Better Resume Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran?

hate ray leonard.....dunno why......so im gonna pick duran Lol at least you're honest

That tired old argument? It has nothing to do with older being better. You specifically said that Manny and Floyd would beat everyone in the history of welterweight boxing except for three dudes max and that Floyd is a more skilled and complete than everyone in the history of 147. I'm not disagreeing that Floyd isn't as skilled as anyone in that list, but I'd comfortably favour at least three guys over him, and pick nearly all to have very close fights that could go either way and a bucket load more that arent on that list to give him fights that could easily see him losing. I'd pick most of the guys to beat Pac and more than just three to do it clearly. There's a difference between ignorance and reality. The difference between you and me? You're blind to everyone that came before, to the point that you talk about Pac and Floyd being among the greatest welterweights of all time that would beat every welterweight in history except a couple. It's got nothing to do with 'older is better'. It's got to do with having actually seen past welterweights and knowing about more than today's two top guys. Floyd does well in every era simply because of his craft, defensive savvy and skilled counter punching, but there are a lot more than just a couple of guys at 147 that would not be just equal but stand as favourites. Looking great against guys like Ortiz, Guerrero, Baldomir, Judah etc is different than looking great against guys like Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Griffith, Duran, Robinson....and that's not even getting to fighters like Tito, Breland, Brown, Curry, Starling etc. Have you seen Mark Breland fight? Marlon Starling? Simon Brown? Those guys aren't 'old school' and it has nothing to do with older being better, but they'd give Floyd hell like no one today could. Pac, as good as he is today at 147, would get beaten by a lot of guys there throughout the history of the division, and I'm not talking about the greats of the division either. Put him in the mix during the 80's at 147 and you'd see him losing to more than just a 40 year old lightweight. Pacquiao wouldn't even stand atop the 90's era at 147 against Tito, Whitaker, Oscar, Forrest, Quartey, etc. To say that Pac and Floyd are top 3/5 of all time at 147 on talent alone and beat everyone in the division bar a couple of guys is to be in utter ignorance of the actual level of talent in the division. It's that simple and has nothing to do with 'older is better' mate. What's next? Sergio Martinez would beat everyone in history at 160 except one or two guys. Good post.......

I love the notion that just because a fighter came before another, he's automatically better. Anyway, Floyd loses to Hearns, and probably Duran at 135. But Floyd is a more skilled and complete fighter than anyone on that list. Floyd and Manny haven't faced the level of opposition those other guys did.

I love the notion that just because a fighter came before another, he's automatically better. Anyway, Floyd loses to Hearns, and probably Duran at 135. But Floyd is a more skilled and complete fighter than anyone on that list. That tired old argument? It has nothing to do with older being better. You specifically said that Manny and Floyd would beat everyone in the history of welterweight boxing except for three dudes max and that Floyd is a more skilled and complete than everyone in the history of 147. I'm not disagreeing that Floyd isn't as skilled as anyone in that list, but I'd comfortably favour at least three guys over him, and pick nearly all to have very close fights that could go either way and a bucket load more that arent on that list to give him fights that could easily see him losing. I'd pick most of the guys to beat Pac and more than just three to do it clearly. There's a difference between ignorance and reality. The difference between you and me? You're blind to everyone that came before, to the point that you talk about Pac and Floyd being among the greatest welterweights of all time that would beat every welterweight in history except a couple. It's got nothing to do with 'older is better'. It's got to do with having actually seen past welterweights and knowing about more than today's two top guys. Floyd does well in every era simply because of his craft, defensive savvy and skilled counter punching, but there are a lot more than just a couple of guys at 147 that would not be just equal but stand as favourites. Looking great against guys like Ortiz, Guerrero, Baldomir, Judah etc is different than looking great against guys like Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Griffith, Duran, Robinson....and that's not even getting to fighters like Tito, Breland, Brown, Curry, Starling etc. Have you seen Mark Breland fight? Marlon Starling? Simon Brown? Those guys aren't 'old school' and it has nothing to do with older being better, but they'd give Floyd hell like no one today could. Pac, as good as he is today at 147, would get beaten by a lot of guys there throughout the history of the division, and I'm not talking about the greats of the division either. Put him in the mix during the 80's at 147 and you'd see him losing to more than just a 40 year old lightweight. Pacquiao wouldn't even stand atop the 90's era at 147 against Tito, Whitaker, Oscar, Forrest, Quartey, etc. To say that Pac and Floyd are top 3/5 of all time at 147 on talent alone and beat everyone in the division bar a couple of guys is to be in utter ignorance of the actual level of talent in the division. It's that simple and has nothing to do with 'older is better' mate. What's next? Sergio Martinez would beat everyone in history at 160 except one or two guys.

