hagler/hearns/leonard/duran: who was truly the best?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 29 Nov 2007, 00:45

All of the fabulous 4 were great fighters that could have thrived in any era. 3 of them in my view would have beaten Sugar Ray Robinson: Duran, Leonard and Hagler...No question about that.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 29 Nov 2007, 01:39

Ambling Alp wrote:-

Why is he judged too harshly?
-He should be considered without question the #2 welterweight of alltime behind Ray Robinson.
No, he should not. Henry Armstrong and Emile Griffith should be on top of him...I got Leonard at #4 all time welterweight. Griffith beat better fighters at 147 and Armstrong was more dominant as champion than Leonard. 11 title defenses in one year? In my dreams.

-He should be considered without question one of the Top 10 pound for pound fighters of all time. .
Not...He did not had too many fights to begin with. Second, his second comebacks of his career were kind of premanufactured...He did not give chances for other fighters to redeemed themselves for a rematch. Even if he woud have retired in 1982 and never comeback for good, still would have not make the top 10 pound per pound all-time...It is just your worshipping of this fighter that got you like this.

-He gets criticized much more than Duran,Hearns, and Hagler combined..
All fighters do get criticized. Even the greatest of all-time, Henry Armstrong, gets criticized.

-He shouldn't get criticized for not giving rematches because it's simply not true...
When did he ever give a valid rematch, alp? He never fought Benitez again. He did not give Duran a third match to complete the trilogy at their very best, NEITHER gave Hearns a shot to redeemed himself by saying things like "Hearns got to admit that he in no way would have continued in that fateful 14th round". I thought that Hearns could have continued. I bet anybody if Hearns, Hagler and Benitez would have won the fights, Leonard would have his rematches and a chance to redeemed himself like he did with Duran. GREAT FIGHTERS ALWAYS GRANT REMATCHES no matter the circumstances. Leonard gave too much stipulations for not giving one. Ali always gave rematches no matter what...Hagler, Duran, Monzon, Sanchez etc... gave rematches when it most mattered. Leonard gave them when fighters were shot or washed up.

-He actually gets criticized for ridiculaus things like he had no heart....
Every great fighter has to have heart. Leonard had plenty of it. No question about that. They probably saying he did not had the heart outside the ring I guess.

- He doesn't get nearly the credit that he deserves for his historic victory over Hagler. Instead the focus is usually on how Hagler supposedly got "robbed", (Even if it's pushing it to give Hagler 5 rounds). Just going the distance with Hagler and giving him a competitive fight would have been a tremendous accomplishment, especially under those circumstances. That he actually beat Hagler should be considered one of the most amazing feats in boxing history. ....
I do not think it was an amazing feat at all. Benitez win over Cervantes at 17 years of age for the title shoud get more airplay and more accolades. Or Ali win over Foreman or Duran win over Barkley being WASHED UP and at 37 years of age, fighting someone stronger, younger and bigger and in his prime should get more recognition that that fiasco of Leonard-Hagler. Hagler of 1987 was not even near of that Hagler of 1980-86 era.

If he was, he wouldn't have fought 9 Top Ten opponents before getting a title shot.
If he was, he would have fought Cuevas instead of the much better Benitez for the title.
If he was, he never would have had a unification fight with Hearns.
If he was, he never would have come out of retirement to fight Hagler. ....
He did fought great fighters. But, now you are saying that the fighters that he fought before the welter title were special? You criticized Duran for fighting tomato cans at lightweight, but Leonard, according to you, he beat good fighters at welterweight? Pete Ranzany, Randy Shields, Armando Muniz and the like were also tomato cans or damaged goods before they faced Leonard. That is a DOUBLE STANDARD. Duran at lightweight and Hagler at middleweight fought as good fighters as Leonard did before getting the title. 9 top 10 contenders? That is a whole of baloney and hogwash. They were OK, but not like you think they were. It was not like Robinson or Armstrong what they got to go through to get to the tilte.

Considering that he missed 5 years, his competition was as good as almost anyone in any weight class in the last 50 years.

What this is really about is that Leonard was the "pretty boy" and that he the could actually talk intelligently. From Corbett to Tunney to De La Hoya, these type of fighters are disliked by many people and get a lot of unjustified criticism. Many people are unable to rate a fighter that they don't like fairly.
No, Leonard didn't look "mean" like Duran or Hagler, but he was just as tough and had more heart.

It would have been better if they would have fought more frequently. Even the Olivares, Chacon and Lopez series to me, is more LEGIT than what the fab 4 did. The Ike Williams, Beau Jack, Sammy Angott and Bob Montgomery was FAR SUPERIOR series than the fab 4, which could have been a better series if Leonard granted the rematches on the spot. To say that Leonard had more heart than Hagler, Duran or even Hearns is BALONEY. ALL OF THEM HAD THE HEART OF CHAMPIONS...THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED THE FABULOUS 4. Ali was as handsome as those fighters you mentioned above, but he gave more to the sport by fighting those guys over and over again. Leonard? He did not come close to the expectations to see him again with the guys he beat. It was like, I won the dominoe or black jack game and run with the money and not play with those guys again.

