Who was the greatest fighter out of the fabulous 4?

I didn't discredit Benitez though, nor am I slavering over Duran's "valiant" loss to Hagler. Are you saying that size had nothing to do with Duran losing? Maybe it wasn't the only thing, but was it really all skill disparity? Pardon me, but calling everything that doesn't subscribe to your theory an excuse isn't correct when it seems to go against the common boxing adage (good big guys... yada yada).

Eh, we do? All naturally small fighters fighting bigger men get credit. Lomachenko, pacman, Armstrong etc. all have that in their favour. No one, except some people driving a narrative, would discredit their careers or standings if/when they lose/lost to bigger men. How and when they lost matters ofc. It will be different for every guy. Duran wasn't cutting 20 pounds to make 135. In non-title fights with no weight limit, he wasn't coming in at 150-160 pounds. He weighed in heaviest at 138 pounds at 135 if memory serves me. He wasn't like Crawford or Toney or any modern fighter rehydrating 15 pounds.

Henry Armstrong at one point was 31-8-2, with losses to guys like Chavez and Casanova. And many other when he stepped up to Welterweight. If we started calling each loss a skill disparity, he would be kicked out of ATG rankings.

Pacquiao has losses to Rustico and Jeff Horn. How many people really bring that into the debate when discussing him in fantasy matchups?

Weight divisions exist for a reason. We can't ignore that just because you are gunning for Leonard here. Not that I believe in every Duran excuse. I have already said so. But some have more weight to them and I just don't want to handwave them away just because one rabid Leonard fan (not you, Addie) is getting real mad at that. All said, I haven't said anything that is even comparably ridiculous as puting Duran across as a natural Welterweight in all seriousness.

If by frustration you mean landed a couple good combinations over 15 rounds, I 'd agree. Duran, otherwise, coasted through both fights doing minimal work still outlanding his opponents by nearly a dozen each round. Leonard was struggling with Geraldo while boxing him. Should we take that into account as well?

Are they? Floyd never lost and you can count on one hand the fighters who really were bigger than him, even at higher weights. Nobody judges Pacman solely on the Horn or Ugas loss. Nobody said all of Duran's losses were illegitimate. I even gave credit to Dejesus and Benitez couple posts before. But some of them aren't of the same standing in a question of "who is the best?" New Orleans is one such loss.

 

Okay, I had rescored that 1st fight recently, having seen someone mention it. It wasn't close in the slightest. I gave Viruet one round out of the first 9 and I was trying to find rounds that were even close. Nor did I see Duran have any trouble with his movement. Everytime he lunged in, Viruet was either forced to hug him or Duran let off 2-3 hard shots to the body or head. He didn't show the workrate, I agree, but it was still better than New Orleans. It wasn't like he was losing. The whole fuss about that fight was the puerto rican-mexican rivalry and Viruet mocking him constantly during the fight. The fact that he didn't get a KO also boosted Viruet's case, but it was far from a close fight at all.

Leonard's tactics were part of it, I agree. He fought a better fight maybe. But when Duran was able to pin him to the ropes in the rematch, he was winning rounds as well. IIRC Two judges had the fight 4-3 for Leonard going into the 8th. That's what makes the discussion around the fight interesting compared to, say, Crawford-Spence or RJJ-Toney. It wasn't a one-sided beatdown as some believe. Duran was plodding bad, but the few times he was able to get going he was still a handful for Ray. It's also what was unusual about him that fight. The inconsistent workrate, the general lack of sharpness. He won round 5 in a big way then went back to plodding like he was gassed the first minute of round 6. Ray probably fought the wrong fight in Montreal, but his problems were tactical, not physical. He looked sharper and stronger than he had in any other fight till that point.

 

If you had the first fight that wide, you disagree with both med and the judges.

No one in this forum claims that Leonard was beating Duran up. But the score cards aren't quite as you say. Two of the judges had Leonard up by two points.

But, yes, Duran was by no means in a hopeless situation. That's what makes his quit job so utterly disgraceful.

Btw here' the thread in question: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/duran-leonard-rematch-timeline.616387/

 

Who took away credit from Benitez? JMW is closer to MW than WW btw. It isn't as simple as that. Some fighters aren't good jumpimg 1 weight class. The decline has to begin somewhere. Don't see what's so hysterical about that?

Maybe I am misunderstanding but...

Let's not do false equivalence now. Fight wasn't scheduled 5 months before November. And if Canelo was asking for 22 foot rings and bigger boxing gloves, you can be sure ESB would be lighting him up all day. I wasn't really talking about the Duran fight specifically.

 

Thanks for the link. I didn't go through the whole of it, but are the articles or caps from the papers linked somewhere down there?

 

Greatest: Duran
Best: Leonard
Most potential: Hearns
Most consistent: Hagler

 

Don't really know what you're saying here. But it isn't in any way strange to take into consideration that Duran was quite easily handled at 30 when he'd later win titles at that weight and above. It's not like we're talking about some ringwreck here.

