Roberto Duran's legacy?

[oogiebe]

Yes, at middlweight a weight at which Leonard barely fought.

Just saying...I don't necessarily like SRL, but he ranks better all time than Griffith, IMHO.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well yes Leonard was better.
It's pretty clear when you aren't so selective about their fights.
The logic for Griffith doesn't make a lot of sense.
Leonard didn't fight much at middleweight, so we are supposed to ignore Griffith's losses at middleweight? Some of them are fairly embarrassing when you are comparing great fighters..
Griffith got ko's in round against Carter, but we are supposed to excuse it because Leonard hardly fought there. Makes no sense.

The Paret loss is hysterical. Somehow, the fight was a robbery? A lot of people though Paret won. At the very least, the fight was very close. A great welterweight should defeat Paret easily. That is should be a mark against Griffith.

You also can't cry about Griffith not getting the decision and say he only lost one other fight at welterweight?
Why? He had three very close decisions against Rodriguez that could have gone the other way. He very easily could have had 5 losses at welterweight alone.

[elmersalsa]

In boxing legacy speaking, I believe that Leonard is above Griffith at pound per pound basis. But, Griffith was the better Welterweight.

If someone says that Griffith was better than Leonard at pound per pound basis, it won't be far fetched. Their careers were pretty close. If Leonard had the longevity of Griffith's, with a way better record, then, Leonard should be above him way higher.

I rate Leonard at #18 pound per pound and Griffith at #24 at that ball park.

At Welterweight, I got Griffith at #4 and Leonard at #5. The reason? Griffith had much more longevity and fought a great amount of great boxers at 147. The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT that Leonard beat at 147 was the great Thomas Hearns.

[Ambling Alp II]

No, just no.

[Onetimeonly]

So Elmer thinks the majority of Leonard's greatness was outside of the division he beat hearns, Duran and benitez in? Very interesting. Griffith had more fights but Leonard won a gold medal!

[Ambling Alp II]

It's called elmer logic" - Anything to help the guys he likes and downgrade the ones he doesn't.

Always has excuses for those he likes and comes up with stuff from leftfield to put down those he doesn't.

[Onetimeonly]

I believe the term is bullshit. Not that I think it's outlandish to rate Emile over ray. Just Elmer's constant contradictions are always amusing. Having Leonard higher p4p(they're both too low) and Griffith higher at welter makes zero sense.

[Cojimar 1946]

Griffith's loses at middleweightt are less of an issue vis a vis Leonard because they are both welterweights who moved up in weight, only Griffith had far more fights at middleweight than Leonard did. I don't see any reason to give Leonard the benefit of the doubt and assume he is dominant at middleweight given his rather mixed record there.

As far as Rodriguez goes, I don't think multiple losses to the same guy are a factor when rating fighters. Imagine if Hearns and Leonard had fought 20 times.

[Ambling Alp II]

When rating them pound for pound, Griffiths fights at middleweight (and welterweight for that matter) count because they happened. You have to count what happened, the good , the bad and the inbetween.


At welter, Griffith beat Napoles. Leonard beat Duran. And Benitez. And Hearns. Leonard's wins at welterweight easily trump Griffith's.
Griffith managed to lose to Paret. Leonard never lost to anyone like that. That's an embarrassing loss that hurts Griffith's case a lot.
There no legitimate case at all to rate Griffith higher at welter.

Pound for pound, then you have to count Griffith's wins over Benvenuti and Tiger. You also have to count Leonard's over Hagler, who was better than Tiger and Benvenuti. You also have to count the zillion loses and close calls Griffith had throughout his career above welterweight.

You move the chairs you want all you want; use all the smoke and mirrors that you want. Leonard was clearly better than Griffith and should rated higher.

[oogiebe]

This thread is like de ja vu all over again.

[elmersalsa]

Griffith had more wins, more longevity, and was champion longer than Leonard at 147. Plus, he beat more outstanding and great boxers at 147. He beat REAL WELTERWEIGHTS!

In the other hand, Leonard only TRUE WELTERWEIGHT that he beat was Thomas Hearns. Roberto Duran was a lightweight, and Wilfred Benitez a Jr Welterweight. Leonard had a short Welterweight stay.

The ONLY REASON I picked Leonard over Griffith is because Griffith had too many losses. And still, it's a toss up. I wouldn't argue with nobody if someone put Griffith over Leonard pound per pound. It's also justifiable. The balance between the two is similar.

[Cojimar 1946]

Hagler was well past his prime against Leonard, the version that showed up against Leonard probably loses to Tiger and maybe Benvenuti as well. I'm not at all confident that Hagler even in his prime would beat Tiger. He seems to have fought in a much weaker era. Put him in an era with Benton, Hank, Giardello, Griffith, etc I think he loses a lot more.

[Duran1970]

Weaker era?
Duran Hearns Leonard Mugabi and all those Philly middleweights...

[Cojimar 1946]

Duran was nowhere near great at middleweight, Mugabi is supposed to impress me based on what exactly? Leonard barely fought at the weight.

Tiger's era had
Joey Giardello
Joey Giambra
Henry Hank
George Benton
Jose Gonzalez
Rubin Carter
Nino Benvenuti
Emile Griffith
Luis Rodriguez
Florentino Fernandez
Gene Fullmer
Jose Torres
etc

[oogiebe]

Duran was nowhere near great at middleweight, Mugabi is supposed to impress me based on what exactly? Leonard barely fought at the weight.

Mugabi was considered a monster when he faced Hagler. I think he really fell apart after that loss.

