Duran is not a top ten ATG

[BennyST]

great post as always..we at least had one guy admit he thought duran was more popular hence is top 5 rankingin his eyes.

guys like benny are in denial hence the remabling about jones and calzaghe, like that has anything to do with duran's career.

if they fess up and admit to being biased then that would be cool with me. but they are really bringing up some lame arguments..duran is top 5 because he is the greatest fighting spirit of his generation..what the F.u.c.k

What makes you even think I have Duran in the top five? I'm just pointing out your complete idiocy and hypocrisy. Unlike you I actually figure out what a fighter has done and look at everything before judging them. Although me and Wpink don't agree he is at least unbiased, apart from his irrational hatred of Duran, and has a modicum of sense. You, on the other hand, are just plain foolish and horrifically racist at that. I don't even have Duran in my top five, nor have I even mentioned where I have him so your thinking that I do have him there is typical of your general misunderstanding of things.

My rambling about Jones was in counterpoint to you saying that because he was beaten by Hagler, Hearns and Leonard he could not be better than them. This is not how things work quite simply. Calzaghe beating Jones was my absurd way of showing that your logic is vastly flawed. If someone is past their prime weight and age, then losses have to be looked at in context, just as with Jones Jr's losses.

You keep saying that I'm biased but I've never actually said anything about where Duran ranks or whom I think he is better than. Maybe this is where you are getting this from, I'm not arguing anythig other than to point out the error in the way you have ranked people or the way in which you let slide certain losses for one fighter but not for another.

You haven't even answered that stuff about Pryor or Corrales. While on that, why do you have Hernandez ranked in the top five ATG of 130? This would mean that your top five consists of Corrales, Hernandez and Mayweather right? Just let me ask this? Where do Azumah Nelson, Flash Elorde, Alexis Arguello, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Ernesto Marcel, Yoshiaki Numata, Joel Casamayor, Barrera, Julio Cesar Chavez, Tony Lopez, John John Molina, Alfredo Escalera among many others? Do you have all of them below those three guys? Mayweather I may understand, but the others?

See, I just went over some older posts and notice that you choose very carefully what you reply to, or are only seeing what you want to see and replying to that. Like when you said that Hearns is much better because he beat Duran and then go on to say that beating Barkley is no accomplishment at all even though he was a three division champion and beat Tommy Hearns twice.

Wpink, I can't see your replies but know that you'll be spouting the same thing about ignoring Duran's losses. The thing you have to realise is that I don't. Not at all. That is what makes him lower than five for me. He lost fights he shouldn't have, but, he beat a hell of a lot of champions over a very long period of time and very, very good champions at that. Unlike many of the guys you probably have higher though Duran literally fought everyone. When he moved up he got beaten many times but he also won. If Leonard had kept on fighting longer he would have kept getting beaten. Hagler quit after losing once to Leonard. If he had only fought specific, picked fights then he would only have a quarter of the losses he does, much like Leonard does. Only a few fights across his career and all specific, picked fights. He didn't just go out fighting anyone at anytime, nonetheless, he also lost when he moved up, hell he lost to a lightweight moving up in his prime. I look at what a fighter does in their prime most of all, and then what he does after that is icing on the cake, but losses and wins still effect things.

Anyway, you guys are getting a bit boring for me. Same thing over and over. You'll never get it if you don't already.

Hey Brandish, where do you have Gans ranked?

[JAB5239]

Jab he was referring to the fact that WBC is considered the real title, that and wba, not wbo or some other alphabit title.

alphabet titles are meaningless nowadays. The champion, if he even holds a title, is the best fighter in the division who faces the best comp. Baldomir was neither.

As for Duran we are never going to agree, nor could we come close because it is simple, you and others except machine here today refuse to debate on a even playing field meaning.

Im a littled baffled by this since I haven't even put my two cents into this debate other than to comment on Baldomir and compliment another poster on a well presented post.

Judge duran by the same criteria as you do others. Do not try to make excuses for duran moving up, if you dont others. Do not try to say duran was past his prime at age 29 when you look at others accomplishments up until age 35. Don't say duran won alot of fights at 147 and 160 and ignore those he lost. Then please consider that otherd dominated weight divisions, hagler, monzon, louis, trinidad, chavez, hopkins, jones, lewis, klitscho or however you spell their names, calzaghe, all have dominated divisions, hmm holmes,... but we dont automatically rank them top 10 because of their dominace over a division.

