Who was the better fighter, p4p at his peak? Duran or Leonard?

The one who beat the other after moving up 2 divisions when both were in proper condition.

 

Leonard. I saw what was between Duran and Leonard, and Leonard was the better man. He also did better among the illustrious group they were both a part of and I found Leonard's performances to be those of the best looking fighter of the group (except Hearns at max potential).

 

Leonard.

 

Leonard was naturally bigger than Duran so really, the Brawl in Montreal, when both fighters were in top shape and Duran forced Leonard to fight for survival at times (Leonard and Dundee talked about Ray being the bigger man and putting the hurt on Roberto prefight) is a bigger p4p achievement than a faded Leonard besting a faded Hagler.

Leonard has better top wins and is incredibly talented - a superb boxer-puncher - I find Duran's dismantling of Palomino to be one of the most complete, skill nuanced performances that exists.

Duran ranks higher than Leonard for me p4p at peak, but I concede that Leonard post Montreal likely bests any Duran version and certainly has the Benitez, Hearns and Hagler wins under his belt, all fighters that Duran lost to, irrespective of the comparative conditions.

 

Duran, right into the first Leonard fight. As a lightweight he was unbelievable, imo. The ferocity and aggressiveness of prime Tyson (but whom didn't succumb to pressures outside the ring, at least not in that division). Something like a dozen defenses in a very good division, uncontested at the end. A huge wow.

Leonard was terrific Duran I and II, all the way to Hearns 1. After that I was less impressed.

 

Leonard for me.

Completely outboxed Benitez, who completedly outboxed Duran.
Stopped Hearns, who sparked Duran.
Defeated Hagler after 3 years of inactivity, Duran lost to Hagler in a valiant effort.
Lost a close decision in Montreal but made the supposed 'hard man' quit in New Orleans in an immediate rematch.

Duran's reign at 135lbs was great, but his numerous title defences - often against middling opposition - doesn't trump the above if we are asking who the better fighter was.

Both great fighters though.

 

I think Leonard. Duran was undeniably great of course, one of the most natural fighters I've ever seen, but much of his legend is built off a lightweight reign that featured so-so opposition. He of course deserves great credit for beating Buchanan, though I still maintain that Dejesus is famous and known today solely for his association with Duran. Otherwise, he's a historical footnote.

After that, Duran's career is very hit and miss, with losses to people you might expect him to lose to, and others that are more baffling. Leonard was more consistent for the most part.

It's difficult to compare the careers, as they went about doing what they did so differently. Leonard fought far less frequently, and was very stop and start, whereas Duran fought more or less all the way through without interruption. I just think the high-profile scalps Leonard gathered weigh more than those Duran got.

Of course there are always idolators who will choose to pick out the high spots in Duran's career while conveniently ignoring the pitfalls along the way. Can't have it both ways, fellas. His bad nights later in his career are about on par with the highlights. That's just a fact, and I don't know how much credit I want to give a fighter who was THAT experienced against a neophyte in Davey Moore, for example. That was excellent matchmaking in Duran's favor there. Barkley too. He'd gone life or death with a lot of ESPN types before getting his shot at Hearns and turning that trick, but everyone knows he was not going to have a long reign. An experienced sharpshooter like Duran (assuming he bothered to come in the fight in decent condition) was always going to play hell with a guy like Barkley, who was consistently open to every punch you'd want to throw.

It sounds like I'm shitting on Duran here, and I don't mean it to. I think I just see his career differently and think he's given far more than the benefit of the doubt where others might be judged.

 

Really hard this. Duran was tremendous at his peak, with Dejesus 3, Palomino and Leonard 1 probably being apex performances. So Duran is a good answer imo.

But Leonard is just a little more proven against absolute top opposition imo, so I picked him. Nothing in it, though.

 

Who was the best at WW & above in literal terms? SRL, imo.

Who was the best, on their respective best nights, relative to their size? Duran, imo.

If an ATG boxer fights another fighter who is an ATG from 2 weight divisions below and they are otherwise broadly as good as each other, the bigger fighter should stand the smaller one on his head. Just as Monzon did vs Napoles, two fighters typically considered broadly as good as one another from a p4p perspective.

