Leonard vs Pryor - early 80's , who wins??

**wpink1** · 12-30-2008, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Kid McCoy

I disagree totally with your methodology, Pink. There's more to a fighter than just his opposition. Enter Shergar into the donkey derby and he'd still be Shergar.

Take the Ring's list for instance. Joe Louis is 1-2 against their listed fighters. Does that mean he's no good? Of course it doesn't. Archie Moore is 4-6 against listed fighters (take away Harold Johnson and he's 0-5). Willie Pep is 1-3. Larry Holmes didn't beat one fighter on that list (other than a decrepit Muhammad Ali), and in fact never beat a prime all-time great fighter. Yet virtually everyone ranks him a top ten heavyweight.

There's also no consistency in your rankings. You rate Leonard all-time top five for four wins against Hall of Famers, yet Ezzard Charles beat more Hall of Famers than Leonard did, and beat them all multiple times, and is not in your top five. If Duran peaked at lightweight, and wasn't that great anyway, then why does Leonard beating him count as a great win? That's before you consider that Leonard actually lost to Duran.

Iran Barkley was variously described as bum and a club fighter on the other thread, yet he beat Hearns not once but twice - he knocked him out in 3 rounds where Ray took 14, and then decisioned him in the rematch when Ray got a questionable draw - yet in your view Leonard beating Hearns puts him in the top five. How does that work?

Furthermore, only someone who has no idea what he is talking about would refer to Ernesto Marcel as a "bum", which you did on that other thread. What do you know of him, other than what's on Boxrec, to make such a claim?

As for scorecards, they're just the opinion of the three men judging the fight, and quite often do not reflect what happened in the ring. There are many, many times when I've disagreed with the official scoring of a fight...Mayweather-Castillo, Holmes-Spinks II, Ali-Norton III, Lewis-Holyfield I, Leonard-Hagler, etc etc. I'm sure you've also claimed elsewhere that Leonard actually won the first Duran fight, which flies in the face of your assertion that the scorecards are proof of anything other than what the official scoring was.

Back, now. Doing my cardio in the morning, weights plus interval training in the evening, sparring on weekends. Gotta get my weight back down for this bball tournament starting 1/26. Harder to do as you get older.

BTW..... Kid McCoy, my man...I will address this post.

First off, to say that we should disregard scoring, puts you in the whole doesent it. The ONLY major win, vs a fighter that is considered an all time top fighter, was decided by the what.....hmmmm not a ko, but the SCORECARDS. So based on this, Duran has no credible wins vs all time top fighters. His credible record would be 0-2 then since we cant consider the 1st or 3rd leonard fights, nor the hagler or Benetiz, fights. We can only consider the fight he was getting his but handed to him and quit, and the fight he got stopped in. Hmmm see how much sense your arguement makes.

Sure we will always have decisions we dont agree with. I dont agree with Whitacker- chavez, you dont agree with hagler-leonard, many people disagree with DLH-Trinidad, but in order to have some conformity and avoid all out chaos, we have a common bond, that we all have to accept as fact whether we like it or not. That is the judges decision. Now we can argue the merits of this, but what is on the card is on the card. So the issue being Benetiz vs Leonard being close, hmmmm Ray knocked him down twice, the final round was not even scored yet, about to be another 10-8 round, had benitez rocked several times in the fight, knocked out his mouthpiece with a great right cross, and the scoring was ray by 7-8 points on 2 of the 3 cards and he also had a pretty much insurmountable lead on the 3rd, unless Benetiz dropped him twice in the last round, which he did not, in fact it was Benetiz who got dropped. HMMMMM THIS WAS A CLOSE FIGHT?