There are going to be excuses about any fighter who moves up, thats just how it is. any fighter can be picked apart. Any fighter.

I ask you to look at the FACTS.... for once. Not this aura of Duran because you like his style of fighting..

I loved his fighting style. That doesn't however prevent me from being objective on a very subjective topic.

Duran at lightweight

pros

65-1 at lightweight
beat everyone that came his way
moved up and beat Ray leonard
won additional titles at 147 154 and 160

Took 2 out of 3 to De Jesus.
Beat Virut twice.
Beat a very underrated Mamby.
Lampkin, Thomson, Palomino and Buchanon. Also beat former champion Kobayashi in his 26th fight. Thers two hall of famers there and some very good fighters.

Dominated the lightweight division for what, 6 or 7 years?

His win over Leonard is huge, as he was the underdog and was thought to be outclassed in almost every area.

Destroyed Pipino Quevas.

Was an underdog to Moore who he simply brutalized.

Was an underdog to Barkley when he won the 160 title 17 years after winning the kightweight title.

cons
VERY VERY VERY WEAK RESUME AT LIGHTWEIGHT
1-5 vs the best fighters of his era
all these loses before age 34
quit in a rematch with his biggest challenger
not a great title match record

His resume at lightweight isn't as weak as many make it out to be. It wasn't the strongest era, but it certanly wasn't the weakest.

His 1-5 record against his best op is also decieving. Duran had moved up to face larger opponents and outside of Hearns was more than competitive in every fight, including the second Leonard fight. So not only are these fighters naturally larger men, they're all top 50 fighter themselves.

I won't defend his quiting in the 2nd Leonard fight.

Considering his career competition and the age that he was competitive till, his title record isn't bad.

Im a firm believer all time greatness should be based on competition, acheivments and longevity. Duran has all of this and was probably the most dominant lightweight ever. I believe he's a top 10, maybe 15 fighter because of this, but arguments for and against can always be made.

Jones

pros
undefeated except for dq until age 35
beat 2 legends at their peak or when they where young not old
won titles at 160,168,175 and heavyweight

cons
several fighters he could have faced but didnt, promotional reasons where the biggest issues
style not fan friendly
several ko's after he destroyed his body by losing weight and muscle
To me Jones should be ranked better than duran. He didnt get beat while peak like duran did. he never quit. he did face hopkins and toney and EASILY BEAT THEM.. Duran did face better opponents but didnt beat them except once. He moved up and still won, and dominated the lightheavy division, beating all number one contenders.... Duran did not do this...

I won't get into tearing down Roys record. He was onev of my favorites. But I can promise, as easily as you think you've torn down Durans, the same could be done to Roy. Peace.

[Brandish]

I won't get into tearing down Roys record. He was onev of my favorites. But I can promise, as easily as you think you've torn down Durans, the same could be done to Roy. Peace.

I'd like to see you try

[Brandish]

but, he beat a hell of a lot of champions over a very long period of time and very, very good champions at that

your exaggerating he beat:

135 dejesus
147 leaonard--no title defenses
154-moore--no title defenses
160 barkely--no title defenses

since when does beating four guys constitute a hell of a lot of champions..floyd has beaten more what is your point. duran's last title was t the age of 37 he fought until 50 that 13 years he fouight on the peanut line curcuit.. you are a liar my friend

[wpink1]

What makes you even think I have Duran in the top five? I'm just pointing out your complete idiocy and hypocrisy. Unlike you I actually figure out what a fighter has done and look at everything before judging them. Although me and Wpink don't agree he is at least unbiased, apart from his irrational hatred of Duran, and has a modicum of sense. You, on the other hand, are just plain foolish and horrifically racist at that. I don't even have Duran in my top five, nor have I even mentioned where I have him so your thinking that I do have him there is typical of your general misunderstanding of things.

My rambling about Jones was in counterpoint to you saying that because he was beaten by Hagler, Hearns and Leonard he could not be better than them. This is not how things work quite simply. Calzaghe beating Jones was my absurd way of showing that your logic is vastly flawed. If someone is past their prime weight and age, then losses have to be looked at in context, just as with Jones Jr's losses.

