Is Leonard More Skilled Than Duran

[New England]

Where Duran started out as a teenager has no bearing on where he was a dozen years later. He was a fully fledged welterweight by 1980, and there was no significant gap in size between he and and Leonard when they did fight.

silly line of thinking, and incorrect. the fact that duran fought a hall of fame career at LW is an indicator that he was a smaller man than leonard. what's as important as the weights are how the fighters got there.

leonard had 74 inches of reach. duran had 67" if memory serves right. leonard was also several inches taller.


duran had been at 154 [and even middleweight,] before he fought hearns. are they the same size now? what about hagler and barkley? duran's size, too?

[BennyST]

Where Duran started out as a teenager has no bearing on where he was a dozen years later. He was a fully fledged welterweight by 1980, and there was no significant gap in size between he and and Leonard when they did fight.

It doesn't? Really?

Is there a size difference between Hearns and Duran? He had become a fully fledged jr middleweight and had already fought there for years when he and Hearns fought. I guess there's no size difference there.

So there's also no size difference between Pac and Margarito right? Just two welterweights (caught weight...whatever) of the same size going at it.

He was also a fully fledged middleweight when he fought Barkley in 1989 and had fought there for years. Was there also no size difference there?

Why is it even considered a good feat for fighters who move up to keep winning titles at higher weight classes? They're all just the same size right.

I get what you mean when you say that it's a myth Duran moved up just for that fight. But very, very few people think that, and they're just ignorant if they do. He'd had a huge famous win against Palomino too, one of the best of his career earlier at the least.

But that's all beside the point. He was naturally a significantly smaller guy than Leonard in all physical aspects, height, reach and natural weight. Apart from that one fight, where he trained like hell and actually looked in shape, he nearly always looked flabby, soft and short at 147. He wasn't a natural welterweight at all, and was only ever there and above because he was a fat, lazy bastard in between fights. That was the only fight in which he looked strong, trim and in shape like he normally would have at lightweight.

If you take them both in their primes, mid twenties, one is an average sized strong lightweight and the other is a big welterweight. It's more obvious in the rematch, because Duran doesn't look in good shape and you can really see there is a significant size difference. It's obvious in the first fight too....

One is 5'7", the other 5'10", one with a 66" reach, the other 74". One started at 119, the other 147.

There is an obvious and factual physical size difference, to go along with the fact that Duran had moved up from much lower divisions. That is the definition of being a bigger guy. There's really nothing to argue.

The fact that he weighed in as a welterweight means he is a welterweight in the rules. It doesn't mean he's not clearly smaller though. Was Canelo the same size as Floyd, just because Floyd has fought at 154 and was already a champion there?

[Ham Porter]

silly line of thinking, and incorrect. the fact that duran fought a hall of fame career at LW is an indicator that he was a smaller man than leonard. what's as important as the weights are how the fighters got there.

leonard had 74 inches of reach. duran had 67" if memory serves right. leonard was also several inches taller.


duran had been at 154 [and even middleweight,] before he fought hearns. are they the same size now? what about hagler and barkley? duran's size, too?

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.

[BennyST]

Your lack of the fundamental laws of logic make my brain hurt....If you persist in posting here I would seriously recommend (don't call it insder trading!) that all posters here buy shares of Alka Seltzer, the original preperation....you can all thank me later.

Yeah, he's a real odd ball that one. Seen a few of his NSB posts lately after these and they're all just bizarre illogical rambling rants.

[BennyST]

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.

I would consider three inches in height and nearly ten inches of reach a significant physical difference in size. I think that's significant in anyone's terms for boxing.

[Ham Porter]

So there's also no size difference between Pac and Margarito right? Just two welterweights (caught weight...whatever) of the same size going at it.

Was Canelo the same size as Floyd, just because Floyd has fought at 154 and was already a champion there?

I don't have the fight night weights for back then, but I feel pretty confident in saying that there wasn't a 15-17 pound gap in weight between Leonard and Duran.

One is 5'7", the other 5'10", one with a 66" reach, the other 74". One started at 119, the other 147.

One also started when he was sixteen years old, while the other was twenty. When Leonard was sixteen, he was competing as a featherweight, so comparing their respective professional debut weights isn't really an accurate way of measuring the difference between the two.


And how many average sized lightweights have almost double the amount of fights above the lightweight limit (in comparison to number of fights at the lightweight limit) after winning a world title? Was Duran a lazy, fat slob in everyone of those outings?

[BennyST]

I don't have the fight night weights for back then, but I feel pretty confident in saying that there wasn't a 15-17 pound gap in weight between Leonard and Duran.





One also started when he was sixteen years old, while the other was twenty. When Leonard was sixteen, he was competing as a featherweight, so comparing their respective professional debut weights isn't really an accurate way of measuring the difference between the two.


And how many average sized lightweights have almost double the amount of fights above the lightweight limit (in comparison to number of fights at the lightweight limit) after winning a world title? Was Duran a lazy, fat slob in everyone of those outings?

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

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.

Im sure you knew this, but it was incredibly common back then for non title fights to be fought above the limit. It happened all the time.

Anyway, I guess we'll just never agree on a pretty straightforward factual point, which is ****ing daft, seeing as it's factual. Leonard was physically bigger, started much higher and was clearly the naturally bigger guy. That's really not disputable, unless you are just one of those guys that also likes to argue that the sky is purple cause you're bored. He's taller, longer reach, at the same ages, Duran was in significantly lower divisions....seriously mate, what more do you want? He was just a smaller guy. Physical measurements, and weight, he was smaller. That's the definition of smaller.

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?

I'm not saying they didn't both fight at 147 or that it was a huge dude fighting a midget, but Leonard did have significant size advantages.

[Daddy T]

People forget that Duran was a lightweight ... all the famous fights that people think of these days (including v Leonard) involved him taking on naturally bigger men.

I'm not convinced that anybody in history would beat him in a best of three at lightweight.

[Richard Wadd]

How is Duran a more skilled fighter than Leonard when he lost to Hagler and Hearns? I don't agree at all.

Using the 1983-84 duran, whose best division was 135, against him because he lost to great, naturally bigger fighters in Hearns and Hagler is not a fair comparison.

Leonard is more skilled because he is able to adapt to different situations
unlike Duran.Ray can brawl and box and be slick etc etc..

Duran could box and brawl and mixed offense with defense as well as anyone in history.

[Richard Wadd]

You could argue that Duran was more skilled, and Leonard was more physically gifted. Although Duran was plenty gifted himself and Leonard was very skilled too.