What's the greatest win in Boxing history?

prime? Ray was still inexperienced, and that fact he fought Duran's fight was proof of that. Duran's exploited that, but no way is that the best win in history of boxing. I think Hagler against Hearns was better. Hearns was really prime and Marvin had to have a special performance. Duran was given the fight. A great win should be dominant yes. I think so.. Especially since he was given the fight he wanted and a fighter who was relatively green.

 

I had Duran winning easily 11-4. That is what you dont understand. Duran dominated so easily he thought leon was easy. He had no trouble in June. Harder fights vs DeJesus and Lampkin.

 

I think of all the fights between Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and Duran, Hearns crushing of Duran was the greatest win of the lot. Total domination from start to finish and what a spectacular finish it was too.

The fact that it was the only matchup between the four of that , that no one ever felt the need for a rematch says it all.

 

This is why I don't consider this fight as the greatest in history ( Perhaps the greatest 1st rd) But as you've indicated, Hagler never was seriously hurt during the fight, and he pretty much dominated the fight after the 1st rd . The only real drama was would Hagler KO Hearns before the fight is stopped because of the cut he received. And Hagler did that.

 

How could SRL be too young and inexperienced for Duran but then he schooled him 5 months later?

 

Douglas stopping Tyson in Tokyo.

 

Chavez in well over his weight and holding fellow ATG Whitaker, naturally the bigger man, to a draw.

 

Duran fought at 154 before Leonard, Benitez or Hearns did. He was not this guy who just moved up in weight like Garcia just did with Spence. He was there before they were. Lineal means nothing. Hearns beat a solid champion also in Cuevas. Ray was not prime and the fact that he fought the wrong fight because Duran insulted him proves that. Later he learned how to use that same tactic in reverse with Hagler.

 

Duran also fought at 160 before Bernard Hopkins and GGG. He fought at 168 before RJJ. Was he as big as these guys?

See how utterly stupid this statement is?

Duran's first 21 fights were fought at 130 or less. 5 of these were at 120 or less. Leonard never fought below welterweight where as Duran was barely over the bantamweight limit for some time. Hearns never fought under welter. Even Benitez, despite entering the pro's as a 15yo has never been listed under Jr Welter.

Anybody with any cognitive ability at all can follow this.

Duran debuted in 1968. Leonard in 1977. Benitez as a kid in 73. Hearns in 77.

I'll say it real slow. Duran was fighting for almost a decade before Leonard and Hearns even debuted. He was fighting for half a decade before Benitez debuted - as a kid. Duran started off way lighter than any of them.

Duran was still making lightweight a decade into the pro's.

A decade into the pro's Hearns was fighting at 160 and 175.
A decade into the pro's SRL fought Hagler at 160.
A decade into the pro's Benitez had strayed into the middleweights and hadn't been under Jr Middle for years.

So Duran had a fight at 151 eight months after still being able to make lightweight. An over the weights match against a nobody (to keep busy) almost 2yrs before the SRL match 8 months and two fights after he left 135 for good.

Duran is half a decade + older than any of these guys.

If you actually checked your own "facts" you would see Benitez actually fought at 154 before Duran ever did

And i used to think redrooster was dedicated.

 

Benitez-Cervantes is extremely compelling....a 17 year old with no notable wins whatsoever beating an ATG and disrupting what would've been a near decade long lock on the division right in the middle of it? That's incredible stuff. A bulletproof win.

 

We are not talking about Roy Jones era or Hopkins. We are talking about people he fought whom people say he was so much smaller then. That itself is a rather stupid comment from you mentioning Roy Jones or Hopkins in regards to weight. You know what I meant. The comment about Duran and 154 is significant and very important. Duran was not a small fighter fighting bigger guys. The excuses are ridiculous. I have said he was a great instinctive inside fighter. Speed was his achilles as it is most great fighters. He had a wide stance which gave him the ability to land hard punches with great leverage. That was a problem only a handful of times. He really only fought the elite level against 4 guys and he lost to all of them. This is not a lie. He did lose to all of them. Badly against 3 of them.