Leonard was a great fighter. But to me, he got to be rated accordingly. Of the fab 4, pound per pound, he should be #2, behind Duran and Hagler, of course #3.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 29 Nov 2007, 08:03

elmersalsa wrote:Leonard KNEW that he was not in proper prime to fight the monsters in Hagler and Hearns in 1982 and 1984 respectively. He fought them because he saw they were slipping their fighting qualities.

I imagine Hagler vs Leonard in 1982 and Hearns vs Leonard in 1984 at 154lbs...What a massacre!!! different stories.

Do you seriously believe that Leonard would have been 'massacred' had the above fights occurred?

Why do you think that Tommy Hearns could have massacred him in 1984, yet he couldn't do it in 1981?

What could Hagler have done to massacre a still peak Leonard in 1982, a man blessed with brilliant speed, footwork & a titanium chin (at that time) to boot?

It's not as if Leonard was old or anything, he would still in his prime (a considerable prime btw).

OK, I can accept that he might have lost, but not massacred.

Leonard was too good a fighter to be massacred by anybody in 1982 or 1984.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Nov 2007, 09:21

Ambling Alp wrote:-The Hagler-Hearns fight is considered by many one of the best of all time. If Leonard had a fight like that and then not fought him again in the next 2 years he would be ripped constantly.

Yes, but the fight was essentially over after the first round. All that was left was does Hagler stop him before the cut gets too big.

Ambling Alp wrote:
Nigel Benn? You lost me there. Who did Nigel Benn beat, that moved up in weight, that Benn is criticized for not fighting? I have no idea who you could be referring to. I certainly have never heard Benn being criticized for this as Leonard is.

Okay, apologies, I meant Eubank.

Ambling Alp wrote: Why do I think Leonard is judged harshly?
If it was only not fighting Hagler again, that would be one thing. at least with that arguenment, you have a leg to stand on. However, you point out one fightin almost any other fighters career that he should have taken.
Almost all of the other complaints about Leonard are complete nonsense.

Why is he judged too harshly?
-He should be considered without question the #2 welterweight of alltime behind Ray Robinson.
-He should be considered without question one of the Top 10 pound for pound fighters of all time.
-He gets criticized much more than Duran,Hearns, and Hagler combined.
-He shouldn't get criticized for not giving rematches because it's simply not true.
-He actually gets criticized for ridiculaus things like he had no heart.
- He doesn't get nearly the credit that he deserves for his historic victory over Hagler. Instead the focus is usually on how Hagler supposedly got "robbed", (Even if it's pushing it to give Hagler 5 rounds). Just going the distance with Hagler and giving him a competitive fight would have been a tremendous accomplishment, especially under those circumstances. That he actually beat Hagler should be considered one of the most amazing feats in boxing history.

I think you're in a minority here. I don't see why he ahs to be 'without question' number 2. He has a great case for it and many people would agree that he should be. I even might agree myself but 'without question' is closing up a debate that I don't think should be closed. I think you're over rating his standing by saying this or under rating everyone elses.

Most people don't have him in their p4p top 10 list. You can't accuse everyone of having some anti-Leonard agenda because they don't see eye-to-eye with your ratings. And think about it... If you take out the HWs (and most people don't so I'm being generous here) you have Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Greb, Moore and Langford who almost everyone has in their top 10. That leaves you just 4 places. I don't think you can really argue that Leonard 'without question' must be in that top 10.

Leonard gets more criticism than 'No Mas 'Duran, 'Chinny' Hearns and Hagler combined? I think you've got blinkers on if you really believe that. Duran was a laughing stock for much of the 1980s!!!

But he didn't give rematches so how comes it's not true?

I agree about the heart comment. I also agree that he doesn't get the credit he deserves for the Hagler performance. Even people who think Marvin won ought to admit that Leonard's performance was excellent that night.
[/quote]

Ambling Alp wrote:
What this is really about is that Leonard was the "pretty boy" and that he the could actually talk intelligently. From Corbett to Tunney to De La Hoya, these type of fighters are disliked by many people and get a lot of unjustified criticism. Many people are unable to rate a fighter that they don't like fairly.
No, Leonard didn't look "mean" like Duran or Hagler, but he was just as tough and had more heart.

I'm sorry you feel that my criticisms lump me together with people who don't like intelligent fighters. But I wonder if you're able to rate a fighter you like fairly. Some of your comments seem over the top and as if you're trying to make out Ray is a victim? And to say he has more
heart seems unfounded. I mean how do you measure it?

I always say it but these guys really polarise opinion. Many of us relate to their different personalities. I think you're just as much prey to this as the rest of us.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 29 Nov 2007, 11:24

-My point about Hagler not fighting Hearns again (or Duran for that matter) isn't that he ducked them. My point is that he had less reason not to give them an immediate rematch than Leonard did for not fighting Hearns or Duran right away.

-Chris Eubank? again I don't get it it. What fighter did Eubank beat at one weight, then that guy moved up in weight and Eubank is criticized for not giving that fighter an immediate rematch? I have never heard of Eubank being criticized for this.

