Originally Posted by Unforgiven
Duran is clearly greater.
He dominated lightweight, earned his shot at the champion, beat him quite convincingly, reigned for 7 years, making I think 12 consecutive defenses.
Then he moved up to welterweight, and earned his shot at the champion by beating ranked welters, and beat the champion Leonard quite convincingly I thought.
Leonard did less at welterweight than Duran did at lightweight, beat a good champ, lost the title to Duran in his 2nd defense and regained it, he did beat some great fighters but retired instead of establishing a comparable reign, and when he moved up to challenge Hagler he didn't earn that shot at all and didn't really win very convincingly at all, imo.
Post-1980, Duran did more than Leonard did post-1987.
How the hell did Duran beat him convincely. He won by 1-2 rounds.
It was a good fight, but it is vastly over exaggerated in terms of how much Duran 'dominated'.
Duran vs Leonard I was just as close as Duran vs Barkley.
A case could be made that Duran went 0-2 against them.
In fact.. if he had fought on PPV under a Bob Arum card today.. he might have lost both those fights by SD.