What does it matter where someone started if in the end it was said he weighed 200 plus pounds, or the rumor was as some sort of excuse that he was incredible to be able to lose so much which I guess is great. Why not be in shape and not have an excuse

For example.. Hearns started at 147 in the professionals as you said, and Emanuel said every inch Hearns grew was another division, so in his case that was knowing his body and coming in without excuses-I never bought the weak legs for Hagler fight, but it could have been. But it really doesn't matter. Hearns beat Virgil Hill who was a natural light heavyweight in 1991 which was a fighter with 10 title defenses not 1 and undefeated.

Before Barkley, Duran what I heard weighed 190 pounds. Hearns weighed about the same the same year. You are of this belief that fighters who are lower in weight have excuses. Manny won titles lower than Duran and in my mind did better than Duran in someways moving up.

He started in 1968 -big deal. He loved to fight and he loved to eat and he was a big enough guy who gained with and moreso. And more than the other fab 4 guys, or the 3 others. And Duran did well in a relatively weaker division as I have said for many years now, and as it turned out spent 20 years at welterweight and above. Over 10 above 160. Duran was 32 when he fought Hearns. How old is GGG now or when he fought Canelo? In a superfight? You will mention well Duran had 80 or so fights when he fought Hearns, but he never took too much punishment. How old was Floyd or Manny when they were fighting top guys at welterweight? The excuses on weight and age can be discounted easily especially since many fighters today are fighting later, although the competition is not as tough now so maybe that is part of it. Yet 32 is not close to how old Floyd was in the last many years he fought. Floyd was Duran's age when he fought Hearns in 2009. 10 years ago.Hearns beat Virgil Hill at the same age. And Hill was a little over one year older than Hearns was when Hearns fought Duran.

Let's put the experience as a plus although here it is an excuse. Duran was a professional for 12 years when he fought Leonard. Hearns beat Hill when he was a professional 14 years. 30 pounds over his first title. I am surprised you don't make the same excuse I heard the night Duran lost to Ray in the rematch. I heard this hours later about how Duran ate a steak and had 2 gallons of water right before the fight and then that created stomach upset where he quit because of this during the fight. Something like that. Somehow people did not accept this excuse, and they moved to the ( in their mind) more acceptable one that Duran did not train for the fight excuse. That was more feasible for Duran, and it is one he used each time he lost to the elites fighters. The one about the steak could not have worked. Logic eliminates that.Since why wouldn't Duran have had a steak and 2 gallons of water in any of the other 72 fights he fought before that?

This thread was about what is the greatest win in boxing history. I don't even think Duran over Leonard is top 20 or even 25. I really don't. Ray fought Duran's fight and almost beat Duran at his fight. Duran did not make him fight his fight. If you are in denial you will say Duran made him fight his fight, or you can watch the two fights and see how Ray starts differently in the two fights.
Ray was inexperienced at that level in the first fight. He thought he could gut it out with Duran, since he did with Benitez another great. And the fact Ray outclassed Duran in the rematch demonstrates the mistake he made fighting Duran's fight. And yes he did fight Duran's fight. Compare the 1st and 2nd fights side by side.

 

Had Ray Leonard learned the game mentally that a fight involves mental as well as physical variables, wouldn't you say that is significant after the first fight. To become an elite fighter because of such a lesson?

He fell for Duran's tactic in the first fight and Ray let him draw him into a fight, against a guy who instinctively is great. And Ray hung in there. Against a guy who fought at 154 as early as 1978. Which I mention a lot and it upsets some of the hotheads in here, but it is the truth. The main thing is- Duran taught Sugar Ray Leonard to focus on what you are good at.. He learned and the second fight proved it. Ray was a much better fighter for the second fight. Sometimes a tough lesson can really make a difference. Ray could adjust. Duran never fought an elite like this. And believe me Duran knows how great Leonard is. And Benitez and he sure knows how fast and hard Hearns punches. That little bit better regardless of the weight excuses was a big difference. That is why they are elite

Fact is in the rematch Ray made Duran quit, and listen when Duran quit he quit when Ray started to land to the head and body in the rematch.

 

Duran was a legitimate welterweight when he faced Leonard.
It was his 9th fight in a row at welter and he'd already whipped Carlos Palomino.

 

Kirkland Laing vs Roberto Duran.