Duran, Whitaker or Benny Leonard, both at 135 and overall. Convince me!

Evening gents.

Lots of pound for pound talk on here recently, and on Hammersmith's top fifteen thread I mentioned the difficulties I have in splitting Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker and Benny Leonard when it comes to offering up a list of my own, and you can chuck Floyd Mayweather's name in there as well, just to complicate things even further.

Given that he's still active, much like many of his career rivals are, it's difficult to make a proper evaluation of Mayweather to some degree, so let's put him aside for now. That still leaves me with the Duran, Whitaker and Leonard conundrum. The three of them make up the trio of greatest ever Lightweights, for me. Problem is, I often have a hard time deciding who exactly gets the gold, silver and bronze medals, and have switched the order many times in my head.

All of them also claimed impressive scalps against men outside of the Lightweight class, too. Once more, the problem I have is that, depending on how you look at things, you can formulate an argument saying that any of them had additional victories and achievements above their best weight superior to those of the other two.

I don't need to go through each man and their pros and cons in the article - we all know them, what they were about etc, or at least have a solid idea, I imagine. That's what the comments below will be for!

Given that I've been pondering it for a while and am still never fully happy with whatever I come up, I thought it might be a good idea to throw it out to you fellas to see if we can reach some kind of consensus, or at least see if anyone can make a particularly compelling argument to finally get me off the fence.

So, Hands of Stone, Sweet Pea or the Ghetto Wizard - which one of them was the greatest Lightweight of all time, first off? And next, taking in to account their careers as a whole, who is the greatest pound for pounder of this very special trio?

Should be interesting. Off you go lads, if you fancy it! Oh, and by the way, yes - I will allow a certain Mr Gans to come in to consideration, but nobody else!

I'd pick whittaker to beat Duran and Benny Leonard but would also have Duran and Leonard both higher.......

Whittaker's draw with Chavez and win over Mcgirt were at higher weights.........

Leonard
Duran
Whittaker.............

All top 15

So difficult. As 135 pounders pure and simple, it's hard to pick holes. In Leonard and Whitaker, there are basically none, leaving aside the scandal of the decision in the first Ramirez fight. With Duran, I suppose, there is the difficulty that he experienced with DeJesus, but Duran did ultimately settle the argument conclusively.

The three categories that you could use to try and split the trio might be dominance, quality of opposition and how you think they might do against each other in a head to head. I see nothing to separate the dominance of their reigns, so that's out. In quality of opposition, I think that I would lean towards Leonard, who took the crown from an all-time great in Welsh and defended against another in Tendler, as well as beating Rocky Kansas and disposing of non-title foes of the calibre of Ritchie and Bartfield. That probably trumps DeJesus and Buchanan, who headline the Duran ledger, or the likes of Haugen, Ramirez and Nelson, the cream of Whitaker's opposition.

So to the head to head. Duran's biggest struggles at 135 were against fine, counterpunching lightweights. Bearing in mind that Whitaker and Leonard represent an advance on DeJesus and Buchanan, quality technicians though they were, Duran has trouble on his hands here. I can't see him winning over 12 against either, although his freakish performances in the championship rounds give him a chance over 15 of an inside the distance win. That's how he has to win, however - I don't see a distance fight ever being in Duran's favour. Leonard-Whitaker? Pure guesswork. Who knows how one boxing wizard might get on against another? On the fence, I'm afraid.

Overall, therefore, I give the lightweight edge to Benny Leonard, with Whitaker and Duran neck and neck in second (silver to Whitaker if the gun is held to my head). Gans loses nothing by comparison with the others in terms of dominance, but it's much harder to make comparisons with them on a head to basis. A remarkable record against great fighters, but I'd probably find it too hard to compare him directly with Leonard, Duran and Whitaker. Suffice to say that the Old Master must obviously be in the top 4 at lightweight.

Above lightweight, Duran has the best single win (Ray Leonard), but a terribly spotty overall log, Leonard's record is sparse, but shot full of quality (his performances against Britton and Ted Kid Lewis emphasise how good he was), but Whitaker is entitled to be considered an all-time top 20 welter as well. Pound for pound, I make Benny Leonard 10, Whitaker 12 and Duran somewhere around 16.

It's Benny top of the pile for me, pretty much for the reasons the Captain has summed up extremely well. Whilst I would not be too keen to make too much of Duran's problems with DeJesus does not escape the fact he had them and he is not a guy I see Leonard having such trouble with. Think in Tendler he perhaps has the stand out win of all three of them to boot.