Screw that lol, Ray Leonard is the greatest Welter of all time. But outside of resumes and judging off of pure talent in the ring, Mayweather and Pacquiao are definitely top 5 in that division. It's only about 3 fighters in that division that can beat a prime Manny and a Prime Floyd. What? Is that some sort of weird NSB joke? Or is this the point that NSB has come to these days? Emile Griffith Jose napoles Henry Armstrong Ray Leonard Ray Robinson Roberto Duran Tommy Hearns Wilfred Benitez Joe Walcott Barney Ross Kid Gavilan That's about ten alone.

One thing so many boxing fans of today miss are Duran's many underrated wins. They'll know Leonard, Palomino, DeJesus, Buchanan, Barkley...all HOFers...though Barkley is 3 division world champ, he's not in the Hall. However, people will never mention, or even know of, wins like Ernesto Marcel. Lineal, undefeated as champ, wins over guys like Alexis Arguello among many others and Duran was the only guy to ever stop him. Better than anyone on Leonard's résumé by a country mile apart from the big four. Marcel is in the World Boxing HOF and was nominated into the IBHOF a few years ago too. Just one of many great, underrated wins. Still, its tricky. I'm not sure who I'd choose. Duran has the best single win. Leonard has the greater top heavy wins, but Duran has more excellent wins of really good champions. Leonard has the greater amount of epic wins, so maybe him. I dunno. Got to throw a shout out to the guy before that talked about Floyd being a greater win than Leonard by a mile. Just an awesome statement. "Yo dawg! Leonard only has wins over Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez. Dat sucks. Floyd beat Castillo, Oscar and Hatton! Pwn LAMO! Haterzzzz. Floyd dominates!"

And if you really think Duran beating Leonard is much greater equivalent then anybody beating Floyd then you are an idiot.Leonard had nowhere near the skill level of Floyd jnr.And floyd is a 8 time champ in 5 weight classes and beat numerous HOF`ers. Jesus christ :pat:

And if you really think Duran beating Leonard is much greater equivalent then anybody beating Floyd then you are an idiot.Leonard had nowhere near the skill level of Floyd jnr.And floyd is a 8 time champ in 5 weight classes and beat numerous HOF`ers. Floyd and Pacquiao are not the only 2 really good fighters of this era,Juan Manuel Marquez,Andre Ward,Bernard Hopkins and Oscar Dela Hoya(who retired 5 years ago) is of this era and are great. Thanks for playing. You lose. :fing02:

And if you really think Duran beating Leonard is much greater equivalent then anybody beating Floyd then you are an idiot.Leonard had nowhere near the skill level of Floyd jnr.And floyd is a 8 time champ in 5 weight classes and beat numerous HOF`ers. Floyd and Pacquiao are not the only 2 really good fighters of this era,Juan Manuel Marquez,Andre Ward,Bernard Hopkins and Oscar Dela Hoya(who retired 5 years ago) is of this era and are great. You're a complete moron, is this a joke? Duran's win over an absolute prime Leonard is one of the greatest wins in boxing history. Leonard's win over Benitez eclipses anything Floyd has done in his career and that his 4th best win

And if you really think Duran beating Leonard is much greater equivalent then anybody beating Floyd then you are an idiot.Leonard had nowhere near the skill level of Floyd jnr.And floyd is a 8 time champ in 5 weight classes and beat numerous HOF`ers. Floyd and Pacquiao are not the only 2 really good fighters of this era,Juan Manuel Marquez,Andre Ward,Bernard Hopkins and Oscar Dela Hoya(who retired 5 years ago) is of this era and are great. i can assure you that benny is not an idiot, and duran beating leonard is greater than beating floyd or manny would have been. both floyd and manny topped out at 147. leonard was a robust 147 lber with punching power. he was a WW from the very beginning of his career. ray leonard is without a doubt one of the top five WW of all time. a lot of people have him behind only robinson and armstrong. floyd and manny are not even close to that level. roberto duran beat leonard at his absolute zenith.

