joke when people get on here and try to distort the truth, avoid the facts that I position (boxrec.com) which shows his horriblly weak level of competion that no modern day champion faces...(if Mayweather fought a fighter with a .500 record he would be ran off the continenal us).. Then refuse to acknowledge that others have had equal to or greater accomplishments than Duran has. To refuse to point out he got whipped by Dejesus at lightweight and repeatedly when he stepped up in class and weght at the age of 29 others have tried much more successfully, is distorting the truth, about the overrated Duran. Up here in the mainlane boxing gyms in Miami, many people laugh at how easily the great welters whipped his ass, in fact they were lining up to beat his ass! Look at the facts....
is it really that serious?

point is, Duran fought in an era of fighters including himself, that will never be seen again. Benitez and Hearns fought Duran @ 154. that's 20 lbs above his natural weight. yet when Benitez loses to everybody after 1982, his fanboys try to forget about it like his career had no signifigance after that. He too, begin to get his ass handed to him once he moved up to a weight class he wasn't efficient in. The difference between Benitez and Duran is that Duran lost to great fighters once he moved up in weight in his 30's while Benitez got his ass whooped by guys like Hamsho, Moore,(who are good, but far from great) and somebody named matthew Hilton, while still in his 20's. after these ass beatings did he even have a signifigant victory? with Benitez it was all about defense and it showed once he started to fight bigger guys. duran had the same caliber of a defense, but knew how to be a great offensive fighter as well, ultimatley making his career far more relivant than Benitez...i give him credit for becoming champion @ 17, but i also look @ how Duran would beat the caliber of opponents he faced(outside of Hearns) easily. Antonio Cervantes, Duran would beat. Carlos Palomino? Duran did beat, imo more convincingly than Benitez did. Maurice Hope? no comment.

...Hearns you can argue a little bit more..but at the end of the day, he never had that career defining victory that took him to the next level. some people may argue Cuevas, but Duran would've kncoked him out the same way he did in 1983 whether he had his belt or not. beating a 33 year old Duran @ 154 lbs, which is Hearns best weight, @ his best age is not exactly great. The only thing great about it is that he knocked Duran out cold. There is no way Duran would've beaten him @ that weight no matter how hard he trained. ever. He beat Bentiez, i'll give him that, but then he get's knocked out by Leonard and Hagler after Duran fought both, beat one of them and fought all 15 with the other. then after his great victory to Hill in 1991 he easily gets owned against Barkley in their rubbermatch.

i agree with the fact that Duran can be overrated from time to time, but the point is, few lightweights if any could've moved through the ranks like Duran did and beaten the fighters that he did. when you think about it, most lightweights are finished by the time they hit 147. Chavez, whitaker,Mosley etc, would've never been able to Dominate guys like Moore and Barkley @ age 32 and 37...i also doubt that any of these guys would've jumped two weight-classes to beat Leonard at ANY type of fight.

TheGreatA

05-04-2008, 11:03 AM

Out of those 70 fights at lightweight I do not think Ken Buchanan, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu, Saoul Mamby, Ernesto Marcel, equalts the level of Mayweathers victories, or Whitackers, or Leonards.

But it's about his lightweight resume isn't it? There are few who compare to Duran at LW.

Whitaker was great at LW but wins over Haugen, Ramirez, Nelson and Paez are hardly any better than Duran's.
Duran also reigned as the champion for longer, he was the LW champion for 6 years! Only Benny Leonard's reign as the LW champion compares, he was the champion for 7 years.

Mayweather's LW resume obviously does not compare. His only good wins in his 4 fights at the weight were the two wins over JL Castillo, one which was controversial.

P4P it's all up to opinion.
If you put together Duran's great LW career, then his wins at WW over Palomino and Leonard, his wins at LMW over Cuevas and Davey Moore and his win at MW over Barkley, hell, even the win over former MW champion Jorge Castro when Duran was over 46 years old, that's a hell of a career.

Obviously you have to count in his losses to Leonard, Benitez, Hearns and even some average fighters, Duran was far from unbeatable at higher weights.

wpink1

05-04-2008, 04:50 PM

KSJB and The Machine.... Great post.. I could not agree more. Its funny. In every post I have ever said about Duran I point out he is great. I truly believehe is one of the greatest not only lightweights but fighters ever. My only contention as you all have pointed out,is that he can be overrated. IMO he s over rated when he is stated as if he is a god, and unbeateable, then many Duran fans, hang on his win vs leonard then ignore his losses including when he quit.

I hope this is my last mention of this, but when some get on her and try to paint the picture as if he is head and shoulders above others, I have to set the record straight with FACTS, not opinions.

Would I favor Duran at his pime vs Any other lightweight, no. Remember Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong were lightweights. Yes at Lightweight Duran may have campaigned longer than ohers, but the general topic is all time top pound per pound, so it takes into consideration what they did at their natural weight and as they move up the weight classes, up until around like age of around 33-35 When you consider this Duran is not a top 5 fighter.

Roy Jones IMO is one of the most underrated fighters of all time. He ranks up there. I dont like that he did not fight everyone and that Duran did....but his list of champions that he beat, and Toney and Hopkins, and dominating middleweight, Super middle, then Light heavy, then winning the heavyweght title, and not losing until he was 34-36...Hmmmmm how can we rank duran above him. Duran dominated lightweight for long period, but so did Hopkins. We are not ranking hopkins up there, (Not saying Hopkins is a Duran, just drawing the analogy).

LondonRingRules

05-04-2008, 11:05 PM

My challenge is that Duran nut huggers refuse to point out or skip over the fact that Those names mentioned are no better than who Mayweather faced .

** Ah, Mr. Pinky, I see some funlover found a Duran magic lamp to rub and you popped out again for the umpteenth time.

In an era of 4 major titles and being the HBO house fighter, it's alarming that Floydy ain't held anything but a WBC title. I don't count the brief IBF title he won over the disgraced Judah as he could have had Judah when Zabby called him out for a super fight after knocking out Spinks.

No, Floydy the WBC company man was promised the WBC jrwelt champ Gatti after setting the world on fire fighting two WBC eliminators against journeymen contenders.

When Duran moved up, he had no such choices, no network to run interference. He had to take on the welt contenders in order to force Leonard to face him. Leonard was ordered to face him after Benitez repeatedly ducked him at 140/147.

Fairplay, Floydy ain't met the best since moving from lightweight just like Duran didn't meet the McCallums, ect at 154-168, but Floydy only 39 bouts into his WBC protected career, half as many as Duran at the same age. Duran might be forced to take two title eliminators to face a Gatti, but nobody 'cept the sugared up fanboys would believe Duran would ever turn down a shot that paid muchos mas dinero at the unified welt champ.

Look, some of us think Leonard and Floydy overrated. Duran was 2nd ranked IBRO lightweight and 20th rated welt. Leonard got 2nd ranked welt rating, so only a first rate dolt would deny his rating, though I question how a guy with only 33 fights and a 6-1 title record in a split title era is ranked over the who's who he is ranked over. Leonard didn't get a middle ranking.

IBRO also did a p4p list, and Duran is 7th, Leonard tied for 12th with Ezzy Charles. Maybe you disagree with the rankings, plenty of bones to pick there, but there they are. Golly Cheez Whiz, maybe after all the old IBRO dinos pass on, the Kellerman fanboy club can rank Floydy ahead of everyone.

It won't matter than he's had to take short money in some of his biggest fights and has a history of turning down career purses. Forget that, his new name is Money and he operates in a Duran/Leonard free zone, thank goodness!

wpink1

05-05-2008, 12:10 AM

London...let me help you bit Mate....The reason why Leonard is ranked so high roughly 40 victories, is because of the QUALITY of his resume. He beat 4 fighters who are generally ranked in the top 50 pound per pound of all time. Duran, Benitez, Hearns, Hagler. He won 5 titles in differnt divisions. He came back after a detached retina took away his best years, and after only 1 fight in 5 years he moved up and beat Hagler, who had beaten Duran and stopped hearns, who was undefeated in 10 years, and just came off his best 3 wins of his career Mugabi, Hamsho, Hearns.....Stopped every contender at middleweigt for hit belt, except for Duran...Was only 32. So much for the washed up theory.

Also, if you go back and look deep Ray won the gold medal and spent his early years as has Dlh, Whitacker, Jones, Mayweather many american fighters fightying as an amateur and thus he did not have to fight the 20-30 bums that Duran faced as a pro, he faced this level of fighter as an amateur. As a pro Leonard unlike Duran contuously fought better and better fighters each time he stepped inside the ring. You will not see a opponent with a losing record on Ray;s resume after his earlist fights, Duran did fight top fighters, but he also to pad his record, fought fighters he had no business fighting once he was a champion. Records like 10-11 or 0-3.

As for your false statment that Leoanrd was ordered to fight Duran. This is false. Leonard was going to fight Cuevas, then met behind the scenes with Duran's People and chose, was not ordered to fight Duran. Duran beat Palimino and this was the plan for a year, when Leonard beat Benitez in 79. Duran moved up for Leonard, not Benitez. So I suggest you study that part of the history. The plans was in the works once Leonard and Benitez signed. Duran had several options pryor, Palimon, Cuevas (whom he wanted), Leoanrd. Leonard offered the money, thus his plans where to have several fights and face Ray. Ray's plans where to face Cuevas and then the winner of the palimino, duran fight. Check the tape of the Benitez- Leonard fight., the informatkon is there.

