Leonard or Duran - who should be higher ?

The good ole Captain on another thread used the fact Leonard had only thirty odd fights to mark him down....Now I'm aware the captain is more highly thought of than me and probably rightly so...But I believe that Leonard beat the better fighters.......Hearns and Benitez were both at their peak and he finished the rule of one of the best middleweight champions of alltime.....

He lost a contentious decision to Duran and beat him twice much more decisively in returns...

Not just that......He was not found out at the highest level as Duran was and didn't suffer as many crushing defeats.....Leonard never lost in his prime...apart from Duran which was repaid with interest!! (Many including me thought he won and all think he fought the wrong fight) but Duran still won to be fair so maybe that's sour grapes!!

Duran's best wins Dejesus, Buchanan and Moore are excellent wins but they pale in comparison to Leonard's (Duran lost to all of Leonard's best wins) .....Others like Cuevas had already been destroyed by Hearns.....The Hagler loss was a great performance but was still a loss!!

Duran had a great reign at lightweight......But Calzaghe fought the same calibre of opponent at super midd..If you add in Lacy and Hopkins...

Hopkins was no doubt in Buchanan's league....as subsequent wins showed..

Duran also had a habit of being outclassed by good boxers.........

Truly believe that Duran gets too much credit for Leonard and his defeats never seem to hurt him..Hearns was dreadful!!

Having said that top 20 alltimer for me but below Leonard!!

I'm not interested in the amount of fights you have.....Interested in quality and did you win??

Leonard won his superfights!!.....

Just my opinion..

I wouldnt argue too much either way. Not a great deal seperating them. I have to say though that I dont really agree with the argument that Leonards 30 odd fights should damage him too much. When you have wins over Hearns, Duran and Benitez at Welter and a win over Hagler at Middle then I think it leaves little to doubt.

Leonard, by a nose.

A better all-rounder than Duran and, as you say, it doesn't make for good reading for Roberto when you see how they got on against their mutual opponents. I don't particularly think there's any real shame in Duran's defeat against Benitez, and certainly not against Hagler, but the losses to Laing and Sims, as well as the 'No Mas' debacle, are real black marks for me, and I don't think that Leonard would have been given the same sort of free pass had he slipped up against Finch or Howard, for instance.

Duran's got longevity on his side; beating Marcel at 130 in 1970 and edging out Castro at 168 in 1997 is ridiculous, and his world champion victims span from Featherweight up to Light-Heavy! But I don't think that alone can make up for the fact that Leonard beat the better opposition (in terms of best wins, that is), beat so many men who Duran lost to and was that little bit closer to boxing perfection than Duran was. I don't hold Leonard's lack of fights against him too much; if Mike Spinks can be top twenty-odd with a little over thirty paid contests, and Whitaker can be top fifteen or so with only half a dozen more than Ray had, then I see no reason why Leonard can't out-rank Duran and quite a few others with forty to his name.

I still make Duran something like #9 or #10 all time pound for pound, however, so no need to feel too sorry for him.

My own view Truss, which I have in the past had some abuse for is Duran is ever so slightly overrated. Obviously a great fighter and in the top two or three at all time at lightweight but personally I have Leonard above him by a couple of places. Duran’s win over Ray first time round is one of the finest the sport has ever seen, close but a deserved win for Roberto. However I do feel there is a bit of have your cake and eat it after this point, people will put forward his excellent wins over the likes of Moore and Barkley in proof of his greatness but if you’re doing this you also have to consider him dropping decisions to the likes of Laing which no matter how mercurial a talent Kirkland could be was a guy an all time great should not be losing to. Also whilst he is as dominant a light weight as you would care to see but I consider most of his opposition to be from the very good rather than the great category.

When it comes to Leonard the only thing I can really count against him is his lack of fights but as you have alluded to there is a definite quality over quantity approach and wins over Duran, Hearns Benitez and Duran are about as fine a set as you could hope to see, particularly the Hagler win on the back of a couple of years retired, the fight was undoubtedly close but given Hagler is one of the all time greats at middle to be even able to compete is truly remarkable. Also for me Ray possessed one of the finest skill sets you could ever hope to see, the term is overused but is truly one of the guys who could do it all. There is not more than a couple of places in it and I would never argue to strongly with anyone who saw it differently but I have Ray a couple of places above Duran, both great in the truest sense of the word though.