You keep saying that I'm biased but I've never actually said anything about where Duran ranks or whom I think he is better than. Maybe this is where you are getting this from, I'm not arguing anythig other than to point out the error in the way you have ranked people or the way in which you let slide certain losses for one fighter but not for another.

You haven't even answered that stuff about Pryor or Corrales. While on that, why do you have Hernandez ranked in the top five ATG of 130? This would mean that your top five consists of Corrales, Hernandez and Mayweather right? Just let me ask this? Where do Azumah Nelson, Flash Elorde, Alexis Arguello, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Ernesto Marcel, Yoshiaki Numata, Joel Casamayor, Barrera, Julio Cesar Chavez, Tony Lopez, John John Molina, Alfredo Escalera among many others? Do you have all of them below those three guys? Mayweather I may understand, but the others?

See, I just went over some older posts and notice that you choose very carefully what you reply to, or are only seeing what you want to see and replying to that. Like when you said that Hearns is much better because he beat Duran and then go on to say that beating Barkley is no accomplishment at all even though he was a three division champion and beat Tommy Hearns twice.

Wpink, I can't see your replies but know that you'll be spouting the same thing about ignoring Duran's losses. The thing you have to realise is that I don't. Not at all. That is what makes him lower than five for me. He lost fights he shouldn't have, but, he beat a hell of a lot of champions over a very long period of time and very, very good champions at that. Unlike many of the guys you probably have higher though Duran literally fought everyone. When he moved up he got beaten many times but he also won. If Leonard had kept on fighting longer he would have kept getting beaten. Hagler quit after losing once to Leonard. If he had only fought specific, picked fights then he would only have a quarter of the losses he does, much like Leonard does. Only a few fights across his career and all specific, picked fights. He didn't just go out fighting anyone at anytime, nonetheless, he also lost when he moved up, hell he lost to a lightweight moving up in his prime. I look at what a fighter does in their prime most of all, and then what he does after that is icing on the cake, but losses and wins still effect things.

Anyway, you guys are getting a bit boring for me. Same thing over and over. You'll never get it if you don't already.

Hey Brandish, where do you have Gans ranked?

Benny, I hope you can see this. I think the world of duran. He in my opinion is what boxing is made of, he meet and potatoes of boxing. More so that my favorite leonard, or mayweather or Jones.

Duran gives back to him community and helps those more so that leoanrd does and probably jones, and Jones does a lot.

My review of Duran does not shape my thoughts or how I like him. He is boxing, rags to riches, fought everyone, scared of no one. I truly see why many cloud their judgment of him by these things.

However, I seperate my thoughts or llike/dislike of fighters from what they have done in the ring. I personally hate Mayweather. He runs his mouth way too much, does not fight everyone, retired instead of giving everyone a chance or at least most of the best at the time.

Let me for the final time I hope, spell out my thoughts of Duran historicallly. There are many many fighters that dominate our minds with their style and we end up liking them thus we rank them higher than a fighter with like accomplishments who we dont like. Also, there are many fighters that we have not had the priveledge of seeing but we rank them high off of what others say...Example, Langford, Greb, and others. I do not know these fighters so I can not rank them. What i do know is that many of these so called great fighters would get beaten today when they have to fight slick fighters with speed, mobility, new boxing strategies that minimize the effectiveness of the styles of previous generations.

Take for example Liston how when he met ali, he could not do anything with him. Or Chavez when he met Whitacker, we all know Chavez lost that fight, hell he had majore problems with Randell, and should have lost to Taylor. Styles makes fights, and thus you have a new era of fighters that do not fit the mold that many like or believe is valid.

Duran, in his style of fighting is a all time top great. You stand in front of Duran, you lose it is that plain and simple. He has the total package for a certain style. However, all we can go on is the two to 3 times he had to face a very slick fast boxer, with angles, and the times he faced the same fighter who went toe to toe with him. Duran beat leoanrd when Ray fought him in a toe to toe confrontation, however when they boxed Duran didnt win more that 2 out of 20 rounds, including fights 2 and 3. How would Duran have done vs Whitacker, Jones, Leonard, Taylor, Mayweather,,etc in pound per pound fights. I simply dont think based on evidence that Duran had the skills to beat these fighters and their styles. Duran in his own autobiography said that he knew he would not beat Leonard if padilla didnt allow infighting, thus they were very frustereated by his appointment to be the referee at first.