I am no mayweather fan. I think he is overrated when he thinks he is in the same sentence as a leoanrd or Duran. But he IMO would easily beat Duran at Lightweight. His style is like Leonard's in New Orleans, only he has better defense. You think Duran was frusterated vs Ray, just think how frustereated Duran would be trying to hit Mayweather. Mayweather is a better counter puncher than Leoanrd was, and remember it was defense counter punching, and movememnt that frusterated duran, not the power combinations, and jab that Ray has over Mayweather. Also Mayweather has fought very good competion. Not what Duran has faced, but he has faced Correles, hernandez, Castillo, Judah, DLH. None of these are great names except for DLH who was past his peak, but keep in Mind duran beat only one of the greats....leonard and then he lost to him immediately after that, then got beaten every other time he tried to fight these great fighters that Mayweather does not have a comparable name on his resume. So Mayweather victories should compare to those of Durans, bucause Duran LOST most of his fights vs the best opposition he faced, and yes Mayweather, Robiinson, leonard, etc..all moved up too, so If we review them on their efforts north of their ntural weight, then the same goes for duran.

LondonRingRules

05-05-2008, 05:43 AM

London...let me help you bit Mate....As for your false statment that Leoanrd was ordered to fight Duran. This is false. Leonard was going to fight Cuevas, then met behind the scenes with Duran's People and chose, was not ordered to fight Duran. Duran beat Palimino and this was the plan for a year, when Leonard beat Benitez in 79. Duran moved up for Leonard, not Benitez. So I suggest you study that part of the history. The plans was in the works once Leonard and Benitez signed. Duran had several options pryor, Palimon, Cuevas (whom he wanted), Leoanrd. Leonard offered the money, thus his plans where to have several fights and face Ray. Ray's plans where to face Cuevas and then the winner of the palimino, duran fight. Check the tape of the Benitez- Leonard fight., the informatkon is there.

** Mr. Pinky, I'm sure that you are a first rate fan, but alas, it appears that cheerleading suits you better than understanding how to follow the lineal passage of time in each man's career.

Duran abandoned his lightweight title after his last title fight in Jan78. He had repeatedly tried to get a title shot against Benitez at jrwelt to no avail. When Duran relinquished his title Palamino and Cuevas were the welt champs, not Leonard. Duran did not move up for his looks. He wanted a title shot at welt, having to skip the jrwelt division where Cervantes and a cast of Asians/Mambyheld the titles because he couldn't even make that limit anymore.

Palamino was an inactive WBC welt champ who lost to Benitez who was also inactive. Benitez was forced to fight Leonard or be stripped. Leonard was given the same option after his gimmee inaugural defense against Green, forced to face his mandatory Duran which Dundee did not want as he felt Duran was too experienced and dangerous. Dundee was no fool. Fairplay, Leonard had no experience of ducking Duran like Benitez did, but I got to tell you Mr. Pinky, Leonard's next fight after Duran relinquished his title was the great Rocky Ramon, so I doubt Duran knew Leonard from a fly in the dung heap when he moved up. His fight against Palamino seems to have been an informal WBC title eliminator. He can be found in interviews talking about fighting for the WBC title against Benitez which became Leonard.

The closed door session you gab about came about after Leonard was ordered to face Duran just like it happens all the time in boxing. Deal hammered out with promoter and fight made. Can't blame them for wanting title unification and an easier fight against Cuevas. You don't just abandon announced plans for unification to fight a guy who is probably going to take your title away from you.

I could go hunting around and find you the newsreleases to prove what I say, but it's a lost cause with you. Just like your claim Leonard never fought a guy with a losing record. Losing seems to have been branded on your backside at an impressionable age. Duran was not a pampered American amateur with a multi-million dollar pro debut contract. He was a scrawny kid much more poor and hardscrabble than Leonard could ever imagine and came up hard in one of the worlds great backwaters. So he fought some nontitle fights between very active lightweight title defenses, much more than Leonard had for his career? So what if 3 divisions above his natural weight after 75 fights he started to struggle against top class quality jr/mid/middles/supermids? Anyone with a brain were simply amazed to see him so active and come up with periodic brilliant performances and talk about his brilliant old days.

Forty fights for Leonard is one of the shorter careers, 33 actually as the rest just little encores Leonard like to have here and there that padded his bank account and ego. Already pointed out that Jim Jeffries packed more HOF fights in approx half as many fights as Leonard and was clearly the more formidable fighter in his day, but nobody bigging him up these days because of one single loss way beyond his best days and moderns always overrate their own eras.

I know Ray's record better than you it appears because I've actually spent some time breaking it down while you were hopping around with pompoms. You don't have to take my word for it. I gave you the IBRO rankins which show those who rank Duran over Leonard have some consensus rankings behind their preference. You can big up Leonard all you wish, but trying to drag Duran down with nonsense is sinking you faster than the setting sun's snuffed pink rays.

Cheers now, Mr. Pink. Beautiful time to be a boxing fan. You just take care you don't trip over Mr. Duran too much more before you get older as he's a mighty big load these days and you might hurt your hip!

Panamaniac

05-05-2008, 11:07 AM

** Mr. Pinky, I'm sure that you are a first rate fan, but alas, it appears that cheerleading suits you better than understanding how to follow the lineal passage of time in each man's career.

Duran abandoned his lightweight title after his last title fight in Jan78. He had repeatedly tried to get a title shot against Benitez at jrwelt to no avail. When Duran relinquished his title Palamino and Cuevas were the welt champs, not Leonard. Duran did not move up for his looks. He wanted a title shot at welt, having to skip the jrwelt division where Cervantes and a cast of Asians/Mambyheld the titles because he couldn't even make that limit anymore.

Palamino was an inactive WBC welt champ who lost to Benitez who was also inactive. Benitez was forced to fight Leonard or be stripped. Leonard was given the same option after his gimmee inaugural defense against Green, forced to face his mandatory Duran which Dundee did not want as he felt Duran was too experienced and dangerous. Dundee was no fool. Fairplay, Leonard had no experience of ducking Duran like Benitez did, but I got to tell you Mr. Pinky, Leonard's next fight after Duran relinquished his title was the great Rocky Ramon, so I doubt Duran knew Leonard from a fly in the dung heap when he moved up. His fight against Palamino seems to have been an informal WBC title eliminator. He can be found in interviews talking about fighting for the WBC title against Benitez which became Leonard.

The closed door session you gab about came about after Leonard was ordered to face Duran just like it happens all the time in boxing. Deal hammered out with promoter and fight made. Can't blame them for wanting title unification and an easier fight against Cuevas. You don't just abandon announced plans for unification to fight a guy who is probably going to take your title away from you.

I could go hunting around and find you the newsreleases to prove what I say, but it's a lost cause with you. Just like your claim Leonard never fought a guy with a losing record. Losing seems to have been branded on your backside at an impressionable age. Duran was not a pampered American amateur with a multi-million dollar pro debut contract. He was a scrawny kid much more poor and hardscrabble than Leonard could ever imagine and came up hard in one of the worlds great backwaters. So he fought some nontitle fights between very active lightweight title defenses, much more than Leonard had for his career? So what if 3 divisions above his natural weight after 75 fights he started to struggle against top class quality jr/mid/middles/supermids? Anyone with a brain were simply amazed to see him so active and come up with periodic brilliant performances and talk about his brilliant old days.

Forty fights for Leonard is one of the shorter careers, 33 actually as the rest just little encores Leonard like to have here and there that padded his bank account and ego. Already pointed out that Jim Jeffries packed more HOF fights in approx half as many fights as Leonard and was clearly the more formidable fighter in his day, but nobody bigging him up these days because of one single loss way beyond his best days and moderns always overrate their own eras.

I know Ray's record better than you it appears because I've actually spent some time breaking it down while you were hopping around with pompoms. You don't have to take my word for it. I gave you the IBRO rankins which show those who rank Duran over Leonard have some consensus rankings behind their preference. You can big up Leonard all you wish, but trying to drag Duran down with nonsense is sinking you faster than the setting sun's snuffed pink rays.

Cheers now, Mr. Pink. Beautiful time to be a boxing fan. You just take care you don't trip over Mr. Duran too much more before you get older as he's a mighty big load these days and you might hurt your hip!Flawless post... worth repeating...

Hearnsz

05-05-2008, 11:23 AM

Panamaniac

05-05-2008, 11:52 AM

SABBATH

05-05-2008, 03:59 PM

wpink1

05-05-2008, 11:18 PM

ksjb85

05-06-2008, 02:07 AM

london Rules,,You are far off... very far off. Leonard was never ordered to fight duran. Your on here making stuff up.

First off. Get Hands of Stone, it details that Duran wanted Ray from the time he won the Gold medal. He hated that this guy whom he felt was given superstardom was making all this money. He moved up for the big shot vs Leonard. What you leave out is the fact that Pryor was looming large at Jr welter, and Durans camp met with Pryors camp and the decision was made to avoid Pryor, and move on up to face Leonard and the big money. Duran was not the mandotory challenger friend. At the time your talking about Cuevas was the champ and Palimino. Benitez fought and beat Palimino, then Hearns was the number one contender. Leoanrd was scheduled to fight Cuevas, but then at the last minute he backed out and willingly fought Duran. Duran was not the mandotory.

I also suggest you get the book title, A fist ful of sugar. Leonard autobiagraphy. He details in there the mindset he and Dundee had with setting the first Duran fight and why they chose Duran. They thought he would slow up, was easier to hit, and that he did not like to take good body shots. The plan was the take it directly to Duran and stop him inside of 4 rounds. They had generally pro boxing style referee Padilla whom Durans camp was very upset about. He generally did no allow inside fighting. One thing happened wrong...The bomb that Duran landed in round 2. Leonard did not wake up til round 5.

