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

Duran is not a better h2h fighter than Leonard... forget the 3rd fight, look at the first two fights.... any version of Duran, Montreal or otherwise doesnt beat the Leonard of the 2nd Duran or 1st Hearns fight, believe that because its very true, the video evidence is there.

 

:deal

A terribly one sided argument.

 

The video evidence is there that it wasn't the same Duran.

Trust me.

 

And H2H is against all opponents, not just against each other

 

The video evidence is there that it wasnt the same Leonard that turned up in fight 2 as well... it works both ways & Leonard`s win was clearer.

 

With that being said, how do you quantify Duran as being better when sized against the rest of the field? Duran not only lost 2 out of 3 to Leonard, but was also bested by Hagler, Hearns and Benitez - 3 fighters who Leonard defeated... Has Duran ever beaten a single opponent who Leonard couldn't?

 

Exactly... the best common opponents were all beaten by Leonard... those same opponents all beat Duran & very clearly at that.

 

Okay, how many atg lightweights does Leonard beat?

See what I mean? Duran is the best lightweight ever as well as one of the best welters.

I wouldn't say Leonard is one of the best middles, would you?

 

Leonards win over hagler is stupendous,of course. But i feel the duran win over leonard is better,partly because i rate leonard much higher p4p than hagler,and because the size disparity between duran and leonard is much bigger than between hagler and leonard. (in fact leonard is taller than hagler and doesnt really look smaller either.)
Leonards best four wins just shade duran best four (benitez,duran,hearns and hagler,as opposed to buchananan,palmino,leonard and barkley.) But duran has many more better wins overall,plus great performances way beyond his natural weight. (hagler,castro,camacho,etc.)
Its possible that leonard AESTHETICALLY is more complete a boxer,but durans style worked against all comers in his prime,and was still effective when he was outsized and outgunned. I cant see the equivelent leonard performance to duran beating barkley or going 15 with peak hagler. If leonard could go 15 with mike spinks,or beat virgil hill then he would be comparable. Remember duran was a lightweight til 26/27 and fought till 50. While leonard was getting his ass whipped by norris at 34,and camacho at 40,duran was beating middleweight champ jorge castro...
ps: montreal 1980 shows most all they need to know about head to head when BOTH were at their best....(not forgetting it was not robertos natural weight.) How do you feel leonard would do against duran if they were both natural 135ers? Or any others of the fab four for that matter?......Thought so...

 

I think Quality of opposition as well as the results against common opponents and even in actual face to face match-ups outweighs the claim to long term dominance in a single division. I'm also not buying this claim that Duran was diminished in the second Leonard fight.. He was 29 years old, coming off the biggest win of his career, and would continue to fight for another 20 years.. I think the rematch said more about LEONARD being a changed man rather than Duran...

 

I wouldnt say Duran was one of the best ever WWs, a past prime Palomino & Leonard are his only significant wins & the Leonard win was avenged in a decisive manner.

A peak Leonard would give any MW that ever lived a good fight, he would be competitive but I agree, he is definitely not an ATG MW... exact same applies to Duran at 147 IMO, not much difference at all.

 

I respectfully disagree; Palomino was not 'past prime' and Duran would beat a lot of ATG Welters IMO :good

 

The BIGGEST mistake guys make when analysing the fab four is not recognising the FACT,that duran was by far the smallest,oldest and most ring worn than any of the others. He also never fought any of the others in his natural weight. You put hearns,hagler and leonard past their natural weights against atgs and i guarantee you they will be losing many more than they win. Hagler holyfield anyone? Hearns foster? Leonard jones?

 

This statement makes no sense...

Did Leonard not venture beyond his natural weight class to capture titles at Jr middleweight and Middleweight? Was Haglar not an all time great when Leonard beat him? Was he not past his prime?

How about Hearns? Was he not the king of jumping weight classes and accumulating multiple belts at those classes, and even past prime for some of those fights? Your statement may hold true for Hagler, but not the other two..