Leonard's disgusting late eighties era

Yes, Duran proved he could move up and still perform well.

But, just because Duran's best lightweight opponents couldn't do the same doesn't take away from their standing/ability at 135 lbs.

Buchanon was a solid champion at 135 lbs. and DeJesus beat Duran once and won a version of the 135 lb crown later.

Pound for pound DeJesus and Buchanon were better than Moore and Cuevas, and probably Barkley when they faced Duran.

Cuevas was nowhere near his best when he fought Duran and Moore had no defense. Barkley was skill wise pretty mediocre but had dented Hearn's less than stellar chin with a semi-hail mary shot.

I would put Duran's win over Leonard near or at the top of his best wins though.

 

We all lold at your your comment because you said 1983 Duran might STOP 1987 Hagler. Hagler still had his chin in 1987. Maybe 1983 Duran could possibly outpoint 1987 Hagler, but he's not stopping him.

 

Your logic is completely flawed

Some fighters can move up and fight successfully in higher weight classes. Some can't.

You are trying to insert these 135 lb guys into divisions they never fought in

And, nobody thinks 154 lb. Duran was better than 135 lb. Duran.

So, yes Hearns was better at 154 lbs than Duran was at 154 lbs lbs.

 

Lol@ rating Barkley, Cueves, and Moore over Buchanan and Dejesus and doing so just because they were "bigger." I guess Buster Douglas should rank higher on an all time list than Floyd Mayweather for the same reason.

 

If one guy fought Floyd Mayweather and he also fought Buster Douglas, I'm sure hey'd say Buster Douglas was tougher to beat. Hell, today, Buster Douglas might be harder to beat, and Mayweather might still fight again.

This isn't a mythical fight. I'm talking actually one guy fighting a small guy and a big guy.

Put Ken Buchanan in 1972 in a room. Put Iran Barkley in 1988 in a room.

Which MAN would you rather fight? Who's easier to beat? It's not Iran Barkley.

I'm sure Duran found Barkley (who had just wasted Hearns) a tad more intimidating AND harder to beat than scrawny, little Ken Buchanan in his plaid shorts.

Female tennis players punk Floyd Mayweather. Floyd's a freaking giant compared to Esteban DeJesus.

Think Maria Sharapova would be more intimidated by Floyd or Deontay Wilder? I don't think Wilder's going to Hall. Do you?


https://media.giphy.com/media/UI0Xt8ra81OSI/giphy.gif

 

I thought the Joppy fight was stopped prematurely. Duran had him right where he wanted him.

 

I'm not inserting anyone in any division. Duran fought one guy and he also fought another.

People act like Duran was at his peak at 22.

If Roberto Duran at 32 would beat the cr@p out of lightweights even easier than he did at 22, then how the hell was Duran at his peak at 22?

He wasn't.

You take the Sugar Ray Leonard at 160+ pounds who fought and got floored twice by Hearns in 1989 ... and stick him in with welterweight Hearns in 1981 or even the welterweight Benitez in 1979 ... and the welterweight Hearns probably stops him and the welterweight Benitez probably outboxes Leonard (even with the weight advantage).

Hell, you put the old 154-pound Leonard who fought Terry Norris or the old middleweight Leonard who fought Camacho in with the freaking Floyd Mayweather Sr. or Randy Shields who Leonard the welterweight beat in the 1970s, and Mayweather Sr. and Shields likely beat the older, heavier Leonard. Because Leonard was done.

If Duran would've beat the guys he fought at lightweight even easier after he moved up ...

Then he wasn't done until he couldn't still do to them what he did in the 1970s.

When Buchanan and Lampkin and those guys beat Duran, that's when Duran WASN'T as good as he was as a lightweight.

So when was that?

Because Duran wasn't WORSE when he moved up to welterweight and beat Palomino and Leonard - who were better than anyone he fought to that point.

The Duran who beat Cuevas, and Moore and lost to Hagler wasn't going to lose to some 5'4" 138-pound DeJesus like Roberto did when he was a scrawny kid in 1972.

He was a full grown man and at his best when he fought guys like Leonard, Palomino and Cuevas. He was just fighting better, stronger people.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Of course it does. It's real life.

 

Pound for pound is mythical. You guys have to stop thinking "make believe" stuff and talk about these people like they are actual human beings.

Roberto Duran actually got in the ring and fought them.

This isn't about who was better "pound-for-pound."

It's about ... this man is standing in front of me ... who is more difficult to beat?

Deontay Wilder may have fought some terrible opponents, and Floyd Mayweather may be a first ballot hall of famer ...

But if Floyd is in a room, and Deontay is in a room, and I ask you who you want to get into a fistfight with ... it isn't going to be Wilder. It doesn't matter who is better "pound-for-pound".

It's about the "live" body standing in front of you ready to punch you in the head.

Even as a scrawny kid, Duran managed to defeat Buchanan (although the low blow helped). As an actual grown man, Duran beat better fighters than Buchanan. Barkley included.

AND the "grown man" Roberto Duran likely would've had a much easier time against those lightweights than the young adult did ... because Duran got better after he was a lightweight. He beat better fighters after he was a lightweight.

If Barkley and Buchanan were actually standing next to each other in a room, I doubt we'd even be having this conversation about which win was the bigger accomplishment.

 

I really dont see how people have duran ahead of the other three.

-he won a close competitive fight with leanard. Its not like he put on a clinic and won every round or beat leanard from pillar to post like a speed bag.

-he got his ass kicked and QUIT in the rematch, no ifs ands or buts.

-demolished by hearns in 2 rounds

-clearly lost to hagler. Nobody forced him to move all the way up to that weight, just like no one forced billy conn to challenge joe louis. Deal with it.

All three of them were great fighters before facing duran and would have been legends with or without him. ALL three of them beat him decisively, so how the hell are they ALL beneath him in terms of ATG ranking...?

 

Yes, it's such an absurd line to take isn't it. Utterly ridiculous.

 

You just don't seem to get it do you.

 

Scoring debates are always fun.

I thought Duran definitely beat SRL in a competitive fight.
I thought Hearns definitely beat SRL in a close fight.
I thought SRL definitely beat Hagler clearly.

 

Who does 154-pound Roberto Duran lose to that 135-pound Duran beat?

Do you think Duran's punch got softer at 154 than it was at 135 ... and the guys who got knocked out by him at 135 were going to take his shots when he weighed nearly 20 pounds heavier at 154 and was a fully matured fighter?

Do you think the Roberto Duran who fought at 154 would've still gotten floored and beaten by a 5'4" 138 pound Esteban DeJesus - the same way the 22-year-old Duran did?