Fair enough.. But who's "better" has to be taken with a bit of consideration. Duran was well past his prime and fighting well over his traditional best class when he took on Hagler and Hearns. And one of those guys still had a fair amount of trouble with him.
Leonard got his ass kicked in the early portion of the fight with Duran, but was fighting on even terms over the middle rounds and certainly came on strong in the latter portion of the contest. I had SRL sweeping the last three to make the fight very close, and given that there were a number of extremely close rounds a Leonard victory isn't out of the question.
Would you post your scorecard for that bout? After the sixth (which he won) he was in full retreat mode; shoe shinning while getting clobbered. His olympic style touching had the crowd getting wild each time he got off. They stole that crown from Marvin. And i'm not even a fan of him.
Dude, you couldn't be more wrong. And the scoring in the first fight was very controversial because the judges all scored a ton of even rounds. i was a fan back then. People were happy Duran did so well. But it was a one point fight, if that. One judge scored 4 even rounds. One scored 5 even rounds. One judge scored 10 even rounds. Fights don't get any more EVEN than that. Claiming one guy got his @ss kicked is just dumb. That was about as evenly matched as a 15-round fight ever got. That fight could've gone either way. People at the time were split as to who won. Unlike the other two fights, where Duran left the ring embarrassed.
"They" stole that crown from Marvin like they "stole" it from Leonard in Montreal. Duran won THREE rounds out of 15 on one official card in Montreal, and that judge gave the fight and title to Duran.
Well, Leonard himself admitted afterwards to have lost. You seem to be more bitter than him, ha ha. Hearns, who was asked to chose a winner for the rematch, picked Duran. Close but clear.
Hearns destroyed Duran but I think Duran deserves to be rated higher. Duran beat Leonard, did better against Hagler and beat Barkley too.
Duran had just turned 29 when he fought Leonard (days before). Leonard had just turned 24. Yet another thing that gets overlooked. Leonard hadn't yet reached his prime as a fighter. (We never saw his.) Duran WAS IN his.
How'd that wager work out? (And Hearns hadn't fought either yet.) As it turned out, Leonard stopped them both.
You must be on some good stuff over there man. In what Universe could you have scored that fight for SRL? I've only seen some SRL apologist say something like that, while the vast majority have Duran winning. Not just eking out a victory, but a clear decisive victory I might add. So no, SRL couldn't have been awarded the victory. SRL was the poster boy, the golden boy before the golden boy, it was surprising Duran even won a decision against him. In order to do so, it surely was pretty clear, and thankfully it was. This is with a duran content to give away the last few rounds figuring he was ahead. Even then, Duran clearly won. Duran is not only near the top, he's AT the top bud. Them just the facts.
What gets overlooked is you probably never finished third grade. Duran was born on 16-06-1951. Which makes him 30 years old on the 20-06-1980, dumbo.
Indeed, it's common knowledge he got his foot off the pedal in the last 3-4 rds because he knew he had it in the bag.