-Leonard isn't consider by many to be the #2 welterweight or in the Top 10 pound for pound of all time?
Well that's my point. If you throw out all the garbage about not giving rematches, always getting the breaks etc. and just look at his record and watch him on film, it's hard not to rank him in the top 10. About the worst thing you can say is that he lost a close decision to Roberto Duran. No other losses during his prime against great competition. That's not exactly damming evidence.
Take a hard look at Moore,Armstrong's,and Langford's record and many other greats you will find multiple losses to fighters no where near as good as Duran. He beat Duran in the rematch, beat Benitez, beat Hearns, had the historical win over Hagler. There are many people that rank Hagler as the #1 middleweight of all time (almost everyone has him top 5) and Leonard beat him after a 3 year layoff.

Yes, Leonard does get more criticism than Duran,Hearns, and Hagler combined. I should clarify this and say on ths forum he does. Just go back and look at old threads and you will see this. Most people give Duran a free pass for the no mas fight. How many lame excuses have we heard for this? Can you imagine if Leonard would have quit like that? Some peope will go as far as saying that Leonard didn't really avenge his loss to Duran.
Many people sweep Duran's losses under the rug with the "natural lightweight" excuse. We should all forget that fighters almost always move up in weight and that Duran never had a lightweight fight after the age of 26. Funny that no one says that Evander Holyfield is the greatest fighter pound for pound of all time since he never lost at cruiserweight and his wins at heavweight should count but none of his losses at heavyweight should count.
How often do people mention that Leonard wasn't a natural middleweight when he beat Hagler?

Hearns gets criticism for not having a great chin and I agree some people go too far with it. He certainly didn't have a glass jaw like some people say. However, his chin was his biggest problem and it wasn't as good as most other great fighters. He gets less criticism on this forum than Leonard and he wasn't as good as Leonard.

Outside of ringsider, Hagler gets very little criticism on this forum. Not that he deserves a lot, he was a great fighter. However, he wasn't as good as Leonard and he probably gets 10% of the criticism that Leonard gets.

Why do I think that Leonard had more heart than Duran or Hagler. Well Duran quit in one of the biggest fights of his career. You don't think Leonard showed greater heart in than Hagler in their fight? How much heart did Hagler show in his first fight with Antuofermo when he coasted for the last several rounds because he thought he had an insurmountable lead?
Yes Leonard is a "victim" on this forum. He is a victim in the sense that he gets more unjustified criticism on this form than anyone but Ali and possibly Tyson.

Well I'm glad you don't hold Leonard's pretty boy image against him. But it's obvious that many people do.
However like others, you don't hold other fighters to the same standards as you do Leonard.
The rematch thing is the prime example. It's almost always ok for others not to fight immediate rematches but not Leonard.
People can't objectively criticize his competition or his record. They can't legitimately criticize any of his skills-power, defense,speed,chin, stamina, etc.
So they have to criticize him for things that they don't criticize other fighters for.

We are all humans and have our biases. However, I try to judge fighters fairly and use the same standards. I liked Danny Lopez a lot, but I am not going to say that he was an all time great. Likewise I rate fighters that I don't like highly if they deserve it. I am not phony about it. Ask me about any fighter and I will tell you if I like him or not. I won't do the phony thing and say "I'm an Ali fan but don't think he was that great " or that kind of crap.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Nov 2007, 12:07

I think overall the board is neutral on Leonard. Most people do not have him in their top 10. But many have him in the top 20. Almost everyone has him in the top 40. You can't compare a guy's record boxing in the 1980s, who was a superstar and cash cow before he even won a championship, with guys like Langford, Armstrong and Moore, on a like for like basis.

I've never seen you do that before. So why do it now?

I don't want to go over old ground but the natural lightweight is not an excuse. Look at boxing history, when a great guy moves up to fight a great guy, both in their primes, they guy who started off at the higher weight usually wins. That's not an excuse it's an observable part of boxing. That's why Leonard's victory over Hagler was so lauded.

Leonard was a round and a half from losing against Hearns. He ended up 1-0-1. He was 1-1 with Duran in their best days but ended up 2-1. Was he better? Well the record suggests so, but how much better? I'm not sure the difference is as great as you make out, even if we take the results at face value. Considering that Duran was a better lightweight than he was welterweight it's a fair conclusion that p4p Duran was better. Surely you can support Leonard but accept why someone can honestly view Duran as the greater fighter?

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 29 Nov 2007, 12:10

Ambling Alp wrote:-My point about Hagler not fighting Hearns again (or Duran for that matter) isn't that he ducked them. My point is that he had less reason not to give them an immediate rematch than Leonard did for not fighting Hearns or Duran right away.

-Chris Eubank? again I don't get it it. What fighter did Eubank beat at one weight, then that guy moved up in weight and Eubank is criticized for not giving that fighter an immediate rematch? I have never heard of Eubank being criticized for this.