One thing never published....is that Ray had the flu for a entire week before the fight in montreal. He was in New York before the fight, and there was thoughts that the fight may be canceled. However, he was able to get over it, and showed up in montreal much to his dismay that Duran had won over the fans up there.

London you need to check your facts. Every single fighter wanted to fight ray because of MONEY. Pryor Duran Hagler Benitez Hearns Cuevas Kalule etc...all wanted Leoanrd from lightweight to Middleweight...because of Money. Duran was not the mandatory challenger, and Leonard did not have to regard that anyway, as he was fighting the Benitez, Hearns, then moved up to Jr middle and beat kalule....

interesting post.
Let's be realistic here. Benitez and Cuevas were both tune-ups for Duran, who was a monster of a fighter around 1979-80...if Duran would've made the quick stop @ 140 he could've easily fought Cervantes and beaten him, and given benitez a great fight. Duran would've also easily beaten Cuevas and Palomino if they had their belts or not, just like he did later. The thing that people love to put on Duran are his losses at 154 and up. yet when any other lightweight fights above 147 they write it off. No other lightweight would've been able to pull off what Duran did in the era that he fought in is the point here. personally i have Duran behind Leonard, and slightly above Hagler, with hearns at the bottom. There's no way Duran beats Hagler,Hearns,Benitez above 147..it's just not gonna happen becuase of size, and how sluggish Duran became once he got to 154. but looking @ his record from 135-147 is pretty impressive. One he moved to 154 he was never the same and it showed. simply put, Duran was a 70's fighter who reached the peak of his skills in 1980. If Hearns/Benitez/Leonard fought the same caliber of opponents in the 90's that Duran did in the 80's back to back, they would've also lost.

baddest

05-06-2008, 02:41 AM

With all respect to Duran's very long record. I personally feel like Leonard had the most impressive one though. He fought short as a pro but he fought the best and won.
vs Duran: 1loss 2wins
vs Hearns: 1win 1draw
vs Hagler: 1win

I know Duran was out of his prime by then probably but Leonard still beat Hagler who is considered the best middleweight of all time. (I'm not sure if Hagler was in his prime but I think he was)
Also let's not forget Leonard's gold medal in the olympics! I voted for Hearns in the poll but I think I'll change my vote to Leonard. Even though Hearns is one of the hardest p4p punchers (maybe even THE hardest) of all time, Leonard's skills were just superiour.

Its also worth mentioning that While Leonard easily had the most impressive resume, he also stipulated the conditions and the style that was favorable to win against most of them(with the exception of hearns). Every Leonard fight was always to his advantage as soon as he became champion, and I think had the board room talks been more equal he might not have had as stellar a career...maybe duran wouldn't have quit if he could've trained longer than three weeks and got back to his proper fighting shape, maybe hagler would've won if the ring wasn't so big, maybe Hearns would've beaten him if it was 12 rounds. These are big 'ifs' that will always be apart of his career.

poet682006

05-06-2008, 03:01 AM

Its also worth mentioning that While Leonard easily had the most impressive resume, he also stipulated the conditions and the style that was favorable to win against most of them(with the exception of hearns). Every Leonard fight was always to his advantage as soon as he became champion, and I think had the board room talks been more equal he might not have had as stellar a career...maybe duran wouldn't have quit if he could've trained longer than three weeks and got back to his proper fighting shape, maybe hagler would've won if the ring wasn't so big, maybe Hearns would've beaten him if it was 12 rounds. These are big 'ifs' that will always be apart of his career.

15 rounds were standard for championship fights at the time: Hardly an unfair stipulation dictated by Leonard. You can go on and on with THAT kind of silliness ie. if Marciano - Walcott I had been 12 rounds Walcott would have easily out-pointed Marciano; same with Louis - Conn I ect ect ect. Bottom line: You fight under the conditions that are in play during the era in which you fought; not under some hypothetical what if scenario. If anything, the biggest mistakes made my the alphabet boys was doing away with 15 round fights and foisting 12 round "championship" fights on the public that lacked the championship rounds. If you were championship material you could go 15 rounds if you had to; if not, then you didn't deserve a belt. Bottom line.

Poet

El Dominicano

05-06-2008, 06:25 AM

I can't rate these fighters. To me there all in the same level, People forgot who Thomas Hearns the boxer is. Thomas Hearns could have out box'd Leonard and Hagler and won those fights so don't even try to underate him. + Hearns beat Leonard 2nd fight as we all know. Hearns K.O'd Duran. Hearns was winning most of the rounds against Leonard untill Ref stopped fight (1st fight). Hearns fought Hagler toe to toe when he clearly wasn't suppose to. Duran was a JWW beating up on bigger guys. He beat Leonard 1st fight and quit the 2nd becuz Lenard was acting like a clown. Hagler couldn't be floor'd he got punch by some of the biggest punchers and still kept going toe to toe with them. Even when he wasn't in his prime he beat big punchers like Mugabi. Leonord manage to beat all 3 of them but listen. Many and I mean MANY feel that U.D's wen't wrong. They were all close fights and many feel that Hagler should have won that fight and that Hearns should have won 2nd fight. All in all. They are all equal to me. I just don't like how Hearns is extremely underated.

BennyST

05-06-2008, 06:41 AM

Duran is the only one of the four to lose to a journeyman like Kirkland Laing while still in his championship years and was thoroughly out-classed by Benitez and never avenged either loss. He also suffered the most one-sided loss of the four getting demolished by Hearns and disgraced himself and the championship by quitting like a dog in the second Leonard fight. That cowardly act alone disgraced the sport and gave it a black-eye.

That's alot of blackmarks to put him ahead of the other three guys.

Do you really think it disgraced the sport? I very much doubt it. It most certainly disgraced Duran in every way as he basically went to **** after it. A fighter quitting in a fight doesn't disgrace the sport of boxing. It disgraces the fighter. The bureaucratic corruption and nonsense disgraces the sport of boxing, and the fixed fights or decisions and managers throwing fights for money and ruining their fighters careers disgraces the sport of boxing.

Mike Tyson disgraced the sport of boxing for raping his wife and for his complete insanity outside the ring. Did Chavez disgrace the sport of boxing when he quit? Did Liston disgrace the sport by quitting? Tszyu? All the other fighters?

Quitting doesn't disgrace the sport, only the fighter.

wpink1

05-06-2008, 08:16 AM

Wow i am dealing with some of the most ignorant and false information ever. That is what you get when your on this site, vs Cyberboxing.com with people who have opinions but knowledge also, and the level of debates surpasses the stupid as this is.

First off....When leonard and Hearns faced it was the policy for all championship rounds to go 15 rounds,so why even discuss te 12 rounds.etc. Also go back and do your research in the Hearns leonard first fight, it was LEONARD who won ALL of the Action ROUNDS in that fight. Common myth which is false is that Hearns was dominating leonard and that Leonard won nothing til he came back and stoppped him. Truth is round 6 and 7 where rounds in which the fight was almost stopped. Yet these rounds were not scored 2 point rounds. Then Round 13 the knockdown and total beating, and then the stoppage in round 14. If those two rounds along with the 8th round being a leonard round, where scored 10-8 as the Neveda state boxing commission indicated there would be an investigation (started by Dundee) after the fight as to why it wasnt (thus you hve the travesty in the 2nd Hearns leonard fight whih the 12 round was scored 10-8 when it should not have been, this gave leonard a draw which Tommy should have won)...Had these rounds been accuratly scored you have it even going into the 14 and 15t rounds...Check your facts

2ndly....Clown, because he was hitting Duran and duran cld not hit hime back. He made duran miss all night. When ever Duran bullrushed his way in and TRIED, to maul leonard this time, he was met with uppercuts and hooks, vs leonard using looping right hands (as he did in the first fight) which duran easily ducked underneath. No my friend what leonard did was frusterate Duran, and Duran chose to quit vs take his beating like a man.

Common myth about leonard stipulating rules. I will agree vs lalond he did. however vs Hagler...Who was it that was coming out of retirment with only 1 fight in 5 years and moving up to Middleweight. It seems that some are trying ot pull the Hilary clinton trick of getting the spotlight off the actualy issues and focus on and irrelevant Reverend. The issue is that when they came int the ring (Hagler leonard) they both knew all the rules, Rules that were the norm. 12 rounds was the norm at the time, just go back and look at Hagler most recent fights....Hmmmmmmm Thumbless gloves where becoming the norm. Ring size is always negotiated. Hagler weighed 159 1/2 for a fight that was held at the 160 pound limit. Hmmmm What else....What other advantages did loenard ever enjoy vs these greats...False Statments....

Finally funny. We hear on one hand Leonard was lucky it was 15 rounds because if it was 12 rounds....(Hearns fight number 1). Then on the other hand we hear leonard was lucky it was 12 rounds because if it was 15 rounds (leoanrd Hagler ).....Wow. Nothing but lame excuses.

Duran did not have an amateur career thus he did not have the wear an tear from the amateur days, which just ask Mark Breland, and others how this impacts you, some good some bad. Duran fought 70 plus fights at lightweigh, I challenge you all to go back and review at least 40 of these fights and you will see these fights were not professional level opposition. Leonard never would have fought a fighter with a record of 0-3 after he was a champion, or 10-11. Please these are facts, just look at Boxrec.com. If you factor that in, and also that Ray when he started was 130 pounds....as an amateur, generally not relevant in a professional discussion, but Duran actual amateur experience he realized while he was still growing as he started at 118....It is relevant because pre 18 these fighters were still growing boys...one had fights counted as an amateur, the other as a professional.....The point is at around age 32 Duran had already gotten his ass whipped by Leonard, Hagler, hearns benitez...By age 32 leonard had already beaten these 4 fighters, and had to in the middle of this take off 5 years....and came back and beat hagler who had beaten 2 of these other fighters....So yes duran started out very young with out a amateur career at 118 then moved up to win at 160....Leonard started out at 130, and won a title at 175....45 pounds for leoanrd, and 42 for duran....Hmmmmmmm Facts.