When you factor in this, and then you look at the fact that he resume at lightweight did not have any greats. Kobyashi is not a great, neither is marcel, or Buchanon. Just like I dont consider hatton a great. Who have they beaten, what have they done. Just because they were the best names on Durans resume at lightweight does not elevate these fighters to great status. Name one respected board, magazine, sports writer, etc..that considers them as great.

Duran also moved up in weight at age 27, thus he was not old when he moved up. He also never had a amateur career thus his fights at age 16 vs bums are comparable to what Ray and dlh, mayweather and others went thru fighting amateur greats. Duran moved up and lost 5 out of 6 fights vs the best of that era. Before the age of 34. Now some say these where much bigger fighters. Is it not the same for other fighters that move up. Was not hagler and lalond bigger than Ray. How about Vargas, trinidad, quartey, Hopkins for Dlh who started at 130. How about Robinson going all the way up to Joey maxim at 175. What about Roy jones fighting ruiz, not a great fighter but the it was a 40 pound jump for Roy. Duran jumped 25 pounds, unless you count Duran at 118 when he was 118 and still filling out. If that is the case then, Ray was 135 ar age 16 fighting, Jones was welter, and super welter at age 16..the only difference is Duran got paid for his fights, they didnt. These fights duran had at 118 was insignificant, he didnt a trainer and neither did many of his opponents. I believe Duran did not officially have a trainer until after his 20th fight.

You have to be consistent, and your reviews of Duran is not consistent with how you all review other fighters.

[Kid McCoy]

who was better then floyd at 130-135 when he fought there

That's the thing with Floyd, we'll never know since he never faced the other titlists. What we do know is that the best he faced at 135 out-muscled and out-punched him in a fight many believe he lost (Lederman on HBO gave Floyd four rounds), and Floyd got a gift.

the same barkely that got starched by james toney. why didn't duran defend the 160 title he won off barkely agianst:

1. toney
2. nunn
3. mccallum
4. Roy jones
5. Bernard hopkins
6 Gerald Mcclellan

all are better then barkley but duran was MIA for some reason he had time to fight the pat lawlors, jorge castro's and vinnie pazienza's but not the real champs at 160..duran is a ducking machine

Duran was nearly 40, almost 100 fights into his career. He didn't need to face those guys. Floyd has been ducking the best in his prime years.

davey moore was 12-0 when duran fought him are you saying davey moore was a more dangerous threat then aaron pryor once agina duran ducked a prime dangerous threat in pryor to face the kirkland laings of the world

duran was not in his 40's as you say. he was 38 when he won a 160 title from barkley in 1989. if he was as great as you say he was he should of puilled a b-hop and faced the young lions at 160. he beat barkley vacates and then 7 years later gets koed in three rounds by joppy:boobies:

Pryor spent a lot of time calling out Leonard, who ignored him, but to my knowledge never wanted Duran. As I noted earlier, Pryor was not a relevant 140lber when Duran skipped the division, and Duran fought Moore, who was coming off a win against Benitez, at 154, a division Pryor never fought in. Your claims don't tally with the timeline.

Hopkins is a career middleweight, who actually started at 175, and beat the new middleweight champion at a catchweight. Duran spent the best part of his career at 135, and at age 40 you're expecting him to be cleaning out the 160lbers. By your reckoning, Hopkins ought to be cleaning out the heavyweights now. Who'd have thought it, the executioner is ducking Wlad, Vitali, Haye and Valuev!

As for Barkley, those losses were against big prime middleweights. He also has two wins, a KO and a decision, against Tommy Hearns, which you ignored. Yet others on here are claiming that Ray Leonard beating Hearns makes him an all-time top ten fighter. Go figure.

duran's record at 160:

For the last time, he was a lightweight, fighting contenders nearly 40 and 100 fights into his career. As for losing to Joppy at age 47, how many boxers are even still fighting at that level at that age? At age 40 Leonard was getting his arse handed to him against Macho Camacho, who had got a gift against Duran 6 months earlier.

