Whos better Leonard or Duran

[Fox McCloud]

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

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

I guarantee you that the Spinks and Berbick losses had little to no effect on what people thought of Ali.

Does anyone think anything less of George Foreman because he lost to Shannon Briggs? I thought not.

Losses in the prime mean something... losses in comeback attempts (or when someone is old enough that they should only be fighting if it's a comeback attempt) don't mean all that much.

[Brandish]

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.

duran was 32 when he faced hearns that is hardly the age at which fighters are washed up. I mean why are you making excuses, shouldn't durans accomplishments stand on their own. you said duran's best opposition was at lightweight, are you saying wilfred benitez, thomas hearns, ray leonard, and marvin hagler are less oppostion then what was at 135 during duran's time. Duran did not fight one ATG at 135 during his career.

by the way Duran has been Tkod 4 times not 1 like you wish to imply.

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?

ray would definitely rank in the top ten at 154 and 168.

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

leonard held both the 154 and 147 titles simultaneously. he also held the 160, 168, and 175 titles simultaneously, duran has never held two titles or been considered the man in two weight classes at the same time. No excuses that's just the way it is. Duran wasn't good enought to do what ray leonard did.

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).

sorry but we are talking about duran and leonard. bringing in other fighters to bolster duran's weak record after 135 shows how right I am about how overrated duran was. I would put him in the mikemccallum, julio caesar chavez level of greatness. no way does he belong in my top ten. I could see him in my top 25.

[Brandish]

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

duran's career did not match ray leonards in any way. Duran had 12 title defenses out of 119 fights. That means the percentage of time he was defending a championship was less then 10% of his fights.

compare that ratio to leonards who over a 40 fight career defended his titles over 20% of the time. Duran had zero title defenses outside of 135. leonard had 3 outside of 147.

as I explained in another post duran was never considered the man after 135, and never held two titles at the same time. ray was the 160,168, and 175 champion simultaneously.

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.

first off leonard did not split against hagler he beat him, one of the most dominant middleweight champs of all time after a 7 year layoff. did duran do that or did he quit in the rematch of a guy he already beat. duran chased greatness in the ring, leonard made greatness happen in the ring that is why he is in my top 10. He beat more ATG i(4) then duran and held titles in multiple weightclasses simultaneously.

duran doesn't even measure up to what ray did in his career.

[Panamaniac]

Unrelated to his beating Barkley.

He wanted to fight everyone, always. He just loved to get in a scrap. It's easier for me to understand the mentality of a Leonard, Jones or Mayweather, who are motivated by the win and what the win brings in term of money, legacy, fame ,rather than Duran who seems like he would be fighting for free and without anyone seeing him anyway.

Let's put it this way: No sane person has balls that big.

Too bad his balls were not big enough to finish his second fight with Leonard. To this day that fight is like a nagging pebble in an otherwise confortable shoe to me. For that nagging to subside, I tell myself that Duran had such contempt for Leonard, he chose to deny him the glory of a conventional victory.

I strongly believe the "no mas" debacle is a permanent "black eye" on his otherwise illustrious career. Were it not for that, most boxing historians would rate him 3rd. (behind Robinson and Armstrong) all time greatest.

[Fox McCloud]

Too bad his balls were not big enough to finish his second fight with Leonard. To this day that fight is like a nagging pebble in an otherwise confortable shoe to me. For that nagging to subside, I tell myself that Duran had such contempt for Leonard, he chose to deny him the glory of a conventional victory.

I strongly believe the "no mas" debacle is a permanent "black eye" on his otherwise illustrious career. Were it not for that, most boxing historians would rate him 3rd. (behind Robinson and Armstrong) all time greatest.

Higher than Ali? I didn't know that the dispute for #2 was clearly settled, I thought it was a toss up between Ali and Armstrong. I don't know anything about Armstrong, other than he had 19 consecutive welterweight title defenses, and held belts at 126, 135, and 147... so I don't really have an opinion on who was better, I'm just saying.

[Brandish]

Too bad his balls were not big enough to finish his second fight with Leonard. To this day that fight is like a nagging pebble in an otherwise confortable shoe to me. For that nagging to subside, I tell myself that Duran had such contempt for Leonard, he chose to deny him the glory of a conventional victory.

I strongly believe the "no mas" debacle is a permanent "black eye" on his otherwise illustrious career. Were it not for that, most boxing historians would rate him 3rd. (behind Robinson and Armstrong) all time greatest.

duran in the top 5 is a joke on any level. you could make an argument for top 20 but top 3 ain't no way in hell, unless you're a duran nuthugger

[Panamaniac]

Higher than Ali? I didn't know that the dispute for #2 was clearly settled, I thought it was a toss up between Ali and Armstrong. I don't know anything about Armstrong, other than he had 19 consecutive welterweight title defenses, and held belts at 126, 135, and 147... so I don't really have an opinion on who was better, I'm just saying.

Yep, higher than Ali. In that sequence, Ali would be 4th. at best, and no lower than, say, 7th. Other variables would include Louis, Pep, Greb, or Leonard (not Sugar Ray, Benny).

[gixxer]

Sugar Ray Leonard.

He beat Hearns and Hagler...

Duran couldnt. SRL Made him quit. SRL never quit.

duran was the only fighter in history to fight 5 decades now who quit fighting first.......duran would have beat hagler if it had went 15 rounds..........hearns was just to long for duran.........duran beat the better opposition even as he was older.........i love duran he is the best..........at lightweight the guy was scary........ he hit like a ton of bricks

[gixxer]

duran in the top 5 is a joke on any level. you could make an argument for top 20 but top 3 ain't no way in hell, unless you're a duran nuthugger

i bet you are black

[gixxer]

duran's career did not match ray leonards in any way. Duran had 12 title defenses out of 119 fights. That means the percentage of time he was defending a championship was less then 10% of his fights.

compare that ratio to leonards who over a 40 fight career defended his titles over 20% of the time. Duran had zero title defenses outside of 135. leonard had 3 outside of 147.

as I explained in another post duran was never considered the man after 135, and never held two titles at the same time. ray was the 160,168, and 175 champion simultaneously.





first off leonard did not split against hagler he beat him, one of the most dominant middleweight champs of all time after a 7 year layoff. did duran do that or did he quit in the rematch of a guy he already beat. duran chased greatness in the ring, leonard made greatness happen in the ring that is why he is in my top 10. He beat more ATG i(4) then duran and held titles in multiple weightclasses simultaneously.

duran doesn't even measure up to what ray did in his career.

srl moved up in weight to avoid aron pryor.....now he was a monster