[banjo]

Duran was nowhere near great at middleweight, Mugabi is supposed to impress me based on what exactly? Leonard barely fought at the weight.

Mugabi was considered a monster when he faced Hagler. I think he really fell apart after that loss.

Didn't he suffer an eye injury in his next bout which put him out for a few years?

I don't think he was ever a proper middleweight either though.

[oogiebe]

Duran was nowhere near great at middleweight, Mugabi is supposed to impress me based on what exactly? Leonard barely fought at the weight.

Mugabi was considered a monster when he faced Hagler. I think he really fell apart after that loss.

Didn't he suffer an eye injury in his next bout which put him out for a few years?

I don't think he was ever a proper middleweight either though.

He was mostly SWW. Didn't know about eye issues, but after Hagler, his record is abysmal.

[Cojimar 1946]

For the record, I don't think its ludicrous to put Leonard ahead of Griffith but I'm not persuaded that Griffith's inconsistency is necessarily a big advantage for Leonard given that fighters of earlier eras fought more often and didn't seem to put an emphasis on unbeaten records. Henry Armstrong has far more losses than Felix Trinidad. Does that mean we should rate Trinidad ahead of Armstrong?

[Ambling Alp II]

Hagler was well past his prime against Leonard, the version that showed up against Leonard probably loses to Tiger and maybe Benvenuti as well. I'm not at all confident that Hagler even in his prime would beat Tiger. He seems to have fought in a much weaker era. Put him in an era with Benton, Hank, Giardello, Griffith, etc I think he loses a lot more.

No, Hagler wasn't well past his prime when he fought Leonard. That simply isn't true. There is nothing to back that up. He had huge advantages against Leonard, and Leonard still beat him. Leonard had fought once in the previous five years when he fought Hagler; which is mainly why so many people thought Hagler would crush him.
In over 130 years of boxing, no fighter has been off that long and beat a great fighter.

Would love to see Griffith come off a huge layoff and beat Hagler. No flippin way.

Leonard did fight quite often in the 5 years before the eye injury.
Compare his career to Griffith's in their first 5 years:

Leonard was 32-1. He had wins over Duran, Benitez, and Leonard.
Griffith was 35-4. He beat Napoles. Managed to lose to the legendary Randy Sandy, Denny Moyer, and Benny Paret, and of course Napoles.

If Griffith would have fought Leonard's exact schedule, he would have lost less fight's than he did. However, he would have lost a lot more than three fights.

If Leonard would have fought Griffith's exact schedule, he would have lost more than 3 fights. But he would have lost a lot less than 24 losses.

And no we should not rate Trinidad ahead of Armstrong. Armstrong had a ton of great wins. It dwarfs Griffiths, let alone Felix Trinidad. You count the good and the bad. Not really that hard of a concept.

[Duran1970]

Duran was nowhere near great at middleweight, Mugabi is supposed to impress me based on what exactly? Leonard barely fought at the weight.

Tiger's era had
Joey Giardello
Joey Giambra
Henry Hank
George Benton
Jose Gonzalez
Rubin Carter
Nino Benvenuti
Emile Griffith
Luis Rodriguez
Florentino Fernandez
Gene Fullmer
Jose Torres
etc

Alot of these names weren't great middleweight s either and you could say most were blown up welters as well..some shouldn't even have been mentioned....

[Onetimeonly]

Hagler was p4p #1 when he fought Leonard.

[Cojimar 1946]

Hagler didn't look good against Mugabi in his prior fight, didn't look good against Leonard and following the fight retired and never fought again. He was also 32 going on 33 in an era in which fighters didn't last as long as they did today. I think the evidence for him being past his prime is pretty compelling. Fighters don't usually retire in their primes especially coming off a controversial loss.

[Cojimar 1946]

I thought Griffith clearly beat Paret, 9 rounds to 6, Paret did well initially but seemed to tire in the closing rounds which were swept by Griffith. I don't see any good case for Paret winning. Griffith also seemed to hurt Paret frequently while nothing Paret threw seemed to phase Griffith. Randy Sandy and Denny Moyer losses were early in his career before he reached his peak.

Sugar Ray Robinson's win over Gene Fullmer when well past his prime and after a long layoff is better than Leonard's over Hagler in my opinion.

Griffith never beat Napoles, you are mistaken.

[Ambling Alp II]

Actually Hagler did look pretty good against Mugabi. People weren't ripping his performance. He was still considered the best fighter in the world by many.
Fighters routinely fought until they were 32 during Hagler's time if they wanted to. Nonsense to say otherwise. Leonard was 30 himself.

Hagler never fought after losing to Leonard? So is that all you have to, quit after a loss and it doesn't count?

Robinson wasn't coming off a long layoff when he fought Fuller. He already had 9 fights since his retirement. He just fought two months previously. Notice he didn't fight Fullmer fight away when he came back. This fight doesn't compare to beating Hagler.

You had Griffith winning 9 rounds to 6 against Paret? No way in hell Leonard loses 6 rounds to Benny Paret. Parent was simply not a very good fighter. Embarrassing performance by Giffith.

Agree that Griffith's losses to Randy Sandy and Moyer were before he had reached his best. Imagine if Leonard lost to someone early in his career. We would never hear the end of it. Randy Sandy was a stiff. Griffith should have been able to beat him in pro debut. Embarrassing loss for Griffith. Again.

Sorry I meant Rodriquez, not Napoles when referring to Griffith's win.

[Onetimeonly]

Getting robbed against Vito had hacker change to a brawling style but the same people pretending he was shot are the kind that say Chavez was shot vs Whitaker. Ignoring their position and acting like their opponents were prime.