Don't like the argument, oft put forward round here that Duran lost to every boxer he fought because at lightweight he tended to offer enough offensively to find a way to triumph, however in Leonard he is not only facing a boxer he is facing one with an ability to mix things up inside if necessary, if not nuclear power then certainly sufficient power to get a guy in trouble and with perhaps one of the finest boxing brains and abilities to adapt the world has ever seen.

As for Whitaker I would probably have him behind the both of them (and Gans if I am brutally honest) but will admit that is perhaps a reflection of his style not really lighting any fires for me than any kind of objective analysis.

I would have Whittaker as the top of the list , both as lightweights and pound for pound. Not just on talent, but on achievement- in my mind he didn't lose a fight until for fought the excellent Trinidad, and even then, past his prime didn't embarrass him self. He gave JCC, his closest p4p rival a boxing lesson, outboxed another ATG in De la Hoya, and had an incredible record of over twenty successful world title fights over four weights, in two of which he was considered "the man" not just a title holder, and these were two of the traditional weights. head to head he wins too. Duran holds the single best win, over Leonard, but he me Whittakers consistency is more impressive.

He fought a better class of boxer above lightweight....If we are honest.....

Maybe Buchanan was overrated.....Captain's seen more than me......Or had an off-night

I don't know but he struggled with Esteban and they were the only two Boxers of quality he fought.........at light

Never said he lost to every boxer he fought............Just to the world class ones....

Good posts so far, chaps.

Captain, if Duran's pair of struggles against De Jesus before he finally scored a dominant win over him rankle with you, do you not deduct any points from Leonard for dropping decisions (admittedly only newspaper ones in some cases) to natural Featherweights such as Kilbane and Dundee? Appreciate that Benny was really just a baby in the grand scheme of things at this stage, but then again, Duran was still only 21 when he lost to De Jesus.

Very fair point, Chris. In fairness to Benny, he was just three weeks past his 19th birthday when losing to Kilbane, but yes, Dundee cartainly did have some some initial success against him for a time. Both, though, were a bit older and wiser than the young Leonard at that stage. It's worth remembering that, 21 or not, Duran was actually a couple of months older than DeJesus when dropping that decision to him (and, of course, the recently crowned world champion). I have to admit that one has to nit-pick a bit to separate the greats at 135 and like Jeff, wouldn't want to make DeJesus too big a stick with which to beat Roberto. One has to start somewhere, though!

It pretty much been said already in the above posts so I'll just give my ratings.

At lightweigh

1. Leonard.  He has the best wins and he was the most composed fighter I have ever seen in the ring.  He was also an innovator which I think adds to his greatest.

2. Duran.  Maybe this comes down to preference for a fighting style but I see Duran as No.2. I place greater emphasis on his 70 odd wins and long reign.  As history shows its hard to dominate for such a long time.

3. Whitaker.  He has great skills but I find the very defence orientated style a bit boring in some of his fights.  Following up on Rowleys mentioning of Gans I would have him ahead of Whitaker at lightweight and P4P.


All Time

1, Duran. He just has the best wins and to regain the title at Middle at 38 is incredible to me.  He also gets a lot of credit for his effort against Haglar one of the greats of the division.  He has some bad defeats but they came after a lot of fights and he was a headcase which didn't help.

2. Leonard for the reasons given above.

3. Whitaker I have around 20 in my all time list. I think as the dust has settled his position has dropped a bit.   He was well beaten in his first title crack.  He also never fought above welter unlike Duran. I don't hold it against Leonard for not weight jumping.

Just felt I had to respond to a couple of your points on Whitaker, strongy. Whitaker was well beaten in his first title crack? His loss to Ramirez represents arguably the worst, most crooked decision in the long history of professional boxing. Newton Campos's scorecard of 118-113 in Ramirez's favour is unquestionably the most squint-eyed piece of deviant mathematics ever to be palmed off onto the sporting universe.

The second point is more prosaic - Pea did actually win the WBA light-middleweight title against Julio Cesar Vasquez. He had also stopped briefly at 140 to win a belt, before setting his sights on dominating the welterweights for four years.

Whitaker "well beaten in his first title crack", Strongy? Surely we're not holding the Ramirez farce against Pernell here!?