I listed plenty of duran's peers at 160 and 154 he ducked convinently

why can't you list the fighters floyd ducked.. it's hard to list guys that floyd would be favoerd against.

kelly pavlik was bigger and younger then b-hop yet b-hop found a way to dominate the younger fighter that's what legends do not cry and make excuses. duran lost to kirkland laing and pat lawlor, william joppy as well you cll that a legend. floyd would never lose to sucj bum fighters

all of the fighters you listed above had better records then 85% of duran's opposition..we all know floyd fought and beat better comp then duran

I listed numerous top guys from 130 through 147 who Floyd failed to meet in favour of chasing easier pickings, and you haven't yet explained why he didn't meet them. You're hammering Duran for not meeting the best when he was 100 fights into his career and in his 4th decade as a pro. Floyd has been avoiding the best throughout his career.

consensus isn't fact as I and others have proven. your consensus is built on a house of sand. when it's all said and done duran didn't accomplish what floyd did and was ovverated by fanboys such as yourself

No consensus ain't fact, but when so many people who know boxing choose to rank Duran among the best and Floyd among the also-rans, it should tell you something.

Look, Floyd will be in the Hall of Fame, the greatest WBC house fighter of all time, he's a self-professed billionaire, and has an army of fanboys who hand him easy victories in fantasy fights against guys he should have fought in reality and rank him ahead of guys whose accomplishments blitz his to kingdom come, so just be happy for him. No need to trash genuine legends to try and big him up.

And finally, we all know that prime vs prime, Duran metaphorically takes Floyd behind the bike shed and leaves him never feeling like a real man again.

[wpink1]

That's the thing with Floyd, we'll never know since he never faced the other titlists. What we do know is that the best he faced at 135 out-muscled and out-punched him in a fight many believe he lost (Lederman on HBO gave Floyd four rounds), and Floyd got a gift.



Duran was nearly 40, almost 100 fights into his career. He didn't need to face those guys. Floyd has been ducking the best in his prime years.



Pryor spent a lot of time calling out Leonard, who ignored him, but to my knowledge never wanted Duran. As I noted earlier, Pryor was not a relevant 140lber when Duran skipped the division, and Duran fought Moore, who was coming off a win against Benitez, at 154, a division Pryor never fought in. Your claims don't tally with the timeline.

Hopkins is a career middleweight, who actually started at 175, and beat the new middleweight champion at a catchweight. Duran spent the best part of his career at 135, and at age 40 you're expecting him to be cleaning out the 160lbers. By your reckoning, Hopkins ought to be cleaning out the heavyweights now. Who'd have thought it, the executioner is ducking Wlad, Vitali, Haye and Valuev!

As for Barkley, those losses were against big prime middleweights. He also has two wins, a KO and a decision, against Tommy Hearns, which you ignored. Yet others on here are claiming that Ray Leonard beating Hearns makes him an all-time top ten fighter. Go figure.



For the last time, he was a lightweight, fighting contenders nearly 40 and 100 fights into his career. As for losing to Joppy at age 47, how many boxers are even still fighting at that level at that age? At age 40 Leonard was getting his arse handed to him against Macho Camacho, who had got a gift against Duran 6 months earlier.



I listed numerous top guys from 130 through 147 who Floyd failed to meet in favour of chasing easier pickings, and you haven't yet explained why he didn't meet them. You're hammering Duran for not meeting the best when he was 100 fights into his career and in his 4th decade as a pro. Floyd has been avoiding the best throughout his career.



No consensus ain't fact, but when so many people who know boxing choose to rank Duran among the best and Floyd among the also-rans, it should tell you something.

Look, Floyd will be in the Hall of Fame, the greatest WBC house fighter of all time, he's a self-professed billionaire, and has an army of fanboys who hand him easy victories in fantasy fights against guys he should have fought in reality and rank him ahead of guys whose accomplishments blitz his to kingdom come, so just be happy for him. No need to trash genuine legends to try and big him up.

And finally, we all know that prime vs prime, Duran metaphorically takes Floyd behind the bike shed and leaves him never feeling like a real man again.

"Duran was nearly 40, almost 100 fights into his career. He didn't need to face those guys. Floyd has been ducking the best in his prime years."

FALSE,,,,,,, You somehow leave out age 29-34.....
Duran was only 29 when he quit vs leoanrd, and lost the other fights hearns, benetiz, hagler before the age of 34.

