Who is the higher ATG - Leonard or Duran

i have them very close but if i have to put one ahead of the otyher it would be duran in front

 

mark me down as someone who picks Duran over SRL. Both were superstars and being 45, I'm fortunate enough to have watch both fighters as their careers unfolded. The major difference to me was the intensity of Duran and the fact he was a lighter weight fighter who beat SRL while both essentially in their primes. Yes SRL beat both Hager and Hearns, which Duran didn't but there was dispute regarding the Hagler win.

 

great post widow.. duran is overrated now but when he was actually fighting he was not celebrated as some monster. duran's career peaked during the first leonard fight 1980. the rest of his career was mediocre at best and he never won a big fight after beating leonard in 1980.

all the talk about his career at lightweight which was great, but that and a win over leonard at 147 does not make him top 5 atg or even better than leonard who beat better fighters and accomplished far more in his career then duran.

leonard by a landslide.

 

Show me these rankings. I wasn't aware Ring even had P4P rankings until later.

I exagerrated with the "no-namer" bit, but the fact is, he was a fighter at a smaller weight worth nowhere near as much as superfights with the fighters I named. You believe that rumor but not the one from Manny Steward himself about Whitaker and Camacho? A little inconsistent, are we?

 

No matter what you think or what I think. Most people would have Duran by a landslide.

 

:yep

 

Duran

 

Duran

 

Exactly, SRL is higher :yep

 

No matter what you think or what I think. Most people would have Duran by a landslide.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Top

no they wouldn't leonard won the series 2-1 and beat the better more accomplished fighters in their era. duran's claim to fame is going 1-4 against the best fighters of his era.:deal

 

Duran was past his prime when he fought those fighters. Also those fighters are all naturally considerably bigger than Duran.

 

Leonard.

 

Duran

 

Sweat Pea... they were non-title bouts, because they didn't take place at lightweight. What are you smoking? The fights aren't taking place at lightweight unless they weigh at or under the lightweight limit. Simple as that, I don't even know why the hell you are arguing something so obvious.

Also... Just because Duran is shorter... doesn't mean that he can't weigh the same as the other guys. You keep saying that he was always the smaller man, because he was smaller in stature... however he was thick, and carried the weight fine, until he went up too high, and got old.

So... Duran should be rated above Leonard all time because.... Duran lost his biggest fights because he was naturally smaller?:think I would figure that he would have to actually be held accountable for fights that he lost. I would also figure that you could look at his career realistically, and not pretend like he beat legend after legend in the lightweight division, when he only had a few good opponents during his entire time there. As I said... once he moved up and fought the real top fighters in the world, he lost. The 4 best fighters that he faced were Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, and Benitez... and they all beat him. One made him quit, and another brutally knocked him out in 2 rounds. However... they aren't the only ones that beat him once he came up and fought a weight more natural for himself.

I liked Duran, and I think he was a beast... but people overrate him to death. You have a guy like SRL, who fought the best, beat them all (including the guys that beat Duran)... and doesn't get half of the respect.

 

How do you know they were tougher fights than Pryor? I'm not buying it, Leonard could easily have faced Pryor but did not want to risk being KTFO by a fighter one weight division lower. He won the 2nd Duran fight then Ko'd Hearns, he had plenty to lose by facing Aaron Pryor in 1981/2.