-Leonard isn't consider by many to be the #2 welterweight or in the Top 10 pound for pound of all time?
Well that's my point. If you throw out all the garbage about not giving rematches, always getting the breaks etc. and just look at his record and watch him on film, it's hard not to rank him in the top 10. About the worst thing you can say is that he lost a close decision to Roberto Duran. No other losses during his prime against great competition. That's not exactly damming evidence.
Take a hard look at Moore,Armstrong's,and Langford's record and many other greats you will find multiple losses to fighters no where near as good as Duran. He beat Duran in the rematch, beat Benitez, beat Hearns, had the historical win over Hagler. There are many people that rank Hagler as the #1 middleweight of all time (almost everyone has him top 5) and Leonard beat him after a 3 year layoff.

Yes, Leonard does get more criticism than Duran,Hearns, and Hagler combined. I should clarify this and say on ths forum he does. Just go back and look at old threads and you will see this. Most people give Duran a free pass for the no mas fight. How many lame excuses have we heard for this? Can you imagine if Leonard would have quit like that? Some peope will go as far as saying that Leonard didn't really avenge his loss to Duran.
Many people sweep Duran's losses under the rug with the "natural lightweight" excuse. We should all forget that fighters almost always move up in weight and that Duran never had a lightweight fight after the age of 26. Funny that no one says that Evander Holyfield is the greatest fighter pound for pound of all time since he never lost at cruiserweight and his wins at heavweight should count but none of his losses at heavyweight should count.
How often do people mention that Leonard wasn't a natural middleweight when he beat Hagler?

Hearns gets criticism for not having a great chin and I agree some people go too far with it. He certainly didn't have a glass jaw like some people say. However, his chin was his biggest problem and it wasn't as good as most other great fighters. He gets less criticism on this forum than Leonard and he wasn't as good as Leonard.

Outside of ringsider, Hagler gets very little criticism on this forum. Not that he deserves a lot, he was a great fighter. However, he wasn't as good as Leonard and he probably gets 10% of the criticism that Leonard gets.

Why do I think that Leonard had more heart than Duran or Hagler. Well Duran quit in one of the biggest fights of his career. You don't think Leonard showed greater heart in than Hagler in their fight? How much heart did Hagler show in his first fight with Antuofermo when he coasted for the last several rounds because he thought he had an insurmountable lead?
Yes Leonard is a "victim" on this forum. He is a victim in the sense that he gets more unjustified criticism on this form than anyone but Ali and possibly Tyson.

Well I'm glad you don't hold Leonard's pretty boy image against him. But it's obvious that many people do.
However like others, you don't hold other fighters to the same standards as you do Leonard.
The rematch thing is the prime example. It's almost always ok for others not to fight immediate rematches but not Leonard.
People can't objectively criticize his competition or his record. They can't legitimately criticize any of his skills-power, defense,speed,chin, stamina, etc.
So they have to criticize him for things that they don't criticize other fighters for.

We are all humans and have our biases. However, I try to judge fighters fairly and use the same standards. I liked Danny Lopez a lot, but I am not going to say that he was an all time great. Likewise I rate fighters that I don't like highly if they deserve it. I am not phony about it. Ask me about any fighter and I will tell you if I like him or not. I won't do the phony thing and say "I'm an Ali fan but don't think he was that great " or that kind of crap.

That I agree 100% and people always seems to forget that Duran lost to Leonard twice, and also lost to Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. But then again he lost when he was washed up or that was not his natural weight class and a million other excuses. He made the weight and that is all that matters.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 29 Nov 2007, 12:20

I think you touched on the reasons so many people hate Leonard. Even though I'm a fan myself, I've come to the conclusion that after following the sport for more than 35 yrs, most boxing fans are idiots. What made so many people hate Leonard in particular ? He smiled for the cameras, and was polite and personable in interviews, and when he spoke he didn't talk like he had brain damage. Plenty of people hated Leonard before he even fought Duran in Montreal, because he allegedly got special treatment for winning a Gold Medal in the Olympics and then got his smiling face on a Wheaties cereal box. So called real fight fans prefer their heroes to have a vicious killer persona both in and outside the ring, because afterall this isn't badminton we're watching. Speak articulately, read a book, and act like a gentleman, and immediately some guys will conclude you don't have what it takes for the sport (think I'm exaggerating just ask yourself who was more popular, Tunney or Dempsey)

In some guys estimation, Leonard was actually soft, a coward and a pretty boy, BECAUSE of how he behaved outside the ring ! And that always manifested itself in how his particular fights went. After Leonard v Duran I, I heard Leonard haters turn a close decision into a one sided beating and even a near stoppage. But after No Mas in the Superdome, Leonard would never ever be viewed objectively because he committed the ultimate sacrilege by taunting and tormenting one of boxing's icons till he quit in humiliation. For that I actually heard guys say they hope Hearns put's Leonard in a coma etc. Yet I've never heard anyone wish the same on Duran for what he did to Buchanan, Moore or said about Lampkin. For that reason, I absolutely enjoy watching No Mas.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Nov 2007, 12:20

Think of it like this.

If Leonard had lost to Hagler would you really have held it against him when ranking his p4p standing?

If Leonard (in his 30s) had gone 15 rounds with a prime Michael Spinks and made a fight of it wouldn't you think that was a performance of some repute?

