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..

Seriously though........I watched some old grainy footage of Gans against Battling somebody on a welterweight video years ago...

No offence but not enough evidence to start saying he beats Leonard and Duran or anyone else...

Don't believe Jesse Owens beats Usain Bolt either....

Think anyone sensible... sees the Fitzsimmons who fought Corbett getting squashed by Virgil Hill....but there you go..

But we can all dream..

Trains are better, Planes are better, sportsmen are better..end of!!

Moderators now that's another subject...

Leonard for his consistency I think. To be fair to Duran, most of the men he was outboxed by were also naturally bigger, this was certainly the case with Benitez and Hearns, who on form I would back to wreck just about any lightweight in history Whitaker and Leonard excepted. I don't think I'd make any of the list proposed by the OP favourite against Duran, bar Mayweather.

You bang on about Duran being outboxed by the best boxers he faced but Marcel, De Jesus and Buchanan would disagree strongly with that. Lets put into context and start pitting Leonard against world class middleweights, super middleweights and light heavyweights on a consistent basis and see how he does. I personally don't see him performing as well against say Moore as Duran did against Hagler.

Personally have Duran in top 5 and Leonard in top 10 although I'm a hardcore Duran fan so my rating might be suspect. main points aside from the ones already noted. I think Durans win over Leonard in their first is rivalled only by Fraziers win over Ali in the fight of the century. That Leonard tended to hold some physical or (some other) advantage over his opponents - Size and speed - for Duran - speed over Hagler whereas Duran was smaller than any of them except De jesus. Duran does have some bad losses but hes fighting divisions above where he should have been. Even at the age of 45+ he beat both Camacho and Pazienza in their first fights. When you are fighting that much out of your comfort zone anything you win is a bonus rather than an expectation. Still - No mas and Laing losses in particular rankle but Laing was Durans Buster douglas. Thae problem was that if Duran was even slightly off game at the higher weights he paid for it - whereas most fighters his size wouldnt even dare breathe the same air as Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Barkley.

Benitez, Leonard and Hearns are below Buchanan, Dejesus and Marcel are they??...Ghosty.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bet Gordy has Lewis ahead of both of them............

Lewis would ahead of Duran but it would be close between him and Sugar Ray Leonard. Both are amongst the greatest boxers of all time. Both were tremendously skilled fighters but I would put Lewis ahead because he was like a larger, more powerful version of Leonard and I also think Hagler beat Leonard but was ripped off. Duran was a great fighter too but he was around in a great era. If he was around now he wouldnt lose a fight.

"Lennox Lewis was a larger, more powerful version of Sugar Ray Leonard"

Sorry boys but that one has to go right in at the top of the unoffical "Incredibly stupid things Gordy has said" (which I sincerely hope someone is compiling.)

Always thought when watching a Lewis fight that I may actually just be watch SRL and sitting a bit too close to the TV

No but they're the same size as Duran Truss, I know it's a difficult concept for you to understand but I don't give any lightweights a chance of beating those whom beat Duran.

I think we can agree though Truss that pair are a mile ahead of the now increasingly over rated Lennox Lewis while Duran would lose to Mayweather.

I thought the same thing when I read that comment Dave. Would have been weird if he'd been a small version.

Mayweather is overrated. He would not beat Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran. Just because he is the best now does not mean he is the best of all time.

He probably wouldn't beat Hagler, Hearns or Leonard but he'd give Duran a thorough boxing lesson in my opinion.

Duran would knock Mayweather out. He was a ferocious fighter that never let up. Mayweather has never fought great fighters like Duran.

Rather than spouting your usual brand of rubbish why don't you give me an indication of the clear flaws you see in Mayweather because for the life of me I can't see any. Duran was a brilliant fighter who could expertly apply pressure but he'd be in against one of the finest counter punchers and defensive masters of all time.