Oh yeh in my opiniion Leoanrd did win the 1st duran fight or it was a draw..However that is because I gave Ray the 1st round, and there where some rounds say the 10th-13th that could have gone either way. I am perfectlly fine with Duran getting the decision because even a blind man can see who controlled the fight, and whose night it was. Duran's all the way. However what many leave out is that Duran did not enforce this style of fight on Ray, Ray welcomed this type of fight. I have repeatedly challenged Duran fans to point to any section in that fight where he cut off the ring on Ray, when he tried to move. He didnt, cuz ray did not move except for 3 rounds, 5-7. Rounds in which he won, and rounds in which we got a prelim of duran actions in the 2nd fight, as even in the 1st fight duran grew frusterated by Rays movement and started to mock him and beckon ray to fight him toe to toe. Ray accepted this challenge and the fight turned back into a brawl. Great for fans, great for duran, in the long run Great for Ray, but wrong for Ray to win a decision, as it appeared that Duran was beating Ray, simply because Ray was fighting a style he was not use to the public seeing. His back was on the ropes..etc. However after round four most of the time he was giving as good as he was recieving. Duran fans will never ever admit this, and they will not willing review the fight on youtube or wherever and objectively score each round.

About 5 years ago, I was at the Parrish house with this cool ass latino fighter who swore up and down Duran whipped Ray' ass. I asked him and his two friends to come on over to my house and lets all get out a sheet of paper a pen and score the fight. 4 people, 3 duran fans, 1 leonard fan. We all boxed, knew what they look for, and discussed each round at the end, after we had scored the round. Guess what....2 people had it for Ray, 1 for Duran, 1 draw. Same thing with the hagler fight. My man Cameron a bouncer from MA, and his boy always on this Mayweather and hagler tip. The respect Ray but he swore up and down hagler won. He kept on saying Leonard only flurried at the end of rounds with that weak ****.... We put in the tape, Ray was up on everyone scorecard 4-0, after 4. Then we got into the tougher rounds. Guess what, all that Ray only flurried to steal rounds was correct. The thing that I pointed out to cam, and his boy was tell me what did Hagler do effectively the first 2:30 of the round to offset what Ray did the last 30 seconds. This fight was easy to score, once you focus on EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION, not just simply aggression or following your fighter. Hagler was missing badly the entire night, and yes ray was only landing arm punhes,, but they where scoring, and if they were so weak, why didnt hagler walk through them and punish Ray?

I for one thought this was a weak fight for both. However, it was a great spectacle. Many hagler fans whine about this so called myth you have to beat a champion. Very ****** and easy to dispell.

Lets see, the champion does get to retain the title in a draw, but the fight is scored on a 10pt must. The champion does not get any head start. At the end of the fight, you add up, tally, and submit, who has the most wins. Where is this You have to beat a champion. You merely have to outpoint a champion or even simpler win 7 out of 12 rounds on at least 2 of the judges scorecards, and that my friends is exactlly what Ray did. OH before I forget, all 3 of us had Ray winning this fight. Funny how simply sitting down, objectively scoring a fight the way it is supposed to be scored, changes a lot of things. Like the trinidad fight, Many people forget that DlH gave away the 1st 2 rounds. Yes he won the action rounds, yes he was clearly giving trinidad a boxing lesson, but hmmm Dlh ran rounds 9-12. Add that up, you have 6 rounds already in the bag for Trinidad. DLH simply gave that fight away. All trinidad had to do was some how eake a round between 3-8, that is he could lose these action rounds 5-1, the best rounds of the this particular fight, and since these where the action rounds, many simply remember dLH giving trinidad a lesson and run off and swear he was robbed. Not according to how a fight is scored.

Finally rankings. I always said I do not rank those I have not seen a lot of. Thus I have never lowly ranked charles, or highly ranked him, as My top fighters are those I have seen. This does not mean they are the best of all time, simply the best I have seen. Which IMO is how we all should rank fighters, because this is completely subjective. How can you use your opinion, when you simply echo those of another. How many peopel actually saw greb's fights, or Langsfords, or even Burley, but people try to act like they are knowledgable and follow the lead of oldr historians and simply add these names to THEIR top ten....etc... Fine if you want to follow the leader. IMO that is like jumping from a building because your idol does.

Charles based on his resume and rumors,, and those that rank and are respected, clearly is up there. This debate (well the debte on the other thread, which is where this discussion should be) is do YOU think Duran is all time top 10. That is completley subjective. However, many of you through darts by saying, all the historians, rank duran as top 5. Then on the other hand when I show you that your beloved marcel, kyobashi,Buchanon is not on any of these experts or respected resources (espn, the ring mag) duran fans are quick to disregard them, and trash them. Hmmmmmmm seems to me to be another Duran exemption....

