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

He didn't have trouble making 147 but killed himself making it? Or was just that for his most difficult opponent?

 

When did he kill himself making it aside from New Orleans ?

 

He had trouble making 147 only once in 1980, you know which one. And please, let's not start with Duran was a natural welterweight (as if you suddenly grow 12lbs of muscle mass and frame at the age of 27). This excuse for Leonard losing the 1st fight are worse than any Duran gave in his career.

 

There's no way to be certain what the lowest weight Duran could have made in 1980 and still have been at or close to his best.

However, I think its fair to say that, that lowest possible weight hadn't increased by 12lbs, since he had put on what is a contender for his best ever performance just 2 years earlier, for DeJesus 3.

I don't think a 26 year old fighter capable of making LW and competing at his best, can be considered the same size as a big WW like SRL, just 2 years later.

I can see the natural/optimum fighting weight of an 18 year old boy increasing by 12lbs in the following 2 years, but obviously not a fully mature and grown 26 year old man.

Imo, it's best to stick to what we know:

Duran fought at LW until 26 and ranks highest, H2H and achievements, at LW.

SRL fought at WW until 25 and ranks highest, H2H and achievements, at WW.

Finally, and most material to the discussion, is an assertion not one poster has disagreed with - SRL was bigger than Duran.

 

I'd just like one of

a) he was a natural WW at that time

or

b) are you friggin' kidding me that a natural LW would be killing himself making 147 against his most difficult opponent yet in one of his biggest fights? That's crazy.

That's my humble request.

A natural LW totally messing up making 147 for such a huge fight is just too much of having your cake and eating it too when it comes to making Duran's case.

 

That's all fair enough.

 

If Duran was weakened by making 147lbs in SRL 2, then it was due to ill discipline and when assessing his career from a greatness perspective, this should absolutely count against him.

I assume the question in the thread title, as is typically the case with fantasy fight threads, is based on both fighters being at their best.

But even disregarding the condition of both fighters for their losses against the other, a split series at WW during the prime years of an ATG WW vs an ATG LW, suggests the LW was p4p better.

 

Yeah, but then you'd have to believe that a seasoned pro would struggle to make weight two weight classes above his natural weight for such a huge fight.

Even if it weren't all the evidence to the contrary, this would be a fairly absurd notion.

But, yeah, in terms of just best vs best p4p, Duran going 1-1 with him in both primes is a strong argument in his favour.

 

I don't know if stories of Duran partying and/or balloning up to c.200lbs between SRL 1 and 2 are true or not.*

Regardless of whether Duran lost and quit in their rematch because of ill discipline, SRL's modified tactics or a combination of the 2, SRL won fair and square, the win counts towards his legacy just as the loss contributes towards Duran's.

*It's obviously possible for a fighter capable of making 135lbs, being weight drained at 147lbs because they got so badly out of shape and tried to take too much weight off too quick. I just don't know for certain if this was the case with Duran.

 

It would be possible for Willie Pep to struggle to make LHW. Almost anything is possible. Likely, even at all likely, is another thing.

 

I agree it's possible for a man to either be so out of shape or to have artificially increased their size, that they can be weakened by making a weight way above the lowest weight they were capable of making in their prime years, whilst in shape.

I suspect James Toney struggled to make 190lbs at times. As a guy with a frame that enabled him to make 160lbs during his prime years, I consider him naturally smaller than Jirov and take their respective natural sizes into account when evaluating that win (let alone his wins at HW) from a p4p perspective. Admittedly, that's likely from a combination of being both out of shape and deliberately artificially increasing his size, but hopefully the conceptual point is sound.

Again, I'm not saying Duran was weight drained for SRL 2. I don't know and from a greatness perspective it's largely irrelevant, he lost, that's all that matters and contributes to why I rank SRL #2 all time at WW and Duran #20 all time at WW, based solely on fights contested in that divison.

 

Post of the month, Greg. Great job!!

 

Cheers Clinton, much appreciated, though that's far too kind.

 

We often say a fighter was at their best in the division they were able to achieve the most success in, but that success is sometimes just a direct result of having fought a lower level of opposition.

Benitez and Hearns are both considered to have been better at 154lbs, but that's largely due to the fact that both of them were stopped when they fought Leonard down at 147lbs. ...Leonard was literally the best opponent either of them ever fought. Maybe that's why they lost?

If someone wants to argue that Duran was greater than Leonard because of his accomplishments and staggering longevity, then I totally get it and probably agree with that assertion, but I won't be gaslit into thinking he was a "better" fighter than the guy who not only made him quit but who also went 3-0 against guys that hold convincing wins over him. Sorry to use bullish language, but that's just patently absurd.

 

People might not like it, but I think there’s a strong argument for a past prime boxer, with many fights under the belt, fighting incrementally further and further beyond his best weight to be in a reasonably viewed position of standing to gain much greater credit for a win than the credit he is at risk of losing in the event of a loss.

That’s just the way it is given and taking on board due context - I don’t see it as necessarily giving Duran a “pass”.

An extreme and perhaps not prefect conceptual analogy might be Ali vs Holmes.

Ali’s loss did not and could not (even in forecast) dim his legacy or historical rating.

But what if Ali had somehow miraculously defeated Holmes? The extra credit (at least imo) would’ve been HUGE.