Haven't mantioned Barkley which perhaps I should have....That was a top quality win!!

I scored it 115-112 for Barkley and always thought Barkley was overrated....but he was a respected champion....and enough thought Duran won to warrant inclusion!!

Doesn't change anything for me though........

Just cancels out the lost to Robbie Sims...

No problem with Roberto's alltime status just his position..

Thanks for the interesting opinions..

I guess that my 30-odd fight reasoning isn't proving too popular then! I would agree with you all if I were saying that Leonard is disqualified from all-time great status because of it. I'm genuinely not - there's no question about Leonard's merit as a boxer in my mind (as a comparison, I rate Michael Spinks very highly as a fighter, but 32 fights is equally insufficient to place him ahead of men such as Benny Leonard, for me).

However, when you're comparing a great boxer with other great boxers of more or less equal standing, whether in their own division or pound for pound, there have to be a whole host of factors at play. Among them is longevity, which is to say numbers of fights at the very highest level. I would certainly agree that the best of Leonard's victories entitle him to a place in my all-time top 15; I just can't find it within me to place him in a top 10.

Now, and here's the rub, I can't quite put Duran in my Top ten either. Truss articulates a number of the reasons in his preamble here. As a lightweight, he's clearly one of the greatest, just as Leonard is at welter. Leonard's victims are generally better, although not by much. Each lost once at the weight, avenging it fairly conclusively. Advantage Leonard, though again, not by much. At higher weights Leonard's pluses revolve entirely around two fights and what one wants to do with them - his so-so win over the respected, awkward but eminently beatable Kalule (soon afterwards absolutely spanked by McCallum), and, of course, the incredible victory over Hagler. It's fairest to forget everything else, for one reason or another.

Duran's career above his best weight mixed highs as great as Leonard's win over Hagler (Leonard, Moore, Barkley and the great showing v a peak Hagler) with wretched lows against Hearns, Laing, Benitez and that dreadful points win over Jimmy Batten of Millwall. His longevity, resilience and ability to punch way above his weight were remarkable, but consistency was not the name of his game. I find it hard to separate their achievements past lightweight and welterweight respectively.

Overall, therefore, I'm leaning to placing them something like 13th and 14th, with the narrowest of edges to Leonard. I can't place Leonard above men such as Tunney, but I do think that it's fair to give him the call over Duran. Roberto's accomplishments were undeniable, but he does get a pass for some of the lows that is not extended to other all-time greats.

I used to say Duran ranked higher, but that was probably just based on personal preferance as he was always one of my favourite fighters. Never warmed to Leonard as much for various reasons. However I think rowley is right in that Duran freerolls a bit above lightweight. Nowadays Id put Leonard slightly above although I wouldnt be too pushed about arguing either way.

On a side note, which would people rank as a better win? Duran stepping up to defeat Leonard at welter, or Leonard coming back after his lay off and eye trouble to beat Hagler at middle? From my experience I tend to think Durans win is rated better by the majority of people but I could see arguments for both.

Appreciate your considered response....Captain!!...In no way was this article a pop at you.

Myself I have Leonard top 5..

Top 5 is high praise, Truss. With the best will in the world, I couldn't place SRL above Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Charles and Ali, for example. Their victims are equally meritorious, it seems to me, and their longevity knocks Ray's into a cocked hat.

Manos's question about the greater individual win, Duran's over Leonard or Ray's over Hagler, is an interesting one. I would incline to Duran, simply because of the respective peaks of the defeated champions. Leonard was in full flower when Duran outsmarted him; Marvin was right at the fag-end of his career, which was, lest we forget, the reason that Ray contemplated fighting him in the first place. Not a great deal in it, but I'd still pick Duran's, I think.