**wpink1** · 12-30-2008, 10:18 PM

If you want to rely on lists of great boxers for examining how good Duran's opposition was, you also have to accept that all of these lists rate Duran higher than Leonard. You can't have it both ways.

In your attempts to claim that Pryor beating Arguello doesn't count as a win against a prime great 140lber, you said Arguello "had to move up 4 divisions to fight him", so presumably losing doesn't affect Arguello's all-time rating. Yet you credit Leonard for beating someone who moved up two divisions to face him, while Duran is cut no slack when he moves up several divisions to take on Leonard, Hagler and co. You also appeared to say that had Duran retired after Leonard I you'd rank him higher. So you're actually demoting him for being prepared to take on the top guys into his 30s and well above his peak weight. Some logic.

Oh to address this bit of an attempt to misrepresent my statments. Good try, though.

First off, I have always said Duran is a top top fighter, just not above leoanrd or Jones. When have I said duran is not a top fighter. You have me and someone else confused. I have even stated he is above Mayweather, for right now.

Secondly, I lay out reasons for Leoanrd and Jones to be above him. NOT I repeat, NOT to say Duran is not a all time top fighter.

Our main lines of division appear to be how much we truly value dominating a division that does not have any one, I repeat anyone, that is regarded by BERT Sugar, ESPN, or THE RING magazine, or any other list that i have ever seen, as being a top 1-100 fighter pound per pound. That is a fact. I have provided the links to these list.

I think that dominating this type of division means simply duran was the best of that division. This qualifies him to be considered one of the best lightweights of all time. However, I ask you how does Duran dominance at lightweight when it had fighters that simply are not regarded as being on the same level as a hearns, Dlh, hagler, toney, Hopkins, etc. how does this force you to rank him higher than a person that has a resume that included Duran himself, Benetiz, and hearns. All 3 are ranked in 2 of the 3 respected pound per pound list, and everyone else I have seen.

So we then in order to solidy duran greatness you have to include his win over SRL. This is truly a great win. Regardless of the style that Ray fougth, Duran deserves the credit for beating ray at welter. This win along with Duran's dominance at Lightweight significantly moves Duran up in any all time ranking. However does this mean he is top 10?

Then we get to the part where all the excuses come in. Starting with 2nd Duran-Leonard fight. Duran was not past his peak. He even said himself in his book Hands of stone, yes he partied between the fights, but he did this all the time. Nothing new. Duran simply met a mentally physicall stronger Leonard, and one that was not going to fight Durans style. NO cramps, no diarrhea, nothing. Duran exact words when he retired was " I am not fighting this clown" in his native language.

Then we have duran only age of 29 through 33 losing repeatedly to great fighters. Duran fans want to say this era should not be considered as he was a lightweight, or he was older or he had a bunch of fights..BS... Everyone else EVERYONE ELSE is judged by how they fare as they move up, arent they? Duran didnt have a lot of wars, that destroyed his body, if anything it was his focus and bad habits. However, that is part of being a champion. Are we suppossed to lower our standards for Duran because he didnt take care of his body. Are you all giving Roy a break? Duran simply got beat 5 out of 6 times he met fighters that are ranked top pound per pound fighters. Save the whinny he ws smaller. Leonard was smaller than hagler. Mayweathe smaller than Baldomir. Jones smaller than ruiz, and many of the Light heavy's he faced. Save it.!

Finally we have Jones who had a career that simply is better than Duran and he is better than duran.

He had more title defenses
he had more wins vs all time top fighters 2-1
He did not lose except for dq until he was 35. Duran first lost 21 years old.
He did not lose except or dq until his 50th fight. Duran lost his 32nd fight.
He did not lose except for dq for 15 years, Duran lost in his 4th year.

Roy beat 23 past present and many who went on to be future champions. Duran could not have beaten this many as he only had 22 total championship fight, and many of these he lost.

Roy beat 18 world champions. Duran beat no more than 7.

Roy defended his middlewieight, supre middleweight, and Light heavyweight titles all at least 5 times. Duran defended his lightwight title a lot, but never successfully defended his title above 135. 0 successful defenses.

