Sugar Ray Leonard was Better than Sugar Ray Robinson

I agree that Leonard came in better prepared, shouldn't be held accountable for Duran's mess, and should get credit for the win. That doesn't mean that it was the same version of Duran in there.

You've said that, yet you have never actually brought up any arguments aside from resume. On Duran vs Armstrong, the only thing you've said is that Armstrong has made 19 defenses on the weight and beat Barney Ross. On Hearns vs Gavilan, you've said that Hearns doesn't stack up to Gavilan at the weight due to Gavilan's better resume. The only thing you've said on the latter match up that even resembles H2H, is that Gavilan was a tough fighter and that he could take Hearns' shots. That's it. You have not said anything else regarding H2H, you've only said that they are more accomplished at the weight.

On film, Duran clearly looks like the more complete fighter to me, and I've watched a good amount of Armstrong footage. But yet again, you mention their careers.

I said it's an almost non factor on these particular match ups, there is still some merit there. Obviously guys like Greb or Langford were most likely H2H monsters, due to how they beat dozens of great fighters with diverse styles. But simply saying ''X great beat better names than X great, and is more proven at the weight'' like you've been doing, is not a good argument for H2H when comparing fighters of similar ilk. Obviously a great fighter is going to beat a journeyman 99/100, but when comparing all time greats, it's nowhere near that simple. How effective a fighter is on film against different quality fighters and styles is what's important here, not just simply how good the guys he beat were on stats and name value alone. Would you have picked Napoles to beat Griffith if you had just compared their resumes up until that point ? Or a green Charles to beat Burley ?

No. The reason for picking the Leonard fight, is because Leonard is only slightly inferior to Robinson, is close to his level of skill, and has many stylistic similarities with him. Using any lesser Duran opponents as examples for why he would do well against arguably the GOAT isn't quite as good an argument, is it ? How would Armstrong's title defenses prove how he would do against Chavez? You have to actually look at Armstrong as a fighter and what he does on film to come up with an answer against a guy like Chavez, and not just merely look at the names beaten.

That's fine, I would like some more specific reasons as to why, but I'm also not keen on keeping this back and forth going. So I'll leave it at that.

I can't agree here. Leonard was about as good in New Orleans as he was in Montreal, but Duran wasn't. Leonard tried the same thing in Montreal as he did later, as much as some would claim otherwise, only that time, Duran was in shape and had the legs and explosiveness to catch him, and thus beat him. Leonard may have won the trilogy, but when the 2 were at their best, Duran proved himself as the better fighter, that's how I see it. But yeah, I'm also done here.

 

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!

 

Duran was awesome against Palomino at 147, absolutely brilliant.

 

You got that right, 110% right!

 

Leonard had some fast hands too, I guess, but glass eyes.

 

The outer eyes were granite.

 

Robbi hits significantly harder than Leonard IMO.

I liken Robbi at his best to be a hybrid between Leonard and Hearns. His right hand to head and body was absolutely vicious and his hook was lethal.

Robbi was no slouch on the inside and if anything, sacrificed defence for offensive output.

Leonard had faster movement around the ring, but not sure if he was outright better in his footwork than Robbi was and I don't envisage Duran wobbling and trapping a primed Robbi like he did Leonard in Montreal as if anything, Robbi's offence, reach and leverage keeps Duran from invading him as quickly.

 

I have the quote in an old mag somewhere - Joe Louis said Robinson was the hardest punching welterweight he ever saw until Hearns came along. Things can get lost and undersold over time, like Joe Louis blazing handspeed and Robinsons sheer raw power at 147.

 

Back it up with pre-Doyle, just like Charles pre-Baroudi or Roy pre visiting G-Man.

If we had Robbi in colour and with 4k footage, I'm sure we would offer even more praise of his skillset, same as Louis, same as Pep, Canzoneri, Napoles and whoever else you want to name, especially the likes of Fitz, Langford, Johnson, Dempsey.

 

I'll give you that, but every outer has an inner. And not every inner is a winner. That said, Leonard didn't have a glass thermostat like Robinson. So, I mean, it's a good thread, I guess.

 

That fight is my baby, it's the first full fight I had actually watched of Duran. Absolutely astonishing, it's why he is my single favorite fighter ever. He was better against Leonard, he simply had to be, but that is my go to fight when it comes to showcasing Duran's sheer skill, he did everything so masterfuly there, I could gush about it forever. He feinted Palomino to knots, beat him up almost effortlessly on the inside with his back against the ropes, defended superbly, used his jab to draw in shots, countered them flawlessly, created openings with half a dozen different methods, and was always 2 steps ahead of Palomino tactically. I don't think I've ever seen seen a fighter using the Fitzsimmons shift for a right handed counter to a jab, other than Duran, it was magical.

 

Definitely preaching to the choir in here, helluva fighter mate and a top exhibition.

 

Yeah, the Palomina fight is one of those exhibitions of pure skill like Toney-Barkley. Brutal but beautiful in the strange way boxing can be at times.

 

Exactly that's one of the reasons I favour Robinson quite clearly over Duran that's more or less what I was saying earlier. Duran wouldn't be able to bully Robinson like he did Leonard as Robinson hits significantly harder than Leonard.

 

In certain areas, he most definitely could be. Boxing is not Anime. Boxers beat an opposition which may excel at other attributes that they do, or shine in other aspects of the fighting game, where they are proficient at best.

I'm certain there are numerous great insights in the thread, but based on the OP alone I have to say:
a) We don't have footage of Robinson at his best.
b) Leonard definitely wasn't a better combination puncher than Robinson. Flashier perhaps, comparable arguably, but Robinson had terrifying, morale breaking combinations which flowed perfectly through the principles of rhythm, timing, distance, and placement, often rising above the convention.