Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P?

I don't think this has been thought through... I agree that there's not much in them. I would say that there's not much between Leonard and Hearns either.

Some of the points put forward are dubious though.

 

I like your post PP. I think theoretically there i a case for ranking leonard equal or even above duran,for the exact points you made.
Leonard also has no 'unprofessional' outings or a quit job...
I think a case can be made for leonard being the best welter of all time above even robinson,his welter world title resume quality is better than robinsons...His win against hagler is also a masterpiece comparable with the duran win over leonard. (though i dont think it is as good as montreal.) And leonard also missed many of his peak years through injury....
However,was leonard ever as dominant as duran was at 135? NO. Was leonard as great at middle as duran was at welter? NO. Could leonard have fought an atg great prime lt heavy (spinks,moore,charles etc.) and taken him fifteen tough rounds? ( i take a 135 duran v 160 hagler to be equivelent to ray battling an atg lt heavy.) NO.
The final nail in the coffin is,if all of the fab four fought head to head and were all 135ers prime for prime who would come out top? ANSWER: duran runs them all out of the ring....

 

Poor Rooster is not allowed to play

I don´t think it´s crazy but I think you to be either biased for Leonard or against Duran. There is not much between them but like with some fights: it´s close but clear.

Won´t dispute that.

You ignore here that Duran beat DeJesus 2 times and that he reigned for 8 years. How long did Leonard reign? Longevity counts quite a bit imo. Take that into account and Duran get´s the better of Leonard.
Also let me ask you this: Who would rank higher with only the career at their prime weight, Duran or Leonard?

Well, you totally ignore that Duran was two weightclasses above his prime weight in those fights. That adds a lot to his win, Leonard definitly fought a better fight in the second fight than in the first but Duran was also in bad shape fo the second one - even Leonard himself admitted that when he said they wanted so fast as possible again because they knew he could not be in shape.
Take all this into account and Duran got the better of Leonard.

Yep, Leoanrd looked better but again you ignore the fact that Duran was always fighting two more wieghtclasses above his best than Leonard. It is also widely accepted that Duran was past it past the first Leonard fight.When you take that into account, Duran´s performances are even more remarkable.
Leonard was prime against Hearns and Benitez and at his best weight, Duran was fighting them 3 weightclasses above his bes weight while beeing past his best. In their first fights both were at or still very close to their prime. Leonard fought and beat Hagler 2 weightclasses above his best but Hagler was past his best himself and this is a discussed decision up until today. Duran on the other hand fought a prime Hagler while beeing past his best and 4 weightclasses above his best weight and Hagler had to do very well in the championship rounds to win the fight.
While on paper it´s very clearly that Leonard got the better of Duran in that one but when you look deeper it´s much much closer.

The Leonard Duran fought was better than the Hagler Leonard fought. I agree that Duran was better against Leonard than Leonard against Hagler also. But the decision of Leonard-Hagler is still discussed until today while nobody argues Leonard won against Duran.
Imo Duran´s win is a better one because of that and because Leoanrd simply was a better fighter than Hagler.

Well, I think those wins are about even.

Well, I don´t think that there is much into Leonards lhw title he made Lalonde to come down in weight to fight him, weight-draining him. If the fight would have happened at lhw I would agree but not like that. Also, winning against Barkley after he beat Hearns, keep in mind Tommy beat Duran, is a better win imo. Also the size difference between Duran and Barkley was clearly bigger.

They should not be leagues apart but in my oppinion only the Top4, Greb, Robbinson, Langford, Armstrong are clearly better than the other 16 of the top20. The rest is more or less interchangable but I think you shouldn´t rank Leoanrd above Duran, you can but you have to be biased to do so. Like I said it´s close but clear.

 

Sure he can.

 

I think both Loewe and enquirer made good points here, as did you PP. There are many aspects in this, but the one one big difference is Duran's longevity. He still had great performances and wins at an age when Leonard effectively was washed up. I highly value fighters who still manage to be very good even when their physical assets are greatly diminshed. Duran managed this more so than Leonard, I would say.

