Well, he went 5-2 against fighters who were world champs, Walcott's is probably the opposite...he was regarded as a contender for best pfp fighter in boxing...beat Laguna 2 out of 2, beat Ortiz (if that shouldn't count then why should Duran defeat vs Hagler?). His reputation never reached the heights of Kenny's at their respective peaks. Buchanan was tipped to reign throughout the decade- until Duran came along, Walcott became champ mainly because he was given more chances than Frank Bruno. Jesus, they were bound to win one eventually.
No. But Jones' standing is what it is because he has a poor level of competition. He is generally not considered for p4p top 10 lists. Let's agree his best weight was SMW. If he had stepped up to LHW and fought (hypothetical) Archie Moore for 1/3, fights Hollfyield at Cruiserweight and loses, fights Tyson at Heavyweight and loses does he now somehow get into that p4p top 10 discussion? What is becoming apparant here is that loses at the very highest level are more important to me than you. I have said that if we reverse the Duran big loses he could be considered for the p4p #1 spot. Burley - Reverse his losses to Bivins, Charles, Marshall (in all of these fights he was the smaller man) and he can be considered for the #1 spot in my view. Greb - Reverse his losses to Tunney and he is locked in the #1 spot. Ali - Reverse his losses to Frazier, Holmes and Norton and the p4p #1 would be a heavyweight. Duran lost his biggest fights context or no. The Moore win is a good one and as i've said, wins like that (plus his looks) are the reason he flies so very high. But the thing that got me started on Duran these past weeks are the fights that he lost, not the ones that he won. Maybe that would lead me to downgrade any fighter and the feeling will pass... Duran had a series of disadvantages that led him to lose. This is the same with any fighter that loses. Because Duran's disadvantages were mostly physical you place him in the top 5. OK. Even though Duran's disadvantages were mostly physical, I don't have him in the top 5 because he lost against the best. I didn't mean to disupte out and out what you said about folks supporting Leonard - just to outline my own position. Yes he does. Of course he does. I'm not going to slot a guy into any p4p slot of the back of one incredible win. I think that Burley's win over Moore is better than Duran's win over Leonard. I think that Langford's win over Wills is better than Duran's win over Leonard. I think that Greb's win over Tunney is better than Duran's win over Leonard. But I don't rate ANY of these guys specifically of the back of these wins. How did they do when they came up against OTHER agreat fighters at OTHER times. Really, really well. I don't have Tunney above Duran by the way, and don't insist upon these results being better than the Duran result, i'm just saying that there are plenty of spectacular wins in the history of the sport. I don't understand the above really. He may not have to repeat a great win v an all time great to get onto your list, but it might be the case that he would have needed to to get onto mine. Nice. But you're equating the best peice of art of all time with a guy beating a great fighter at the weight above. An often acomplished feat. You're either vastly underating the size of the divisions or underating these two horrifically. These men you have mentioned are in the top .01% of their respective divisions. Tunney is a lock for the top 5 LHW's of all time and Wills is a top 20 HW for me, top 10 for some. If Langford were fighting fair he'd probably be fighting at MW/SMW. De La Hoya, Mayweather and Whitaker all might have achieved more. I'm being very hard on Duran here, I know but we are talking about the ten best fighters who have ever breathed. It is acceptable to be really hard on all of them I think. Make a list of the eleven best fighters of all time. I would suggest that Armstrong, Greb and Langford aside a case can be made to slot any one of them at 11. We are talking about a hair's breadth. That hair can perhaps be described by a fighters losses above weight. Very very good wins, especially the Armstrong win. If every other aspect of Duran's career remains the same I would say he is a lock for the top 3. I'll agree that Hagler is above LaMotta a step but I dispute hotly that Zivic is "leagues" below Leonard. Under a 1940's ruleset I would give Zivic a very, very good chance against Leonard. p4p Duran is by far the better man. But at the weight I don't think Duran has anything like the power (or style!) to keep LaMotta off. Wide, wide points victory for LaMotta, in my opinion. Plenty would, you're right my friend. #11 IS elite.
Everyone makes so much of Duran's win over Leonard as if Leonard was some kind of superman back then. Ray only faced one good fighter at that point and he only got a very close win over him (that stoppage was stupid). That's not to forget Benitez was a natural light welter, and didn't achieve much at welterweight (barely getting past rather primitive Palomino in Benitez' hometown). That Duran's win is overrated like hell.
Benitez's win over Palomino was convincing, as was Leonard's over Benitez. Try not to talk through your arse for just a few minutes. :huh
How exactly was Leonard's win over Benitez convincing other than it being a stupid stoppage? Leonard looked like an awkward novice in there.
A fighter with the defensive skills of Benitez is always going make his opponent look sloppy at times. Despite this, Leonard was winning handily when the fight was (wrongly) stopped.
Like I said, it was a good win, but it wasn't something very impressive. And it was the only time Leonard had faced a good opponent by that point. Plus the wrong choice of tactics for the fight, different from the style Leonard showed in any of his other bouts. It is only in hindsight that Duran's win over that still unproven Leonard was given so much weight. Kind of like Greb-Walker if you ask me.
I think he deserves a place around the tail end of the top 10. I don't think his resume across the different weights warrants any higher than that, he just didn't claim the scalps of enough truely great fighters. Around #9
Lets put it this way, if you enlarged Duran to 6"2 215lbs, Ali would be in a world of trouble, or in you shrunk Ali to 135lbs, Durans Hook would be TOO MUCH for him......Duran at 135lbs was the Best Lb4Lb in the 70"s
"Detroit... I shall return." ~Thomas Hearns, 1981. "McGrain... I shall return." ~ STonehands, 7:06 am. --Gotta get to work. Your retort requires more time (and thought) than I have right now.
It's a pleasure to talk with you. I am mad at work just now too, just looking in on this thread basically.