Duran. Greatest lightweight of all time. He then pulled off one of the greatest wins in history by leaping two divisions (back when that was a feat) and outfighting one of the greatest welterweights of all time in Ray Leonard.

Both wonderful fighters with little between them, however, Duran's resume is greater. He was never the same after scalping Leonard despite infrequent reminders of his greatness in bouts wth Hagler, Moore and Barkley.

Perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on his post lightweight career.

Good question, Manos.

I tend to think that Duran's win in Montreal is a greater moment and achievement than Leonard edging out Hagler. The problem sometimes is that people have a hard time forgetting what happened five months later in the rematch when Duran and Leonard fought again, but I think it's fairest in this case to judge Duran's victory on its own.

Leonard's win over Hagler was a fantastic achievement, but this was a mid-thirties version of Marvin who'd fought just once between blasting out Hearns in April 1985 and losing his title to Leonard two years later. On the other hand, Leonard in 1980 was pretty much at the peak of his powers, perfectly between his wins over Benitez and Hearns, and was only twenty-four, to boot. And while the decision which gave Leonard his win over Hagler is hotly disputed to this day, with many feeling he conned the judges in to giving it to him, there is no such feeling regarding Duran's win over Leonard, as the majority feel he put it beyond most doubt (get ready for Truss to come in now with the fact that the decision was "contentious" and that "many American publications had Leonard winning!", folks!).

Even the fact that the 'Brawl' was a thrilling and absorbing fight, whereas Leonard-Hagler was a stinker comparitively speaking, holds sway with me, a little. For Duran-Leonard I, both men were on something like their best form, whereas in Leonard-Hagler at least one man had a serious off night!

If we look at Leonard's record though he has at least four top 30/40 hall of famers on his resume.....and all with belts at the time....

Have the guys you mention alongside him but Charles lower for me..

His lightweight career Haz resembles Calzaghe's super middle to a certain extent (Edwin Viruet types)....If anything too much emphasis is put on the brawl in Montreal and not enough on the fact he was outboxed by the finest fighters of his era..something Leonard wasn't..

I'll swap you ...Buchanan, Viruet and Dejesus for Eubank, Hopkins and Lacy..

and Calzaghe never lost to my three!!

Great lightweight but Benny was better..

I do think Duran has a fair few victories that are overlooked such as marcel, palomino, cuevas and Castro spanning an incredible 48lb range. It's this combined with his top tier victories over Leonard, Buchanan, Barkley and de Jesus that make up for his lows enough to warrant a higher placing.

Duran has competition for the title of greatest lightweight of all time from men like Benny Leonard and Pernell Whitaker, though, Haz, just as Leonard does as a welter from Robinson and Armstrong. To bang the drum for Whitaker, for example, who slightly controversially, perhaps, I would place one rung above both Duran and Leonard (with only 40 fights or so to his name!), if you take away the Ramirez disgrace, he was never beaten at the weight, and his victims there aren't so far below Duran's. Above that weight, his career makes Duran's pale by comparison, on the whole. When we're talking about fighters such as these, we have to consider their careers in the round. Duran would not be above men such as Pep or Monzon if we didn't additionally consider his CV above lightweight.

Cuevas had been destroyed by Hearns......even worse than Duran that fight!! He was scared stiff!! Palomino was ordinary...

But "good" names..

This the same Ghosty that marvels at Duran beating Barkley at 160 and then blames the 154 weight limit as to the reason he got battered off Hearns!!

Maybe the difference between the two....Is that I can see Whittaker, a 1985-Camacho, Chavez, Arguello, Mayweather and even Meldrick Taylor/Pryor at 140 beating Duran....

Yet I struggle to see anybody apart from Hearns and Robbo at 147/154 with a chance of beating Leonard...

Maybe Terry Norris at his best..

[quote="TRUSSMAN66"]Yet I struggle to see anybody apart from Hearns and Robbo at 147/154 with a chance of beating Leonard...[quote]

I guess him actually doing it still isn't enough to convince you that Duran could have beaten a Welterweight version of Leonard then, Truss!?