If Leonard (in his 30s) had got KO'd at Super MW by Gerald McClellan (and McClellan was nowhere near the fighter Hearns was) would you really hold it against him?

You may not agree but surely you can see why people reach the conclusions.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 29 Nov 2007, 14:03

To answer your last questions:
-If Leonard would have lost Hagler, I wouldn't have him quite as high pound for pound as I do now. He beat a great fighter 3 layoff in his first fight at that weight. Yes that help his all-time rating.

-If Leonard would have gone the distance with Spinks (I am assuming you are comparing this to Duran going the distance with Hagler) I would say that it was a respectable performance.
I also think that it was a decent showing by Duran against Hagler.

-If Leonard had fought McClellan at the age of 33 and got crushed in two rounds, yes I would hold it against him. I can guarantee you that it wouldn't be swept under the rug by most people like Duran's ko by Hearns would be.

To answer your previous questions:
I can't compare Leonard to Moore, Langford, Armstrong etc. becasue Leonard was a cash cow? why not? We are comparing how good fighters are, not how much money they made. I have done this before many times. If you can compare fighters from the 1920's to the 1930's, and you can compare fighters from the 1930's to 1940's you certainly can compare fighters from the 1920's to the 1940's and so on. You just have to think more.

-I don't support the idea that if one guy moves up from one weight class to fight at another, he usually loses to the guy that was already at the higher weight class if they are both in their primes.
It's pretty even. There are countless examples of guys being as successful or more succesful when they move up in weight.
The vast majority of fighters in the lower weight classes move up and quite often are just as good or better as their original weight. Why? Because often they were physically mature at the higher weight.
Also, they have more experience in the ring when they are at the high weight. Assuming they aren't too old/have had too many ring wars, they will often do better.

As for Duran being better at lightweight than the higher classes, that's certainly debatable. If he had retired at the age of 26 (instead of leaving the lightweight class) , how highly would people rate him today? He probably wouldn't be considered any better than Alexis Arguello or Julio Cesar Chavez.

Leonard won the head to head battle with Duran. Throw out their head to head series, and Leonard's career was still kore impressive.
Leonard won the head to series with Hearns. Throw that out, and Leonard still had a better career than Herans.
Leonard won the head to head series with Hagler. Throw that out, and Leonard still had a better than Hagler.

I don't think Leonard was light years better than these guys, but I think he was clearly better.

I can accept someone having a difference of opinion. I doubt that you can find two people on this forum that would have the same top 20 list for example. I think Ezzard Charles was a better heavyweight than Jersey Joe Walcott, but I don't think someone else is an idiot if they don't.

You didn't say who Eubank didn't fight that had moved up in weight and is criticized for.

What really bothers me is the way that people come to their conclusions when rating Leonard. It's seldom about a a specific performaces of Leonard's or that he lacked a certain boxing skill. It's almost always the same old garbage about ducking people, getting all the breaks etc. so therefore he wasn't that great.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 29 Nov 2007, 14:23

The first Duran Leonard fight would seem to be the most "defining" fight of the three. Two fighters at their best....The second seemed a bit of a "setup" even if Duran played the patsy perfectly.

Ray was the by far the smartest of all these fighters. Was he the best? Maybe but perhaps not pound for pound.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 29 Nov 2007, 16:03

BoxBuzz wrote:The first Duran Leonard fight would seem to be the most "defining" fight of the three. Two fighters at their best....The second seemed a bit of a "setup" even if Duran played the patsy perfectly.

Ray was the by far the smartest of all these fighters. Was he the best? Maybe but perhaps not pound for pound.

Sorry Buxbuzz but I don’t agree with this statement at all. The second Duran/Leonard fight was a master performance by Leonard that Duran found no answer and that is why he quit. No excuses please and the second fight was 5 months after, so why would Duran was not at his best? You don’t suddenly lose your prime in 5 months. The first fight Leonard did not use his smarts, on the second he did and well you know what happen. Why people make so many excuses for Duran.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 29 Nov 2007, 17:15

Borinken25 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:The first Duran Leonard fight would seem to be the most "defining" fight of the three. Two fighters at their best....The second seemed a bit of a "setup" even if Duran played the patsy perfectly.

Ray was the by far the smartest of all these fighters. Was he the best? Maybe but perhaps not pound for pound.

Sorry Buxbuzz but I don’t agree with this statement at all. The second Duran/Leonard fight was a master performance by Leonard that Duran found no answer and that is why he quit. No excuses please and the second fight was 5 months after, so why would Duran was not at his best? You don’t suddenly lose your prime in 5 months. The first fight Leonard did not use his smarts, on the second he did and well you know what happen. Why people make so many excuses for Duran.

Do you just discount Duran's weight gain, partying and foolish decisions in the wake of his first fight? That's why I say Ray was smart....he knew exactly how to play Duran. Duran was responsible for everything he chose to do...that's why I say he was the perfect patsy for Ray.

If Ray was the perfect fighter he would have beat him the first time. He needed a little something to beat Duran....it seems to me that Duran handed him just what he needed.

What am I missing?