Whitaker did make a foray in to the 154 weight class, too. Boxed his way to a clear decision over Julio Cesar Vasquez for the WBA belt. A much underrated win for Whitaker, considering that he usually looked small and outsized against his opponents at Welter, never mind Light-Middle! Vasquez had made 10 or 11 defences of his title and was fresh off of a good win over a young, unbeaten Winky. He regained his title after Pea vacated it with a Ring Magazine 'Knockout of the Year', too.

I never watched that fight that Whitaker was robbed in but I remember the outrage about it. One of the worst decisions of all time by many accounts. Whitaker got shafted a lot. He beat Chavez and de la Hoya realistically but boxing politics denied him a fair shake. I wonder why those who rate Mayweather so high dont do the same for Whitaker? He fought tougher competition and wasnt choosy or reluctant to take on the tougher fights. Probably just wasnt marketed and packaged well enough.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Just felt I had to respond to a couple of your points on Whitaker, strongy. Whitaker was well beaten in his first title crack? His loss to Ramirez represents arguably the worst, most crooked decision in the long history of professional boxing. Newton Campos's scorecard of 118-113 in Ramirez's favour is unquestionably the most squint-eyed piece of deviant mathematics ever to be palmed off onto the sporting universe.

The second point is more prosaic - Pea did actually win the WBA light-middleweight title against Julio Cesar Vasquez. He had also stopped briefly at 140 to win a belt, before setting his sights on dominating the welterweights for four years.

I can't say I watched the fight.

I hadn't known Whitaker fought above welter. It wasn't too many fights, certainly nothing like Duran's weight jumping which was the point of my comment.

I'm going to read up a bit more on Whitaker. I already see Boxing Scene have him as their No.5 Lightweight. They also mention the Ramirez robbery.

You should see some of the back and forth arguments me and Truss have had over Whitaker and Mayweather, catchweight!
 
At least he got a chance to avenge the Ramirez 'loss', which he duly did. Maybe his best fight as a Lightweight aside from the Haugen one. But being robbed of that ultimate glory of taking Chavez's '0' in a battle of the pound for pound number one and two at the time means that Pea's record just doesn't quite do him justice, through no fault of his own.
 
Oddly enough, while I'm a massive Whitaker fan, I'd have to refrain from calling the De la Hoya fight a robbery per se. I think it's the margins in which it went for Oscar which leave a really horrible taste; 4, 6 and 6 points respectively was nothing short of disgusting. But if someone sat down and watched that fight and told me they had Oscar a point or so up at the end, I wouldn't really quibble too much.
 
I had it 114-113 to Whitaker last time I scored it (I've had a few attempts!). To be honest a draw might have been the fairest result all round. In any case, I think Whitaker did a good job of valiantly holding off (or attempting to hold off) the rise of a young superstar while clearly past his best.
 
I think ever since losing George Benton from his corner (between McGirt II in late 1994 and the Vasquez fight in March 1995) there was a gradual decline in Pernell, and the less than stellar performances against Rivera (I) and Hurtado showed that his deteriorating relationship with Duva, as well as his, erm, 'extracurricular' activities had blunted Whitaker's edge a bit. Easy for forget that the Vegas bookies made De la Hoya a 2-1 favourite for that fight, and many expected it to be the night that the old guard got shoved aside in favour of the Golden Boy. On paper, that's what happened. But paper doesn't always tell the full story, I guess.

de la Hoya was the big star in the making. To be honest I though Whitaker won pretty fairly. He was the more skillful fighter. But de la Hoya was the money man. Cant remember what the score was but Whitaker fought a fresh de la Hoya when he was past it and didnt do much worse than Mayweather facing a past it de la Hoya when he was at the top. Interesting benchmark. Thats the problem with just judging off records or how few losses a boxer has. It doesnt tell the condition of the boxers or how the fight went. Whitakers draw against Chavez is better than any of Mayweathers wins against past it boxers like Mosley or Cotto or de la Hoya.

I've seen some of Whitaker's fights including Chavez and De La Hoya.  I have to admit I found the Chavez fight very frustrating to watch because of the holding.  Of course Chavez was claiming there were low blows as well. I think that fight may have come a little too late for Chavez but he may never have been able to deal with Sweetpea's  evasive style and more negative tactics.

I watched the De La Hoya fight at the time and I agree it was close, hard to score. I haven't watched it since as Whitaker is not my type of fighter.  My preference has always been for offensive fighters.  Which is probably why I rate Louis and Duran highly.  I was never that keen on Tyson though, even in his prime, there was something ugly about him.

A couple of points on duran de Jesus. Firstly, If duran never existed, de Jesus may well have been champion for 7 years and be in this discussion in his place. Such is the fickle hand of fate and what makes these historical p4p's and head to heads so hard.

