Is Leonard More Skilled Than Duran

[New England]

Incorrect is linking me with an argument that I never made. There's a clear difference between pointing out that "that there was no significant gap" between the two when they actually did fight and arguing that there was zero difference in size.

there's over half a foot of difference in reach



how on earth is that not significant in a boxing match?

[Holywarrior]

More athletic, not certain that equates to more skills. Duran does things better, as does Leonard.

[Ham Porter]

there's over half a foot of difference in reach



how on earth is that not significant in a boxing match?

We're talking about actual size here. The likes of Jeffrey Mathebula and Celestino Caballero are taller and possess a better reach than most middleweights, but obviously they're a lot physically smaller.

According to his trainer Freddie Brown, yes, he absolutely was.

Struggling to detect the flab on him here.

Anyway, when Leonard was twenty he was a welterweight, when Duran was twenty he was beating Marcel at featherweight. Is that better? When Leonard was twenty five he was at 154 pounds, while at 25 Duran was still at 135. It doesn't change that Leonard was 5'10, 74", and Duran 5'7, 66". That's a significant difference for boxers.

Duran was already a lightweight by that age, so no. And when Duran was 25, he had more fights at 140 than he had at 135.

Why do I find myself arguing with these guys that just like to argue stuff for the sake of argument and refusing to admit to basic truths?

Your entire argument seems to revolve around arguing against the idea that there was no difference in size, which is an argument that I never made.

[New England]

We're talking about actual size here. The likes of Jeffrey Mathebula and Celestino Caballero are taller and possess a better reach than most middleweights, but obviously they're a lot physically smaller.









Struggling to detect the flab on him here.






Duran was already a lightweight by that age, so no. And when Duran was 25, he had more fights at 140 than he had at 135.








Your entire argument seems to revolve around arguing against the idea that there was no difference in size, which is an argument that I never made.

is this one of those "arguments" where somebody is wrong, and moves around the parameters of the discussion accordingly? that's what it sounds like.



there's little i can do for you if you don't find an 8 inch reach advantage to be significant in a boxing match, or if you don't believe that difference is a meaningful difference in "actual size."

[BennyST]

is this one of those "arguments" where somebody is wrong, and moves around the parameters of the discussion accordingly? that's what it sounds like.



there's little i can do for you if you don't find an 8 inch reach advantage to be significant in a boxing match, or if you don't believe that difference is a meaningful difference in "actual size."

It's an amazing thing to be able to ignore reality and fact. It gets tiresome pretty quickly though, a bit like a kid going "I know you are, but what am I?". You can only go so far with someone that just flat out ignores the basic truth of a situation.