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 29 Nov 2007, 17:57

Duran's various losses in the 1980s don't seem that significant. People rate Duran highly because of how good he was in his prime. During the 1970s Duran was very consistent. Duran had far more fights when he was old than Leonard did which might be the reason he has more losses.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 29 Nov 2007, 18:54

BoxBuzz wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:The first Duran Leonard fight would seem to be the most "defining" fight of the three. Two fighters at their best....The second seemed a bit of a "setup" even if Duran played the patsy perfectly.

Ray was the by far the smartest of all these fighters. Was he the best? Maybe but perhaps not pound for pound.

Sorry Buxbuzz but I don’t agree with this statement at all. The second Duran/Leonard fight was a master performance by Leonard that Duran found no answer and that is why he quit. No excuses please and the second fight was 5 months after, so why would Duran was not at his best? You don’t suddenly lose your prime in 5 months. The first fight Leonard did not use his smarts, on the second he did and well you know what happen. Why people make so many excuses for Duran.

Do you just discount Duran's weight gain, partying and foolish decisions in the wake of his first fight? That's why I say Ray was smart....he knew exactly how to play Duran. Duran was responsible for everything he chose to do...that's why I say he was the perfect patsy for Ray.

If Ray was the perfect fighter he would have beat him the first time. He needed a little something to beat Duran....it seems to me that Duran handed him just what he needed.

What am I missing?

Sorry Buzz again, but Leonard on the second fight follow his game plan and came with the perfect style to beat Duran and whether Duran party or not on the months before it would not have made a difference. The problem is Duran couldn't find an answer for Leonard style that night and that is the reason of why he quit.

So to answer your question, what is missing is Leonard perfectly executed plan that Duran just couldn’t find an answer.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 29 Nov 2007, 20:05

So what your saying is...that all Ray really needed was two chances?

I think that was my point. A bit short of perfect.

All things being even.....first time out....Duran got it right Not Ray.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 29 Nov 2007, 20:43

BoxBuzz wrote:So what your saying is...that all Ray really needed was two chances?
I think that was my point. A bit short of perfect.

All things being even.....first time out....Duran got it right Not Ray.

Correct.

He learnt from his mistakes and in the rematch he fought a great fight to make Duran do the unimaginable and quit.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 29 Nov 2007, 20:48

BoxBuzz wrote:So what your saying is...that all Ray really needed was two chances?

I think that was my point. A bit short of perfect.

All things being even.....first time out....Duran got it right Not Ray.

I'm sorry Buzz, don’t mean to contradict you at every turn, but correct me if I'm wrong, didn’t Duran needed two chances to get it right against De Jesus. So I could argue that all things being even... first time De Jesus got right. Not Duran, therefore De Jesus was the better fighter? Correct? C'mon Buzz, Leonard has wins over Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, and twice over Duran. The same Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler that defeated Duran. Leonard was the better fighter in my opinion.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 30 Nov 2007, 00:20

Borinken25 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:So what your saying is...that all Ray really needed was two chances?

I think that was my point. A bit short of perfect.

All things being even.....first time out....Duran got it right Not Ray.
I'm sorry Buzz, don’t mean to contradict you at every turn, but correct me if I'm wrong, didn’t Duran needed two chances to get it right against De Jesus. So I could argue that all things being even... first time De Jesus got right. Not Duran, therefore De Jesus was the better fighter? Correct? C'mon Buzz, Leonard has wins over Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, and twice over Duran. The same Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler that defeated Duran. Leonard was the better fighter in my opinion.

I think I may have alluded to that earlier. My nuance was that I wasn't on board with the "pound for pound" aspect. I agree with much of what your saying. I just find it interesting that you don't see that Duran might not have been as sharp the second time around based on his own personal choices for which he himself was responsible...so I'm not making excuses just shining some light on facts.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 30 Nov 2007, 06:06

BoxBuzz wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:So what your saying is...that all Ray really needed was two chances?

I think that was my point. A bit short of perfect.

All things being even.....first time out....Duran got it right Not Ray.
I'm sorry Buzz, don’t mean to contradict you at every turn, but correct me if I'm wrong, didn’t Duran needed two chances to get it right against De Jesus. So I could argue that all things being even... first time De Jesus got right. Not Duran, therefore De Jesus was the better fighter? Correct? C'mon Buzz, Leonard has wins over Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, and twice over Duran. The same Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler that defeated Duran. Leonard was the better fighter in my opinion.
I think I may have alluded to that earlier. My nuance was that I wasn't on board with the "pound for pound" aspect. I agree with much of what your saying. I just find it interesting that you don't see that Duran might not have been as sharp the second time around based on his own personal choices for which he himself was responsible...so I'm not making excuses just shining some light on facts.

Circumstances or excuses??? Depends on who you favour but I agree with Buzz. Talking about what happened and why isn't excuses, it's the story of the fight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 30 Nov 2007, 06:17

Ambling Alp wrote:To answer your last questions:
-If Leonard would have lost Hagler, I wouldn't have him quite as high pound for pound as I do now. He beat a great fighter 3 layoff in his first fight at that weight. Yes that help his all-time rating.

-If Leonard would have gone the distance with Spinks (I am assuming you are comparing this to Duran going the distance with Hagler) I would say that it was a respectable performance.
I also think that it was a decent showing by Duran against Hagler.

