Whos better Leonard or Duran

[freedom213]

Let's look at some of the all-time greats who lost to "bums" at some point in their careers.


Henry Armstrong lost to:

Chester Slider who had a listed record of 32-17 at the time and retired with a 43-41 record. Armstrong also lost his pro debut to Al Iovino.

Alexis Arguello lost to:

Journeyman Scott "Pink" Walker late in his career. Alexis also lost early in his career to a guy named Jorge Reyes, who has a listed career record of 4-8, and a couple of other guys in his first few career fights named Miguel Espinoza and Cachorro Amaya.

Willie Pep lost to:

Calvin Woodland, Tommy Tibbs (who had a career record of .500 at the time).

Tony Canzoneri lost to:

Eddie Brink, who had a .500 record at the time and finished his career with more losses than wins. Canzoneri also lost to Eddie Zivic (not bad if you change the first name) and journeyman Eddie Abad, among others.

Harry Greb early in his career lost to Mike Milko, Hooks Evans, and Whitey Wenzel.

Sam Langford lost to guys like Battling Gahee, Clem Johnson, Jack Thompson, Willie Meehan (although Meehan did manage to win a fixed fight over Jack Dempsey), and Larry Temple.

Muhammad Ali lost to Leon Spinks. Okay, the Toothless Wonder wasn't a bum, but he had SEVEN PRO FIGHTS when he beat Ali.

Mickey Walker lost to journeymen like John Andersson and Paul Pirrone.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost to Memo Ayon, Tiger Jones, and drew twice with Fabio Bettini.

A great fighter having poor performances and losses to lesser guys, especially late in his career, is nothing new or unique.

Arguably the two greatest fighters of all-time in Armstrong and Robinson, and the greatest HW of all-time in Ali, have bad losses such as these.

It doesn't take away from all their great wins.

karma 2 u beautiful post plus Duran was by far better

[Hydro]

Duran is overrated imo.
He lost to the best fighters of his era (Hagler twice, Hearns by KTFO and was outclassed and embarassed by Leonard.)

Duran only fought Hagler once.

And his era was really prior that of the rest of the fab 4, in the 70s, and he peaked 2 divisions below Leonard did, 2 or 3 below Tommy, and 4 below Hagler.

Duran moving up two divisions and splitting two with a prime Leonard in Ray's best weight class is like Hagler establishing himself as one of the greatest ever at MW, then splitting two fights with a prime Michael Spinks. Or Leonard or Hearns establishing themselves at arguably the best WW ever, then splitting two fights with a prime Hagler.

[Brandish]

Actually almost every all time great loses to a bum at some point. Ali lost to Trevor Berbick (who was a champion, but not a good one... he won it in the era where everyone ****ing ****** in the division except for Tyson and Holmes, and he didn't beat either of them, he won a belt from Pinklon Thomas [who?]). JCC lost to Willy Wise. Sugar Ray Robinson lost to a guy named Memo Ayon who was 12-4... everyone has bad days. A few losses (especially from a guy who fought until he was 50) shouldn't take away ATG status.

that wasn't my point the guy said duran had breathtaking defense and speed, well where was it against lower opposition. you have alot of duran nuthuggers who don't realize DUran is overrated. after 135 he wouldn't rank in the top 20 of any weightclass. If you are supposedly better than ray leonard why didn't duran's entire career prove this.

Duran had over 100 fights but only had 12 title defenses, all in the lightweight division where was the dominance he displayed at lightweight.

[Brandish]

And his era was really prior that of the rest of the fab 4, in the 70s, and he peaked 2 divisions below Leonard did, 2 or 3 below Tommy, and 4 below Hagler.

Duran moving up two divisions and splitting two with a prime Leonard in Ray's best weight class is like Hagler establishing himself as one of the greatest ever at MW, then splitting two fights with a prime Michael Spinks. Or Leonard or Hearns establishing themselves at arguably the best WW ever, then splitting two fights with a prime Hagler.

stop making excuses duran was only 29 when he fought ray leonard..where do you guys come up with some of this crap. your analogy is reall bad by the way. are you basing Duran being better than ray leonard on only one fight

[Hydro]

that wasn't my point the guy said duran had breathtaking defense and speed, well where was it against lower opposition.

Duran showed good defense and speed in most of his fights throughout the 70s against his best opposition, and even in Montreal in 1980. Even at middleweight, Hagler had a tough time getting his offense going (the most overrated "close" fight ever, Hagler won 10 rounds in reality). Only Tommy was really able to land consistently on Duran until Duran was a washed up old man.

you have alot of duran nuthuggers who don't realize DUran is overrated. after 135 he wouldn't rank in the top 20 of any weightclass. If you are supposedly better than ray leonard why didn't duran's entire career prove this.

Leonard wouldn't rank in the top 20 in any weight class above 147. It works both ways.

Unless you have him @ 168, and that's not saying much at all given what he did there and the circumstances of the Lalonde fight.

Is the Kalule fight and his over-the-welterweight-limit bouts pre-Benitez enough to put him top 20 @ 154?

