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

Theres some really crazy logic being used in this thread to get us to a "shot" Hagler losing to a near peak Leonard!!

 

It's amazing what one can accomplish by simply ignoring half the facts.

 

ote=mr. magoo;6098733]So what does that tell you? For me, it says that a very competant all time great boxer was taken completely out of his game and destroyed, because his opponent ( Hagler ) had what it took to make it happen. For most people, this would not be taken as an indicator of being "shot".
His reflexes,foot and handspeed were gone.He was shot.But,he still had fine power and a granite,and I do mean granite,chin.





The Roldan meeting took place in March of 1984, two months BEFORE Leonard's fight with Howard. By your logic, Leonard should have taken advantage of this performance and fought Hagler THEN.... What does he do instead? He waits a full THREE years AFTER having a lack luster performance of his own to sign for the fight..... Do you think Leonard felt that his own diminished skills were going to improve as time went on?
Exactly the point.Leonard's so-so against Howard,then all of a sudden 3 years later thinks he can beat one of the greatest middles of all time close enough to prime?Use your head,man.




So you think that Leonard's retirment was just all smoke and mirrors and planned to call it quits for an undecided amount of time, with a Hagler fight in mind down the road? Sounds like a stretch to me.
Maybe,I can't be sure.But what I do know is that Leonard retired and unretired at least twice.



Oh I get it quite clearly... You want everyone to just ignore the fact that Leonard was past his prime, had fought only once in 5 years, was jumping weight classes and at a terrible disadvantage, all so that we can focus on the fact that HAGLER was shot, and that Ray's campaign to retire for 3 years and come back with the intention of waiting for Hagler's demise was all just a big scheme....
If he didn't,why did he spend at least 6 years discussing a possible Hagler fight?Why didn't he just shut the **** up and go away?But more importantly,you never responded to the other point.How could he retire after just decent Howard because he thought he wasn't fighting well anymore,but come back 3 years later thinking he could beat Hagler if Hagler weren't shot?Please just think logically.
I'm finished here....[/quote]
No.Come back,please.We're not done here,yet.

 

Gaz,with all due respect,look at my previous posts.Where the **** did I once write that Leonard was near prime?I previously wrote that he was past it,but nowhere near as shopworn or shot as Hagler.Please do not misrepresent me.

 

I certainly agree with that 100%.

 

I agree with much of this.

You're especially right about the revisionism concerning the win over Hagler. Anyone who says that is anything but a truly great win is not to be taken seriously.

The Leonard-Duran trilogy is more ambigous. The third don't count that much for me. Duran's win in Montreal was definitely the greatest in the series, but his loss in New Orleans was undoubtly much worse than Leonard's in Montreal.

That he is 5-1-1 (which should be 5-2, though) against Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler is fantastic.

Duran's late career wins should not be made light of. Some (most notably Barkley) were truly amazing.

All in all, I can't really see Leonard ahead of Duran, however much I'd like to. Duran's activity and longevity wins him the day.

 

Sorry mate I was exagerating and being a bit sarky but I still still think getting a "shot" Hager using the evidence of the Roldan, Hearns and Mugabi fights is a massive stretch of the facts.

 

Thank you.

Now there is a well balanced and reasonably thought out post in favor of Duran that I can live with...

 

I think some of the time these "versus" threads can end up with people being so keen that their man "wins" that the other fighters career gets pulled down at any cost.

FWIW I have it for Duran based on his lengthy lightweight reign and the fact he was still good enough to be a top flight 147, 154 and 160lber when well past his prime but its easy to acknowledge the criteria that would see Leonard get the nod.

 

Ray has to be seen as greater since he beat the greater fighters. 4 of them. He had a short career compared to Duran, but Ray beat great fighters and Duran only beat Ray and then lost easily. Ray is greater. If you want to rate fighting for 30 years then Hearns has to be rated above Ray also. Beating great fighters has to be the criteria for being great. Duran lacks in his wins over ATG fighters. Ray does not lack at all and thrives.

 

Duran is 1-5 against the best guys he ever fought. Duran gets too much credit for some of his wins and his opponents not enough credit for beating him.

 

Leonard is more skilled and has better wins than Duran.
Sugar Ray Leonard > Reberto Duran.

Now I will read the opening post of this thread.

 

Duran was out of his natural weight class and past his prime when he fought those guys. Allowances have to be made for that, the fact that he was competitive in most of those fights is pretty impressive given the opposition and the circumstances.

(His 6 year reign as world lightweight champ prior to taking on Leonard, Hearns and Duran is also not to be sniffed at!!)

 

I consider Duran 2 weight divisions smaller than Leonard

Duran 135 and under
Buchanan
DeJesus x2
Marcel
+ 7 year reign as champ

147 and under
Leonard
Palomino

160 and under
Barkley
Moore
Cuevas
Hagler L

160+
Castro

Leonard 147 and under
Hearns
Duran
Benitez

160 and under
Hagler
Kalule
Duran

175 and under
Lalonde
Hearns D

I think Duran had the better career. He had a couple of embarrassing losses but also far greater longevity.

 

We shall continue to agree to disagree,then.