Leonard or Duran - who should be higher ?

First topic message reminder :

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..

Hard to call as to which should rate higher, but Leonard's lack of "reign" does count against him in my opinion. It's easier to get 'up' for big fights than to consistently do so for more mundane title defences and none loved a big occassion more than SRL . IMO a good long title reign counts. And as for Truss's assertions re Laing, Benitez, Hearns etc , if you count those against Duran, then Leonard's Fights against Norris, and Camacho should also be considered. For me the truth is that Duran's peak ended in New Orleans, and everything that happened after that needs to be judged as the work of a past his peak fighter operating two or more divisions above his own.
Overall I still give the nod to Leonard, ironically partly due to the Montreal fight. He fought the most ferocious fighter alive at his own game and came within a whisker of pulling it off- the equivalent would be Duran dancing and boxing off the back foot to give Whitaker a lesson, something that I can't imagine.

Joe Cal must be a top 10 then. Loads of mundane fights and a couple of big ones.

"Capable of winning".........

I watched a different fight.....Sure if Roberto felt he was in with a shout he wouldn't of quit IN FRUSTRATION..........

What is meant is that the fight was competitive. Up to the point of "no mas" Duran was in it. It could be argued seeing as how the fight was going, that SRL would have ran away with the rest of the fight.

But in simple terms, SRL was the better fighter and should be ranked much higher that Duran regardless of how much it burns me to admit that.

Agreed.......

However fighters generally know how a fight is going themselves....Duran didn't feel in control...hence the frustration..

Wasn't a Hearns-like slap for sure....

I think he was more peeved at the antics of SRL and that he wasn't 100% prepared for the fight. As a Tory would say when caught with his usual rent boy, "a momentary lapse of judgement".

He was prepared enough........Got his butt handed to him.....because Leonard was smarter...Geez he only won by a point when Leonard fought the wrong fight!!

Laing..Benitez...Hearns.........were smarter too..

Leonard, Barkley and hagler were smarter than hearns but doesn't stop you waxing lyrical about him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He was prepared enough........Got his butt handed to him.....because Leonard was smarter...Geez he only won by a point when Leonard fought the wrong fight!!

Laing..Benitez...Hearns.........were smarter too..

He didn't prepare well Truss and you know that. He partied and dropped weight too quickly. But that was his problem. He was a pro after all. Cynical ploy by SRL to get Duran back so quickly knowing that he'd be out partying all night and day.

horizontalhero wrote:Hard to call as to which should rate higher, but Leonard's lack of "reign" does count against him in my opinion. It's easier to get 'up' for big fights than to consistently do so for more mundane title defences and none loved a big occassion more than SRL . IMO a good long title reign counts. And as for Truss's assertions re Laing, Benitez, Hearns etc , if you count those against Duran, then Leonard's Fights against Norris, and Camacho should also be considered. For me the truth is that Duran's peak ended in New Orleans, and everything that happened after that needs to be judged as the work of a past his peak fighter operating two or more divisions above his own.
Overall I still give the nod to Leonard, ironically partly due to the Montreal fight. He fought the most ferocious fighter alive at his own game and came within a whisker of pulling it off- the equivalent would be Duran dancing and boxing off the back foot to give Whitaker a lesson, something that I can't imagine.

Whoa there! I love the Duran and Whitaker analogy but you can't compare 29yo Duran's loss against Benitiez to 41yo (and retired) Leonards loss against Camacho

He also didn't have a long title reign because he moved through 5 weights in less than ten years to win world titles (and was the first to do it?).

Also, shouldn't he get points for being a able to retire for up to three years at a time and come back and beat REAL world champions in his first fights back??

What I'm saying is Az..his skill set didn't match Leonards.....Not sure how he prepares for a dancing Leonard

He made the weight!!!..He must have prepared adequately to do that..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What I'm saying is Az..his skill set didn't match Leonards.....Not sure how he prepares for a dancing Leonard

He made the weight!!!..He must have prepared adequately to do that..

Oh I agree. But he had a different type of skillset. Ali looked good when he turned up for Holmes didn't he? He was the lightest he had been for eons.

Witherspoon had been slapping Ali around in sparring...not sure Duran was suffering the same fate!!

I agree your point though about the weight though not being conclusive!!

Trussy if you think that Duran came into that fight 100% prepared then you are wrong. Its no secret that you dont like the guy, but quit lying to yourself about his condition coming into and in the fight.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:Hard to call as to which should rate higher, but Leonard's lack of "reign" does count against him in my opinion. It's easier to get 'up' for big fights than to consistently do so for more mundane title defences and none loved a big occassion more than SRL . IMO a good long title reign counts. And as for Truss's assertions re Laing, Benitez, Hearns etc , if you count those against Duran, then Leonard's Fights against Norris, and Camacho should also be considered. For me the truth is that Duran's peak ended in New Orleans, and everything that happened after that needs to be judged as the work of a past his peak fighter operating two or more divisions above his own.
Overall I still give the nod to Leonard, ironically partly due to the Montreal fight. He fought the most ferocious fighter alive at his own game and came within a whisker of pulling it off- the equivalent would be Duran dancing and boxing off the back foot to give Whitaker a lesson, something that I can't imagine.

Whoa there! I love the Duran and Whitaker analogy but you can't compare 29yo Duran's loss against Benitiez to 41yo (and retired) Leonards loss against Camacho

He also didn't have a long title reign because he moved through 5 weights in less than ten years to win world titles (and was the first to do it?).

Also, shouldn't he get points for being a able to retire for up to three years at a time and come back and beat REAL world champions in his first fights back??

My first point was that Duran was no longer prime at 29, and that the losses after Montreal don't lessen the fact that his lw reign alone is enough for him to be considered an ATG, not seriously suggesting that the losses themselves are comparable, was being a bit facetious, but I get bored of Truss continually going on about Laing, Leonard, Benitez, and Hearns as if they had occurred in Duran's pomp, which clearly to anyone that watched him as a lightweight isn't the cause. Yes, he got outboxed, but he was older and slower, if it were possible to shrink those guys down and send them back in time to fight him at his best, they may well have been beaten up in the way Buchanan and Dejesus were.

My point about having a reign rather than a series of mega fights is still valid though IMO - I'm not denigrating SRLs achievement, merely suggesting that continually gearing up for, and performing well in routine defences is in someways harder than doing so for a series of mega fights, Az commented that by that analogy Calzaghe must be a top tender, but that somewhat ignores how awful he looked in some of those fights, Duran always torn in like he was the challenger in his first title fight. Aside to that I don't count Leonard to be the first five time weight champ -whatever the WBC say you can't win two different weight titles in one fight in my book

Lastly yes, agree the performance against Haglar was massively impressive, whether you agree with the decision or not.

Its an interesting point you make about motivation.

There's no real evidence to suggest he wouldn't be motivated for routine defenses, but then again, there's no evidence to suggest he would have been.

Interesting point.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Its an interesting point you make about motivation.

There's no real evidence to suggest he wouldn't be motivated for routine defenses, but then again, there's no evidence to suggest he would have been.

Interesting point.

If you read Leonard's book, he doesn't sound as though he was the type to get motivated for routine title defenses.

oh, there is eveidence then.