Who has a better resume and who achieved more Duran or Leonard?

I think Leonard was more skillful but not clearly.

In terms of legacy and accomplishment Duran was one of the greatest ever LW fighters and then beat a prime Leonard to become WW champ. He also beat top 5 fighters at LMW and MW.

Leonard unified WW, beat the LMW champ and came out of retirement to beat the MW champ.

It's very close but usually Duran gets the edge because of his LW legacy.

Both are in my top 5 ATG.

 

Leonard.

He beat Mayweather sr:hey hearns, duran, beneftiz, hagler, Lalonde to name a few off my head.

 

I think you have it the wrong way, Duran had more skill, Leonard had a better resume. Actually they are both pretty much even im both aspects.

 

It's a tough call. Leonard won the trilogy, but was really a part-time, some would say, cherry picker. Duran has three times as many fights, but some big embarrassments on the resume. You can make a strong case for either. I like Duran better, so I'll go with him.

 

Duran was better.

 

Duran fought until he was 50 and was still broke. At least Leonard beat and ducked who he could to get rich. Hell, he was suppose to beat Camacho to get the De LaHoya fight. That is why his last fight was at MW . He was trying to have a cash out mega fight.

 

so youre giving sugar ray extra points because he carefully picked who he wanted to fight and waited until hagler got old? That's a positive in your book?

is that how you dumb a$$ new generation fans think?

 

Duran is better. I think Ray loses to 83 Hagler badly.

 

To name a few ? That's everyone he beat worth a damn. Fyi: Mayweather Sr took that fight on 2 weeks notice, 2 weeks and was very competitive until he started to tire...

That fight proves 1 of 2 things, Sr was a great fighter who got screwed throughout his career. Or srl wasn't so great if he had a tough go of it with a Mayweather untrained, and refused to rematch Sr. Just strange

 

Yes. Leonard is older than Hagler and Hagler was 30 at the time that he fought Leonard. No excuses, he has the better resume and was the cash King of his time.

 

you people are all the same, you worship money like a god. You have none, but you'll grovel like a dog to anyone that does. It's the rap culture maybe.

Taking money/earnings out of the equation - we must compare both fighters in their prime (Leonard at WW, Duran at LW) and the two are so close it's almost inseparable. I have a gut instinct that Duran was intrinsically a little more skilled. Fighting just came natural to him. He had a feeling for angles, anticipation, timing, countering and combinations. He's the epitome of a prize fighter.

 

Leonard beat Hagler who beat both Duran and Hearns. He used his skills and ring IQ to beat him so Leonard has a better resume than Duran.

 

get a clue retärd.

 

Man the fact that you are trying to play history revisionist is bull**** in itself. Duran is a hyped up lightweight that struggled to beat Leonard the first time and got his ass kicked 2 more times afterwards. Leonard beat all the guys that Duran could not, plain and simple.

Now if you wanna talk money worship let's talk Johnson vs Jeffries. The only reason Jeffries took the fight was because he was pai $40,000 dollars. He never believed he could beat Johnson or defend the White race, he basically sold out. How many guys have done that for money in boxing since then? Plenty. I blame the White superiority complex.