I dont think so - Castillo gave him trouble and Duran was a superior fighter to him. I think Mayweather does win 6 4 but Duran was a clever boxer and he wont fall for half these traps mayweather lulls fighters into without using them to trap him back. Also Duran hits the body much better than anyone he ever fought - I can see Duran outpointing by virtue of cleaner and harder work and being the aggressor. Mayweather would always go in as favourite. The lower down it is the better chance for Duran. He slips fantastically and rides the ones he doesnt. Mayweathersright hand set up would be rendered almost redundant against Duran and I'd bet that whoever wins they'd earn every penny that they'd recieve for this fight every second of every round.

Duran beat Sugar Ray Leonard in one fight who was far better than Mayweather

Not really an answer is it, what weaknesses would Duran exploit?

Mayweather hasn't fought any boxers that are as good at pressuring as Duran. Myweather is one of my favourite boxers but Castillo could have beat him by using his jab to set up pressure and Duran was the best at that. Mayweather is a defensive master, is very quick and has good footwork, but Duran has faced that all with Leonard except Leonard was alot bigger and hit alot harder. Cotto and Hatton also had there successes against Mayweather but struggled to capitalise

Duran was an aggressive fighter but could slip and block as good as anyone, and anywhere from 135-147 he would have bore into Mayweather to overwhelm him and Floyd can neglect his offence when in the ropes which he will find himself on and Duran would be the biggest puncher he has fought and can match him for his inside game

I think Duran could possibly exploit Mayweather's occasional negativity.

Leonard for me was the better of the two even though he had a lot fewer fights. I still think Hearns should have got the decision in their second fight and his last two attempts at a comeback go against him a little losing to Norris and being stopped by Camacho tarnish his legacy a bit, but an entertaining boxer never the less. Duran as you say had some great wins but he did come unstuck against the big boys.

some dull mundane mid level debate, thankfully enhanced by the ever educating tour de force that is gordy.

Duran easier to place than leonard for me. Top 3 lightweight ever, and probably no 1 in my book, proceeded to be competitive above his best weight in a talent stacked era. Shouldn't get a total free pass on the weight thing though. He generally came in at light-welter in his frequent none title fights when he was lightweight champ and was fighting at around the welter limit for 2 years before he fought leonard. Yeh i know he wasnt the keenest trainer, but i don't think its a stretch to say welter was a fairly natural move for a maturing fighter. Anything above that weight was lard though and a different story.

As for SRL, i think when you're judging the very best, one of the criteria is longevity. Leonard didn't have it. Almost Ali-like, that we missed what on paper could have been his best years, and when he came back he was a static target. Against that you weigh up that no fighter in history has a cv that matches his first 7 title fights. In terms of all time great talents, leonard is up there with the very best, he had the skill, the heart, the ability to up the ante when he had to. But he didnt do it for long enough from an all time p4p basis... I think he comes out higher in who beats who rankings.

I tend to avoid p4p lists as they make my head hurt too much, but these guys would be close to each.... a long spiel to fence sit i know

"enhanced by tour de force Gordy.........."

Too much praise..certainly wouldn't say he's any better than you kid!!

awhh trussy, you're too kind

Personally I dont see it as even close. Much as I like Duran (after Ali he was my favourite boxer) SRL was on another planet. Beating Benny, Hagler and Hearns is enough for me even without the Duran fights.

For the record I could never tolerate SRL. Always wanted him to get caned and caned badly. His holier than thou attitude annoyed me and his sprinting away frm a rematch with Hearns until a century after their first fight was irritating. But notwithstanding his 30 odd fight, I maintain he is the best boxer I have ever laid eyes on. No 1 P4P for me. Beats Robbo at WW.

I'm with Gordy on this. I reckon Duran beats Mayweather. Many see him as a brutal bully but ignore his wonderful inside skills. His supreme defence that rivals only the very best there ever has been. His countering whilst inside is the best I have ever witnessed. I doubt Floyd is physically strong enough to keep Duran at bay. I see Duran wining a close decision at whatever weight they fight.

I'd tend to make Mayweather a narrow favourite, but I certainly don't see him (or anyone else) handing Duran a "boxing lesson" at 135 or 140 as Ghosty suggests.

