Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P?

I have to agree with Pea. Duran's win over Leonard is a significantly greater victory than Leonard's over Hagler IMO. I only watched the Mugabi fight for the very first time last night, and it was very apparent this was no longer peak Hagler. It was equally apparent in Leonard's wins over Benitez in '79 and Hearns in '81, that the Leonard that Duran fought was absolute peak. Leonard over Hagler was a great win, but Duran's over Leonard was legendary IMO.

And obviously, Duran performed better on the night and won by a far clearer margin. It was definitive, Leonard over Hagler was not.

 

Whilst i agree the duran win over ray is THE best win in boxing history,the leonard victory over hagler is very underrated and one of the great great wins of all times...

 

Benn was a natural middleweight, as was Barkley, as was Toney. Benn and Toney had great success at weights higher than 160. Duran was a natural lightweight, and was 38 years old when he fought Barkley. Whether Barkley had losses before or after, it must be accepted he was viewed as a rough, tough brawler at 160 and 168. That Duran was able to mix it with him 25lbs above his natural fighting weight and at age 38 was astounding, a far far better win than Leonard's over Lalonde or Kalule without a doubt.

 

Pea was brief with his reply. He forgot to mention that Leonard's first fight at middleweight was against Hagler. Duran on the otherhand had confidence and momentum on his side going into the first Leonard fight. If memory serves me correctly, 6 non title bouts at the weight. On paper before the first bell rang for both fights, Leonard probably had a tougher challenge than Duran did. Perhaps evens. Obviously that was because Leonard had one fight in 5 years. And during that fight against Howard, he was dropped and looked average. Thus a stronger case was made for Hagler knocking him out combined with being inactive.

It's still side with Duran's win over Leonard nonetheless.

 

You make a very convincing case,Duran is top 4 L for me Leonard top 3 W.you pays your money etc.

 

Can he? Yes. Does he? No. But it's still quite close. But Leonard's record at welter isn't better than Duran's at lightweight. Both have 3 great wins but Duran never lost his championship, Leonard did- a few months after he won it. Reigned less than 3 years in total, Duran did nearly 7.

 

Here we go again

Did he really? I would argue that Hearns and Benitez weren´t better ww than Buchanan and DeJesus were lws. And Duran´s lw division was not weak, average perhaps but not weak. Still, dominating it like Duran did for 8 years, who did that in history? Right, only the greatest lws ever like Leonard, the other one , and Gans.
I think their accomplishments are equal, their win over top opponents were equal but Duran had more all-round depth in his resume and the better longevity. I rate both Top5 at threir weight but I think lw itsself was a slightly deeper division than ww.

Sure he was but he was still coming up from and still were a natural lw. The first fight was the last fight of prime Duran, he was on the slide after it. And argueing Leonard was not as experienced when you take his amateur career into account - not that it would influence his ranking but it is experience.
Leonard´s plan in the second fight would always trouble Duran I agree but you can´t ignore that Duran was not in shape when even Leonard himself admitted that. Duran won when both were at their best, Leoanrd did not therefore Duran got the better of Leonard.

"only 2-4 years off" sorry but do you even read what you wrote? Duran lost to Laing in the meantime that should say you enough about how far past his prime Duran was at the time.
What was Benitez' best weight? SLW when he was 17 and still developing? Benitez was naturally a much bigger man than Duran. And even when you think 140 was his prime weight it would still be a weighclass above Duran´s prime weight.
You don´t give Duran enough credit for fighting and competing with legends at a weight tey were comfortable at. :bart

Yes, he is but like I said it looks better on paper than it does when you look deeper into these numbers. I take the lw Duran of the second or thrid DeJesus fight over the Leonard of the Benitez fight p4p anytime. I have absolutly no doubt about that.

Well, imo you can´t argue nobody but Monzon for the number one at mw but Hagler was a great mw, I agree. But Hagler was clearly past it himself, was fighting a stupid fight in the beginning and still arguable won. Leonard is known to pick his opponents at a time he thought he could beat them. That´s what happened there. Yes, Leonard was out for 4 years what made this win very remarkable but a win over a past prime Hagler just is not as good as a win over a prime Leonard.

For sure! Leonard was a great fighter, he could be ranked anywhere between 5 and 20 at an atg list as long as he is behind the already named locks for the first 4 places and Duran, Ross, Walker, Charles ... okay between 8 and 20 One of the greatest ever.

I also thought Leonard edged it but that does not mean many others have different oppinions

So, if smw was a big stretch for Leonard, 3 weighclasses above his best, what do you think mw was for Duran, 4 weightclasses above his best? And Duran gave one of the greatest mws of all time in a prime Hagler a very tough fight and beat a much bigger fighter in Barkley who just beat his conquereor Hearns. That´s better and more worth than beating Lalonde.

Well, I won´t comment that one since there is much in it that I think is just insane.

 

The Hagler win is often underrated, however i'd put it on the level of Stracey vs Napoles. A great fighter, still regarded as one of the best pfp but always on the verge of losing his crown.

 

Buchanan wasn't as good as Hearns. His long range boxing was up there with Hearns', thats about it. And thats being kind to Buchanan. Certainly nowhere near as powerful. Hearns was a much more difficult proposition. His longevity outlasts Buchanan by a absurd degree. IMO Buchanan's resume and career doesn't deserve HOF induction. I'm not picking on Kenny. Fighters like McGuigan and others don't deserve HOF stature.

De Jesus was a fine well rounded boxer. Bentiez was as well, then some. His defense was better than Estaban's. But I will concede that rumour has it that Bentiez trained for around a week for the Leonard fight. With that said, Benitez was on a roll having previously won difficult encounters prior to facing Leonard, Cervantes and Palamino for titles at 140 and 147.

Just over 7 years. Benny Leonard is up there with him. Infact, he surpasses him by a number of months.

 

Your guess at what Benn could or couldn't have done is irrelevant, he fought his career at 160 and 168. Duran couldn't be a "natural" welter by that stage, fighters only have one natural weight. That's why they call it natural. Of course Duran wouldn't have fared well against Benn, Toney, Nunn, Kalambay, McCallum and Eubank - of course he wouldn't!! He was a lightweight approaching 40 years old!!!! Toney ended up fighting at heavyweight, Eubank at cruiser, McCallum at light-heavy, Nunn and Benn spent long periods at supermiddle. They all had the best periods of their careers late 80s-mid 90s. Duran was a lightweight that had the best period of his career in the late 70s! What is your point?!?!?

You think Leonard could've beaten any of those guys?? He lost to Norris in '91 at LIGHT-MIDDLE! No chance. But again, that proves nothing.

A very irrelevant point from you PP. And you started this thread so well!

 

Well, going by how they performed in the ring you are right. Going by resume and accomplishments strictly at lw for Buchanan and DeJesus and Hearns and Benitez there is not much between them. And the worh of a win is imo measured by that. Some people look good and go nowhere, some don´t and become greats.

Yeah, I know seven years not eight. And I wrote that only Leonard and Gans were anywhere near what Duran did at that weight.