Does Sugar Ray Robinson have a better win than Duran beating Leonard in Montreal?

Of course some of his wins are as good. If they weren't, he wouldn't be the p4p best fighter of all time

 

I rate high top 5 all time great maybe, I just don't think when Duran fought him he was that great yet.

 

I'm one of a few here who question how Ray Leonard is so highly regarded based on a career of 40 fights (and the last 4 or 5 added nothing to his standing really). I'm not saying he didn't have an exceptional 35 fight run there, but it doesn't get him in the top 15 or even top 20 "p4p" all-time, nor does he rank as the 2nd greatest welter, not in my book.
Just my opinion though.

Also, PernellSweetPea here is partly correct to say Leonard at 27-0 wasn't an established great.
If Leonard had retired after Duran beat him, no one would be calling him an all-time great welterweight.

 

Thanks for this info, I never would've thought Robinson would be the underdog to Olson, even a slightly past prime Robinson. Fullmer I understand . But Robinson's wins over Olson or Fulmer isn't as strong as Duran's win of Leonard in my opinion.

 

Yeah, I might agree that Duran's win over Leonard was a greater win than anything THE SUGAR ever accomplished.
Up until Sugar came out of retirement in the latter fifties, after what, 150 fights (let the modern boys fight that many and there would be losses several losses throughout, unlike Sugar), he was favored in every frigging fight so...from his debut until his first retirement no one would be stupid enough to bet against him in ANY fight. Duran-Leonard had every fan split on what the outcome would be.
So...your right IMO.

 

I did not comment on PSP.

Leonard did not retire after Duran 1.

Ray Leonard is so highly regarded because he was an outstanding amateur, won an olympic gold medal against terrific opposition, was the first man to defeat Wilfredo Benitez who was himself a ground breaking triple pound champion, defeated a prime Roberto Duran, an exceptional champion, moved up to 154 and defeated an undefeated and excellent Ayub Kalule to win that title, moved down and stopped an all time great welterweight Thomas Hearns, moved up after a 5 year hiatus and defeated a still very dangerous Marvin Hagler, was the fastest man to ever fight at 147, had ko power in either hand, had exceptional heart, defense, stamina, conditioning and will to win.

Who at 147 do you pick to defeat him ?

 

Ray was not a great when Duran beat him in 1980.. Duran never beat a great Ray Leonard.

 

Depends whether "big win" has to be equated with "unexpected" .
And, if so, why would big/unexpected wins past prime be excluded ?

 

I sit with Duran's victory over Leonard being one of the greatest wins ever and so, by virtue of that opinion, Robinson probably doesn't have anything better than that on his resume, in my view.

Whilst I concur with the view that Leonard gets overrated, this is on the basis of his rather brief tenure at Welterweight and splintered exploits across the late 80's. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that Leonard was a brilliant boxer who, at that point in 1980, looked unbeatable.

It helps that it was an extraordinary battle; that Duran had to use every ounce of himself to earn it. Leonard's attempts to, at first stave off and then turn the tide - demonstrated that he was, if not the winner, an extremely hard man to beat.

As events in boxing go, I think Duran's shattering of Leonard's mystique is on a par with Frazier's win over Ali.

 

Yeah, and even H2H he didn't exactly fare spectacularly STATISTICALLY against the best welters.
By that, I mean he was 3-1 against Benitez, Duran and Hearns.
Only four welter fights of real historic significance, one of which is a loss.
Benitez I wouldn't consider a great welterweight, Duran beat Leonard so that cancels out the inflated value of the win in the rematch. I give Leonard a ton of credit for beating Hearns. But it doesn't amount to enough , and H2h if he lost to Duran maybe he'd also have lost to other great lightweight-welterweights.
This is the opposite of how others seem to view it, whereby they come from the starting point that Leonard was the greatest or 2nd greatest "H2h" and by any other criteria, for them it's self evident, a priori.
...
and therefore, Duran beating him must be the greatest win ever.
It's circular logic.

 

Head-to-Head assessment is almost entirely subjective though, is it not? I mean, sure we can use any given boxer's performances to help shape a H2H viewpoint, but we can just as easily use the 'Eye-Test' to form an opinion on what we think the result might be between two contestants.

This is as opposed to counting and subtracting wins/losses, which are matter of actual record.

 

Depends on where you rate Henry Armstrong all-time when Robinson beat him in 1943, and where you rate Ray Leonard in only his second 15-rounder.

Clearly, Leonard was better in the rematch than he was in the first fight with Duran in Montreal. Psychologically and skill-wise.

In early 1980, "boxing experts" as Cosell pointed out were still calling Leonard a media creation.

https://static.boxrec.com/1/17/Hank-Sugar.jpg

 

Unforgiven's view of SRL not being all that in a h2h sense is quite perplexing. Trust me, I get the resume/longevity talk, but h2h, it's imo crazy talk to even imply SRL was a top all time WW h2h. My eyes tell me that (one of the best boxers filmed and the total package)... speed, power, quickness, toughness, chin, ring IQ...and his signature wins tells me that. You don't overcome Duran, Hearns and Wilfred if you're above average. You can ONLY do so if you're great, and great he was h2h imo

 

Give me a break. Ray Robinson had any number of wins in the 1940s that were as great as Duran's over Leonard. His victims included the cream of the crop from the lightweight through the middleweight division -- Sammy Angott (3), Marty Servo, Fritzie Zivic (2), Jake LaMotta (4), California Jackie Wilson (2), Henry Armstrong, Tommy Bell (2), Georgie Abrams, Bernard Docusen, Kid Gavilan (2), and Steve Belloise. Fights like these were made as a matter of course in the 1940s. Take your pick.

 

I see what you're saying; he had some huge victories in the latter 50's.
Heck, when I was 7-8 years old in the early 60's I thought he was one of the greats and I didn't even know he'd come out of retirement, let alone not knowing about his 1940-mid-50's career. (Don't know why dad failed to mention that to me?)