-If Leonard had fought McClellan at the age of 33 and got crushed in two rounds, yes I would hold it against him. I can guarantee you that it wouldn't be swept under the rug by most people like Duran's ko by Hearns would be.

To answer your previous questions:
I can't compare Leonard to Moore, Langford, Armstrong etc. becasue Leonard was a cash cow? why not? We are comparing how good fighters are, not how much money they made. I have done this before many times. If you can compare fighters from the 1920's to the 1930's, and you can compare fighters from the 1930's to 1940's you certainly can compare fighters from the 1920's to the 1940's and so on. You just have to think more.

-I don't support the idea that if one guy moves up from one weight class to fight at another, he usually loses to the guy that was already at the higher weight class if they are both in their primes.
It's pretty even. There are countless examples of guys being as successful or more succesful when they move up in weight.
The vast majority of fighters in the lower weight classes move up and quite often are just as good or better as their original weight. Why? Because often they were physically mature at the higher weight.
Also, they have more experience in the ring when they are at the high weight. Assuming they aren't too old/have had too many ring wars, they will often do better.

As for Duran being better at lightweight than the higher classes, that's certainly debatable. If he had retired at the age of 26 (instead of leaving the lightweight class) , how highly would people rate him today? He probably wouldn't be considered any better than Alexis Arguello or Julio Cesar Chavez.

Leonard won the head to head battle with Duran. Throw out their head to head series, and Leonard's career was still kore impressive.
Leonard won the head to series with Hearns. Throw that out, and Leonard still had a better career than Herans.
Leonard won the head to head series with Hagler. Throw that out, and Leonard still had a better than Hagler.

I don't think Leonard was light years better than these guys, but I think he was clearly better.

I can accept someone having a difference of opinion. I doubt that you can find two people on this forum that would have the same top 20 list for example. I think Ezzard Charles was a better heavyweight than Jersey Joe Walcott, but I don't think someone else is an idiot if they don't.

You didn't say who Eubank didn't fight that had moved up in weight and is criticized for.

What really bothers me is the way that people come to their conclusions when rating Leonard. It's seldom about a a specific performaces of Leonard's or that he lacked a certain boxing skill. It's almost always the same old garbage about ducking people, getting all the breaks etc. so therefore he wasn't that great.

Leonard beating Hagler improves his rating but losing would seriouisly not have hurt the rep he had going into the fight.

re: McClellan... I think these criticis (as you precieve them) are leading you to over emphasise. I wouldn't criticise Leonard for losing to a much bigger man when he was obviously on the slide. Some might (as you suggest) but your rating should be about you, and your thoughts, not hedging against what others might think.

Leonard was making stacks of money for people. Langford had virtually no amateur experience and fought for his meals for a while. He was not matched carefully. Come on, you know all this. Yes, you can compare but you can't seriously downgrade Langford because he lost a few fights on his way up in that period of ring history.

The weight class thing is something I wish I had the time to sit down and go through. But I don't, maybe some day I'll get chance to do that.

Throw out Leonard's series with Duran and he does not have a more impressive record. Keep it in and he still doesn't. That's my opinion.

What I don't see is this legion of Leonard critics. Why aren't they flocking to this thread? Where are they? Who are they? I mean beyond this Elton John guy who seriously seems to be against him? Leonard has very few critics on this site. So much so that you are debating because many put him at #2 of the 4, which is hardly a slap in the face, is it?

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 30 Nov 2007, 12:46

Ezzard,
I agree that had Leonard lost to Hagler that his standing shouldn't drop from what it was before their fight. However, it would have in some people's eyes. Many people seem oblivious to the fact that Leonard hadn't fought in 3 years and that it was his first fight at middleweight.

Regarding McClellan-you have lost me here. I brought up the idea that there might not be one other fighter in boxing history that gets criticized for not fighting an immediate rematch when their opponent moved up in weight. (My point being that Leonard should not be criticized for not fighting Duran and Hearns immediately since they both moved up in weight.)
You bring up Gerald McClellan. Well, I keep asking, who was he criticized for not fighting a rematch with that had moved up weight? I certainly haven't heard of him ever being criticized for this like Leonard is.
Don't you understand what I am saying?
Leonard didn't duck Duran or Hearns. Why should Leonard have to move up in weight class immediately to fight them again?
No one else in boxing histryo gets criticized for this but Leonard. And he gets ripped for it a lot.
Did the thought ever cross your mind that Duran and Hearns didn't want to fight Leonard again? Why is that so far fetched? It's certainly more likely than Leonard ducking them.

As for Langford and other great fighters- Yes of course certain allowances have to be made for fighters that fought in vastly different era. Langford and others in his era fought much more often and often on short notice than Leonard and fighters of his era. Of course he is going to have more losses than Leonard. However, it doesn't automatically mean that Langford or Greb or Moore or whomever was better than Leonard. You have to go through their records very thoroughly. How many losses that Leonard would have had in their eras is hard to say. However, I think it's fair to say that they wouldn't have less losses than Leonard had they fought his competition in his era.
Overall (except when the sport was in it's infancy) I don't believe one era is better than another. There are great, bad and in between fighters in every era. Sometimes a particular weight class is strong in one era, but usually other weight classes aren't in that era.

