Who ranks higher: Leonard or Duran?

I don't see that. When you dig deep you see that Duran could not deal with anyone who was faster than him and who used that speed effectively. When he was faster and had the right style in front of him he looked awesome and was awesome. But Leonard could adapt and change his style for different fighters, which makes him a greater fighter who beat other greats in different ways.

 

Duran is greater, but it's absurd to say Leonard didn't have one of the greatest careers of all time. He accomplished very impressive things in a relatively short span of time.

And shut up MAG.

 

For me personally, he has 4 victories over 3 top 10 ATG P4P fighters.

 

Cobra, he seems to back up his reasoning with facts and all you are doing is saying shutup. I think you should shutup and let people who know boxing talk!!!

 

Leonard great. Duran longer career but limited compared to Ray. Ray was magic. Duran got diareah in 1980

 

Is anyone taking into consideration the whole 'at their best' aspect of it by any chance? Duran moved up to beat Leonard, no? Duran was not prime vs Hearns etc? No? I'm not even making excuses, it still might be Leonard for me, but please don't embarrass yourselves by talking about losses to Sims and Pazienza. Duran was a lightweight until his late 20's.

 

Duran fought until he was 50 years old, which means something. The Hearns fight was actually the mid point in his boxing career, 17 years in and 17 years from his last fight. Also, Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978, before Hearns,Benitez or Ray ever fought there. Duran fought at 27 years old at 154 in a tuneup. He was ready to move up. Regardless of all that, Leonard beat the greater guys. The criteria favors Ray. And people want to point out how great Duran was by beating Moore or Barkley, so he could fight top level in those years, but when he came up against greats he lost. It was the level of opposition which made Duran lose.

 

Needed a poo, no? Had cramp, no? Exceeded recommended calories, no? Didnt train, no? :hat

 

Are you ****ing serious? You're stating that he fought until he was 50 years old and then talking about the mid point of his career? I never mentioned the Hearns loss, I said it is embarrassing to talk about his losses to Sims and Pazienza and you are replying by telling me that it is the level of opposition that made him lose. Your post is void.

Anyway, I'm going out to get smashed and hopefully bone now. Good luck bathing in your pool of bittenress you wild man

 

Have I ever used these excuses Pachilles? You know I find them laughable and you know I'm about the most just about tied with a few others for the title of unbiased guy on here, you're ****ing playing with me now. You're a good poster unlike MAG, I don't expect this joking **** from you

 

yes I think it is significant, which most people do not know as far as Hearns being the mid point in Duran's career as far as years. The Hearns bout, which many thought would be Duran's last fight was actually 17 years into his career when Duran was 32 years old. He fought another 17 years and 35 or so fights. I didn't mention Sims or Pazienza. Who ranks those guys are greats? Duran lost to all the greats and Leonard beat all the greats. That is significant and cannot be ignored.

 

Duran was past not at his peak when he was beaten by Hearns, ok?

It is still a good win for Hearns, Duran was a good fighter at the time, no doubt. Nobody is discrediting Hearns here

 

Guess it all depends on how you scored the Hagler-Leonard fight.

I had Marvelous winning and as much as I recognize Leonard's great skills (probably top 3 head to head) I have Roberto on a higher spot.
Top 10 whilst Leonard is top 15. Nuff said.

 

how am I a bad poster. I have not swayed on the Duran stuff for years now. Duran does not have the wins against ATG fighters to be ranked 1-5 ATG or to be better than Leonard. That has been my stance for years and years.