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

Comparing Ali of the Holmes fight to the versions of Duran that fought and lost to the likes of Leonard, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler is a false equivalency of astronomical proportions, Pugguy.

That would have been like Duran beating RJJ in 2000, and if that happened we'd all be saying Duran was the single greatest fighter of all-time. Better than SRR.

 

It’s not a false equivalency and I did say it was extreme.

It’s an example of standing to gain more credit than one could possibly lose - the argument otherwise is that wins/losses should be weighted equally in all cases.

If Duran had beaten Hagler by the same margin he lost to Marvin, do you think the resulting credit would not have far outweighed the demerit points (if any) applied to his losing?

As I said, people might not like it but the core logic is there - citing Ali v Holmes was simply taking the trend of that logic to its extreme.

 

Addie, Whilst I have no desire to get you to change your mind on who was "better" out of SRL & Duran, I concede that your consistent positioning that SRL having better results against common opposition is definitive proof that he's "better" than Duran, has left me absolutely determined to help you distinguish between better in absolute terms and better relative to size, even if just at a conceptual level (I truly hope that doesn't come across as patronising, it certainly is not intended to, it's just you've repeated this view multiple times).

To this end, I've previously tried asking you about Monzon vs Napoles, though you replied you didn't know enough about them, which is very honest of you.

So how about Teofimo Lopez and Lomachenko, back when they fought? I assume you'd agree Lopez was better in absolute terms, as he won. Who do you consider was better relative to their size?

Carl Thompson beat Chris Eubank 2 out 2 at CW. Who do you consider was better relative to their size?

Pernell Whittaker lost to ODLH & Felix Trinidad at WW. Who would you say is the best of these 3 relative to their size?

Answering that the smaller fighters were the better p4p fighters in each case, which they surely were, doesn't prove Duran was better than SRL p4p, I'd just like you to acknowledge that a fighter can be better than another in absolute terms, but not as good relative to their respective sizes.

 

Leonard.

 

Not patronising at all, Greg. You're an exceptionally thoughtful poster and clearly very knowledgeable.

Lomachenko, absolutely.

Chris Eubank. Definitely.

Whitaker, clearly.

I don't dispute that, Greg.

The reason I think Ray Leonard differs from the examples provided above is because, well, he isn't Felix Trinidad. He isn't Carl Thompson. He's a consensus top 20 ATG that has a stacked list of signature wins in addition to being one of the most impressive fighters I have ever seen in terms of the eye test. Even more impressive than Duran as far as I am concerned. But you're right, it isn't purely because of the H2H and common opponents. It's because he has more impressive signature wins, looks better on film, and did also go 3-0 against guys Duran lost to, as well as forcing 'no mas' in an immediate rematch against the man himself.

And as great as Montreal was, it was a super competitive fight. A close fight. In fact, it has a 55% controversy rating on Eye on the Ring.

https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/brawl-montreal-sugar-ray-leonard-vs-roberto-duran-i

 

Who has argued this?

 

It’s there Add - the contention that some people only take Duran’s later career successes while ignoring his other, relative lesser performances during the same periods of his career.

I could’ve added in my previous post that Duran still did, in fact, garner credit for his losing effort against Hagler for obvious and fair contextual reasons.

 

In all seriousness, it’s not too kind at all Greg - but don’t be getting a swelled head or we’ll have to cut you down.

The Tall Poppy Syndrome is rife in Oz..snip, snip... Is it the same in Mother England or, more broadly, the whole of the UK?

 

You nailed it

 

I don't think this is the case, not even close. During the most extreme cases at 135 when left to his own devices he ballooned up as high as 165 pounds between fights. There's no chance whatsoever he was walking around at 147 during his welterweight foray. It's the nature of the beast.

 

That's interesting. Quite correct though imo, since round by round it was very close. A bit like FOTC - no doubt really who the better man on the night was but close round by round.

A big difference between the two, though, is that it looked like Frazier would take Ali out if it continued for another few rounds whereas Leonard closed stronger in Montreal.

Anyhow, Montreal is a win tremendous for Duran, not least considering he was fighting at LW just 2,5 years earlier. Is it enough in this regard to outweigh the rest? Could well be. Any answer is good, I think.

 

thanks Pug.

Tbh, I hadn't heard of Tall Poppy Syndrome & had to Google it, I think it's an antipodean term. If I've interpreted it's definition properly, yes, it's definitely a thing in the UK too. If anyone takes themselves or their success to seriously, it's our instinct to knock them down or peg or two.

 

Could be just like you say it is, but there's no way that was close to his natural weight, most of it would have been fat. But I know for sure he was walking around the 147 range when he abandoned Lightweight and was more consistently in shape.

 

On a "Head to Head" pound for pound basis it's very hard to split them. Duran of the third De Jesus fight and Leonard of the first Hearns bout are equally as awesome. Going to think long and hard on this.

 

Yes, it can involve the “poppy cutters” believing that a person has become too big for the boots - but I think it primarily describes people resenting the mere fact of someone else’s greater wealth, success etc. - the so called “syndrome” being more an indictment on the “poppy cutters” than the individuals they perversely target.