I think Floyd's got the two big things you need to get the wood on Duran; great speed and patience. If Duran couldn't get to you and exchanges were at range, he'd always swat first and was vulnerable to getting over anxious. If he charges Mayweather all night with his temper getting the better of him he gets decisioned, I reckon.

As Shah said, Duran would win a few if they boxed a long series, and his overall career entitles him to a greater standing than Mayweather I think. But based on styles I just think that Floyd would have the edge, head to head.

Id lean towards Duran if he was at his best but his consistency wasnt as good as Mayweathers above lightweight. Im actually not sure I like Mayweathers defensive style against Duran because while he might pick him off with shots, I think hes vulnerable to be swallowed up and swarmed if hes on the ropes or tries to rely on slipping and weaving. Box and move or box behind a jab. Dont stay in range or invite Duran in and try to rely on defensive genius, shoulder rolling and reflexes to stay out of trouble because Duran is too lethal for that.

88Chris05 wrote:I'd tend to make Mayweather a narrow favourite, but I certainly don't see him (or anyone else) handing Duran a "boxing lesson" at 135 or 140 as Ghosty suggests.

I think Floyd's got the two big things you need to get the wood on Duran; great speed and patience. If Duran couldn't get to you and exchanges were at range, he'd always swat first and was vulnerable to getting over anxious. If he charges Mayweather all night with his temper getting the better of him he gets decisioned, I reckon.

As Shah said, Duran would win a few if they boxed a long series, and his overall career entitles him to a greater standing than Mayweather I think. But based on styles I just think that Floyd would have the edge, head to head.

What makes you think Duran didn't have patience? One thing Floyd lacks and to the extent that he would beat Duran was foot speed. Accurate puncher and good speed. But he was more stationary that SRL and that would allow Duran to close the gap and take the fight where he will be most effective.

I don't buy for one moment that SRL decided to fight fire with fire. He lost because of experience or lack of, and Duran didn't allow him to run.

He didn't have patience..Couldn't wait to hit the deck against Hearns!!

Duran would have had too much for the 135 lb version of Mayweather. Duran's infighting prowess was exceptional. He'd have crawled all over Mayweather.

I agree the great Dejesus beat him.....so what chance has top 10 all time great Mayweather got against him!!

Laing, Leonard, benitez, hearns and all other accomplished types success was all a fluke!!

I'd make it pretty close between Mayweather and Duran, surely you would make Duran far and away the best Mayweather has ever faced?

No...The highest in the alltime stakes!!

But I'd pick DelaHoya to beat Duran....

I'd have Duran higher, but they are both top 10 for me.

->A career at lightweight defining him as the greatest lightweight of them all with only Whittaker being even money to beat him.

->The biggest win in the history of boxing - outpointing an unbeaten Leonard - one of the greatest welters of all time. Duran was past his peak had jumped 12lbs and faced off against Leonard and produced that performance: just amazing.

-> Even his patchy career as a fat lightweight fighting middles is still littered with seriously impressive performances that only enhance his legacy - Hagler only squeaked past him, the incredible defeat of Barkley, the destruction of Moore.

Duran seemed to be made out of a different material to normal people. I'd pick him over Mayweather 8/10. A true great of the sport.

->

He isn't defined as the greatest lightweight of alltime...

It wasn't the biggest win in the history of Boxing...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He isn't defined as the greatest lightweight of alltime...

It wasn't the biggest win in the history of Boxing...

Don't tell be you think it's Benny Leonard! No way do you believe that. Or Gans?

I can't think of a bigger win in boxing. Greb Tunney?

Don't tell me what I believe.........

Frazier against Ali came in the biggest fight, so it's more than fair to call it the biggest win, I think, Bamber. Having said that, I'd probably make Duran-Leonard top 2!

He's definitely not "defined" as the greatest lightweight ever, either. He'd probably be the choice of most, but Benny, Whitaker and Gans all have a surprising number of supporters. Not cut and dried, by any means.

I think the names of Whitaker and Gans get banded around a bit too much when I can't say i've read too many supporting their claims for lightweight supremacy, tends always to be between Leonard and Duran. I could be wrong but that's how I see it.