SABBATH

05-06-2008, 08:21 AM

Do you really think it disgraced the sport? I very much doubt it. It most certainly disgraced Duran in every way as he basically went to **** after it. A fighter quitting in a fight doesn't disgrace the sport of boxing. It disgraces the fighter. The bureaucratic corruption and nonsense disgraces the sport of boxing, and the fixed fights or decisions and managers throwing fights for money and ruining their fighters careers disgraces the sport of boxing.

Mike Tyson disgraced the sport of boxing for raping his wife and for his complete insanity outside the ring. Did Chavez disgrace the sport of boxing when he quit? Did Liston disgrace the sport by quitting? Tszyu? All the other fighters?

Quitting doesn't disgrace the sport, only the fighter.Benny, at the time it disgraced the sport because Duran was paid $8 and millions of fans worldwide had paid good money to see it on closed-circuit. Duran quitting under suspicious circumstances in mid fight for no apparent reason other than possibly frustration was a black eye to boxing. This was reflected by the media at the time.

Duran's performance like Liston disgrace the sport because their actions leave a suspicion of corruption and fixing of fights which is bad for the game. To this day there are many that believe both Ali-Liston fights as well as Leonard-Duran among others were fixes. If that's not damaging to the sport I don't know what is.

good_looking01

05-06-2008, 08:30 AM

Marvin Hagler IMO.

He had a great chin, fantastic workrate, immense power and a amazing intensity.

His win over Minter made a good fighter look completely out of his depth. Shame about the disturbance afterwards though.

Hagler is without doubt one of the greatest MW's of all time and reigned in a time when the divison was red hot.

BennyST

05-06-2008, 10:01 AM

Benny, at the time it disgraced the sport because Duran was paid $8 and millions of fans worldwide had paid good money to see it on closed-circuit. Duran quitting under suspicious circumstances in mid fight for no apparent reason other than possibly frustration was a black eye to boxing. This was reflected by the media at the time.

Duran's performance like Liston disgrace the sport because their actions leave a suspicion of corruption and fixing of fights which is bad for the game. To this day there are many that believe both Ali-Liston fights as well as Leonard-Duran among others were fixes. If that's not damaging to the sport I don't know what is.

I can see what you're getting at, but really, when it comes down to it that was one very small incident that is only remembered by fight fans. Those incidents don't dent the sport of boxing for the general public and it's approval of the sport. The decisions that happen every year when some unknown gets robbed puts a bigger black eye for the sport than any fighter quitting in the ring during a fight. You can see the outcome. One fighter quit and therefore the other fighter won. There are a myriad of possibilities that put boxing in the bad books of the public eye and really, the least of those is when a fighter quits with the slightest possibility that he may have thrown it for money.

Quitting throws a bad look for the boxing fraternity but in the general public's eye it probably makes more drama and therefore more money for the corrupt officials. Because, when it comes down to it, that is where the problem lies. Not in someone quitting because he is too fat, out of shape and frustrated, but, because somewhere, somehow, some promoter can make a lot of money by screwing over a fighter that doesn't mean much to the public or has been a favourite for many years and no one wants to see him lose.

The big fight that is always talked about, still, in Australia is the first Jeff Fenech vs Azumah Nelson fight. It's not talked about between just boxing fans though, it is still talked about by the general public because Fenech would have become the only undefeated fighter ever to win his fourth world title in four different weight classes and guess what happened? He was robbed blind! He won, on the majority of people's score cards, by around ten rounds to two! If Fenech had quit, no one in Australia would like him and that's about it, but, because of the complete absurdity of the ruling it put an entire nation against boxing and put the general public, who had suddenly become massively interested in boxing because of Fenech, in complete disdain of it. Boxing is now a struggling sport in Australia.

Compared to what goes on every year in boxing and how severe certain incidents are, Duran, Liston, or anyone quitting is a relatively small event and effects the boxing memory, not the general public and compared to the true corruption that goes on constantly between promoters, managers, bookies etc. it is a very small thing.

Boxing is looked upon as a dirty, backward, corrupt sport that is ruled by greed, viciousness, and backstabbing carpetbaggers willing to screw their own mother over for a buck. What happens during a fight is of little concern to most, apart from the avid fan, compared to what goes on outside of the ring and how it effects the fighters. That concerns not only fight fans but also non fight fans.

LondonRingRules

05-06-2008, 10:38 AM

London you need to check your facts.

** We've already vetted your shorts Mr. Pinky, and you're several loads over the limit.

I wouldn't rely on some fluffy bio authorized by Duran to puff up his touchy-feeling image for new agers. I especially wouldn't trust much of anything Leonard or Dundee state about events. These guys would drunk up the spin docs running presidential election campaigns until they spun off their donor's dinner platters.

You pick and chose your reality Mr. Pinky like any common self respecting fanboy might. Duran was really a nasty piece of work back then, contemptuous of fighters and creating his own little ganglike entourage that ultimately proved to be much of his downfall. I don't care for Ray's actions, but he is very much more the gentleman and his talent and achievements are out there. I have much more in common with Ray and by all rights in a proper fanboy universe should back him to the hilt.

Not a member of your universe Mr. Pinky. Already shown you Ray indeed did fight a fighter with a losing record, not that it's important to me in evaluating him, but it shines the light on your fanboydom and fantastical claims. When Duran relinquishes his lightweight title, Leonard is 6-0 scheduled to fight Rocky Ramon, being promoted in local area 2nd tier venues against journeymen to build his record, two years away from his title challenge. Duran is being interviewed in major venues after his wins over fringe and legit welt contenders and clearly wants a welt title shot. Already gave you a time line of relevant champs which you gratuitously regurgitate while telling me to check my facts. Ripe comedy indeed.

No, the facts are largely wasted on you Mr. Pinky. Anyway, my work on this thread is done. It doesn't bother me in the least that you rate Leonard over Duran, but I've done my work in showing that Duran is indeed ranked over Leonard in p4p consensus rankings by a considerable margin. You just look ridiculous in promoting Leonard by disparaging Duran's career when he was clearly beyond his best. Be like me bigging up Macho Comacho over Leonard by dragging in Leonard's worst performances. These guys can all stand on their own merits and weaknesses without taking stuff out of context and making up nonsense like you do.

In Ray's whole career, the only time he ever "wanted" Duran was when he wanted him at specific dates for rematches when he knew Duran didn't have enough time to train and properly lose the 40-50lbs he put on or when he was so old as to no longer be a worry.

wpink1

05-06-2008, 05:38 PM

London...first thing you should do it learn to read the entire part of what I said then answer. I never said Leonard did not fight a fighter wth a losing record, I said and here is the quote, "Leonard never would have fought a fighter with a record of 0-3 after he was a champion, or 10-11." That still remains true...and correct. Now show me the Rocky Ramon on leonard record after he was a champion or a fighter with a similar record?? Just to show you how ignorant you are of the facts......and to expose you of being a pretend scholar of the game...

In 1972 Duran bean Ken Buchanon for the lightweight title. In 1973 he fought Doc McClendon with a record of 10-12-2..Hmmmm Show me a fighter onLeonard, Mayweater, Jones, Whitackers, DLH record, AFTER they were champion with a record like that...Oh by the way..I can show you at least 20 more bums like that on Durans record (flash Gellegg 14-14, Juan Medina 1-1, Lupe Ramirez 6-10) and these are all AFTER he was champion. What a joke.

Now for your other false statment about Leonard never looking for Duran. Leonard had an oral agreement to fight Cuevas, then LEONARD backed out and WILLINGLY chose to fight Duran. It was leonard who was the name, who generated the $, and he had already expressed interest in Duran when he was a lightweight champion. He travled to see Duran fight with Jackie Gleason, and was told that Duran would murder him, to never fight him, and thus he immediately spoke with Durans camp after the fight about a possible fight down the road. Check your facts.

As for the losing weight 40 pounds...2 things. Duran was told 1 week after he beat Ray in Montreal that there was a rematch on Nov 25th. This was signed as soon as Leonard returned home from Hawaii and rethought everything, also Carlos Eleta purposly signed it so soon so that it would mnimize the partying that Duran always was known for after big fights...Now I ask you....If if Duran had always done this weight gain in between fights even at lightweight where he had to lose 12 additional pounds, and he knew by the first week of July of a fight on Nov 25th....Oh one final thing Durna was ringside at the Ali Holmes fight, and when Ali lost Duran jumped up and screamed now he was the greatest, took off hi shirt and was in shape already....He had to lose according to an interview that night, he only had to lose another 7 pounds....This was a month and 1/2 before the fight....My question is why is there this excuse when he loses the rematch...Hmmmm Duran is a professtional, he had 72 previous fights never the eating excuse made (and he was known for this) but when he loses you and others scramble to find a reason for his loss.