At 147, I agree, Truss. At 154, I'm less sure. All we have to go on at the weight is Kalule, a fight in which he was getting repeatedly frustrated by a decent, but not awe-inspiring fighter before finally finding the pay-off shot in the 9th, Kevin Howard in 1983, when he was sufficiently underwhelmed by his own performance to call it quits "for good" and the Norris fight when he was long gone as a great fighter. Think that McCallum at 154 would have given Ray all he could handle, myself.

Burley would whoop him at 147, assume we all know this it was just a collective memory slip.

Calzaghe's super middleweight reign consisted of only Manfredo and Kessler didn't it?

Duran was the man for 6 years -- completely dominant. I've lifted this from another site to save time:

Won (lineal) title from Ken Buchanan. (Lineal LW Title, HOF.)
Defended against Jimmy Robertson. (NABF LW Title.)
Defended against Hector Thompson. (Empire LW Title.)
Defended against Guts Ishimatsu. ( Future WBC LW Champ.)
Defended against Esteban DeJesus. (Future WBC LW Champ.)
Defended against Massattacker Takayama (Japanese LW Champ.)
Defended against Ray Lampkin (NABF LW Title.)
Defended against Leoncio Ortiz. (Mexican LW title.)
Defended against Lou Bizarro.
Defended against Alvaro Rojas.
Defended against Vilomar Fernandez
Defended against Edwin Viruet.
Defended and won WBC title against Esteban DeJesus. (WBC LW Champ.)
Vacated undisputed title.

Defended lineal title 12 times. Also unified.

Key Wins.

Ken Buchanan (Prime HOF.)
Guts Ishimatsu (LW Champ.)
Esteban DeJesus (LW Champ.)
Ray Lampkin, Vilomar Fernandez, Edwin Viruet Top 5 Contenders.
Hector Thompson (Top 5 JWW Contender.)
Ernesto Marcel (FW Champ.)
Hiroshi Kobayashi (SFW Champ.)

(Hoping that's all pretty acccurate!). It wasn't only results, though. He was one of the finest technicians the sport has ever seen. A killer even the old guard could agree belonged with the likes of Benny Leonard and Joe Gans.

Leonard's victories over Hearns and Benitez were wonderful. It could be argued that the wins over Hagler and Duran were more to do with timing (Duran had gained 50 pounds after their first fight, whereas Hagler was on the slide).

Never seen Burley fight .....Is he making a comeback???

147-154 I think Leonard takes his power with him......Mccallum would give him problems...endurance wise..

After watching Kalambay- Mccallum (at 160 I know) Think he struggles to pin Leonard down!!...

See a Hagler-Leonard yype duel but with a fresher Sugar Ray...

All about opinions though..

I know who Duran fought...haz and it's good to see you back on here....

But Robin Reid, was a future champ and Woodhall, Byron Mitchell former ones ......and I didn't add them in.......

Terry Norris beat Meldrick Taylor, Curry, Leonard, Mugabi, Brown, Santana... all current and former champs....Quincy Taylor NABF champ and top 5 Troy Waters....

and he's not great!!

I don't think Duran's lightweight reign give or take a few names was that great....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Maybe the difference between the two....Is that I can see Whittaker, a 1985-Camacho, Chavez, Arguello, Mayweather and even Meldrick Taylor/Pryor at 140 beating Duran....

Yet I struggle to see anybody apart from Hearns and Robbo at 147/154 with a chance of beating Leonard...

Maybe Terry Norris at his best..

Tbh apart from Whitaker I don't think any of those would beat Duran at 135/140. Camacho struggled to a SD over Rosario who isn't as good as Duran, Castillo deserved a win over Maywetaher an duran was a much better boxer than Castillo and quicker, Duran was as relentless and tough as chavez/Pryor but has better defence and would have beaten them at their own game and Arguello-Duran would go similar to Pryor-Arguello but with Duran being that bit better than Pryor so forcing the stoppage late without the aid of 'homemade water' like Pryor used

'homemade water'....isn't that urine?

You'll have to ask Panama Lewis

"homemade water".......peckham spring..

