Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

De nada, buddy. Your input is always valued and priceless at times. :yep

"I've studied him more than my shadow. I'm ready for any terrain he's prepared to step into. He's a good boxer, but he's going to be boxing a better one."

Duran was clearly coming into his peak around the time of the Hearns fight, Al.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Haha, thought you were being serious then until I saw the smiley.

 

Oh please! Benitez was the most overrated fighter of my lifetime who managed to get the press on his side. A good slick boxer will outpoint him by miles. Either that or pressure on him and watch him fold like a cheap deck of cards (Hamsho, Moore, Hilton even B. Curry)

 

Exactly, i have always thought Benitez is the most overrated 'great' fighter ever. Im not even sure if I would rank him in my top 100. The only reason he gets so overrated is because he fought in the hearns-leonard era. Not only did he burn out at the age of 24, he basically lost to bruce curry and got a gift, harold weston arguably beat him too, very overrated fighter.

 

I would have to agree, Hearns best weights were clearly 154 and 160. At 147 he didnt have an ounce of muscle mass on him, looks like he came from ethiopia. Its not a surprise that he grew out of the welterweight division by the time he was 23.

 

Benitez was I thought underrated at 154. He had a window where he fought great which was 147 and 154. I thought at 140 he still had things to learn but he was great in speed. But the Hamsho and Moore and Hilton fights are either at middleweight or way past his prime. The Hamsho fight was a bad style for him and that hurt his confidence and his skills started to diminish maybe in connection to that.

 

The Hagler fight hurt Hearns skills. He was not the same fighter after as he was before. It happens. It would have been interesting to see a younger Hearns at middleweight fight guys like Dewitt or Barkley. The 1985 Hearns would have probably stopped them. He lost a little speed and reflexes because of the Hagler fight and that made him struggle for the knockout later. Some people mention weight and the fact he could not stop Sutherland at 160, but even Spinks had a hard time stopping Murray as many others did.

 

I am not sure he was overrated. 3 titles in 3 weight class when it mattered. Beating Cervantes and Duran and the way he made Tommy Hearns miss with bodypunches was incredible. He did burn out fast, but that was because of moving up to a weight at middleweight where he never should have been. He was not the strongest guy mentally. I think Hearns and Hagler and Duran were tougher than Leonard or Benitez mentally. Some people might argue with me about that saying Ray was tough, but no Ray retired when he would have had to keep fighting at that elite level. He picked his spots, but Ray ended up with only 40 fights total. compare that to Duran over 100 fights and Hagler and Hearns almost 70.

 

peak no. no way. He still did not put together the mental and physical aspects of the fight. Duran taught him to stick with a gameplan which will win you the fight the easiest way you can. I think Ray before the first Duran fight was 75 percent of the 100 percent he was after. Yes I believe Ray improved 25 percent just on what Duran showed him. You can be great, but if you fight the wrong fight you will lose.

 

He beat duran after leonard made him quit and right after this fight kirklaind laing schooled him, he was past his prime, dont make it sound like this is an all time legacy win, its not.

Im aware of what benitez did in his career, but no sorry he really doesnt have the overall accomplishments to be ranked as a top 75 all time boxing great and his longevity is complete and utter crap. If he doesnt fight leonard or hearns, his all time ranking would drop by 50 spots rather easily. This forum loves the fab 4 era and thats the only reason he remains relevant on this site while other fighters like luis manuel rodriguez, curtis cokes, bill graham, and others are rarely talked about. Benitez is mentioned beacause of his era.

You want to ignore his shortcomings against moore, hamsho, and the gift against bruce curry, but mention all of his accomplishments. Wilfred can be in the hall of fame, but hes not an all time great. If i make a top 100 list, he would be at the bottom of it. Im not going to rank him 20-30 spots higher just because he is the peer of hearns and leonard.

 

I never said Hearns was in his prime against Barkley, but the loss against him still diminishes his legacy. I feel hearns could have really cemented his legacy at 154 or 160 if he had fought kalambay, mccallum and graham. Sure there are reason as to why those fights didnt happen, but at the end of the day, they only hurt him, not help him. Hearns would have ranked above leonard on most all time lists if he beat those guys, instead he chose to fight the names at 154 like benitez and old duran. Hearns has a good resume, but it could have been much better.

 

that is an excuse for Duran. Duran gets school by Laing when he is still only 30 and he was washed up? Because he lost he was washed up not because anyone beat him. Benitez beat Duran easily when Duran was only 30 years old and had 20 more years of boxing left. I think Duran fought 50 more times after Benitez.
I think to say Benitez is overrated then people definitely have to say so is Duran. Benitez beat Cervantes and Duran, and Duran beat Leonard. But Leonard then outclassed Duran and so did Benitez. I would even say Benitez best win was Duran. Duran knew what was in front of him and he had a belt there to win and that was not a Kirkland Laing situation. We can throw the Laing fight out and say Duran knew Benitez was an important fight. He just couldn't deal with the speed.
. And then you have to take into consideration Benitez being the youngest man ever to win a belt. 3 title reigns. Beating Weston,Shields,Duran,Cervantes,Curry, Palominio and fighting Leonard and Hearns. I don't think he is overrated. The record shows he beat Curry. I would even say that I think Benitez best reign was 154.
Benitez ranked because of his era? Perhaps a little. When you fight Hearns,Leonard and Duran in that era and beat Duran you are going to get some mention, and he is a big footnote to the careers of Leonard and Hearns since those two guys won their 147 for Leonard and 154 pound title for Hearns.

 

The Barkley fight to Hearns is like the Duran fight to Laing. No one cares that much. The totality of the fighters careers is what we look at. Hearns beat greats and was in superfights and Duran beat a great and was in superfights. Barkley and Laing beat them. I do think Hearns would have beaten Kalambay if anyone could it was Hearns with his jab. Hearns didn't fight McCallum because he had Hagler and Duran. Beating those guys would cement Hearns legacy more than McCallum would have and he beat Duran and lost to Hagler. It happens. The McCallum fight is what people mention now, but back in 1984-1986 not many guys mentioned that. They were talking about the fab 4 fighting each other and those other guys like McCallum fighting Curry.
The Hearns fight cemented Hagler's legacy which then makes Duran look better because Duran went 15 with him and then Hearns knocks out Duran which cements his legacy, so the fab 4 sort of build each other up. Duran never fought Kalambay or McCallum or Graham and Hagler didn't either. I don't think legacies are built on that so much as long as they have legacies to count on. In the 1980s Duran,Hearns,Hagler and Leonard with Benitez sort of are remembered more than the McCallum,Curry,Kalambay,Nunn fighters. Those 4 could have beaten some of the fab 4 I am sure, but that really doesn't matter much at this point. The famous group has an advantage in history. As wrong as it is.