He simply was overrated!! Funny how I provide facts and you all provide opinions...which are great and we all have them. It is only my opiniion that I think Ray is better than him. However, the weak information that many including London Rules tries to offer,,,,I hope you all do your research for yourselvles....I have given you 3 references....Leonards and durans own biography and Box rec.....Also I guess London believe he himself if more credible than the fighters themselves.....hmmmmmm

I sugget London

LondonRingRules

05-07-2008, 12:43 AM

In 1972 Duran bean Ken Buchanon for the lightweight title. In 1973 he fought Doc McClendon with a record of 10-12-2..Hmmmm Show me a fighter onLeonard, Mayweater, Jones, Whitackers, DLH record, AFTER they were champion with a record like that...Oh by the way..I can show you at least 20 more bums like that on Durans record (flash Gellegg 14-14, Juan Medina 1-1, Lupe Ramirez 6-10) and these are all AFTER he was champion. What a joke.

** Mr. Pinky, iff'in you was a coon hound, you'd be the king of the coons barking up the wrong tree.

I already addressed Duran's habit of staying busy between prodigious numbers of title fights. Nobody begrudges him doing that since he was making peanuts compared to Leonard's multimillions. Leonard could only hack 33 fights before retiring.

Like I stated Mr. Pinky, the essential points I already made. Ibro ranks Duran considerably higher than Leonard. To expand, Duran has triple the wins, KOs, and yes, losses. Leonard is just Duran light, but I figure you need to lose some weight, so good luck with the dieting.

wpink1

05-07-2008, 02:00 AM

london either your retarted or just want to debate..in your own quote of my statement, my other statment I said..:"after they where champion"....That reinforces my statment...

You show you know nothing about boxing. As for my weight, I am in perfect shape probably much less body fat than you. Not sure why your trying to make this personal, could it be because I am exposing your ignorance of boxing...However, we can do what ever you want to do......

Yes Duran is ranked above leoanard on most polls. I simply disagree. I offer facts to back up my position, but it is still an opinion and i respect yours and other positions. However, I simply do not get why people rank some on one scale and others on a different scale.

Get it. I think duran is great, and all time great, but what about a man that won 5 titles, beat overalll better opposition, was undefeated til age 34, went up 40+ pounds from middleweight and beat a heavyweight. I understand how people can rank duran high. He was a beast, but there were others chavez who was very successful, hell salvador Sanchez was well on his way to whipping better fighters until he died. Leonard beat not buchanon, or marcel..or moore..he beat duran himself, Hearns, hagler, Benitez...Now tell me are we ranking duran on a different scale.....Especially when you see that Jones, Leonard etc..progressivly fought better and better fighters..Duran not so....

Nostromo

05-07-2008, 03:56 AM

To wpink1 (aka "Pinky"): Since you seem to be a Roberto Duran "specialist," perhaps you can explain why he is so grossly overrated by the vast majority in the boxing "community." I await your reply with great anticipation...

wpink1

05-07-2008, 08:46 AM

Many people like a fighter....and the rocky babloa style of fighter at that. Duran embodied the smarts, the courage (except for one night), the savagery, the success (4 titles, 100 wins,) and the wins vs Buchanon, Leonard were his biggest two. Barkly and Moore were ok but t hey were not the level of these two fighters.

Now that being said, I also believe that duran with out a doubt is one the best fighters ever. It is funny I have always said he is a great fighter, but I just dont think the media and more importantly older experts who historically favor the old time fighters, give modern fighters the credit they deserve.

Lets examine.

No doubt Durans 70 wins at lightweight is a great accomplishment. However, when you go back and look at the quality of hisl lightweight resume, some serious questions arise. What you have is a fighter that for over 70% of his fights were vs subpar fighters. This again is horrible. There is no way that Leonard could get off the hook for fighting a fighter with a 0-3 record (get this point london rules, you keep on forgetting this) after he became a champion. NO WAY.

I honestly think that at the time of Durans dominance at lightweight then he movedup and beat leonard, I think he did move up into the top 10-15. However we have had fighters since then that are better than he. However, older fans who either are latino fight fans, grew up on Duran leonard etc,,, or those like bert sugar who simply do not give any current fighters their just due.

Look at Roy Jones, or Mayweather. These two are not fan favorits, the did not fight everyone. However many duran fans forget he never faced Arguello, or Pryor. Durna dominated the lightweight division for a decade, hmmm so did Hopkins, and Roy beat him,rather easily at his prime, and he beat every top middlewieght while he was their in convincing manner. Unlike Duran Roy moved up and beat the champions, Duran moved up and got repeately ass whipings.

Hmmm the very weak arguement that Duran was not prime, simply holds no water. None, only if you want to give Duran a different criteria than others. Duran wa 29 when he faced leoanrd. lost many fights before age 33. Roy beat Toney and Hopkins by age 28, and by age 33 had never...I repeat NEVER been bested inside a ring. Duran effectivly had amateur fights as a professional, which if it is before he was a champion is okay, but people need to recognize that fact. Jones had a long a brilliant amateur career. The reason why I point this out, is roy had half as many professionals fights, but he kept on fighting progressivly better opponents. Duran had 100 professional fights but as pointed out earlier he had at least 40 fights that MODERN day fighters would get destroyed by the media for fighting. Could you imagine Roy facing a figter with a record of 10-11?

Those like panamiac refuse to acknowledge the accomplishments of other fighters, and rate duran on a different scale. What duran did, Mayweather has done, exept for his win vs leonard. Leonard himself only had 40 fights, but does duran have 4 victories better than leoanrds...Ray also fought progressivly better opponents and had 5 titles...Roy had 4-5 titles too.

Older fighter fans simply need to stop hating on what the younger fighters are doing. Give them credit.

SABBATH

05-07-2008, 09:54 AM

Wow i am dealing with some of the most ignorant and false information ever. That is what you get when your on this site, vs Cyberboxing.com with people who have opinions but knowledge also, and the level of debates surpasses the stupid as this is.Pink in case you didn't know, LondonRingRules was banned from CBZ awhile back for the same type of misrepresentations designed to push an agenda and piss others off. He posted under the name Roberto Aqui and he might as well cut and paste the rhetoric he spewed on that site since low-balling Leonard is one of his favourite topics.

Not quite sure if he's retarded but likely a few bricks short a full load. You're wasting your time presenting facts or references for your points since he sees only what his eyes want him to see.

poet682006

05-07-2008, 01:37 PM

Pink in case you didn't know, LondonRingRules was banned from CBZ awhile back for the same type of misrepresentations designed to push an agenda and piss others off. He posted under the name Roberto Aqui and he might as well cut and paste the rhetoric he spewed on that site since low-balling Leonard is one of his favourite topics.

Not quite sure if he's retarded but likely a few bricks short a full load. You're wasting your time presenting facts or references for your points since he sees only what his eyes want him to see.

The fecker hates Ali too and that's another one of his agendas: Discrediting "The Greatest".

Poet

poet682006

05-07-2008, 01:52 PM

LondonRingRules

05-07-2008, 08:32 PM

Yes Duran is ranked above leoanard on most polls. I simply disagree. I offer facts to back up my position, but it is still an opinion and i respect yours and other positions. However, I simply do not get why people rank some on one scale and others on a different scale.

Get it.

** Well, you claim I may be "retarted," and I don't have a minder to explain things to my like your little buddy Ozzie Jr.

Fair enough. You've come around and given Duran a little respect for his career. There may not be any lightweights that could ever come up after 75 or so fights from lightweight and beat the Leonard that Duran beat in such a dramatic and comprehensive fashion.

I've always acknowledged Leonard's top shelf talent and natural attributes. Every fighter has weaknesses though, and Leonard's was that his ego and arrogance became bigger than his prodigious talents. It is part of the record that Leonard was essentially done after a terrible battle with Hearns that he prevailed in. That fight altered him physically and mentally.

Aaron Pryor is one of my favorites, but he too had about the same length of career as Leonard for some of the same problems, the detached retinas. I rank him very high as a p4p peak fighter, better than Ray even, but his career takes a back seat to many in his division because of it's brevity.

That's my point. Same deal with Tyson, a brilliant heavy, but gone before he ever really hit his prime. Luther McCarty, same deal, a brilliant young heavy with a more tragic end than the others. Jim Jeffries, easily as talented as any heavy in history, just a very short career packed full of HOFers before packing it in for the farm. Tony Ayala, the names are endless, and certainly not all in Leonard's class, but some are.

Duran, this guy cut from another cloth of another world. Like I say, I have some consensus on this, just as you have some consensus on Leonard's rank.

Sorry if I get carried away with some fun with you. Since Boozo left the site it's been a bit lonely for me trying to fill the vacuum and I couldn't help but notice that you seem to come out of the woodwork with every Duran post. Sorta like this junior highschooler Oz Jr seems to have been stalking me the past 6 months. Really funny nonsense these poor chaps make up. Sorta like when I came on this board oh so many moons ago I was accused of abusing viagra by a lad who writes about boxing now, but back then all he could do was breath fire for his homie, PacMan.

I don't take any of it personally as I've noticed a lot of these little devils probably don't even shave yet and newly experienced hormones tend to overamp their emotions.

Cheers now, and remember to stay in shape so I don't have such a big target!

wpink1

05-07-2008, 10:01 PM

Sabbath....thanks for your insights..however I doubt London Rules is the CBZ poster Aqui, as this guy hated Leoanrd or any fighter who was not latin. I had many wars with him on CBZ.

London..good points and no problem with the fun...Just wantd to set the record straight on my physical being.

Now for Pryor being ranked above Leonard. Hmmmmmm Pryor beat who? A 36 80 fight 5 loss Cerventes, then a great great 130-135 pound Arguello, who moved up one weight to many and actually was kneck and kneck with Pryor until the mysterious black bottle in the first fight. I do think Pryor was a beast, but he never faced the opposition to prove it. Not all his fault, I agree, but fighters are judged on what the do inside the ring for all to see, Pryor has nothing to verify his greatness. Maybe Duran and he should have gotten together...Wow what a fight that would have been!!