Camacho was better than Dejesus in my humble opinion.......

Rosario was a good fighter.......Certainly would have pulled up trees in the 70s...

But your opinion is welcome...

Would have thought Pryor would be as good a person to ask as any. Perhaps that's why he fought so well. "Hey, this guy just gave me p!ss to drink. Gonna take care of this other clown then Panama is getting his butt kicked!"

Think Pryor is unlucky to have one of his best wins tarnished like it is!!

Was it the tenth when he took that barnstorming right hand and he just shook it off!!

Pryor was the wrong man at the wrong time for Alexis.....

Just wish Aaron had been managed better........Mancini, Rosario, Leonard, Duran , Curry...

All huge fights he could have pursued..to propel him.

I think you underestimate what a formidable force Duran was at 135, Truss. Got himself decisioned by DeJesus, but it was a non-title fight and Duran may well have taken him lightly given how busy he'd been in 1972 and how erratic his training could be even at that stage. It's not as if DeJesus was a patsy, and Duran dealt with him handily enough in their two rematches. DeJesus hardly touched him in their third fight, in fact.

Aside from Whitaker, who'd love Duran coming at him and had the tools to make Roberto blow his top, I'd back a Lightweight Duran (or a 140 lb version where it's relevant) to beat just about all the other names you mention.

Duran's artillery is too heavy for Camacho, who'd survive the full distance but probably gets discouraged once he's tasted some of Duran's power. Duran's a bit too quick for a Lightweight version of Alexis. Meldrick had the skills to give Duran nightmares, but if his performance against Chavez is anything to go by he'd be getting way too brave for his own good once his early rounds success goes to his head and, if he starts thinking he can take the fight to Duran like that, he gets taken apart. You can't rule Chavez out, but I tend to see a lot of similarities between the pair only with Duran being just that little bit better in all areas - I see him taking a decision win in a brutal contest there. Ditto Pryor.

Mayweather, I grant you, would probably have the Indian sign over him. Difficult to evaluate Floyd the Lightweight, as he wasn't there for that many fights and his opposition at the weight wasn't particularly great, but no one weight between 130 and 140 seems to fit him better than any other, so I might give Mayweather a very narrow edge there.

Never said Dejesus was a patsy Chris....

But If you want to say Duran underestimated him when he lost......One may reply by saying that he decked and outboxed Duran early in 130 degree heat in the 3rd fight only to "perhaps" succumb to the conditions..

A la Mcguigan-Bernard Taylor..

Duran has to land his artillery on Camacho.......Benitez, Hearns and Leonard 2 showed he had trouble with moving targets....

Chavez for me has a stronger chin and could fight all night too..

Taylor/Mayweather too good for me..

But I take your point and I appreciate your contributions......You put a good case as always..

I understand your point in Camaho but Dejesus had to take alot of punishment to be competitive and I don't thin kcamacho could quite tough it out like Dejesus did and duran wa a young man when he lost (10 rounder too) the went on to stop Dejesus twice

Rosario was a very good boxer but duran was a great and could do everything Rosario could do but was a bit better in every way

Agree about Pryor although feel he was as little overrated and would have had a couple losses had he move duo but that's for another debate. By the time Arguello fought pryor he had a career were he took lots of punishment so when you put a young fresh bull-like fighter who is naturally bigger than you it was going to end. His win will be tainted but he was heading for. A points win befor ethe accusations of the 13t round came about

Back to the original debate, its hard as Duran's reign at lightweight was great but lost as he fought bigger men an had mixed successes. The hearns KO, Benitez loss and Leonard loss are black marks looking at how Leonard dealt with them

No Duran didn't have Rosario's punch!!! but I'd say he was a better fighter....

Styles make fights...Rosario caught Camacho (he was being outboxed..one punch turned it around) and he was one of the hardest bangers of his generation. Ask Viruet!!

Not sure Duran could hurt Camacho with one bang in the same way....

Camacho toughed it out against Chavez 9took a beating), Rosario and DelaHoya so I think you're being unkind to him..