Duran effective career started at 135. He did have 5 fights at 118 none meaningful, he did have 10 at featherweight, none meaningful. Roy fought at middleweight and won a title. then he moved up from that weight 40 pounds to win a heavyweight title vs a fighter who outweighed him by 33 pounds, he moved up with out a tune up at that weight. Duran won the title at 160 vs Barkley, who outweighed him by 3 1/2 pounds, also unlike Roy, Duran had been at middleweight or above for 8 years, dating back to his fight with nino Gonzalez in 81. Duran failed in his three previous attempts at a jr middle and middle weight championshp.

Roy dropped off at 35 noticeably, after he added 18 pounds of muscle to his frame to fight at heavyweight then had to shed this, which most know is common knowledge to possibly have permanent impacts to fast twitch muscle. Roy never was the same after the Ruiz fight. Never. Yes Duran has some good showing at a much older age,, and deserved kudos for this, but Roy clearly had a better career than Duran did. Only thing Duran has on roy is the name SRL, and he was 1-2 vs him. Both moved up, and Roy didnt suffer loses like Duran did. Duran fans want to say Duran had fights with better fighters. Well you still cant give duran credit for losses. And also Duran had loses to Dejesus, adn Laing. There are no loses like that on Roy's resume until he was shot. If you want to bring up Tarver, then I can easily bring u Lawlor, sims, Joppy etc... So I think it is generally fair to rate fighters up until about 34.

**Steak** · 01-05-2009, 08:18 AM

I think Leonard would have beaten him pretty easily actually. Yes, I know all about Pryor's intense style and punching ability, but he had plenty of flaws. dont forget, the first Arguello fight was very close before the stoppage. and while Arguello was still a fantastic fighter, you have to remember he WAS pretty close to the end of his career, and I believe at his 4th weight class.

I think its pretty safe to say that Leonard was much bigger, faster and a more powerful puncher than any version of Arguello. he may not have been as technical a counter puncher as Arguello, but Pryor left himself open quite a bit, and I dont see Leonard having a real hard time hitting him. 7thish round stoppage in my mind, but Leonard would get hit.

I dont consider Pryor to be the best 140lb fighter ever. I think Chavez would have beaten him, although Pryor would have stomped all over Kostya. always liked Tsyzu, but Pryor was completely wrong for the guy. it probebly would have been bad

**Thread Stealer** · 01-07-2009, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by gibo

LEONARD DUCKED PRYOR FOR A REASON...

You mean he offered Pryor a fight for half a mil, but Pryor turned it down?

You "Legendary Nights Era" of boxing fans crack me up.

**BrooklynBomber** · 01-07-2009, 10:19 PM

Leonard would beat Pryor.

I mean Pryor was real good, but Ray had the stuff to beat him.

**Thread Stealer** · 01-07-2009, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by BrooklynBomber

Leonard would beat Pryor.

I mean Pryor was real good, but Ray had the stuff to beat him.

Yep. Pryor was a beast at 140 (and would've most likely been a champ at 135 too).

Against the top guys at 147 around then, he doesn't fare well. SRL would beat him handily.

And Hearns? Yikes. A pro, welterweight Hearns would've wasted Pryor in ugly fashion.

**BrooklynBomber** · 01-07-2009, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Thread Stealer

Yep. Pryor was a beast at 140 (and would've most likely been a champ at 135 too).

Against the top guys at 147 around then, he doesn't fare well. SRL would beat him handily.

And Hearns? Yikes. A pro, welterweight Hearns would've wasted Pryor in ugly fashion.

Pryor would have his moments with that workrate, but damn, Ray was so quick and could put up a hell of a combo in a matter of a second and be 6 feet away from you in the next.

**mcentepede** · 01-14-2009, 01:00 AM

I think both are legends. But, seeing the tapes again...Pryor was far above the fighters of his era in terms of intensity. As a Pro, he got even better. He corrected some of his flaws that you all keep mentioning. To the point where many top fighters avoided a superfight with him. The Hawk was an 80`s version of Manny Packio. He beat Hearns in the amateurs, but you all know this. Ray Leonard was phenomenal...but being knocked out by Hector Camacho is just plain unforgivable. The Hawk would beat this clown and then take on Leonard in a classic and win in the last rounds via his secret weapon...That BLACK BOTTLE.

**wpink1** · 01-21-2009, 01:13 AM