Do your research about pryor callling out leonard, which your completley false,and shows that you dont know your stuff and rely on popular myth and bandwagon information. Pryor and leoanrd where actually great friends with Leonards mother serving as a stand in mother for Pryor. He earlly on would tag along with Leonard to his fights and if you go to many of leonards fights on youtube at the end you can actually see him holding Ray jr, while ray was doing interviews. Pryor called out Ray to make money. When pryor called out ray, in 81' this was when Ray was doing his media tour for his and Hearns fight. At the time, PRYOR WAS A NOBODY WHO HAD ONLYL BEATEN OLD CERVANTES. He did not fight Arguello (which landed him on the chart) at the end of Nov of 82. Guess when Ray leonard retired. Hmmmm Nov 2, 1982.
So if you know boxing, and was around at the time, you will see there was never any media demand for a Pyror leonard fight, Pyror was a jr welter who had not ever fought welter, and had no big wins, until after Ray had retired, and he had to go back and make that win RIGHT, due to mysterious bottle.

Popular myth, has it that leoanrd avoided pryor, he called him etc.... This is where I realize who is intelligent and who isnt. So lets see Leonard who just beat Duran, should have avoioded Hearns 32-0, 30kos at welterweight who had been calling him out for a while and threw a rubber duck at him in the press conference after his win over Duran....Your suggesting Ray should have ignored Hearns the WBA champ and fougth a fighter who had 0 big wins at the time and was not even a welter weight.....Right...... This entire myth is a result of HBO story detailing the unlucky career of Pyror, and since Ray Leonard was the man and controllled the money at the time, he was everyone's target.

But your wrong about Pryor and Duran. Do your research again. Just get Durans own autobiography. Duran admitted his managment went to Pryor manager and asked to not openly challenge Duran, as this was not a fight Duran wanted to make. BEFORE YOU ATTACK AND SAY THIS IS FALSE , GET DURANS BOOK HANDS OF STONE.....HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY... It is in there.

Pryor was significant for 135 and 140, enough for a fighter at 135 to fight him, enough that Duran's people did not want any part of him. Again I suggest you do your research and a time line.....

What people are on here claiming is tht Ray leonard beating Benetiez (ranked in the top 80 all time top fighters) beating Duran (ranked in some top 10), beating hagler (ranked in many top 25), beat hearns (ranked in many top 35).. is more wins versus top all time fighters than anyone else since at least Ali, and thus this coupled with his 5 titles, allows many based on QUALITY to be considered to all time.....Yes ray had a short career, but he accomplished more in a short career

beating duran 2-1
5 titles diff divisions, Duran 4
Beating everyone in the big 4..Duran lost to everyone in the big 4...

than Duran did in a long career......

"For the last time, he was a lightweight, fighting contenders nearly 40 and 100 fights into his career. As for losing to Joppy at age 47, how many boxers are even still fighting at that level at that age? At age 40 Leonard was getting his arse handed to him against Macho Camacho, who had got a gift against Duran 6 months earlier."

I guess you intentionally left out or had amnesia that Ray was out of boxing for 6 years before he faced Camacho.. Duran was active. I guess that bit of information is not important to bring up huh... Did Leoanrd ever get stopped while he was active, like Duran did vs hearns, in 2...face down? Oh wasnt mosley a ligthweight fighing jr middleweights, was dlh originally 130... Wasnt Roy 160 originally and fought and beat a heavy....? I guess Duran is the only person who has moved up. Your correct on thing, he is the only person I know that moved up and went 1-5 vs the best in his era and still some idiots try to avoid addressing this, and they say he was 40...he was 1-4 vs the big 4 all before the age of 34, and lost to ray several years later, making his record vs ray 1-2 (ray had came out of retirment and beat a active duran) and 1-5 vs the big 4....what a joke!!




Do your research...!!

[daggum]

william joppy ko'd him i mean come on people! its not like fighters would just pick on old 40 year old legends to make a name. they would never do that would they calzaghe?

[Brandish]

"Duran

was nearly 40, almost 100 fights into his career. He didn't need to face those guys. Floyd has been ducking the best in his prime years."

FALSE,,,,,,, You somehow leave out age 29-34.....
Duran was only 29 when he quit vs leoanrd, and lost the other fights hearns, benetiz, hagler before the age of 34.

