Leonard - Best Boxer In Last 30 Yrs

How many guys has duran beat that are better than buddy mcgirt, besides leonard of course. I think pernell's wins over 2 atgs like nelson and chavez will take away the leonard win anyways, cuz duran won that fight by like 1 ****in point.

Every guy that Pernell fought during his title run was either a beltholder or a top contender. Duran fought quite a few bums during his reign as lightweight king.

 

'oh god no it's the leonard of no mas'

He lost "a bit of speed" coming down from 154. that explains why he was outboxed for 12 rounds.

 

Leonard was a super star and an all time great who was definately one of the best. Admit that rooster, like we all know that you want to, and let's put this thread to rest.

Relieve yourself of this sugary burden. you know you want to concede and be accepted. The first step to recovery is identifying the problem :good

 

At 160, he loses (badly) to Jones.

 

Duran has a great stoppage record at lightweight, but he was not a murderous puncher. Well that depends on a persons viewpoint of exactly how effective a fighter needs to be with his power to be considered a "murderous puncher".

If you look at Duran's record at lightweight, around 80% of his stoppage wins came after 10 rounds. Lets not forget Duran was a very aggressive machine at lightweight, especially during the early-middle part of his reign.

He was hitting opponents often and it took him a while to beat Buchanan, which was a low blow at the end of the 13th round. His rematch against De Jesus was a round by round wear down contested during very high tempratures In Panama City. Duran finally caught up with Dejesus, nailing him with a two fisted barrage in the centre of the ring, round 11. Thats just two examples.

It would be extremely dumb to say Duran couldn't hit, because some of his stoppages were brutal. But his power was not effective when his opponents were fresh, physically and mentally. I'll compare two other fighters from different divisions who hit much harder than Duran. Hearns at welterweight, and Tyson at heavyweight.

Regarding Duran against Whitaker at lightweight. I would pick Whitaker. As good as Duran's defense was, he was not as defensively minded as Whitaker.

Whitaker's style was totally different to Duran's. Whitaker's probably one of the best balanced fighters in boxing history when it comes to offense and defense.

And ring generalship would be vital attribute in terms of Whitaker pulling out a decision. When any tough moments arose, Whitaker had the ability to adjust, thus make things easier for himself and get back on top.

Duran's intelligence cannot be questioned either. Duran was a very efficient hunter, and knew how to cut off the ring. He would pressure Whitaker better than anyone else ever done, Nelson and Chavez included. But Whitaker was extremely good at fighting on the backfoot. His spearing jabs while backing up would rack up points.

I go round in circles in my mind about how this fight would pan out. And it keeps coming back to Whitaker being able to hit Duran more than the otherway around. Whitaker has the intelligence and skill to offset Duran's aggression. For Duran to win this fight, he would need to KO Whitaker, and that means wearing Whitaker down over the course of the fight, and I'm afriad he wouldn't be able to hit Whitaker regularly enough to get the stoppage.

Whitaker by 3-4 points.

 

you have to admit he looks plain fooish the way he exalts leonard off the performance in New Orleans. He acts like Ray destroyed Duran physically. Personally, I thought he did most of the harm with his showboating and taunting than with his fists. How does that make Leonard great?? This man is clearly not thinking straight.

Thomas Hearns at his peak trounced Roberto. leonard never did.

And these excuses of his dropping down from his brief stint at 154 slowing him down is one of the most absured statements you'd expect from a nuthugger.

You can say he's got skills, that he was a top fighter, etc. but if anyone deserves to be best of the last 30 years it's Norris and even I wouldn't rank him that highly. My choice would be Roy Jones as Cuchulain hinted at.

 

Roy Jones is a reasonable pick, but definately not Terry Norris. A peak prime Leonard would KTFO of Terry Norris.

 

Now all you have to do is prove it.

you can't. the only thing we have to compare the two is the actual contest and in case you hadn't noticed, Norris didn't exactly "just scrape by" in the manner that Ray was known for.

"Peak prime Leonard"

 

Simon Brown did blast norris and he's a natural welterweight. This was a peak norris too.

 

And a past peak Brown.

 

Speaking of simon brown, shouldnt he be in the HOF. The man was a former linear champ and he beat norris at 154. He therefore accomplished more than carlos palomino.

 

How come no one ever mentions the Norris-Brown rematch as if it didn't matter? I think people begrudge Norris because of how good he was.

 

I think guys like Brown and Palomino are the type (calibre) of fighters who shouldn't be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Sure they were excellent fighters of their time, but if you include them, you have to induct a good 100 more fighters that are not inducted that achieved as much as they did.

 

You're right Pimp. Lets not forget how easily Norris defeated him in the rematch. He was well prepared and whipped Brown as easily as he did Leonard, Mugabi, Leonard, and Taylor.