greeter fighter - Duran or Ali

No, Ray at that point was still far better than Foreman.

He was just as good as ever, and his performance against Benitez was just as good as anything following.

He was not just a "skinny twenty four year old" he was one of the best fighters ever. Even if he wasn't quite at his best yet, Leonard at his best so much better than Foreman, a slight dip in quality doesn't close the gap. Leonard was always multitudes better than George ever was.

 

Are you saying Sugar Ray Leonard's fifteen round decision over Wilfed Benitez is more impressive then George Foreman knocking out Joe Frazier and Ken Norton in two rounds while knocking them down nine times in the process?

 

I don't know what point you're trying to argue against. I'm not giving Duran brownie points for facing top fighters while past his best. I simply pointed out that his losses to Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Benitez, was obviously not from a lack of skill. It was from either being above his best weight, being past his best, having not trained, or all three. I don't know if you noticed, but there aren't many fighters who are naturally twenty pounds smaller, who are going the distance with monsters like Hagler. Ali gets a pass for essentially being beaten by Young, Norton and Shavers while past his best. So why doesn't Duran against four, far, far superior fighters?

Duran was clearly more skilled than Ali was. It's right there on film.

Furthermore, Ali's win over Foreman both isn't the best win in heavyweight history, and while undeniably an UNBELIEVABLE win, isn't on par with Duran-Leonard I. Duran-Leonard I is the best win of all-time. Leonard was better than Foreman - who really gets overrated, in terms of ability he wasn't even as good as than Benitez, let alone Leonard - and the cards were stacked against Duran far worse than they were Ali. Duran was moving up two weights, against a fighter who is essentially on the short list for one of the five best fighters ever. Just because people at the time thought Foreman was gonna kill Ali doesn't make it a better win; the quality of the opponent means far more than the odds, and

I don't think you really know much about Duran if you think he has to cling to the Leonard win to be an all-time great. His resume is very, very deep. He isn't the greatest lightweight of all-time off a fight that happened at welterweight.

Sure, I agree Ali is greater, but the difference is EXTREMELY small, and the best win between the two is easily Duran-Leonard I, as it's the best win ever.

 

No, I'm saying Leonard was a better fighter than Foreman was. I cited Benitez as an unbelievable performance to highlight the fact that Leonard was in his prime.

And just for the record, I am absolutely, 100% more impressed with whitewashing Benitez than I am KOing Norton. Norton was nowhere near as good as Benitez. In terms of quality of the win, I'd probably put Leonard-Benitez on the same level as Frazier-Foreman.

 

Ali was at worst, very slightly past his best. He turned in one of his career best performances. It isn't the same as moving up from lightweight to welterweight. That's a much worse situation to be in, especially when you're opponent is now bigger, heavier, taller, quicker and has a longer reach. Then throw in the fact that the second opponent was clearly, far superior, and it should really be obvious which win was better.

People fearing for Ali's life doesn't make the win ineffable. It makes a great story. Ali was a 4/1 underdog, not a 40/1 underdog. He upset a dominant champ and it's one of the best wins in heavyweight history. But what is really is, is a man who was underestimated against a man who was unjustly feared. Foreman was a monster, but he was never as good as Sugar Ray Leonard.

 

Styles make fights and the transitive argument that if a beats b and beats c a can beat c too doesn't work. Tha

Leonard was a better pound for pound fighter than Big George. That's not in dispute. The consensus is Ray was much better. The question to me is what was the bigger mountain- a past his prime Ali whose prime was stolen by boxing commissions across the country beating a monster smack dab in the middle of his prime like George Foreman or a prime Duran coming up in weight to beat a near prime Ray Leonard.

 

For me, the bigger mountain was easily Leonard.

He was harder to beat, and moving up 12lbs is more insurmountable than being slightly past your best.

 

I disagree with the two premises you make that Ali-Foreman is not the greatest ever HW win and that Duran's win over Leonard is the greatest win ever. Ali beating Foreman shocked the world. Duran beating Leonard shocked 7-Up.

In 1980, Duran was essentially a welterweight. He was always big at lightweight and he'd finally cut the 135lb shackles off. He was moving into a fight where he could fight at what was now his natural weight.

I also disagree that the margin of how great Ali and Duran were is EXTREMELY small. Ali has wins against three top 10/15 heavyweights. When Duran went up against fighters in the top ten of their weight class, with the exception of Leonard and, arguably, Buchanan, he lost. Doesn't matter if he was old or over his best weight. There's only so much credit you can give for a gallant losing effort. You're British. You'll get that.