Where are the legions of Leonard's critics? Besides Elton John, Elmer salsa had ripped Leonard quite often, even though he is supposedly a fan.
On this thread Bo-Select mocked Leonard.
On this thread alone at least 4 other people have said Hagler was better, which if you look at their careers objectively certainly isn't the case. It' seems that many people don't even have him #2 out of the four.
On countless other threads Leonard has been unjustly criticized.

How many times have heard excuses for "no mas", even on this thread? Duran had to go the bathroom, he had cramps, he partied too much, etc.
This of course detracts from the the truth and detracts from Leonard's accomplishment: He easily defeated Roberto Duran. (The BS excuses also wipes Duran's loss off the slate and thus helps Duran's standing.)

How many threads have there been about Hagler being robbed? This of course detracts from Leonard's accomplishment. What other fighter was off for 3 years, didn't take a tune up fight and won a world title?

Do I really need to go over some stupid criticisms that Leonard has got on this forum on various threads? People don't like his smile, he threw shoeshine punches, didn't fight like a man, got many gift decisions, ducked people etc.

Of course some people like Leonard and aren't biased against him. A few other will atleast admit his greatness. However, he gets more criticism than praise even though he was a great fighter.
As mentioned before, with the exception of Ali and possibly Tyson, no one gets on ths forum gets nearly as much unjustified criticism as Leonard.It's funny on other threads Leonard gets a lot of unjustified criticism and I have mentioned that Leonard gets too much criticism on this forum. And you said on some of those threads say that I am exaggerating, that it doesn't happen that much. Why do I get the feeling that in the not so distant future there will be another thread ripping Leonard for unjustifiable reasons?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Dec 2007, 16:18

BoxBuzz wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:So what your saying is...that all Ray really needed was two chances?

I think that was my point. A bit short of perfect.

All things being even.....first time out....Duran got it right Not Ray.
I'm sorry Buzz, don’t mean to contradict you at every turn, but correct me if I'm wrong, didn’t Duran needed two chances to get it right against De Jesus. So I could argue that all things being even... first time De Jesus got right. Not Duran, therefore De Jesus was the better fighter? Correct? C'mon Buzz, Leonard has wins over Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, and twice over Duran. The same Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler that defeated Duran. Leonard was the better fighter in my opinion.
I think I may have alluded to that earlier. My nuance was that I wasn't on board with the "pound for pound" aspect. I agree with much of what your saying. I just find it interesting that you don't see that Duran might not have been as sharp the second time around based on his own personal choices for which he himself was responsible...so I'm not making excuses just shining some light on facts.

Don't you mean 'just offering an opinion'?

You yourself use the word 'might'...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Dec 2007, 21:32

Collins2000 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Borinken25 wrote: I'm sorry Buzz, don’t mean to contradict you at every turn, but correct me if I'm wrong, didn’t Duran needed two chances to get it right against De Jesus. So I could argue that all things being even... first time De Jesus got right. Not Duran, therefore De Jesus was the better fighter? Correct? C'mon Buzz, Leonard has wins over Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, and twice over Duran. The same Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler that defeated Duran. Leonard was the better fighter in my opinion.
I think I may have alluded to that earlier. My nuance was that I wasn't on board with the "pound for pound" aspect. I agree with much of what your saying. I just find it interesting that you don't see that Duran might not have been as sharp the second time around based on his own personal choices for which he himself was responsible...so I'm not making excuses just shining some light on facts.
Don't you mean 'just offering an opinion'?

You yourself use the word 'might'...

I was referring to the FACTS of his less than olympian behavior between fights. Should that be relegated to an opinion? I think there is enough empirical evidence to support that assertion...is there not?

If not...I will offer up that it is also my opinion that both oxygen and gravity are part of the integral dynamics of our daily living. I can only hope I'm not venturing into the "controversial" or "scantily credible" realm of ideas with these statements.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Dec 2007, 22:29

BoxBuzz wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote: I think I may have alluded to that earlier. My nuance was that I wasn't on board with the "pound for pound" aspect. I agree with much of what your saying. I just find it interesting that you don't see that Duran might not have been as sharp the second time around based on his own personal choices for which he himself was responsible...so I'm not making excuses just shining some light on facts.
Don't you mean 'just offering an opinion'?

You yourself use the word 'might'...
I was referring to the FACTS of his less than olympian behavior between fights. Should that be relegated to an opinion? I think there is enough empirical evidence to support that assertion...is there not?

If not...I will offer up that it is also my opinion that both oxygen and gravity are part of the integral dynamics of our daily living. I can only hope I'm not venturing into the "controversial" or "scantily credible" realm of ideas with these statements.

No, you have gone further than that, buzzy. You have come to the conclusion that Duran's partying means Leonard's win is somewhat less meaningful because of that.

My understanding is that Duran never lived a monastic life. Yet, when he loses that suddenly becomes the reason rather than just meeting a better man on the night.