A Case for Ray Leonard being rated over Duran - An Analysis

No, because you're forgetting all the other defences Duran made. The key wins do not amount to being more highly fought of.

Duran has a better resume 'across the board' IMO :good

 

I cannot agree with anyone rating Leonard over Duran. SRL's lack of longevity forbids it. A few solid gold victories does not beat two decades at the top across different eras and different weight classes. JMHO.

 

Sometimes I wonder if PowerPuncher is a racist. No matter in what discussion he always prefers black fighters over others and most of the time with ridiculous arguments. :huh

 

I've noticed that with numerous posters (mostly in the General), PP being one of them.

 

PP's racism is well documented

 

I've heard he thinks Missy Elliot is hotter than Paris Hilton.

 

I feel durans win over leonard is better than leonards over hagler. Leonard was closer to prime,unbeaten and much bigger than duran. Duran also won clearly.
Buchananan is possibly better at 135 than benny at 147.
Durans first loss was a non title fight over ten rounds,and he was obviously not prime. Duran never lost his 135 title.

Duran avenged his losses more emphatically AND when said opponent was still prime.
Rather than 'best' defense we should have 'best win'. and that goes to monsieur roberto for beating prime leonard.
Best wins above natural weight? Duran has leonard,moore,barkley,castro and the hagler loss to boot. 135-160 is better than 147-168. (and leonards only venture at 168 was lalonde,durans has lots of good performances at 160.)
Longevity and past prime perfomances dont even neeed an explanation.

Head to head at 135 duran is no1,leonard is where at 147?

Leonard is a phenomenal fighter,one of the greatest of all time,but p4p,head to head AND at 147 duran is greater....Montreal 1980 gives you a graphic illustration why.....

 

Buchanan is probably rated higher with Lightweight than Benitez is within Welterweight

 

I rank Buchanan higher than Benitez p4p, and Duran's win over Leonard is far better than Leonard's win over Hagler. PP's "analysis" is too skewed to be of any value to anyone other than himself.

 

This is some kind of Pugilistic Blasphemy. Let's all team up and go to his house w/ torches and burn him down. HOW DARE YOU SIR? Just reading it, I threw up a little. THIS is the reason that heroin is outlawed in many states. Is your name Mike Trainer? This is the most rediculous thing I've ever read. Next you'll be saying that Ali was better than Lewis. :good-reminds me of the cover of Don McClean's "American Pie" album.

 

Marvin Hagler was a long standing middle weight champion, whereas Leonard had not yet established himself as being so dominant. Additionally, Leonard was coming back after a three year layoff, had NEVER before fought at this class, and was predicted to get slaughtered. Duran had a few wins at welterweight upon facing Leonard, was still in his prime, and was given a fair chance.. Taken into account all the circumstances, I don't know why you'd rate this as a better win..

 

If Leonard fought on longer & added more title defences & didnt retire for a large part of his prime yrs then I would rank him over Duran.

I think he has Duran beat (close tho) on overall boxing ability & he beat better fighters in Hearns, Benitez & Hagler (who were also common opponents that Duran failed to beat)

As it is I have Duran one spot over Leonard, the longevity being the main reason.... few fighters in history have more ability than Roberto but Leonard might just be one of the ones that does.

 

I don't have a problem with people rating Duran over Leonard on the basis of a more dominant reign in a single division, but outside of that, the argument gets rather slim, and a fair statement can be made in favor of Leonard as well....

Sugar Ray may have had far fewer fights than Duran, but who's record has more padding and who's has more substance? Leonard not only took 2 out of 3 against Duran when both were at comparable stages of their careers, but also defeated at least 3 great fighters who had wins over Duran.. Leonard also had far fewer losses and was never beaten by a fighter like Kirkland Laing or Robbie Simms. You can say that Duran fought until being further past his prime, but Leonard also has the claim to having far longer periods of inactivity between big fights, and virtually no fluff bouts as tune-ups in the interim.

Again, I don't take issue with Roberto having a higher rating, but It's not a rule that has to be written in stone in my opinion.

 

This is pretty circular. You've basically cherry-picked all the respects in which Leonard probably surpasses Duran as a basis on which to make the comparison. No wonder Leonard comes out on top.