 

PowerPuncher, I have Duran rated at 5 and Leonard at 11, and if I was biased it would be toward Leonard. You make some very valid and well thought out points. I don't think it's outrageous to rate Leonard higher. I don't, but that's my opinion. In the history of the sport, we're probably talking about a handful of spots between these guys. I do agree with Loewe's point that all things being equal, you have to give credit to the longevity of Duran's reign at Lightweight.

 

1) Where did 5 best wins as a benchmark come from? Doesn't this sort of favour Leonard? Also why no mention of Ernesto Marcel? If we got to top 10 then I think Duran is a clear winner. Also you have to factor in that Barkley etc were much bigger than Duran and that Duran was so past it by this point that most had this as a mismatch going in...

Also 2 guys on Leonard's list are moving up. Nobody is moving up to take on Duran.

2) Again put in Marcel, put in Dejesus twice... who is moving up etc...

3) What about if Duran had lost to Salvador Sanchez? How would that be viewed?

4) You could only really argue that is they'd have fought a 3rd time quickly after the second.

6) Duran was not a one hit wonder at 147. Take a look at his record. Duran's perfomance against Leonard was par excellence. I've never seen such a great example of boxing a bigger, stronger, faster man. Duran won that on pure skill. leonard's win is great and I agree gets downgraded tooeasily but is not on a apr with Duran's win.

7) except that Leonard was moving up one division whereas Duran was moving up 3. Moore was considered the next big thing at the time. 2 good fighters but again in a p4p sense what Duran achieved was much better.

8) Barkley was a warrior who beat Hearns, laLonde was a decent fighter with a punch. And in relative terms Duran was furtehr above his best weight than Leonard.

I agree with the sentiment that there's not much to choose between them but Duran is still clearly above Leonard, not by much, but enough for it to be accepted.

 

"4) You could only really argue that is they'd have fought a 3rd time quickly after the second."

I think people, and I include myself in this, are way too quick to discount the 3rd fight. We all give Duran great credit for beating the huge Middleweight Barkley, but we want to completely discount the loss to Leonard within the same calendar year. I don't think it means as much as the first two, but to discount it is unfair to Leonard. Sure Duran was more equipped to handle Barkley's style better than Leonards, but Leonard was just several levels above Barkley as a fighter. Credit to him.

 

Obviously. Leonard has the best top 4 wins in the history of the sport likely, but aside from that his resume is quite thin in comparison to Duran's and most ATG's.

His top wins are better, he was NOT a more dominant fighter at the weight.

The circumstances are very different with each fighter's career though, you're not taking that into consideration.

That's not much of an argument. Duran was clearly not the same, that goes without saying, people who dispute it are either biased and unwilling to compromise or simply don't understand what they're watching.

Leonard lost the rematch to Hearns in reality, so he should be 5-2. Either way, as you said, Duran was fighting the much bigger fighters every time, normally nowhere near his prime, which wasn't the case with Leonard outside of his fight with Hagler. And only 32-33? Duran began boxing profesionally at age 16, that's 17 years under his belt. It's pretty clear he was past his prime post Leonard I, but his sheer passion made up for it when he was able to work up the motivation in certain matchups past his prime.

That's just bull****, through and through. Duran dominated Leonard up until the late rounds when he let him catch up. Leonard arguably lost to Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time, both past their prime. Not even on par.

The Kalambay fight was a clear robbery from all accounts, though I've not seen it.

Barkley was at least a level above LaLonde.

Not leagues apart, but Duran holds an edge IMO.

 

You make a very good case for Leonard and I think SRL was a truly great fighter, an elite ATG IMO, top 15 p4p of all-time.

I think Duran should be a top 10 p4p of all-time and therefore a greater fighter than Leonard for the following reasons:

1.IMO, Duran's win over Leonard beats any win on Leonard's resume. Duran was a natural lightweight and so was fighting 12lbs above his optimum fighting weight. Leonard was a natural welter, was undefeated, and had just proved he was a magnificent fighter with his domination of Benitez. Duran, older and smaller, produced a STUNNING performance, IMO the greatest win by any fighter in a bout that there is camera footage of. Duran dominated the fight until the late rounds - the rounds were competitive yes, but Duran was winning the vast majority. It was a masterclass, and has the clear edge over Leonard's win over Duran, Hearns and Hagler in my eyes.

