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

Pretty much every top trainer puts terrific value on a top amateur background. Leonard's was exceptional.

I would not put anyone above him at 147 other than Robinson.

 

I haven't said "he's not all that h2h" nor doubted his greatness.

I'm saying point blank that statistically his record against greats and near-greats at 147 is precisely 3-1 and only 3 opponents qualify, 2 of whom he beat and never rematched at 147, and the other beat him first time before losing to him in rematch.
He won 3 out of 4 total against greats and near-greats.

I think it's an extraordinary claim where people say he's better head to head at welter than anyone except SRR, and beats all of them except SRR and Montreal Duran, who he just so happened to run into.

Compare to guys who fought far more times against contenders, greats, near greats at welter, fought multiple rematches and/or trilogies, fought more champions and championship fights at the weight.

He beat the first near great welter he faced, Benitez, a competitive fight.

The second time out at near great or great welter, he LOST to Duran.

The third time, he beats Duran.

The fourth and last, he beats Hearns.

That's it.
And he beat a few decent contenders on his way up.

Compare to guys who fought their best peers multiple times, where the chances of winning percentage being high decreases when they start to stack up rematch, rematch, trilogy, against greats, near greats and solid contender.

But we're supposed to accept his 3-1 against the best in a 2 year window equates to being favoured to beat everyone in history barring the consensus #1 pound for pound of all time ?
It's a stretch based on such a small sample of relevant tests.

..... and hardcoreDuran supporters don't even believe SRL beat the "real" Duran, so where does that put the 3-1 scoreline ?

 

I don't rank boxers all time based on amateur achievements. I assess them based on achievements in professional ranks. I believe I'm in the vast majority on that score.
No one ever hesistates in considering Tim Witherspoon better and more worthy of ranking than Audley Harrison for example, because they don't worry about weighing up Harrison's gold medal Olympics against Witherspoon's lack of amateur credentials.

 

No, the fighters with both are ranked highest .. Emanuel Steward, Angelo Dundee and Teddy Atlas are/were all big time supporters of this. Leonard had exceptional credentials as both an amateur and a professional.

 

Good points. Leonard's resume is pretty thin for someone regularly touted as second only to Robinson in a very deep division. Compare with someone like Emile Griffith who had over 100 bouts against the great and the good of two divisions for almost 20 years. Could Leonard have come through that schedule with a better record than Griffith? Considering he was pretty much done as a full time fighter by his mid-20s and 30-odd fights, I have my doubts.

He gets heavily touted for those wins over Hearns, Benitez and Duran, yet they were not invincible. All were beaten in their prime by other fighters, sometimes more conclusively than Leonard could manage. And it's not like he was dominating those guys. Benitez was close and cagey (and should never have been stopped IMO). He was behind against Hearns and needed a late stoppage. And if Duran didn't beat the best Leonard and Leonard didn't beat the best Duran, where does that leave them? Still 1-1. Moreover, Leonard never gave any of them a timely rematch.

 

Do you pick Griffith over Leonard ?

 

^^^ I certainly do … Leonard didn't have enough fights. period.. Too many ATG's put in way more work than SRL. He is a tad overrated for me .. Duran's win was great , but I do not see it any better or worse than SRR giving up that weight to LaMotta or that SRR left hook KO on Fullmer, etc .. It's too subjective, you like what you like

 

Could one assume that you place Napoles above Leonard, as well, then?

 

It kinda seems like you're sitting on the face and not taking a direct side. On one had you say... I don't see SRL as having this statistically great record. I'd say going 3-1 vs. those guys IS both statically impressive and functionally impressive. Imagine if you had 20 fights against great fighters, and continued with that ratio... You'd be saying OMG he won 75% of his fights against great fighters!!! There isn't anything unspectacular or unimpressive about that ratio against greats. Not yet statistically, but functionally considering the fighters, that is pretty damn impressive. For example, you mentioned Griffith and how many contenders and excellent fighters he faced. So let's do this, name me the 3 best fighters he beat and let's compare them to SRL. Point being, there are levels to this, and levels to the greats you beat. If for example a fighter beat 5 B level greats... and another best 3 A level greats... I consider the later better, and by a decent margin. So considering the fighters we're talking about here... Duran... Hearns and W.B. I'd say that might count for a little extra when examining records against greats.

Next and more to the point, forget about his resume and longevity and even his best wins.... Looking at the fighter, with your eyes, what was missing in his game. What could and would other fighters impose on him that make you doubt his h2h credentials of say a line like "he's likely the next best ww h2h after SRR" That is what I'm most curious about, because when I look at him, he seems like the total package to me skills wise... with a brain, heart and a chin.

 

Appearances can be deceiving, if Donald Curry had retired undefeated pre-Honeyghan I bet many would view him as an ATG welterweight.

 

As I alluded to before, his 3-1 or 75% against those 3 fighters doesn't equate to the same sort of winning percentage against multiple opponents across multiple fights. It's too few to extrapolate that from.

I don't consider Benitez a great welterweight. I'll generously label him a near-great for argument's sake.
I'd call Duran a great welterweight ... but the thing is, that's mainly because he beat SRL.
Hearns is by far Leonard's greatest claim to being a top tier all-time great welterweight, and I have no problem reckoning SRL a solid top 10, and possible top 5, welterweight.

The "eye test" : I see a great fighter, same as what you see. And same as you, I see he had his work cut out against Benitez and Hearns ... and personally, i wouldn't consider it a sure-thing that he'd beat those two in rematches or across trilogies.... and i see that he clearly lost the Duran fight.

So, i don't think he was "lacking" anything, he was an incredible fighter. But he was beatable (beaten once, and run close in others) in his own short time against a small sample of elites, and across ALL TIME he's likely to become more beatable (which is true of anyone) and doesn't have the proven depth and repeated performances in his resume to assume he's"#2 head to head" across the field.

 

Well, that's fine. It's a reasonable criterion but not one I use.
I rank them on professional achievements, wins over contenders and above, factoring in losses in pro ranks to different degrees.
I don't think I've ever seen Leonard's amateur opponents discussed in this forum, it must be rare.
But, yeah, it's an interesting way of ranking them and I can't argue against its validity.

 

It's interesting because at times I questioned it myself in an apples to oranges type of comparison but those guys seemed adamant about it, referred to it time and and again and I feel they certainly have a platform to speak from.

 

I get your point, and I think this was a good post that cleared up your view some. I don't have much issue with most of what you say here, and I think you made good points. The only thing I'll disagree on is that I do believe SRL would've won trilogies or rematches against these foes. Nobody knows for sure, so that isn't a fact in evidence, I just happen to believe he would've. So while you might not, and then I do, I think that illustrates our slight disagreement on where we rank SRL h2h. Thanks for the reply, and I don't think we're all that far off really.

 

Not really, other than Mccory who else did he defeat that was seen as more than just a " contender "? No one I remember.