Whos better Leonard or Duran

[gixxer]

the leonard that duran beat was VERY GREEN, and hardly in his prime

shut your fat ass up ....go drink another dr pepper.....................duran the only man to beat leonard in his prime ask bert sugar ...hes a great boxing historian

[squealpiggy]

duran was 32 when he faced hearns that is hardly the age at which fighters are washed up.

Duran had 82 fights when he fought Hearns.

[gixxer]

I will repeat for the deaf, Duran was a lightweight.

When he fought the Hearns, Hagler, Leonard he was past his prime and above his best weight.

This is why he is systematically rated above Leonard by boxing historians.

thank you sir these dumb ****s are just srl nuthuggers and duran hater so **** them..............duran 5'7 135 at best moved up and beat naturaly bigger guys and dropped alot of them still had power in every weight class .....he was a ****en beast .......nuff said you had to respect the man everyone knew that....those that didint .....well you know what happened the only guy that had his way was hearns even hearns said he was to long for duran ......so **** yall who hate on the best......**** he would have killed gayweather at any weightclass e****ially at lightweight

[gixxer]

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.





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





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.





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.

tell that to your idol in the pic he thinks hes washed up at 30 so he retires.....lol

[Nostromo]

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.

Given the big picture, I don't see "no mas" as that much of a stigma. Duran probably felt he was trailing on all cards and would need a KO to win, which he doubted he could score, given his failure to do so in Montreal. So, he decided to lose the fight on his own terms; like a man trapped in a burning building (WTC on 9/11 comes to mind) who leaps to his death to avoid being burned to a crisp.

...at lightweight the guy was scary........ he hit like a ton of bricks

...And with "hands of stone", no less...

[Hydro]

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.

No, I meant everyone had a tough time connecting with consistency on a non-washed up Duran, EXCEPT Hearns. He was the only guy to hit a non-washed up Duran with consistency.

I don't know where you're getting the 1 TKO thing, and I've never disagreed with Leonard beating more ATGs.

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

Well I would disagree.

On talent, yes. But you've got to spend more time at the weight class to rank there, IMO.

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.

Leonard had the 147 and 154 titles, yes.

The 168 and 175 titles were a different story. That whole situation was a joke.

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.

I'm showing how the criticism of a guy not being dominant in more than one weight class is too harsh....when hardly anyone did it.

Leonard himself was hardly dominant in any weight class, besides (actually, including) 147.

[Hydro]

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.

Leonard had 2 outside of 147, and that came after that joke of a title fight against Lalonde.

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.

That's why I noted "prime" ATG.

Leonard in 1980 is better than a 1987 Hagler. Hagler had been slowly slipping since the Roldan fight.

Even Leonard himself will be the first to admit that he knew Hagler wasn't the same.

And Duran's win in Montreal was more convincing than Leonard's win over Hagler.

[Brandish]

No, I meant everyone had a tough time connecting with consistency on a non-washed up Duran, EXCEPT Hearns. He was the only guy to hit a non-washed up Duran with consistency.

I don't know where you're getting the 1 TKO thing, and I've never disagreed with Leonard beating more ATGs.

and why was the first fight with leonard so close. leonard, benitez, de jesus, hearns, hagler, kirkland laing, pat lawlor, all of these guys tagged duran with ease. duran had a granite chin that's the only reason he could withstand the punishment.

Well I would disagree.

On talent, yes. But you've got to spend more time at the weight class to rank there, IMO.

leoanrd ranks higher then duran from 147-168. duran performed well in one weight class 135, leonard in 5 if you count 175 which I do.

Leonard had the 147 and 154 titles, yes.

The 168 and 175 titles were a different story. That whole situation was a joke.

call it what you want but duran could not do what leonard did.

I'm showing how the criticism of a guy not being dominant in more than one weight class is too harsh....when hardly anyone did it.

Leonard himself was hardly dominant in any weight class, besides (actually, including) 147.

ray robinson was a dominat midleweight, as compared to duran who was only dominant in one weight class. duran never held a title and defended outside of 135 that is a glaring mark on him and shows he was a good fighter but definitely not one of the top 5 or even top 10 fighters to ever lace them up.

[Sin City]

Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years:
1 Sugar Ray Robinson
2 Henry Armstrong
3 Muhammad Ali
4 Joe Louis
5 Roberto Duran
6 Willie Pep
7 Harry Greb
8 Benny Leonard
9 Sugar Ray Leonard
10 Pernell Whitaker

[Brandish]

Leonard had 2 outside of 147, and that came after that joke of a title fight against Lalonde.

that's two more then what duran had. duran didn't defend any title outside of 135 and the reason why was because he wasn't good enough to defend the titles he won.

That's why I noted "prime" ATG.

Leonard in 1980 is better than a 1987 Hagler. Hagler had been slowly slipping since the Roldan fight.

Even Leonard himself will be the first to admit that he knew Hagler wasn't the same.

And Duran's win in Montreal was more convincing than Leonard's win over Hagler.

stop making excuses. you can always spot a duran groupie by the type of excuses they make for him.

1. duran was a party guy
2. duran didn't train properly
3. duran started at lightweight
4. duran was short
5. duran broke a nail
6. duyran wasn't quick enough
7. duran wasn't strong enough
8. duran needed more time to train.
9. duran started at lightweight

and the whining goes on and on. duran's accomplishments don't measure up to what ray accomplished in his brief career. when you create a thread about who is better make sure you know each fighters history.

Because I am not going to whine about ray leonard's loses each one being legit. if he hadn't been on ******* maybe he could have given terry norris and camacho a better fight. be that as it may camacho and norris deserve full credit because if ray had won he would have gotten credit. same applies to duran stop making excuses and except that he wasn't the invincible hands of stone everyone likes to try and hype up.