Secondly, the first duran de jesus fight was non title, and duran came in well over lightweight... A loss is a loss, there are no excuses merely factors to consider for a guy who was recently champion and known to party.

There are guys on here I'll bow down to on Leonard, as I have only a superficial knowledge of his career, but his record is exemplary and no doubt he was a technician ahead of his time. His record is comparable to duran's without the flagship Leonard win, nor the negatives of Laing etc. p4p they have to rank close, but head to head, Personally, i can only see duran.

Sweet pea did more at higher weights than the others but always looked a bloated lightweight to me, which makes it probably more impressive. I'm an admirer rather than a fan, and again record wise hard to separate from the others... Probably the Leonard of his day.

Head to head whitakervduran? I guess you look for pointers with Jcc, but duran was better than Chavez and certainly better than that Chavez. Pickem for me. Head to head with Leonard, again I'd go with Whitaker.

All time: Duran, Leonard, Whitaker.

Lightweight: Duran, Leonard, Whitaker.

I'd have Gans above Whitaker at lightweight - there's an argument for Ike Williams, too.

Again, how are you rating them exactly?

Since I have not got time to do it now will allow Monte Cox and one of my old threads make the case for Joe Gans, who should not be too readily dismissed from this debate

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/gans.html

https://www.606v2.com/t39139-the-day-joe-gans-proved-his-greatness

Gans is probably third for me, with a pretty good argument to be second to Leonard. A master of his game and true innovator in the proper sense of the word

Think If we are going to give Whittaker the Oscar fight.......Then let's give Oscar.....Trinidad and Mosley.......

Then we can have no argument Oscar's great........

Oscar beat Whittaker for me.........The only one of the two that wanted to fight.......

Will say the amount of times whittaker turns his opponent illegally he should be happy I never reffed his fights......

He'd have a point off every round............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think If we are going to give Whittaker the Oscar fight.......Then let's give Oscar.....Trinidad and Mosley.......

Then we can have no argument Oscar's great........

Oscar beat Whittaker for me.........The only one of the two that wanted to fight.......

Will say the amount of times whittaker turns his opponent illegally he should be happy I never reffed his fights......

He'd have a point off every round............

Truss, out of interest, as you are a big Mayweather fan what do you feel Mayweather does that Sweatpea didn't do?

Find it interesting as you rate Mayweather very highly and don't seem so keen on Sweetpea yet they had very similar styles.

I'd say Mayweather's infighting defensive skills are exceptional. He's very hard to hit clean at close range.

I don't think they do have similar styles Huw, both are defensive genius' but both did it very different ways. Mayweather is very old school using the shoulder roll and philly shell whereas Whitaker was a reflex fighter much like a Jones or Locche. If you watch them fight Mayweather is rarely on the retreat he prefers to stay in range and counter, he's offensively far superior to Whitaker. Whitaker I would call a runner and i've never enjoyed watching his fights but Mayweather is a joy to watch in full flow.

To call Whitaker a runner is bit ott, watch the fight with Chavez- at times he stood right in front of him and still didn't get hit. Also it's faith to say he was more aggressive at Lw, when he wasn't a the sort of size disadvantage he often was as a welter.

I always think the comparison between Duran and chavez gets overplayed in this debate. Both were pressure fighters with mean reputations, but Duran often boxed in a much more upright style and could apply pressure from the outside too. I think I'd still maybe give Whitaker the edge, but in his Lightweight prime I also wouldn't be surprised with a Duran stoppage win. Leonard vs Whitaker is a hard one to pick as a stylistic matchup, I make it a pickem with the same being said for Duran vs Leonard. The difficulty with head to heads for these three is that they all have different styles and also belong to different eras. We've seen on the board the comparison problems this can cause.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think they do have similar styles Huw, both are defensive genius' but both did it very different ways. Mayweather is very old school using the shoulder roll and philly shell whereas Whitaker was a reflex fighter much like a Jones or Locche. If you watch them fight Mayweather is rarely on the retreat he prefers to stay in range and counter, he's offensively far superior to Whitaker. Whitaker I would call a runner and i've never enjoyed watching his fights but Mayweather is a joy to watch in full flow.

I see where you're coming from hammer, but I take it you've seen the McGirt fights. He didnt always run.

Ringside, agree re head to heads, specifically with guys from eras where there's little or no footage... And when there is, the styles of the day don't really lend comparison.