Why do people highly rate Duran's win over Leonard?

When was leonard's prime then?.

His best wins are Benitez, Hearns (1), Duran (2) which were around the same time that Duran beat him and Hagler, when Hagler was on the slide (still a great win).

Who was Leonard fighting in his prime 27-28 to 32-33?

Who many times has Leonard defended any of his titles?

 

atschatschatsch

 

Cause you're gay

 

Leonard was no better in the second fight than he was in the first, it was Duran who was different. But that's a side-issue anyway, Duran's win was clearly better, plus an h2h comparison isn't very fair since Duran was a lightweight. Leonard would not have beaten peak Hagler at middleweight, but that doesn't mean Leonard's win over past-prime Hagler wasn't worth much or that Leonard isn't a greater fighter than Hagler p4p.

 

Nowhere near the top 100. Probably nowhere near the top 200 either. That thread was on best WINS, not best FIGHTS. Chico-Castillo was an all-time great fight, but it was nothing even resembling an all-time great win.

 

:good pretty much sums it up

 

Thats a pretty dumb post there huddy..perhaps your dumbest..and I have seen some pearlers from you before.

You are not seriously suggesting that their is some blanket rule stating that every fighter is in their prime during their late 20's-early 30's when there are probably 100's of examples contradicting that?

Lets say you're not. Ive misunderstood and you are refering to Leonard's prime years.
Well then it still doesnt add up because Ray did not fight as a 27 year old, he had one fairly average performance as a 28 year old coming back from surgery, so **** he was he himself felt that he retired and didnt fight as a 29 year old. I certainly did not see a prime Leonard in the Hearns II, Lalonde and Duran III fights when he was 32-33. Therefore Ray clearly doesnt fit into your scientifically proven criteria. :roll:

 

Yes he is/was.

Hagler could not beat Leonard and he struggled with Duran, he was overrated because of how dominant he was over lesser fighters like Minter,Sibbo,Obell etc etc.

Leonard's wins over Benitez/Hearns> any of Hagler's wins.

 

Tell ya what, Pal. If Mayweather decides to brawl with Pacquiao and gets his ass handed to him, but then comes back in a rematch and runs/outboxes/whatever and wins a decision over Pacquiao, then I'll ask you the same question. Why did Pacquiao get such credit for beating Mayweather the first time around?

Seriously, dude...what are you on?

 

Unquestionably.

 

There is absolutely NO LOGIC in this what so ever. :-(

 

:rofl:rofl Yeah right, You would be the first one saying the first fight meant alot more.

 

So what your saying is that not fighting during his prime years means that they werent his prime years??? And yes it have been scientifically proven that those are a males prime years. Its the point were your body is as strong as it will be naturally and your mental peak is starting. It has been proven that during those years is when the human male puts it all together. When younger then that you may be stronger but not as smart, when older then that you may be smarter but not as strong.

You say that my post is dumb for saying that Ray wasnt in his prime, so what your saying is that was the best that Ray could get?? But didnt he beat Duran twice after that??? What was the reason behind a younger Ray losing then an older Ray winning??? could it have anything to do with Ray not standing in front of Duran and trading punches?? Why do you think that happened?? Was it maybe because Ray was Smarter??? Maybe he didnt let Duran goat him like he did in the first fight??? But it has nothing to do with what I said:huh