He was much quicker and could bust fighters up too..

think Camacho's speed would be too much..

Leonard for me. Although he did not have the activity that Roberto did he matched Duran on the quality of his big wins. However, Duran lost too often in his prime years for me.

Only lost once in his prime years to defend him....However the best fighters he fought beat him...

Question is would he have beaten them in his prime years??

My guess is enough skilled boxers had his number as to doubt he would have...

Bet Gordy has Lewis ahead of both of them............

Camacho was indeed a tough little bleeder, Truss, but in fights where he knew he could be hurt (ie, Rosario onwards) he tended to make it a damage limitation job and was happy to go the full fifteen / twelve, throwing about thirty punches per round going backwards. His quickness and movement could definitely cause Duran alot of problems, but I don't think he can go the full course against Duran without getting seriously tagged and hurt at some stage. And if he does, then I think he becomes too passive and allows Roberto to run away with a decision, or maybe even stop him late on if Duran's having a big, big night.

Duran was definitely a bit vulnerable to blinding speed, which Taylor had boat loads of, but I think Meldrick's ring smarts, or rather a lack of them, make it a bit unlikely that he can beat Duran. As early as the second round against Chavez he was starting to fall in love with his own work and take way too many chances. When he boxed Chavez at range and used his counter-punching and jab he made the Mexican look ordinary, but then for some reason he'd follow up an utterly dominant round spent jabbing and moving with one in which he went in to the phone booth with Chavez with no good reason to do so. He still won rounds doing that, of course, but took a hell of a lot of punishment in between which was eventually his downfall.

Chavez was relentless, tough and a nasty puncher, but as I say I think Duran just had a wee bit more than Julio in most areas and, much like Julio, I can see him gradually having his way with Taylor and stopping him late on.

Duran hit as hard as Rosario, but even if you do believe Rosario is the harder puncher which is fair Duran was brilliant at cutting off the ring and would have for to Camacho's body where he will either slow down or go defensive as Chris said leading to a points win or a decision for Duran

Agree with what chris said about Taylor, Duran is every bit as tough, strong, relentless as Chavez but is slightly cuter, harder to outbox, harder to out think and harder to catch cleanly. Taylor had to throw 100 punche a around to keep Chavez away and that didn't even keep him back and duran could walk through him just as easily

Well for me his prime years extended beyond his lightweight days as he was still competing at the highest level. Yes I know of his weight problems and partying ways outside of the ring, yet was still seen as viable opponents to take on Leonard twice (ignoring that sad 3rd encounter), Hearns, Hagler and Benitez as well as dominate a young undefeated chap at 154. And for me he lost fights he should not have.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Duran has competition for the title of greatest lightweight of all time from men like Benny Leonard and Pernell Whitaker,

LEt's not forget the old master in that Captain, honestly I could be fooled into thinking nobody reads the book reviews round here.

Well if you can't manage to shoehorn in references to Lennox Lewis or Joe Calzaghe then the chances are they're going to be ignored, Rowley

DAVE667 wrote:Well if you can't manage to shoehorn in references to Lennox Lewis or Joe Calzaghe then the chances are they're going to be ignored, Rowley

I reviewed No Ordinary Joe if that helps Dave

Suggesting it's one of the worst boxing biographies ever isn't like to endear you to the forum's legion of Calzaghe fans

Sorry, Jeff, Gans too, of course.

I read them...cured my insomnia!!

Dave feel free to shoehorn in an opinion as to whether Leonard or Duran should be higher anytime you like.....

Try looking on Boxrec If you don't know who they are..

DAVE667 wrote:Suggesting it's one of the worst boxing biographies ever isn't like to endear you to the forum's legion of Calzaghe fans

I was being kind suggesting it was only one of the worst ever Dave. Makes De La Hoya's look a shoo in for the Nobel Prize for literature

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I read them...cured my insomnia!!

Anything that may result in you spending less time on here is time well spent on my part.

No kidding???

Could always chuck me off again without telling me...

Won't hold it against you...

Yeah because you would have had to be Poirot to work out the reasons.