Roberto Duran>>>>>>Benny Leonard, Willie Pep, Ray Leonard? Do You Agree?

[Southpaw Great]

definately greater than ray, arguably greater than benny, definately not as great as pep

Why? Duran beat the better fighters, and conqured more weight divisions.

[F l i c k e r]

Yes but don't you think that had to do more with the size difference than the skills of the fighters.For example Trinidad beat Whitaker but I'm sure nobody here would claim Trinidad is better than Whitaker.

Well, I can see that. But it really doesn't come into effect because Duran beat him the first fight. Duran beat Leonard, it's a great victory. Then when he loses to Leonard 2x, making him quit the first rematch. Then size comes into play? Nah, my man.

Leonard > Duran.... unarguable when the guy lost to him twice.

[boxingbuff]

Well, I can see that. But it really doesn't come into effect because Duran beat him the first fight. Duran beat Leonard, it's a great victory. Then when he loses to Leonard 2x, making him quit the first rematch. Then size comes into play? Nah, my man.

Leonard > Duran.... unarguable when the guy lost to him twice.

Ali got beat by Norton 2 out of 3.Does that make Norton better?

You can't always go by just head to head my man.

[EzzardFan]

For me Benny Leonard, Ike Williams, and Joe Gans all rank ahead of Duran at lightweight. Also reckon that Battling Nelson would have pasted Duran. To answer to the OP: no no no.

[F l i c k e r]

Ali got beat by Norton 2 out of 3.Does that make Norton better?

You can't always go by just head to head my man.

I get what your saying.


But how can anyone seriously sit there and say Duran > Leonard with a straight face? Leonard faught beasts and still got the one up on Duran.

I can't say Duran is better than Leonard. Duran is great but I can't say he is better than Leonard. If people want to base everything on the lightweight division, then say he is a better lightweight. But when your saying overall, you got to consider everything in their careers. And the deciding factor would be the fact that Duran loss 2x to Leonard.

[boxingbuff]

While I don't agree with you, ratings are subjective. Who you actually beat is not though. The fighters I mentioned beat more top fighters during their era's in my opinion. Robby, Greb, Langford, Armstrong, Charles, B. Leonard, Ray Leonard, Walker and a few others certainly did. You also have to factor in how much some of these "titles" meant. Im not trying to put Duran down, the man was great and one of my all time favorites, but winning an alphabet title is the equivelent of beating a top 5 contender in many era's. Its just not the same as being the one and only champ. Undisputed. Take Armstrong for example. How can you rank Duran ahead of a man who fought great competition and was the ONLY champion in 3 of 8 recognized divisions? That makes no sense to me.

Muhammad Ali beat alot better opposition then Joe Louis,does that mean he is better? I feel you debate TO WIN the discussion,not to search for the truth.I quess we have to agree to disagree.

[JAB5239]

Muhammad Ali beat alot better opposition then Joe Louis,does that mean he is better? I feel you debate TO WIN the discussion,not to search for the truth.I quess we have to agree to disagree.

Ali DID beat an overall better crop of fighters than Louis. What does that have to do with the discussion in hand?

[Jim Jeffries]

I get what your saying.


But how can anyone seriously sit there and say Duran > Leonard with a straight face? Leonard faught beasts and still got the one up on Duran.

I can't say Duran is better than Leonard. Duran is great but I can't say he is better than Leonard. If people want to base everything on the lightweight division, then say he is a better lightweight. But when your saying overall, you got to consider everything in their careers. And the deciding factor would be the fact that Duran loss 2x to Leonard.

You don't determine greatness based on head to head match ups between a natural lightweight and a natural welterweight. I believe that Leonard was the better fighter, however, because of injuries, he didn't have a long enough career to be the greater fighter. Duran fought in 5 different decades FFS.

Leonard fought 5 years, then one fight in the next 5 years, and nothing much meaningful after that, besides Hagler. Without the retina problems, he might have smoked Duran's career, but as it stands, he didn't.

[boxingbuff]

I get what your saying.


But how can anyone seriously sit there and say Duran > Leonard with a straight face? Leonard faught beasts and still got the one up on Duran.

I can't say Duran is better than Leonard. Duran is great but I can't say he is better than Leonard. If people want to base everything on the lightweight division, then say he is a better lightweight. But when your saying overall, you got to consider everything in their careers. And the deciding factor would be the fact that Duran loss 2x to Leonard.

What do you think if the SRL-Hagler fight was 15 rounds my friend?

You can't seriously sit there with a straight face and talk about the 3rd SRL-Duran fight? Duran was so far past his prime he could not see it in his rearview mirror.

They split 2 fights when Duran was still in his prime.AND Duran was the one who went up in weight my friend.Can you imagine if Middleweight was Duran's actuall fighting weight in his prime,and SRL had to go up a weight to fight him? Duran would have smoked him!

[geribeetus]

Why? Duran beat the better fighters, and conqured more weight divisions.

both did the majority of their great work in one division. pep was more dominant in a better division than duran was in his imo