Is Duran vs Leonard the best single win in history?

Frazier over Ali ,first fight.

 

Foreman v Moorer Ali v Frazier 1,3
Tyson v Holyfield Louis v Schmeling 2 Ali v Foreman...great post...mayweather v PAC would have been up there had it happened ten years prior lol

 

I think we would be hard pressed to name 10 bigger wins outside of the HW division.

Edit: most people have both of these guys as top 20 ATG’s. How many other fights do we have between guys on thier level in thier respective primes?

 

Not many. Moore-Charles, perhaps.

 

The question with Duran is what his "natural weight" was. He was at his most dominant at LW, yes, but grew out of the division in his mid 20's (had his last fight at the weight when still 26). At 29 he had filled out into a WW. Didn't have to put on weight through weight training like Spinks did when he stepped up at a similar age.

So was he a LW moving up or someone who had grown into WW at his peak? The answer to that has some bearing on how you judge his win over SRL, but it's a great win regardless.

 

The only thing that prevented Duran from staying at 135,140 or 47 was his training and eating habits. Arcel was said that if he'd have trained like a Barney Ross he'd never lose. But, when a extremely poor kid, who knew REAL hunger gets wealthy, it can be a challenge .

 

how can it be the single best win? Leonard was not really elite yet in June of 1980. He just wont his first title in Nov. the previous year and had one title defense.

 

But he was not a fat WW. Like McCallum at LHW and Toney at HW, for example. Duran was trim and in shape at 147 when 28-29.

 

Yeah, it's hard to see how a 27-0 Leonard has established himself as the biggest "scalp" in history.

 

Yes, he only had 27 pro fights but had competed against contenders a while even before the Benitez fight and had a strong amateur pedigree, of course. He had beaten Benitez clearly, KO'd Price in the first and nearly decapitated Green. While you could argue that he didn't hit his absolute peak until the fight with Hearns, he still was a formidable fighter in 1980. It's not often that a fighter of that quality loses in his best weight class.

There is an argument to be made that SRR, Curry and Tyson were at that level when they lost as well (certainly Tyson), though, so it very much comes down to how well prepared you think they were for their respective fights. I do think what guys like Turpin, Honeyghan and Douglas did often gets a bit sold short because it was so unexpected.

 

So all in all, I think there could be many reasonable answers to the thread question.

Douglas certainly has a case for his win over Tyson. Nowadays many brush it off like he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, but Tyson's issues outside the ring had been going on for a while and would continue to do so, yet guys like Bruno, Williams, Stewart and Ruddock won, what?, two, three rounds against him in total, and only Ruddock lasted the distance, after taking a gruesome beating. Douglas, on the other hand, dominated Tyson from start to finish.

Honeyghan was equally dominant against Curry, but Curry would never fight at WW again and also never again looked as devastating as he did against McCrory. Tyson fans do their best to forget just how devastating Mike was even after his loss to Douglas, but the simple fact is that he still looked great.

So, the Douglas win is probably the best ever for me. And then you can make a case for Schmeling-Louis and Leonard-Hagler and perhaps others, but Duran-Leonard definitely is in the discussion as well.

 

the 27-0 Leonard was "green" argument doesn't jive with me. … A super BW goes up to 147 and beats SRL at his best weight ,, it's absolutely one of the best wins

 

Like I said, for me, Hearns destroying Cuevas six weeks later probably equals what Duran did by outpointing Leonard.
In the same division, just six weeks later.
I daresay the list of comparable wins over the entire length of boxing history is long.

 

I don't think he was "green". I think he was prime.
I just don't rate him as high as most do, or as high as the American media had him in 1980.

 

You can make a case for that, yes.

Well, depends on how you define long. But, sure, the answer depends on what criteria you use and there are several you can use with different weight without being unreasonable imo. Bowe-Holy is another win that could enter this discussion.

But being undisputed champion in one weight class and then going up two weight classes to beat a prime version of a fighter many has as the second best ever of that weight class (which also is viewed as one of the most stacked weight classes in boxing historically), is a very rare, perhaps unique, achievement. For whatever that's worth.