Another false statment about hearns taking his toll on Leonard. Get the sports illustrated that came out the week before their fight title the showdown...Hearns vs Leoanrd their strategy and it actually picked Ray to win. In that magazine, Leoanards camp revealed that Ray had damaged his eye very seriously by a elbow in his workouts prior to the hearns fight. Hearns did redamage this eyes, but the damage was already done. Also, leoanrd had a fight with finch after hearns where his speed, timing, and power was just at his peak..early round KO..

Yes Ray short career is a mark against him. You can not rank him up there with Ali, Robinson, etc..Fighters that not only beat the top fighters but also had more fights. Duran had more fights ( many very quetionable), and some very good wins, however Leonard beat better fighters than duran did. So how do you compare the two. I can see those that say Duran moved up and beat leonard. I can see that, it has meat, I dont think in montreal Leoanrd fighting that fight would have been on his feet at the end of the fight had it been at lightweight. However, Duran could not adapt to other styles like Leoanrd could. Leonard beat a boxer, Benitez, a slugger Hearns, a bigger boxer/fighter Hagler, a a pressure brawler Duran.... All of these fighters at around their peak (hagler was 32)...... Duran LOST to all of these fighters...The quality of fighters duran beat at lightweight, I honestly think Leonard would beat on his way to a sparring session.

Nostromo

05-08-2008, 11:42 AM

To wpink1: Thanks for your reply on why you think Duran is overrated. I happen to disagree with your position, as I think that Duran's longevity, that Dempsey-like "jungle intensity" he brought to the ring and his achievements far overshadow his shortcomings, including "no Mas." His high regard in boxing circles is well-deserved.

On a seperate issue, you keep referring to someone named panamiac. I checked the member list and there's no one by that (user)name. The closest to that would be Panamaniac. Is that who you mean?

BdCeA-FpdiI

wpink1

05-08-2008, 12:39 PM

Nostromo,,,yes your right about pan?? however you want to spell his name. As for Duran, his longivity and dominance over lightweight is the very reason along with his win over Leonard, why I rate him one of the best ever. I will repeat, I think he is one of the best ever. The debate stems from me not believing he is a top 10 or better than Jones, or Leonard.

Hearnsz

05-08-2008, 12:59 PM

I also wouldn't put Duran in my top10 p4p to be honest...
He's carreer isn't far as impressive as Willie Pep's imo... I don't mainly look at their carreer though, just at skills, power, speed and reflexes.

Yogi

05-13-2008, 11:16 AM

SABBATH

05-13-2008, 03:03 PM

Holy hell, you're still posting here?
Not really...only when I'm bored or drunk. You know where I hang my hat!

Southpaw Stinger

05-13-2008, 05:54 PM

Not really...only when I'm bored or drunk. You know where I hang my hat!

Ditto. Hence my posting every day.... :(

Yogi

05-13-2008, 10:04 PM

Not really...only when I'm bored or drunk. You know where I hang my hat!

Yeah, I saw a recent thread you made over there in regards to Hurricane Carter, and seeing as how nobody responded to it (I think that subject may have been played out over there), I was almost tempted to put a response through after having recently re-read his '16th Round' of horse crap.

SABBATH

05-13-2008, 11:15 PM

Yeah, I saw a recent thread you made over there in regards to Hurricane Carter, and seeing as how nobody responded to it (I think that subject may have been played out over there), I was almost tempted to put a response through after having recently re-read his '16th Round' of horse crap.Good to see I brought you out of retirement! Yeah that thread died a quick death (ha ha, lots of reads though) but I have always doubted Carter's innocence and would really like to investigate the whole case a little more thoroughly. I have met Carter one on one and it wasn't exactly a meeting I cherish.

I'm done here anyway. Have a drop by at the usual water cooler sometimes.....we need some more Canadian content!

aussieboxer2320

05-14-2008, 03:54 AM

The Noose

05-14-2008, 06:04 AM

Leonard. Had it all. Beat them all.

People make excuses for Duran's losses, and criticise Leonards wins.

Yogi

05-14-2008, 01:59 PM

Good to see I brought you out of retirement! Yeah that thread died a quick death (ha ha, lots of reads though) but I have always doubted Carter's innocence and would really like to investigate the whole case a little more thoroughly. I have met Carter one on one and it wasn't exactly a meeting I cherish.

I'm done here anyway. Have a drop by at the usual water cooler sometimes.....we need some more Canadian content!

I'd like to give you the credit for my being back, my friend, but if the truth be known, my computer took a dump months ago and I haven't been online since. Finally had the bite the bullet and buy a new one.

Carter's book is full of it all throughout, but in keeping it strictly boxing related, one of my favourite lines in his book was the following;

"I flew to Argentina and fought Rocky Rivero on the sixth of August (1966), and when I got back, I signed for the championship fight with Dick Tiger." (page 250)

This would be the same Dick Tiger who had already lost his championship four months previous I take it?

wpink1

05-14-2008, 08:57 PM

Duran Was At His Best As A Lightweight, He Was Bloated And Above Natural Weight When He Fought These Guys And Also Past His Prime And He Still Mananged To Beat Leonard. Hearns Only Ko'ed Him Cos Duran Was Fat, Old And Had No Motivation. Duran Achieved More Than The Other 3 Did

Your correct Duran was at his most effective at Lightweight, no one has ever argued that. However this is where your analogy or statment is flawed.

1. Duran's quality of oppositon at lightweight is no where near what leonards was or Ali's, or Robinsons etc.
2. Why is is that in your view and others, we should only judge Duran on his exploits at lightweight, but we judge Mayweather, Robinson, Leonard, Jones,,,etc on how they did when they moved up in weight.
3. Duran fought since age 17....no amteur career. At age 29 he moved up after 70 total fights. Leonard was fighting since age 12. 150 total amateur fights, and 33 fights when he moved up to fight kalule,,,then he moved up and fougth Hagler...Age 27. Mayweather many many amateur fights, 30 some odd fights moved up age 28......What is the difference... Especialliy when you go back and look at that over 30 of Durans fights where vs fighters with records like 0-3, or 10-11...even after he was a champion.
4. Buchanon, Marcil, Dejesus all were good fighters...Were they all time greats? No. How is iit that based on his weak resume, he was not undefeated, he moved up at age 29 from lightweight to welter (which is a jump dlh, mosley, mayweather, robinson, armstrong all made with more success, leonard moved up 13 pounds to fight hagler then another 15 to fight lalond, Jones and Toney moved up 40 pounds to fight heavy weight, Pacquio moved up many weight classes, Arguello too) that Duran fans have blinders on to what others did at their normal weight vs better opposition, and moved up with more success.
5. Hopkins dominated the middleweight for just about as long as Duran did...we dont call him a all time great.....

Those are facts.

poet682006

05-15-2008, 12:12 AM

Your correct Duran was at his most effective at Lightweight, no one has ever argued that. However this is where your analogy or statment is flawed.

1. Duran's quality of oppositon at lightweight is no where near what leonards was or Ali's, or Robinsons etc.
2. Why is is that in your view and others, we should only judge Duran on his exploits at lightweight, but we judge Mayweather, Robinson, Leonard, Jones,,,etc on how they did when they moved up in weight.
3. Duran fought since age 17....no amteur career. At age 29 he moved up after 70 total fights. Leonard was fighting since age 12. 150 total amateur fights, and 33 fights when he moved up to fight kalule,,,then he moved up and fougth Hagler...Age 27. Mayweather many many amateur fights, 30 some odd fights moved up age 28......What is the difference... Especialliy when you go back and look at that over 30 of Durans fights where vs fighters with records like 0-3, or 10-11...even after he was a champion.
4. Buchanon, Marcil, Dejesus all were good fighters...Were they all time greats? No. How is iit that based on his weak resume, he was not undefeated, he moved up at age 29 from lightweight to welter (which is a jump dlh, mosley, mayweather, robinson, armstrong all made with more success, leonard moved up 13 pounds to fight hagler then another 15 to fight lalond, Jones and Toney moved up 40 pounds to fight heavy weight, Pacquio moved up many weight classes, Arguello too) that Duran fans have blinders on to what others did at their normal weight vs better opposition, and moved up with more success.
5. Hopkins dominated the middleweight for just about as long as Duran did...we dont call him a all time great.....

Those are facts.

Many people DO consider Estaban DeJesus an all-time great. In fact we DO call Bernard Hopkins an all-time great. Anbody remotely knowledgable about boxing has him on their top-ten Middleweight list. Oh, and why do you keep bringing up the amatuers? Amatuer boxing is an entirely different sport from the pros. Tyson only had a relatively small number of amatuer fights and it didn't seem to hurt him any.

Poet

wpink1

05-15-2008, 02:39 AM

Panamaniac

05-15-2008, 04:02 AM

I bring up the amateurs because it does cause wear and tear on a person body which is the argument many were trying to make that duran was worn out after 70 pro fights but none as an amateur,,,,and if you look at many of these pro fights they were vs amateur level fighters...Point is it is a push...leonard long amateur career and much tougher professional resume up to the point they moved up....No matter how many rebutalls the size of "War and Peace" you post here, no matter how often you cite the inferior opponents as a lightweight, or his lack of an amateur career, etc., Duran will ALWAYS be rated at least ten rungs ahead of Leonard on the p4p ATG list of all objective boxing scribes.

