Does anyone think Roberto Duran deserves a higher ATG ranking than Sugar Ray Leonard?

I really don't think Leonard qualifies as 'protected'.

 

Duran > Leonard

 

To me it's about quality over quantity. To hold the number of fights which Leonard had against him is unfair. He beat all the best competitors he went up against. To me both fighters are top 10 ATG's. It's certainly not clear cut that Duran is a better boxer than Leonard.

 

No. Sugar Ray had a better natural ability and defeated the triangle of Hagler/Hearns/Duran. He lost too many big fights to be ahead of Leonard.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlnTGwJcNWA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlnTGwJcNWA[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIMeBymlOg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIMeBymlOg[/ame]

 

Liked the post and agree that Duran's greatest achievements were at lightweight.He truly was fearsome.But when it came to the fights that really mattered,Ray always found a way.I admit my preference for Leonard meant I didn't appreciate Cholo till late in the day,and he really is a fan's fighter,but for me he lacked the dedication and ultimately,the victories to rank above Ray.For me,Ray Leonard is the complete fighter of the modern era.
But it's all about opinions...

 

Leonard had 'better natural ability'? Clearly both were supremely talented. I wouldn't say anyone had more natural ability than Duran. Even pre-Arcel & Brown he was beating future and former champs (and two fighters of very very high quality) in Marcel and Kobayashi. He became one of the most rounded fighters ever, for my money the best fighter I've ever seen on film.

You do realise the 'big fights' he lost (who won many as well) were after about ten years at the top. Duran was mixing in this competition after his absolute best. And was still incredible. He has some bad losses, but has some stupendous wins as well. An ex-Lightweight has no business pushing one of the greatest middleweights of all time (competitive fight) and has no business beating a big, strong and dangerous contender like Barkley.

 

The problem with Duran is that he's a 70's fighter most commonly associated with the 80's. Duran was the Lightweight champion of the world before Leonard, Hearns, or Hagler had even turned pro. Years before Ray had even qualified for the Olympics.

 

Duran was an ATG before he even faced Leonard..... People need to get the fab 4 **** out of their head cause that was the bonus to Durans ATG career.... the Leonard win and everything after it just adds to his legacy. The man was a natural lightweight, arguably the greatest lightweight ever (top 2 at least) with a rididculous record of 72-1 against all the best lightweights of the day and some very stiff competition before moving up where he beat of the greatest welterweights ever in Leonard and later went on to fight a super close fight with one of the top 3 middleweights ever in Hagler (not much worse than Leonard did vs Hagler). Not to mention having one of the longest successful careers in history and fighting in 5 decades, being a 6 time champ, winning titles in 4 weight classes from lightweight to middleweight and beating other excellent fighters like De Jesus, Buchanan, Palomino, Cuevas and Barkley.

I cannot understand anyone ranking Leonard above him....especially based on their fights with each other since they went 1-1 (their 3rd fight doesn't count) and Duran was a blown up lightweight who was out of shape for the 2nd bout. Based on pure talent I agree Leonard ranks higher but Duran had a greater career without doubt.

I have Leonard ranked very highly too though! I have Duran at 5 and Leonard at 8. Gotta say though, Leonard to me is more exciting to watch and more my style of fighter.

 

I don't see Leonard being better on 'pure talent' either. Equal, that's fair. But how can anyone be more natural a fighter than Roberto Duran??!?

 

Roberto Duran had a very good reign at lightweight, but he is not better than Sugar Ray Leonard. During his reign at light weight he did not beat any all time greats. DeJesus was not an all time great, who he lost to one of 3 times. Viruet neither. He had trouble with fast fighters. When he moved up he was not washed up he was only 29-30. He was trounced when he fought Benitez wasn't even that close. He was not washed up then. He lost to Kirkland Laing. He was not washed up then. If people will point to his later defeats of Barkley, then one can not ignore his trouncing by Hearns many years before then, when he would have beeen closer to his prime. Or his loss to Leonard later that year in 89. His loss to Hagler way way before then. Nor his loss to Laing way way before then. How in the world can he be ranked above Hearns, or Hearns not even be mentioned in the same breath, when he was obliterated by him? His records against all time greats 1-5.

He beat Leonard when Leonard brawled with him. When he fought him, using his speed, it wasn't even close. That led to his 'no mas'.

 

Mag?

 

Yeah, Leonard 'brawled with him' atsch Nothing to do with the feint and left had Duran landed in the 2nd round that chained the whole fight. Duran forced the fight.

Also, Duran beat Marcel pre-135. How's that for great?

 

:rofl

 

I rank Duran higher than Leonard.

Then again, I have Leonard #15/14 I think, and Duran was #8 on my list.