I rate Leonard higher (currently). Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler. 4 ATG fighters, all had a different style. Duran beat 1 ATG- Leonard. All the other fighters Duran beat were a level or two below Leonard's opposition. Duran had a long reign at LW but the only names that really stand out from that 6 year reign are- Buchanan and De Jesus. Both were great fighters. Duran moved up to WW and beat Leonard. One of the greatest wins in boxing history. But then he quit in the rematch (in the middle of a round). Afterwards, it was a real rollercoaster ride. Duran gets tons of credit for going 15 against Hagler and giving him a tough fight. But then people act like Duran didn't get starched by Hearns in his next fight. He was good enough to beat Cuevas and Moore back to back. But he also lost to Benitez and Laing back to back. A year before he beat Cuevas/Moore. If we look at both highs/lows of their careers, I feel Leonard had the better career. I understand that Duran was the smaller man moving up in weight and fighting bigger guys. But he showed he could hold his own against the big guys. If Duran can outmuscle and outbox a welterweight great in Palomino, then he's not too small for Leonard (small but not a midget by any means). And Duran had been a welterweight for 2½ years when he fought Leonard the first time. If Duran can go 15 rounds against Hagler at 160 and beat the crap out of Moore/Cuevas at 154, then he didn't lose to Hearns/Benitez because he was too small. Overall, I rate Leonard higher for beating superior opposition and beating all of them. He beat every ATG he fought (before Norris).
Nothing wrong with that tally for Duran-Leonard 1 and there's nothing even faintly controversial about that unanimous decision win, which is why I was confused by @Senya13's comment (unless I misunderstood). Fight 2 was pretty conclusive I'd say, although it was certainly unsatisfactory in the way it ended.
Duran in terms of long time consistency, Leonard in terms of challenges beaten. Some here let their personal feelings about Leonard cloud what the man accomplished in the boxing ring. Benitez, Duran, Hearns, All in the PRIMES of their career speaks volumes about the man's abilities, then to come back and defeat the greatest Middleweight in history, when everyone thought he wouldn't even survive the fight, can be compared to any fighter in history accomplishments if one is honest with self. But , Leonard also could've accomplished much more. And the fact his own nonsense cost him that very top of the ladder . Duran's consistency from his total destruction of the light weight division, his improbable win against, Leonard, Moore, and Barkley, and his very competitive fight with a much fresher Hagler speaks volumes about his skills when he was motivated. Duran, deserves his spot in front of Leonard. But, that spot isn't close to the "country mile". As one poster wrote. In reality his consistency boost him a few steps ahead.
I weigh both out and it depends on the margin. I can see Leonard having an edge in big name wins but also lost some of those as well. I think where he loses a bit of stature is his unwillingness to grant rematches in a decent time frame. That bit of manipulation backfired when he got more than he bargained for with Hearns the 2nd time around. He got a bit of a gift there though he did stage a strong late rally. It's not as if Duran doesn't have high quality himself to go along with his longevity.
Duran is the only Lightweight in the history of boxing to win the Middleweight Championship. That covers alot of territory. Lightweight has some of the greatest champions to ever lace them up but only one man did it. I don't have Duran as the GOAT but he probably belongs in the top 5.
Barkley had stopped some of Hearns right hands with his face as well before putting him to sleep. Meanwhile Leonard won 2 of his titles in the same night against Donny LaLonde. Legally he couldn't do what he did but they allowed it. He was $ guy.
I actually wasn't even considering Lalonde in my figuring, as he's pretty marginal compared to some of Leonard's other wins, and I certainly don't bother with thinking about belts. I'm just asking myself "who beat the better guys?" The answer is Leonard.
That's the elephant in the room. Duran has multitudes more filler than Leonard. I still take Duran but it has to be taken into consideration.
I'm with you brother, it's not that close for me. He spent the majority of his career using his popularity to go in and out of retirement and cherrypick. Too many other boxers put in the WORK. He also lost, Duran, a SBW. Hearns 2 and Norris ( sorry you don't get the shopworn argument in your #39 fight ) .. It counts against same as his wins for … I would even put Hagler over SRL and maybe even consider Hearns.. The other 3 put in the work. If you are going to have only 40 fights, you better run the table or very close because I'm definitely not going to give you another 25 fights and assume you are going to be successful. Sorry , you have to put in the work. But again, it all comes down to what is important to you. So I guess there is no wrong answer here ….
