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

I'll ask again - are you seriously saying Leonard was as good at middle as Duran was at welter? Seriously?

(PS: sorry to burst your bubble, but the Benitez, Hearns and Cuevas fights were not at welter and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion)

 

Theres a lot of twisting of facts and double standards. And thats the only way leonard ranks above roberto.
ps; the third fight really proves what PP? If we go by that logic then rooster is right,leonard was always vulnerable to prime hungry fast punchers like norris!!!

 

believe me, he was.

Forget Micheal Nunn, that would be too much for him. I think someone like Pavlik would be a good match for him tho because he reminds me a lot of lalonde

 

arrrrrrrrrrgh! Irony!!! Arrrrrgh it ****ing burrrrrrrrns!!!!

 

Ok,leonard was a one time middleweight champ with no defenses. He lost to norris and camacho,got a dodgy draw with hearns,disputably beat an old hagler and beat the great marcos geraldo.....You can spin your view anyway you want.
Fact,roberto beat prime leonard at 147,palamino,a few contendors and lost ONLY to leonard at 147....Now stop repeating half truths and never weres punchy...

 

Solid post:good


I can't believe how many ****ing people are even mentioning Leonard's loss to Camacho.. That was what? Leonard's first appearance in some 6 years? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Come on PP,were getting a bit silly now. If you look at the thread 'best 3 fighters since robinson' you will see i had leonard very highly ranked,i think leonard would give a lot of good middles a good fight,but i think he would be beaten by a lot as well. I feel duran is a better ww than leonard a middle,but in the context of this discussion,who cares really. I thought we were asking about if ray can be ranked above duran? And overall and resume wise it cant be done. Duran was competitive in terms of winning itles at three original weights (135,147,160.) leonard was competitive in two (147 and 160.) just. Leonard has NO form at 175 (duran equivelent of 160) and ray has no longevity compared to duran. Where lenny can compete with duran is in how good he looks on film,his beating FOUR atgs,his all round boxing skills, and the fact that he had all the intangibles at 147.....But still,he aint roberto....
ps; of course im not using the camacho loss against leonard (or norris.) but im showing you that using just bare facts or logic skews the general meaning of a given context.

 

I think way too much is made of Duran's longevity and extended reign at lightweight. When it all comes down to it, the best accomplishment of his career was beating Leonard........Period.... Ray took to out of three against him, plus beat THREE all time greats who ALL BEAT DURAN..... leonard also has far fewer losses and was NEVER beaten by a guy like Kirkland Laing or Robbie Simms.

 

Really,this is just going round in circles,and getting biased/emotional.
Most guys who are unbiased think BOTH are true greats,but i think you wont find many who put leonard ahead of duran.
even putting longevity aside slightly,do you not think its prudent that duran was by far the smallest,oldest and most ring worn of the fab four,yet still performed very well,and has the best win of the lot.
Judging duran solely on his form above welter (which is what many youngsters and biased folks do.) is tantamount to judging ray solely from the hagler fight on,hearns from the roldan fight on and hagler from his roldan fight on. I think its quite intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that duran at 135-147 is something like 80-1-1 with 55 odd kos,and i include the leonard loss as that was at welter. From 1967 to 198 duran lost twice,he avenged the loss to dejesus emphatically and obviously the rematch with leonard cam e to late and at to high a weight to make any difference. How can anyone say the leonard duran trilogy is effectively 2-1? If so,we should hold the later of leonard two losses as carrer defining as well,after all duran was about 38 for uno mas,and 25 pounds above his natural weight...

 

Yeah, let's just pick wha we like out of a career to make he fighter we like more look better.

Like I said before, Leonard has the better depth at the very top (Duran, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler against Leonard) but Duran has better depth overall, the best single win, the better longevity and better dominance. That's why he should ranked higher. And I don't think it's that close.

 

How can you lose credibility when you have none to start with???

Dunno, but you've managed it with this post. :-(