Obviously. You can have an off night while being in good physical shape. Leonard clearly was in great physical condition, otherwise he'd not survived the full 15, no to mention actually finishing strong.

Canelo-Kovalev was held not even 2 months after Kovalevs previous fight. I think it was 7 weeks. So Kovalev probably had about 5 weeks of actual training.

Duran, on the other hand, said he was in training already more than 14 weeks before the rematch. And Leonard, unlike Canelo, didn't have any more time than he did. So the comparison is a non starter.

Oh, yes. Because they have menstrual cramps about everything named Canelo. But they said nothing about Saunders threatening to pull out of the already signed fight with Canelo if he didn't he get a bigger ring. Which he got.

And I don't see what the size of the ring for the Hagler fight, which is the one I suppose you refer to, has to do with this one.

 

There were links to the text in bold, but they have apparently been lost.

 

That's what I meant when I said that Duran is the only fighter who gets criticized for actually doing better than he should have (minus the Laing fight; the simms fight was a robbery imo). His victories at JMW and above were more down to the style of fighters playing to his, than him being in peak physical condition for any of them. (Davey Moore was sick for their fight for the title; Cuevas only relied on power) A fighter with 80+ fights on the record, over 30 years old and stepping up 1-2-3 weight divisions to JMW/MW/SMW from welterweight, which was already north for a fighter of that size, was never going to be a rousing success. Had he declined unanimously like Roy Jones did, people would be far more appreciative of him quite ironically. It would allow them to draw a line and say: "stop here, everything ahead can be safely dismissed for age, size and a lack of training". But we got a few vintage performances out of him which paradoxically ruins his case.

My argument has always been based on the eye test. He looked his fastest at LW, just slightly slower at Welter, but very slow and pretty much a pot-shot fighter at 154 and above. He only did well vs Hagler because he didn't have speed like Hearns, Benitez, and to a lesser degree, Laing did.

 

All in all, I think Jones probably get more stick for his performance past 34 than Duran for his past 29. But, yes, he was past his best at 154. I actually think only one poster here makes a big deal of his losses above WW, when he was in 30's and 40's. Most of us think he did enough work in his 20's to be judged on.

From a legacy standpoint I think he was still young enough for the loss to Laing, and the manner of his losses to Benitez and Hearns, to impact it a bit, but not by very much. And I think it says even less about his ability at his best.

But I do think his quit job in New Orleans, the worst quit job in the history of boxing, impacts his legacy quite a bit. So when answering the question of this thread, it clinches the answer for me. And that would be the same even if I did think he prepared poorly.

 

I think citing the Hearns fight is very unfair, the sheer size and length difference was ridiculous. Duran was against a guy who enjoyed a 6 inch height advantage and a 12 inch reach advantage over him, that reach difference is the same as Lomachenko's and Ali's to each other. Hearns also had the natural frame to move up to Light Heavyweight and still look like a very well conditoned athlete there, and even carried his power there. Any natural Lightweight similar to Duran's stature would get the same treatment.

 

I said the loss to Laing and manner of that loss and the one to Benitez taken together impacted his legacy "a bit, but not by very much". Because great as they were, they had an easier time with Duran than a number of others. And that's "very unfair". I try to keep my patience but you Duran fans....

Is it truly inconceivable to you lot that any of his losses can actually mean anything? And not only that Leonard was a super meanie.

 

When did I ever say anything about Leonard being at fault ? I've literally never claimed that on this board. Ever. Let alone on this thread. Leonard was an absolute scumbag when he was young, and whatever kind of treatment he gave Duran wouldn't even make the list for the reasons why. So relax and stop with the we vs you thing.

There's a reason I specifically mentioned Hearns here, and not Leonard, Benitez, Hagler, or anyone else but Hearns. Is it not unfair to criticize an aging guy, 20 lbs north of his best weight, for getting blasted out by a murderous puncher with a 12 inch reach advantage, at his particular best weight ? Is it inconceivable that it might not be a good indication of that fighter's greatness ? Because it looks like a pretty good case for it.

 

Again, and for the last time, my words were that his loss to Laing and the manner of his losses to Benitez and Hearns, impacted his legacy a bit, but not by very much. How on earth do you get that to mean that I claimed his loss to Hearns was a good indication of his greatness? That's just a silly interpretation.

But tell me, do you think any of Duran's losses impacts his legacy anything?

 

I said the opposite, you've just read it wrong.

Leonard 2 and Benitez, that's about it. I mostly forgive losses for any fighter, without exception. If an ATG has dozens of great wins, and a few blemishes here and there, then they do not matter to me most of the time, because they don't tell the whole story. Sure, put 2 guys with equally great winning resumes together, and I'd pick the guy with the less losses, but if the guy with the more losses has a better winning resume than the other, even if it's not by much, then I'd pick him in a heartbeat.

It should be clear as day that losses to Laing and Simms, or the ones post Barkley don't matter in the end. Wins over Leonard, Palomino, Buchanan, De Jesus, Barkley, Cuevas, Moore, Castro, Fernandez etc far outshine them.