Duran also has New Orleans on his ledger and that baggage weighs him down when pitted against someone like Ali in terms of measuring greatness. Yes, he went 15 rounds with the bigger, younger Hagler, yes, he beat Barkley aged 37 but he walked away in the middle of what was the biggest fight of his career at that point. It matters.

However, while I disagree with you, I take my hat off for a very good argument. Best thing I have read on Duran since your essay putting a case forward that he is the best ever.

 

I just looked. Leonard was a 9-5 favorite against Duran. Foreman was a 4-1 favorite against Ali. As to fear the fear of Foreman it was justified . He almost decapitated Joe Frazier and almost knocked poor Kenny out of the ring.

 

The odds shouldn't effect how good a win something is. The quality of the opponent you beat should.

 

The Golden Boy is one of ny favorite fighters but the knock on him is he lost more big fights than he won. Can the same be said or not be said about Duran? Duran was one of the Four Kings and his record is 1-4 against them.

 

-Quality of the opponent? Foreman beat the two best heavyweights on the planet in Frazier and Norton. WHO ELSE was he supposed to beat to be regarded as a quality opponent? Foreman is definitely as daunting of a challenge as Leonard. Considering how much Ali diminished, that the odds were against him, that Foreman was prime and undefeated and beat two men who beat Ali, there is nothing outrageous in claiming Ali beating him is comparable or even superior to Duran beating Leonard. Nobody to my knowledge was writing off Duran as a washed up ex champ or concerned he might get hospitalized.

-Ali was older than Duran when he beat Leonard. Definitely more diminished in relfexes and athleticism too. The only other great wins Ali pulled off after Zaire was narrowly beating Frazier (who was past his prime and Ali barely survived because Futch threw the towel), and beating spinks which is honestly only good for historical purposes (3x champ). Spinks wasn't that good before or after the Ali fights. Duran would go on to have some very good wins including beating Barkley long after the Leonard fight and was still in good shape and functional. Ali had become a zombie.

-i didn't say Duran has to cling to the Leonard win to be regarded as an ATG. I said that if you compare Ali vs Duran and look at their best opponents, Ali did way better. He has Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, etc. Duran went 1-5 against Leonard, Benitez, Hagler, and Hearns. Ali was also past his prime for several of those wins. There is no comparison.

 

Ali was significantly past his best and had to reinvent himself for that fight. Duran was more comfortable at welterweight as evidence by the fact he never went down in weight again.

 

You've read my post wrong. I don't mean Foreman and Leonard's quality of opposition, I mean the quality of Foreman and Leonard themselves, IE: they're the opponent of Ali and Duran, and the quality of those two specifically is what matters. Leonard was far better than Foreman, and Duran jumping up two weights is more impressive than Ali rewinning the title. People underestimating what Ali had left doesn't make it a better win. Leonard-Duran I is clearly the better win. RITJ isn't even as impressive as FOTC.

Ali just a few fights prior against Norton looked brilliant and showed he wasn't far off his prime; and his performance against Foreman himself shows he wasn't anywhere close to being well past his best. Not to mention holding the title for years after. Duran beating Barkley is not proof he wasn't past his best, it's proof that even best his best he was still brilliant. I didn't think that needs spelling out given he held Hagler right down to the wire. I don't know whether you're saying Ali was a zombie against Foreman, but it's absolutely ridiculous if you are.

No, you just heavily implied it. His resume is extremely deep, and he'd still be a top twenty fighter without ever fighting Leonard. And no, Ali was past his best for ONE of this wins, not several. And it's not even a proper comparison. Ali fought his best opponents without giving up size and was normally in his best condition. Duran wasn't - which doesn't always excuse the losses - and the opponent's Duran fought were way better anyway. There's no lightweight in history who would do better in Duran's shoes. The same could arguably be said for Ali, to be fair, but there's far more candidates for that then there is for Duran.

 

No, he wasn't. Duran was never more comfortable than he was at lightweight in the mid 70s, and the fact he gradually moved up doesn't mean he doesn't deserve credit for beating a larger man in Leonard.

Ali's prime didn't end with the three years off. He was just as good in the Quarry rematch as he ever was in the 60s IMO. He was at absolute worst, slightly past his best against Foreman. The proof is in the pudding, just watch him.