Originally Posted by MAG1965
to me Ray's welterweight reign is much greater than Duran's lightweight reign.
I think Ray's win over Hagler who was champion for 7 years and 11 or so title defenses is better than Duran's over Ray who was on the second defense of his first title
I say when a guy wins a title that is where his weight started. A guy starts in 1967 when he is 15 years old does not really mean that much as far as gaining weight and getting bigger. What hurts Duran's legacy for me is not enough wins against elites. It is a big flaw in his record. People say he is top 10 ever, but I cannot see that with his wins against elites. one win against an elite before Ray was really elite. And that statement bothers people, but the fact Ray lost was Ray as the variable not Duran.
How so? How many defenses of Leonard's title did he have compared to Duran? I think Duran's longevity at the weight is what does it for me.
I can understand that. But Leonard admittedly waited for Hagler to get old. Hagler was a part time fighter at that point. If Leonard beat a prime Hagler then there would be no conversation. Also that fight is one of the most controversial fights in boxing history. There was no controversy in the first fight between Duran and Leonard.
But Duran beat damn good fighter before he even won a world title. What about Duran beating fighters such as Marcel and Kobayashi? Those were pretty good wins before he won a world title.
Was Duran supposed to become a middleweight world champion? Was Duran supposed to come up in weight and beat Leonard? Was Duran supposed to give Hagler a competitive fight? What Duran did regardless of the losses is amazing. When I look at a fighters resume, I look at the depth of the fighters resume. Leonard doesn't have that depth whether it was out of his control or not.