That's a great response,,, thank you for explaining your choice,,,, I still favor SRL just because of his greatest wins, trumps durans greatest wins.... Beating Benitez when he was a legit p4p 1 or 2 and beating the monster of undefeated hearns,,,, Those are 2 of the greatest wins ever,,, I do respect your opinion,, it was well-laid out,,, i guess we will just agree to disagree,,, sounds good, homie.

It's a hard one. Duran's overall resume and achievements are pretty damn mind boggling. Starting at 118 (too many people still think he started at 135), and finishing up at 175, beating great champions from 1969 to 1998. Find another fighter in the history of the sport who has been able to beat champions over forty pounds apart across thirty years! It's simply incredible. Most fighters don't even have a career spanning close to thirty years and yet Duran was beating champions over more weight divisions and across more years than most have any type of career. A classic example: Pac has been fighting now for 15 years and beating champions for ten of those. Ten years after Duran beat his first great champion, he had moved up from 118 to 147, beat legendary HOF great Ray Leonard (which is certainly a much greater equivalent to beating Mayweather). Another ten years later he was winning the middleweight championship off Iran Barkley (himself a three division champion) and another ten years later was beating Jorge Castro, who had just come off title wins over Reggie Johnson, John David Jackson etc. Ray Leonard is just as amazing. Those four great wins of his....Prime Tommy Hearns, prime Wilfred Benitez, nearly prime Duran and nearly prime Hagler. Whatever you say about Hagler's prime though is canceled by the fact that Leonard had been out of boxing for four years and only had one fight in six years! Imagine if, instead of Mayweather coming back after one year to beat Marquez, he came back after six to beat Hopkins at middleweight (if Hopkins was still at 160 as champ. We're pretending after all)? Obviously the size difference is much greater but I'm talking in terms of career similarity. Long time undisputed MW champ without a loss in over a decade vs a multi-division champ coming up to 160 and off a very long layoff. That whole era was different though. Instead of just two really good fighters, Pac and Mayweather, you had a whole slew of them and they all fought each other over a decade. ****, these two guys can't even get one fight going. If only it was still like that today. Ahhh well, we can dream can't we? As to the resume question.... I don't know. It's a hard one. Duran has more wins over consistently better opposition in general, but then Leonard makes up for it with those wins over Hearns, Benitez and Hagler. Duran has the big win when both were in their prime, more or less, over Leonard himself who was quite a bit bigger and fresher. His only prime loss. Then he quit in the rematch?! Dunno. :thinking: And if you really think Duran beating Leonard is much greater equivalent then anybody beating Floyd then you are an idiot.Leonard had nowhere near the skill level of Floyd jnr.And floyd is a 8 time champ in 5 weight classes and beat numerous HOF`ers. Floyd and Pacquiao are not the only 2 really good fighters of this era,Juan Manuel Marquez,Andre Ward,Bernard Hopkins and Oscar Dela Hoya(who retired 5 years ago) is of this era and are great.

it's pretty close but I just went with Leonard

Haggler fight with Duran was close, nobody can change that. Will say this Leonard waited until Hagler got old, Duran fought him inhis prime. no it wasn't close............ in that case half of haglers wins were close. if you actually sit down and score the fight you will see that duran was awarded many rounds for just show boating (while hagler was hitting him) hagler had a history of getting shafted by the judges if he didn't beat his opponent to a pulp or score the ko.......i don't even think that leonard beat him. i thought leonard lost a close but clear decision...........

