I never understand why people use the rematch argument when figuring Leonard's standing. "Well, he didn't rematch those guys" or "Well, he waited before rematching them." I would answer with a resounding "So?" It's as if unless he didn't offer rematches to each and every person he beat, the initial fight result doesn't count or something, and that's ridiculous.
I agree but it's not a large enough margin to trump the work Duran did. Duran was the more dominant fighter, better longevity, moved up and beat Leonard in his prime weight class. They both great but as another poster put it...Duran put in work. Had Leonard not retired in 1982 he would have a stronger argument.
Well let's make sense of it. He was the $ guy he had something the others wanted. $ nothing wrong with that. The only immediate rematch he had was granted by Duran. He got an immediate rematch. he was able to make his adjustments correct his mistakes blah blah blah learn from the first fight right? Did Duran get that same chance was till he 38 years old at middleweight? Who knows maybe Duran had some adjustments he wanted to us in the third fight before he collected social security. Maybe Tommy Hearns fought the wrong fight first time. He may have made wanted to use some adjustments and try again in a rematch. Hell maybe Benitez wanted another shot. Hagler never got a rematch even though that fight was very controversial. Am I wrong? Who is the common denominator in all these scenarios?
What an accomplishment by Duran though wouldnt you say? that is worth a mention. You can downplay it but that because as I stated before the Leonard argument is a weak one.
Of course it is. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Regardless of who done it first it's still a hell of an achievement. Is it? I have Leonard ahead of Duran. He has the better résumé. He rose more weights and he beat Duran 2*. Duran has a more dominant stretch at 135 than SRL did at 147 but Leonard's was against better fighters. Duran has Leonard beat on longevity. Tbh I think it's razor thin, I don't mind who has who over but it's not a weak argument either way
Yeah, I get all that. My point was that so many seem to hold the notion that because he didn't grant immediate rematches to his biggest opponents, he can't get full credit for beating them when he did. The victories against Benitez Hearns, Duran, even Hagler are almost dismissed as having never happened because he wouldn't immediately do it again.