This, like the age difference between two individuals who remain alive, will never change; the younger will never catch up. Leonard will never be rated ahead of Duran by anyone who has half a brain. This is something you will have to live with for the rest of your life. And if posting an epistle everytime Duran's name is mentioned on this website is like insulin to a diabetic to you, then - to use an appropiate phrase - Knock yourself out!

hemichromis

05-15-2008, 04:44 AM

hemichromis

05-15-2008, 04:47 AM

No matter how many rebutalls the size of "War and Peace" you post here, no matter how often you cite the inferior opponents as a lightweight, or his lack of an amateur career, etc., Duran will ALWAYS be rated at least ten rungs ahead of Leonard on the p4p ATG list of all objective boxing scribes.

This, like the age difference between two individuals who remain alive, will never change; the younger will never catch up. Leonard will never be rated ahead of Duran by anyone who has half a brain. This is something you will have to live with for the rest of your life. And if posting an epistle everytime Duran's name is mentioned on this website is like insulin to a diabetic to you, then - to use an appropiate phrase - Knock yourself out!

well judging by your pic your a little bias, i do however agree with you!

The Noose

05-15-2008, 05:26 AM

Leonard beating Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler, is better than anything Duran achieved IMO.

wpink1

05-15-2008, 08:40 AM

Panamaniac

05-15-2008, 11:37 AM

well judging by your pic your a little bias, i do however agree with you!As you obviously understand, being biased and being correct are not mutually exclusive conditions. Sugar Ray Robinson's mother may be biased, but it doesn't mean her son wasn't the greatest fighter who ever lived (with all due respect to Muhammad Ali)...

hemichromis

05-15-2008, 04:56 PM

Hmm no matter how many times you ingore his weak resume of wins,,,or rant and rave that duran was some godlike figure, the FACTS are he got his ass whipped repeatedly everytime he stepped up in class..ASS WHIPPED REPEATEDLY... n fact ko'd in his peak years in 2 rounds...SLEEP!

So you can offer opionions, I can point to the record books which records factual happenings.......Oh here is a link where Duran is rank by only 4 slots ahead of leonard..The ring...http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

these 'factual happening' descriube the entire career of a fighter if we are talking about the 'prime fighter' they mean nothing!

duran was fighting people who were alot bigger than him for alot of his career and yet still managed alot of big wins!

yes he was beaten by leonard hearns and hagler but would he have done so if they hadn't got the size advantage?

i personally do not think so!

wpink1

05-15-2008, 06:58 PM

these 'factual happening' descriube the entire career of a fighter if we are talking about the 'prime fighter' they mean nothing!

duran was fighting people who were alot bigger than him for alot of his career and yet still managed alot of big wins!

yes he was beaten by leonard hearns and hagler but would he have done so if they hadn't got the size advantage?

i personally do not think so!

That statment justifies what I have always said about duran fans...Sure he fought bigger fighters since he moved up from Lightweight no one is discrediting that. My point is what about every other fighter that moved up,,,and did so much more successfully thsat Duran did... How is it that you all say well duran moved up at age 29 and he lost so we only measure him by his career at lightweight where he had padded resume at best, and was not undefeated....and we will only measue his successes when he moves up, we will discredit his losses as for Duran only they do not matter because he was 29 and not at his prime weight...

When on the other hand..

Mosley Mayweather, Dlh, Leonard, Jones, Whitacker, etc....the list goes on and on..alll moved up and fought bigger people too, Many did so more successfully and was undefreated at their original weight (roy, Mayweather, Mosley).. Jones beat two fighters much better at middleweigh than anyone duran fought at light weight, he also dominated (not just fought at a higher weight class) at super middle, and light heavy...then went on to win a Heavy weight title.... No losses (true beating in the ring) until he was much older than duran was before he took a loss... Also, Roy fought many many many champions and beat them, his resume was not padded with 0-3, 10-11 fighters as Durans was......

Facts...

slicksouthpaw16

05-15-2008, 10:38 PM

Hmm no matter how many times you ingore his weak resume of wins,,,or rant and rave that duran was some godlike figure, the FACTS are he got his ass whipped repeatedly everytime he stepped up in class..ASS WHIPPED REPEATEDLY... n fact ko'd in his peak years in 2 rounds...SLEEP!

So you can offer opionions, I can point to the record books which records factual happenings.......Oh here is a link where Duran is rank by only 4 slots ahead of leonard..The ring...http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

I am also not too fond of Duran's resume(especially at lightweight) but he was a great fighter and he does holds a win over a peak Leonard and many other excellent fighters. Also, he wasn't in his peak years at the time he fought Hearns. The Hearns fight occured after Duran's war with Hagler at middleweight and he was well past his prime. His peak years was at lightweight and although he was still a good fighter at the higher weights, he was past it.

wpink1

05-16-2008, 12:13 AM

Again are we prepared to give other boxers who are 29-32 the same benefit of the doubt when they move up. If so then I am all for it. I dont understand the issue with Duran fans allowing for consistency.

slicksouthpaw16

05-16-2008, 04:58 AM

I'm not that big of a fan of Duran. I think hes a great fighter and the greatest lightweight of all time, although i do think that hes slightly overrated by some people on this forum and the east-side boxing forum. The point is that he was past his prime at the time that he fought Hearns. He was in his prime when he was in his lightweight days because he was fighting in his natural weight class at his prime weight. Despite me believing that Hearns would have beaten him anyway (bad style match up), it was a time period where he was struggling with his weight and was fighting at a higher weight against naturally bigger guys. This fight was after the Benitez and his war with Hagler. He was also pulling his weight back down to make the 154 limit to meet Hearns. Lets just put it like this, if Duran was in his prime against Hearns, then Hearns was in his prime against Barkely and Leonard was in his prime against Donny Lalonde.

wpink1

05-16-2008, 07:49 AM

i dont make excuses for ray vs Lalond, in fact I think what he did vs Lalond was a travesty to ask him to come in at a lower weight. However, he did stop lalond....I always said up to around age 34, which does vary among fighters, like was worn out after 32. However, Duran was only 32 when he fought hearns.

Your right he was not at his most effective weight. I never said he was. However Mosley was not vs forrest, nor mayweather vs dlh, nor leonard vs lalond, nor jones vs tarver, etc dlh vs sturm & hopkins. However all we ever hear is "duran was past his prime (age 32) past his peak weight., and hmmmm Roy was overrated no chin, see what happened to him vs tarver" he was 35, and not at his most effective weight either....

sid89

05-16-2008, 08:58 AM

1st=leonord+hagler+hearns+duran.
All Had Skill,style,speed And Abilityto Box With Both Hands.a Credit To The Sport.one And All.

slicksouthpaw16

05-16-2008, 09:19 AM

Wpink, I definitely see what you are saying although there is a few things that i should point out. At the time that Leonard fought Lalonde, he was at a stage in his career where he could pick and choose opponents that he can feel confident of beating, very similar to the what Benard Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather are doing now. Leonard looked good of course, but you have not really heard of Lalond before or after his fight with Leonard. He was a decent name that Ray could invite to fight for the vacant super middleweight belt. Kind of misleading. Duran fought better opposition when he was at the higher weights and he definitely took the bigger risks.

Different fighters fade at different times in their career's than other fighters do. Check out all of the lightweight fights that Duran had and the wars that he had down there with De Jesus, Bucannan ect. Those kinds of fights can take their toll. Not only that but Duran was also coming up many weight classes. Take a look at Fernando Vargas. At this moment, he does have 27 fights and he was already past his peak when he had 21 fights. He is only 29 years old and was fadded when he was only 23 years old. His war with Trinidad completely broke him. Was he still a good fighter when he fought with Oscar, Javier Castillejo, Mosley ect? Yes, but that doesn't take away the fact that he was past his prime. Its the same situation here. Duran left his peak at lightweight but was still a very good fighter at the higher weights.

hemichromis

05-16-2008, 01:37 PM

That statment justifies what I have always said about duran fans...Sure he fought bigger fighters since he moved up from Lightweight no one is discrediting that. My point is what about every other fighter that moved up,,,and did so much more successfully thsat Duran did... How is it that you all say well duran moved up at age 29 and he lost so we only measure him by his career at lightweight where he had padded resume at best, and was not undefeated....and we will only measue his successes when he moves up, we will discredit his losses as for Duran only they do not matter because he was 29 and not at his prime weight...

When on the other hand..

Mosley Mayweather, Dlh, Leonard, Jones, Whitacker, etc....the list goes on and on..alll moved up and fought bigger people too, Many did so more successfully and was undefreated at their original weight (roy, Mayweather, Mosley).. Jones beat two fighters much better at middleweigh than anyone duran fought at light weight, he also dominated (not just fought at a higher weight class) at super middle, and light heavy...then went on to win a Heavy weight title.... No losses (true beating in the ring) until he was much older than duran was before he took a loss... Also, Roy fought many many many champions and beat them, his resume was not padded with 0-3, 10-11 fighters as Durans was......

Facts...

he moved up in most possibly the best middleweight era ever! think about the people who beat him, most are very highly rated.

we are not comparing duran with jones, who i would say is the most impressive boxer i have seen.

Kilrain

05-16-2008, 02:00 PM

Tough choice.

Over all I'd say Duran, because he was genuinely a lightweight, the single best lightweight ever I think, terrorized that division, and yet he still beat Leonard at his best weight (147) and nearly beat Hagler at middleweight (Haglers a middleweight legend).

wpink1

05-16-2008, 02:45 PM

Good points Hemichromis and slicksouthpaw.....I have actually figured what you all have said into my positon.