Duran had over 100 fights but only had 12 title defenses, all in the lightweight division where was the dominance he displayed at lightweight.

Most of the multi-divisional champs only really dominant for a sustained period at one weight class, if at all.

J.C. Chavez you can make a case, but even he was not dominant @ 130 (won a vacant belt, had hell with Laporte, another close call with Lockridge), and stayed at 135 for a short time, although he was awesome during that short stay. Oscar De La Hoya only fought 2x @ 130, was dominant @ 135 but only fought one world class lightweight there (the rest were top 130 lb fighters), and stayed @ 140 for only a few fights. Floyd Mayweather was only dominant @ 130, he hasn't stayed in another weight class long enough to be dominant there. Ray Robinson wasn't a consistent middleweight champion, unless you mean consistently losing his title then regaining it. Thomas Hearns was only really dominant @ 154, and his stay there wasn't long. Mike McCallum was only dominant @ 154. Ray Leonard's best class was 147, and he wasn't dominating his opposition (it would be unrealistic to ask a fighter to dominate the caliber of fighters he faced there).

[Hydro]

stop making excuses duran was only 29 when he fought ray leonard..where do you guys come up with some of this crap. your analogy is reall bad by the way. are you basing Duran being better than ray leonard on only one fight

I'm basing Duran being better than Leonard because of his whole career.

Explain how it is a bad analogy.

Duran= one of the greatest lightweights ever.

Jumps two divisions and splits two fights with a prime Leonard, a natural WW, and one of the greatest WWs ever.

Leonard= one of the greatest welterweights ever.

Splitting two fights with a prime Hagler would be the equivalent of what Duran did against him.

Hagler= one of the greatest middleweights ever.

Splitting two fights with a prime Spinks (a natural LHW and one of the greatest ever at that weight) would be the equilvalent of what Duran did against Leonard.

[StarshipTrooper]

Thank you Hydro! Your ananlyis is spot-on and explained simple enough that a hater can understand it, even if he won't admit it. This "gentleman's" posts scream "hater" I'm afraid. Those types are practically impossible to reason with as their hatred blinds them to all truth that doesn't eminate from them. I'm noticing more and more posts like that.

Poet

[Easy-E]

That wasn't his era. He fought Hagler hard, only came up short by a few points was the first one to go 15 rounds with Hagler during his title reign and that was way past his prime as was his fight with Hearns, and when it counted he beat Leonard to the bone, he had him hurt bad, Leonard even admits his fight with Duran was his hardest. That was also his first fight from lightweight at 147 and he took down Leonard.

I understand all that, Im just saying I think Duran is overrated.

[Easy-E]

Let's look at some of the all-time greats who lost to "bums" at some point in their careers.


Henry Armstrong lost to:

Chester Slider who had a listed record of 32-17 at the time and retired with a 43-41 record. Armstrong also lost his pro debut to Al Iovino.

Alexis Arguello lost to:

Journeyman Scott "Pink" Walker late in his career. Alexis also lost early in his career to a guy named Jorge Reyes, who has a listed career record of 4-8, and a couple of other guys in his first few career fights named Miguel Espinoza and Cachorro Amaya.

Willie Pep lost to:

Calvin Woodland, Tommy Tibbs (who had a career record of .500 at the time).

Tony Canzoneri lost to:

Eddie Brink, who had a .500 record at the time and finished his career with more losses than wins. Canzoneri also lost to Eddie Zivic (not bad if you change the first name) and journeyman Eddie Abad, among others.

Harry Greb early in his career lost to Mike Milko, Hooks Evans, and Whitey Wenzel.

Sam Langford lost to guys like Battling Gahee, Clem Johnson, Jack Thompson, Willie Meehan (although Meehan did manage to win a fixed fight over Jack Dempsey), and Larry Temple.

Muhammad Ali lost to Leon Spinks. Okay, the Toothless Wonder wasn't a bum, but he had SEVEN PRO FIGHTS when he beat Ali.

Mickey Walker lost to journeymen like John Andersson and Paul Pirrone.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost to Memo Ayon, Tiger Jones, and drew twice with Fabio Bettini.

A great fighter having poor performances and losses to lesser guys, especially late in his career, is nothing new or unique.

Arguably the two greatest fighters of all-time in Armstrong and Robinson, and the greatest HW of all-time in Ali, have bad losses such as these.

It doesn't take away from all their great wins.

I never said that it did, but when you lose, you are detracting from your legacy, regardless if you are past your prime or not.
All losses mean something.

[Easy-E]

You are right... Mike Tyson's name should be struck from boxing history because of his loss to Buster Douglas. Muhammad Ali is no longer even recognized as a boxer now that he lost to Trevor Berbick. Like I said, if it happens once or twice over a very long career, it shouldn't be a huge deal. If it happens frequently, then there is a problem, but it is this type of thinking that causes great fights to go forever unmade, because your mentality makes boxers afraid to take risks, because they could result in losses.

Yeah I never said anything close to that, but nice try.

My point is that all losses detract from you legacy, its quite simple.