2.Longevity. Duran beat the excellent Ken Buchanan to win the world lightweight title in 1972. He beat Iran Barkley in 1989 to win the world middleweight title. These two great performances span 17 years. Leonard's first great performance was in 1979 v Benitez and his last was in 1987 v Hagler (or 88-89 if you think Lalonde or Hearns II were great performances- but I do not). Duran has 103 wins and 70 KOs. Leonard has 36 wins and 25 KOs. Before the rematch with Leonard, Duran was 71-1.

3.Rather than focusing on a couple of big names to decide who had the greater resume, widen the scope. Duran's top seven wins were: Buchanan, deJesus twice, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley. Leonard's were: Benitez, Hagler, Hearns, Duran... Kalule? Lalonde? Someone else to make up the seven? Duran has more top quality wins than Leonard.

4.The common opponents comparison is not fair, as they were all fought at weights that Leonard was more comfortable at, and when Duran was getting on in years. Duran was fighting 25lbs above his natural weight by the time he fought Hagler, 19lbs higher than his natural fighting weight when fighting Hearns. This comparison is not fair at all and proves nothing.

5.IMO, Duran was a better lightweight than Leonard was a welterweight. This is only my opinion though and is very much open to debate, but it is a reason I use in making my own decision, so I thought I should include it as this is my explanation of why I rate Duran higher. Many would disagree in favour of Benny Leonard or Joe Gans or others, but I believe Roberto Duran was the greatest lightweight in history. I do not believe Sugar Ray Leonard was the greatest welterweight in history. Duran lost to deJesus, but Duran then fought him again on a level playing field twice and beat him convincingly. Leonard lost to Duran, and even though he got redemption, Duran in all fairness was not the same guy in the 2nd fight. On top form, I think Duran would beat anyone who ever fought at 135. Anyone. I would fancy Robinson to beat Leonard, and I would give Griffith and Hearns (Tommy showed in the 1st fight he had the measure of SRL, I would've fancied him in an immediate rematch after their 1st fight) a very good chance, and Gavilan, Walker and Ross could also perhaps have beaten SRL.



As I said before, it's a very good thread, a good topic for argument, and a good case you put forward for SRL. I disagree, but both cases can be made.

 

OkPP,but realistically duran is just a natural 135er,i could see him beating hearns and benitez at 135. He already beat leonard at 147,and hagler is a no brainer at 135. Its somewhat subjective,but i think the most dominant at any one weight historically and film wise is duran easily.
Hearns would probably be mashed by atg lt heavies,and even some 160 guys. Hagler never left 160. What duran did from 135 to 160 at elite world class level is far greater than all of the other fab four,duran also achieved many of these feats past his prime and without the benefit of having the height that ray and hearns had to increase functional bodyweight.
We dont hold the norris or camcho losses against ray,nor the second hearns loss v barkley (or if you want,the jones losses to tarver and johnson.) if we consider the fighter as well past his best,and duran had
had over seventy fights and thirteen years as a pro before tangling with Leonard. To me duran was duran up until 1980,after this he was a shadow of himself and past his effective weight class.

 

"That's just bull****, through and through. Duran dominated Leonard up until the late rounds when he let him catch up. Leonard arguably lost to Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time, both past their prime. Not even on par."

Sweet Pea, that's a really strong statement, especially given that you've recently changed your tune on the Duran - Leonard fight. A little too strong in my opinion. As I recall, you had scored Duran - Leonard very close, then re-watched it and felt Duran won by a wider margin. I think those two fights are easily on par. Duran was a very live underdog against Leonard. People were fearing for Leonard's health against Hagler and gave him no chance. Hagler was viewed as nearly invincible. I think they're very comparable accomplishments.