I definitely think you're wrong re Whitaker, Ghosty. Seen his claim supported quite widely and must say that his dominance and quality of opposition at 135 is not much inferior to Duran's. Above 135, there is no comparison, for me. Whitaker by some distance, so a better overall rating for Pea.

@captain re greatest lightweight

For me, Duran was outrageously talented and had longevity mixed with the series for De Jesus that really nails it. I'm a big Whittaker fan too and also have him my top 10 p4p all time and might even have him a warm favourite h2h against Duran.

"Outrageously talented" ????

No he wasn't...hyperbole again!!

He lost to Benitez, Laing, Dejesus and Leonard when he boxed.....

Facts show that top tier quality boxers had his number!! and no one "Outrageously" talented gets squashed and outclassed like that against Hearns...(Couldn't get past his jab)

Outrageously talented......He was cunning, aggressive and an overachiever..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"
Facts show that top tier quality boxers had his number!! and no one "Outrageously" talented gets squashed and outclassed like that against Hearns...(Couldn't get past his jab)

Outrageously talented......He was cunning, aggressive and an overachiever..

If Leonard (unless you don't consider him 'top tier') had his number why did he give up his 0 to him? Despite having youth, freshness and size on his side?

Duran turned pro at the age of 16! He had been a pro for more than 15 years by the time these losses started happening and he was 2 divisions past his best weight. Against Hearns he was three divisions removed.

Duran was a jaded past his peak fighter once he reaches his 30s. Only his outrageous talent allowed him to produce intermittently glimpses of his former self.

You perhaps might want to watch some of his fights in the 70's.

Yes that's right there was boxing before the heyday of Wham!

Think you need to get over the losses to Benitez, Hearns and Laing Truss, he was a fat lightweight by the time the losses start to come around, not like he was at his peak or at his best weight.

Gordy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bet Gordy has Lewis ahead of both of them............

Lewis would ahead of Duran but it would be close between him and Sugar Ray Leonard. Both are amongst the greatest boxers of all time. Both were tremendously skilled fighters but I would put Lewis ahead because he was like a larger, more powerful version of Leonard and I also think Hagler beat Leonard but was ripped off. Duran was a great fighter too but he was around in a great era. If he was around now he wouldnt lose a fight.

Belt up.

fearlessBamber wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"
Facts show that top tier quality boxers had his number!! and no one "Outrageously" talented gets squashed and outclassed like that against Hearns...(Couldn't get past his jab)

Outrageously talented......He was cunning, aggressive and an overachiever..

If Leonard (unless you don't consider him 'top tier') had his number why did he give up his 0 to him? Despite having youth, freshness and size on his side?

Duran turned pro at the age of 16! He had been a pro for more than 15 years by the time these losses started happening and he was 2 divisions past his best weight. Against Hearns he was three divisions removed.

Duran was a jaded past his peak fighter once he reaches his 30s. Only his outrageous talent allowed him to produce intermittently glimpses of his former self.

You perhaps might want to watch some of his fights in the 70's.

Yes that's right there was boxing before the heyday of Wham!

Bamber, wasn't leonard World champ 11 years after he turned pro 5 weights removed.

When all is said and done, Leonard was a better fighter therefore he rates higher.

Not as cut and dried as that, for me Duran achieved a hell of a lot more and won the most meaningful of their three fights.

When all is said and done, Leonard was a better fighter therefore he rates higher.

It is that simple.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not as cut and dried as that, for me Duran achieved a hell of a lot more and won the most meaningful of their three fights.

Their first 2 fights were equally meaningful.

Not as far as i'm concerned, Duran walked away from a fight he was more than capable of winning in the second. Awaits general rubbish about him being schooled when the fight couldn't be further from the truth, he was being beaten but was only a round or two down.

Its your opinion and I respect it. It is my opinion that the 2 fights were equally meaningful given what was at stake.

Of course you are correct that he was certainly not being schooled. He got miffed with SRL's idiocy/showboating and expected a 3rd match soon after. Little did he know that SRL would run for a decade as he did with Hearns.