1. Leonard was garbage when he came back. He fought hagler and beat him, but haglers style was handpicked for leonard. Had they fought in 82 leonard would have had more stamina, beater timing, more speed, etc.... Hagler was used to fighting stationary come forward fighters who came at him, this enabled Hagler to used his best skills, takeing a punch and countering with awesome force (Mugabi, Hearns)/. Your smaller more mobile, or fighters that gave the slightest movment and did not lead gave hagler problems, Duran, Antefermo, Leonard. Hagler fought duran in 83 and barely beat him cause duran did not lead, taking away hagler greatest strenght, and duran is a good boxer with good head movement. So Leonard beating Hagler IMO was going to happen unless he got ko'd. Hagler is lucky it was as close as it was. Leonard was up 4-0 til he came down off his bicycle and then hagler got to start landing shots, had Leonard had the same stamina and speed he had vs Duran in New Orleans, hagler would have had headaches trying to catch leonard.

My point is, no other showing Leonard had since he retired did you see vintage Leonard. Being out of boxing for 5 years with only 1 fight robbed him of everything, and yet he still managed a controversial (wrong fully deserved) draw with hearns, beat Lalond and duran then the rude awakening hit when he attempted to fight a younger fighter who would take advantage of his lack of hand and foot speed, and bad techniques when he came back..Just look at ray vs Duran or hearns I, then look at him vs hagler, his technique was bad, his right hand was looping, his defense was horrible....Ray after retirment was GARBAGE.

Duran was at his most effective at Lightweight, and had he retired after beating leoanrd in Montreal, you all would have a solid point. However he did not. If we judge Erik Morales on his fights after he ws clearlky spent from the wars he had with pacquio and other great mexican warriors, if we judge Mosely on his efforts at losing to Winky, If we judge Jones on his loses to Tarver, then is it not simply and completley biased to Judge Duran only on what he did at Lightweight.

Also Duran did dominate the lightweight division as did hopkins. Duran level of opposition again is all time low at that divisison. Sure he had Buchanon, Marcil, Dejesus (who beat him 1 out of 3 fights), I have seen these fighters, they are good but not the caliber of a James Toney, or Hopkins or Hearns, Benetiez, Hagler, or Barrera, or Whitacker.... They were simply good fighters. I dont think beating them is equal to what leonard did in beating 4 top all time fighters. I just dont.

Finally, the last point. Duran did move up and fight better oppostion than most can dream of. However his record vs these fighters was 1-5 with a ko, all before the age of 34. That is not a quality statistic, and it is relevant when your compaing him to Jones who never lost til he was older.

Hearnsz

05-22-2008, 06:22 PM

Wow Leonard has taken quite a leap in the poll since the last time I checked.
8 Votes above Hagler and only 1 vote under Duran.

I got the feeling Hearns is being a little underrated though.
His loss vs Hagler was a bit unlucky. He was winning the fight until he got caught with a single punch that made him walk with his back turned to Hagler which was a big mistake. I'm not saying Hearns would have won if that didn't happen but who knows, it could have been a draw as the first round was one too imo.

His loss vs Leonard was also a bit unlucky as he was winning the fight until round 13(?) when he got caught again with one single punch. I guess Hearns' weakness is maybe his chin...
But let's also not forget his draw against Leonard in the rematch and his 1st round KO victories in Cruiserweight.

And as for Duran I sometimes got the feeling he's a bit overrated. Sure he dominated the lightweight division but I looked at his resume and noticed he didn't fight too many other legends at lightweight. I'm not denying his impressive record ofcourse but imo he didn't won vs someone as good as Hagler in his own prime. Leonard on the other hand did manage to beat Halger.

Panamaniac

05-23-2008, 05:55 AM

And as for Duran I sometimes got the feeling he's a bit overrated. Sure he dominated the lightweight division but I looked at his resume and noticed he didn't fight too many other legends at lightweight. I'm not denying his impressive record ofcourse but imo he didn't won vs someone as good as Hagler in his own prime. Leonard on the other hand did manage to beat Halger.Despite all his shortcomings, Duran was an extremely popular figure, due mostly to his ring demeanor. Something rather remarkable caught my attention at "The Brawl in Motreal." Although Leonard was popular in his own right, the cheering crowd at the fight was overwhelmingly pro Duran.

Boxing fans tend to gravitate towards a fighter who climbs through the ring aprons for the sole purpose of fighting. Not clowning, not dancing, not cycling, just unleashing hands of stone upon his opponents. As a result of his sheer joy of fighting, Duran acquired that intangible "mystique" that eludes most fighters and makes legends of an elite few...

mcentepede

05-23-2008, 05:41 PM

All these Guys are legends...I fear we will never see boxers like these again.

wpink1

05-24-2008, 10:50 PM

Panamaniac

05-25-2008, 12:44 AM

Your right in montreal it was pro Duran. Duran was the heart and sole of boxing. Leonard was the incoming prince. That night was Durans night all the way around. No arguement from me. I do believe that night helped Leonard in the long run, as the 1st four rounds of the beating that duran put on him then the sustained back and forth action in that fight, toughened up Ray and caused him to develop more confidence in himself.I couldn't agree with you more, (In fact, I never thought I'd ever live to see the day.) At any rate, having endured the agony of defeat for the first time, Leonard became a more gritty and determined fighter. His sheer will to win was never more in evidence as it was in his epic battles with Hearns and Hagler.

hbj

05-25-2008, 04:37 AM

for me i like hearns the most but they were all greats

MWMerlino

05-26-2008, 09:05 PM

Would have to say Hagler. He didn't technically beat Leonard, but I feel he won the fight. Leonard second because he had such great rivalries with the other three. Duran third for moving up to contend, and his amazing talent. Hearns 4th, though in a different era Hearns would've ruled the division.

supremelygifted

06-03-2008, 11:13 AM

I go with Hagler all around.....But I'm Biased he's probably my all time afvorite fighter. I met him when I was 7 at a Boston Breakers game.......It was some sort of semi-pro football league they had back then. ICEMAN probably knows what I'm talking about but many others wouldn't.

I do too! I believe they were of the USFL! Hagler is my all time favorite as I met him in Detroit. Me being a southpaw I REALLY connected to him. I first saw him fight when he fought Alan Minter both times. He was a beast .

Hearnsz

06-03-2008, 02:38 PM

I do too! I believe they were of the USFL! Hagler is my all time favorite as I met him in Detroit. Me being a southpaw I REALLY connected to him. I first saw him fight when he fought Alan Minter both times. He was a beast .
Are you that little kid in your avatar?

CHAVEZ4LIFE

07-23-2008, 08:51 PM

if duran killed leonard in both in their prime and leonard killed all the other choices duran has to be better

boxing fanatic

07-23-2008, 11:46 PM

Rafael s. you picked duran last in boxing remember he beat leonard in the first fight not hagler or hearns and he went 15 rds with hagler duran is a better boxer than you give him credit to be

boxing fanatic

07-24-2008, 12:27 AM

duran 1-leonard 2-hagler 3-hearns 4 thats the way I rank them:boxing:

Hearnsz

07-24-2008, 08:32 PM

Rafael s. you picked duran last in boxing remember he beat leonard in the first fight not hagler or hearns and he went 15 rds with hagler duran is a better boxer than you give him credit to be

You're right.
I've seen some Duran footage a few weeks ago and was quite impressed. But the thing is his record shows him fighting weak competition alot. That's what probably made me think less of him.

But even if I rank him last of the fab four that doesn't mean I say he's bad. Because they're all still incredible.

My current list looks like this:
1. SRL (he had it all: power/speed/skills)
2. Hagler / Hearns / Duran (I seriously don't know how to rank these men)

It could be that I'm overrating SRL because he was very close to losing vs Hearns (twice) and vs Hagler. But none the less he fought the best of the best and won. Kinda like his idol, Muhammad Ali.

Dambala

07-25-2008, 02:22 AM

1.Leonard (best overall fighter of these four)

2.Hagler (the most consistent)

3.Duran (the best at lightweight)

4.Hearns (great boxer-puncher at any division he fought)

poet682006

07-25-2008, 08:49 AM

You're right.
I've seen some Duran footage a few weeks ago and was quite impressed. But the thing is his record shows him fighting weak competition alot. That's what probably made me think less of him.

But even if I rank him last of the fab four that doesn't mean I say he's bad. Because they're all still incredible.

My current list looks like this:
1. SRL (he had it all: power/speed/skills)
2. Hagler / Hearns / Duran (I seriously don't know how to rank these men)

It could be that I'm overrating SRL because he was very close to losing vs Hearns (twice) and vs Hagler. But none the less he fought the best of the best and won. Kinda like his idol, Muhammad Ali.

I have 30+ Duran fights in my collection and he is indeed very impressive. In his prime Duran fought Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus 3 times, Ray Lampkin, Edwin Viruet 2 times, Saul Mambay, and Hiroshi Kobayashi: Not as weak a lineup as people make out. Past-prime he fought Carlos Palomino, Ray Leonard 3 times, Wilfred Benitez, Pipino Cuevas, Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns, and Iran Barkley: That's a murderers row lineup and was faced past-prime and over his best weight.

My rankings of:

1. Duran - Prime: Lightweight
2. Leonard - Prime: Welterweight
3. Hagler - Prime: Middleweight
4. Hearn - Prime: Welterweight
5. Benitez - Prime: Welterweight

is based on the fact that these fighters were in their primes at 3 different weight classes so I had to consider them on a pound-4-pound basis. If I based them solely on when they actually overlapped weight classes the list may look a little different:

Welterweight

1. Leonard
2. Hearns
3. Benitez
4. Duran
Hagler didn't fight at Welterweight.

Middleweight

1. Hagler
2. Leonard
3. Hearns
4. Duran
Benitez didn't fight at Middleweight (that I know of).

Poet