Hell, only 1 weight division of 4lbs separated Salvador Sanchez from Wilfredo Gomez and Wilfredo Gomez from Carlos Zarate, respectively, 3 fighters typically ranked closely on p4p lists, with the bigger man dominating & stopping the smaller in each case.

WW is 2 weight divisions above LW & they're separated by 12lbs, yet Duran & SRL went 1-1 in fights contested in their prime years. This suggests that Duran was considerably better relative to their respective sizes.

Yes, Duran had worse results after leaving WW behind (most notably Benitez & Hearns doing so much better against him than they did vs SRL, which is the counter argument some may use to my previous paragraph), but that's the wrong side of his peak & 3+ weight divisions above that at which he ranks highest.

That said, if we're going to give Duran a bump for wins over Moore & Barkley, and a close decision loss to Hagler, then we can't ignore his past prime losses at LWM & above.

The flip side to that argument is, consider how Duran would be ranked if we erased both wins & losses, performances good & bad, after SRL 1. He'd have a career record of 72-1. He'd be 13-0 in LW world title fights (no LW in history had more consecutive defences of the lineal title). He'd have avenged his only loss twice. He'd have dominated ex WW world champion & borderline ATG WW Carlos Palomino in 1-sided fashion and beaten the consensus 2nd greatest & 2nd best WW of all time, in his prime, in a candidate for the greatest win in boxing history. I'm not advocating erasing his LWM & above career when assessing his all time ranking, just pointing out that his losses at those higher divisions, past his prime, do count, to one degree or another, against his standing.

In my experience, most knowledgeable historians consider SRR, Greb, Langford & Armstrong as locks for the greatest 4 x p4p fighters in history, only disagreeing about their ordering within that 4. If Duran had retired post SRL 1, that 4 may well be a 5.

So Duran's losses post 30, 3+ weight divisions above his peak weight (2 above in the case of SRL 2), are held against him. On the face of it that seems very harsh, but then such criteria is required to distinguish between fighters in such illustrious company as those 4 mentioned above.

 

Would you say Benitez and Hearns were better at 147 than 154? Hearns probably wasn't going by how he is rated ast the greatest p4p 154lber, but Benitez has his biggest victory at 154 and said that 154 was his best weight.

 

So he moved up two divisions but still had a very hard time making the weight? Wasn't 147 in fact the weight he was best suited for in 1980? I e his natural weight at that time.

 

These are some incredibly salient points that I agree with, especially re: DeJesus, who has one of the "best wins at lightweight ever" so must be regarded as a lightweight great, but the only true greatness he has participated in to my knowledge is his cyclical greatness with Duran. Almost like The Brawl in Montreal validates Duran so deeply as the #1 lightweight ever.

Moore is an amazing performance, and an amazing ass kicking, but he never had a chance in there.

But then again, I feel like Duran was kind of kicking Nigel Benn's ass in their 90s sparring tape. So what gives? Duran's a hell of a case study.

I think he grew into the weightclasses he inhabited OK, but was generally a little too high for his perfect condition frame weightwise. He had no business above 154 and his best weight for the Leonard era may have been 140 as he never looked super weight drained or even large at 147.

It baffles me that prime RJJ and Roberto Duran fought the same guy in Vinny Paz around the same time (1995). I don't count those against him, it's like Larry Holmes vs. Butterbean except Duran was still fighting legit guys. It was a noticeable backslide from being one of the greatest, but it wasn't pathetic. I need to do a deep dive on his career.

 

A good point.

That with natural weight class is a bit tricky, though. If WW was his best weight class at the time, wasn't it also his natural weight?

Of course, 140 might have been the weight class he was best suited too at that time, but just lacked interesting opp.

I don't consider him to have been peak at any time after WW, and since that's what the thread is asking for I haven't included it.

 

No, Duran didn't have trouble making 147. He had some troubles making Lightweight at the end of his reign, but was practically walking around the Welterweight limit even after moving up, and could be seen being a bit flabbier in some of his Welterweight fights compared to how he looked at Lightweight. He still looked very good, certainly very far from how Toney and Ruddock looked recently, but it was visible.