Do your research about pryor callling out leonard, which your completley false,and shows that you dont know your stuff and rely on popular myth and bandwagon information. Pryor and leoanrd where actually great friends with Leonards mother serving as a stand in mother for Pryor. He earlly on would tag along with Leonard to his fights and if you go to many of leonards fights on youtube at the end you can actually see him holding Ray jr, while ray was doing interviews. Pryor called out Ray to make money. When pryor called out ray, in 81' this was when Ray was doing his media tour for his and Hearns fight. At the time, PRYOR WAS A NOBODY WHO HAD ONLYL BEATEN OLD CERVANTES. He did not fight Arguello (which landed him on the chart) at the end of Nov of 82. Guess when Ray leonard retired. Hmmmm Nov 2, 1982.
So if you know boxing, and was around at the time, you will see there was never any media demand for a Pyror leonard fight, Pyror was a jr welter who had not ever fought welter, and had no big wins, until after Ray had retired, and he had to go back and make that win RIGHT, due to mysterious bottle.

Popular myth, has it that leoanrd avoided pryor, he called him etc.... This is where I realize who is intelligent and who isnt. So lets see Leonard who just beat Duran, should have avoioded Hearns 32-0, 30kos at welterweight who had been calling him out for a while and threw a rubber duck at him in the press conference after his win over Duran....Your suggesting Ray should have ignored Hearns the WBA champ and fougth a fighter who had 0 big wins at the time and was not even a welter weight.....Right...... This entire myth is a result of HBO story detailing the unlucky career of Pyror, and since Ray Leonard was the man and controllled the money at the time, he was everyone's target.

But your wrong about Pryor and Duran. Do your research again. Just get Durans own autobiography. Duran admitted his managment went to Pryor manager and asked to not openly challenge Duran, as this was not a fight Duran wanted to make. BEFORE YOU ATTACK AND SAY THIS IS FALSE , GET DURANS BOOK HANDS OF STONE.....HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY... It is in there.

Pryor was significant for 135 and 140, enough for a fighter at 135 to fight him, enough that Duran's people did not want any part of him. Again I suggest you do your research and a time line.....

What people are on here claiming is tht Ray leonard beating Benetiez (ranked in the top 80 all time top fighters) beating Duran (ranked in some top 10), beating hagler (ranked in many top 25), beat hearns (ranked in many top 35).. is more wins versus top all time fighters than anyone else since at least Ali, and thus this coupled with his 5 titles, allows many based on QUALITY to be considered to all time.....Yes ray had a short career, but he accomplished more in a short career

beating duran 2-1
5 titles diff divisions, Duran 4
Beating everyone in the big 4..Duran lost to everyone in the big 4...

than Duran did in a long career......

"For the last time, he was a lightweight, fighting contenders nearly 40 and 100 fights into his career. As for losing to Joppy at age 47, how many boxers are even still fighting at that level at that age? At age 40 Leonard was getting his arse handed to him against Macho Camacho, who had got a gift against Duran 6 months earlier."

I guess you intentionally left out or had amnesia that Ray was out of boxing for 6 years before he faced Camacho.. Duran was active. I guess that bit of information is not important to bring up huh... Did Leoanrd ever get stopped while he was active, like Duran did vs hearns, in 2...face down? Oh wasnt mosley a ligthweight fighing jr middleweights, was dlh originally 130... Wasnt Roy 160 originally and fought and beat a heavy....? I guess Duran is the only person who has moved up. Your correct on thing, he is the only person I know that moved up and went 1-5 vs the best in his era and still some idiots try to avoid addressing this, and they say he was 40...he was 1-4 vs the big 4 all before the age of 34, and lost to ray several years later, making his record vs ray 1-2 (ray had came out of retirment and beat a active duran) and 1-5 vs the big 4....what a joke!!




Do your research...!!

damn wink you just knocked kid mccoy the f.u.c.k out

saved me the trouble of having to respond to his flame post. you can tell he doesn't know his history. he is just saying what he heard someonelse say.

[Brandish]

william joppy ko'd him i mean come on people! its not like fighters would just pick on old 40 year old legends to make a name. they would never do that would they calzaghe?

yeah kelly pavlik tried and he ran into a real legend