in addition to the fights with which most of the forum is familiar, roberto duran is one of, if not the greatest LIGHTWEIGHT of all time. he had an ATG resume before he even fought ray leonard. one loss to esteban de jesus, a great LW, and it was over the limit and a non title fight. he avenged the loss twice by stoppage. he had the lineal title seven years, man, and he fought most of his contenders. he was regarded as a great and a legend already by the time he took on palomino, and later leonard at 147 for the title. he was a prolific weight climber AFTER a full, robust, hall of fame / atg run at 135, where he's not only got one of the greatest resume, but is a H2H nightmare with his power, chin, and skills. That's a great response,,, thank you for explaining your choice,,,, I still favor SRL just because of his greatest wins, trumps durans greatest wins.... Beating Benitez when he was a legit p4p 1 or 2 and beating the monster of undefeated hearns,,,, Those are 2 of the greatest wins ever,,, I do respect your opinion,, it was well-laid out,,, i guess we will just agree to disagree,,,

how so??? yes duran had a great career but not as good as SRL SRL has victories over prime duran, hearns, benitez, and ayubule or whatever that jrmid champ name was, plus he ended hagler's reign at mw,, plus a gold medal.... I just dont see how duran's is better,,, longer yes, but better, no please explain your choice in addition to the fights with which most of the forum is familiar, roberto duran is one of, if not the greatest LIGHTWEIGHT of all time. he had an ATG resume before he even fought ray leonard. one loss to esteban de jesus, a great LW, and it was over the limit and a non title fight. he avenged the loss twice by stoppage. he had the lineal title seven years, man, and he fought most of his contenders. he was regarded as a great and a legend already by the time he took on palomino, and later leonard at 147 for the title. he was a prolific weight climber AFTER a full, robust, hall of fame / atg run at 135, where he's not only got one of the greatest resume, but is a H2H nightmare with his power, chin, and skills.

Haggler fight with Duran was close, nobody can change that. Will say this Leonard waited until Hagler got old, Duran fought him inhis prime. SRL was old too, and past his prime,,, Hagler was still the undipsuted MW champ,,, your only old if you get beat,,, KT wasnt old when he ko'd shambra, but then hatton beats him next and he is old...

Haggler fight with Duran was close, nobody can change that. Will say this Leonard waited until Hagler got old, Duran fought him inhis prime.

Whoever won the 15th round would have won the fight, 1 score card had Hagler up by 2 points and the other 2 scorecards had him winning by just 1 round. Hagler easily won the 15th and it gave him the fight, you cannot have it any closer then that. HAAHAHAHAHA I've watched the fight many time, Halger gave Duran more respect then any fighter he had ever fought, he actually boxed him instead of attacking like he did with Hearns and Leonard. How does the leonard fight being a SD make it closer when 1 moron judge had it 118-110. Get off the meth bro....................thanks who ever won the 15th round was the winner? HAHAHAHAHAHA no, you haven't watched that fight at all & it's quite obvious. when did hagler actually attack? hagler always boxed his opponents. against hearns that was an exception. hagler always started off boxing & then he would put pressure as the fight goes on. duran was given credit for being in there with the middleweight champ of the world and him coming from lightweight. he also was given many rounds for just show boating & getting the crowed hyped.......in realty the fight was not even close. hagler already has a horrible reputation with judges so it comes as no surprise that 2 of them would have it close........thats hagler. if he doesn't knock his man out or beat him to a pulp they were gonna try to rob him. thats who hagler was.............

you know duran was even given rounds that he didn't deserve against hagler, duran would get the crowed cheering by show boating (while hagler was hitting him) duran got rounds in that fight that he in no way shape or form deserved but he was the showman & that was enough to bag many of those rounds........... You must have Hagler winning in the leonard fight then, easily go back and actually watch that fight instead of going by "he say" on a boxing forum :lol1: in realty the fight wasn't even as close as the judges had it.............but that kind of thing always happened to hagler (judges hell bent on robbing him) it's a given in any hagler fight (if he didn't stop the guy) they were gonna try & take it away from him................ thats haglers career in a nutshell. And just like the Leonard fight