BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote:Leonard was helped by the media more than any fighter I have ever seen. Probably more helped than the great Ali.

A great fighter though, but if we compare him with Duran in every category in boxing, Duran slightly has the edge. It is true that he lost to the Benitez, Hearns, Haglers and Leonards, but all that happened when Duran was:

1. Over 13 years of ring experience.
So what?

2. Duran when he fought them was over the 30s and had to try to adjust to the bigger weigths like jr middle and middleweights. Remember, it is hard for a fighter to win and be successful in greater weigth classes...Ask Sugar Ray Robinson. Of his 19 career losses, at least 17 of them, were above his natural weight class which was welterweight.

Duran was only 29 when he fought Leonard, and only 30 he fought Benetiz. Duran never fought as a lightweight after he was 27.
Leonard certainly wasn't a natural middleweight he beat Hagler. It was his first fight as a middleweight.
Now other points:

1. Leonard fought one time at 160...I would have like to see how would he handle guys like Barkley, Sims, and Mugabi for example at 160???


Do you really have any doubt that Leonard would have beaten these guys? Leonard beat Hagler, these guys are clearly not as good. Duran never fought Mugabi, won a decison over Barkley that just as easily could have gone the other way, and actually lost to Robbie Sims.


2. Leonard had breaks that Duran WISH HE SHOULD HAVE.

Since you don't mention what these breaks were, I can't respond to this.


3. IN THE GREATEST AND MOST ANTICIPATED FIGHT OUTSIDE THE HEAVY RANKS, Duran a lightweight, beat Leonard a welterweight. That is a 12-pound difference!!! Duran showed he was the greatest that night.

There wasn't a 12 pound difference when they fought. Duran actaully outweighed Leonard 145 1/2 to 145.

4. I cannot imagine a featherweight, jump to 135 pounds and challenge Duran and beat him...Duran did that to Leonard, and no NATURAL FEATHERWEIGHT ever did that to Duran.

Duran didn't "jump up" to 147. This was his 8th fight as a welterweight. He hadn't been a lightweight for 2 years. Winning the lightweight and welterweight titles is a great achievement, but it's not like duran is the only won toever do it. Ross, Armstrong, Whitaker, Mosel;y, and De La Hoya did it.
Because a featherweight didn't challenge Duran doesn't mean that Duran was better than Leonard.


5. Leonard's LONGEVITY is absurd compared to Durans

It's absurd that you would be impressed by this. Duran fought at least 12 years after he should have retired. Just because Leonard didn't want to embarrass himself as a fat, slow old man fighting club fighters like Duran
did doesn't prove anything.

6. Leonard division dominance was not as great as Durans. Duran made 12 title defenses, 11 straight by KO and whupped every single lightweight that came his path, including DeJesus, the last one in a breathtaking performance.

Yeah, check the guys that Duran defended against. Outside of DeJesus, none were that good. One guy even had a losing record.

7. Take Benitez and Duran, who were NOT natural welterweights, and Leonard in that weight only beat Hearns. With Hagler, many people BELIEVE THAT THE MARVELOUS WON and SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE TITLE. Hearns put Leonard to eat dust 2 times in the fight and got robbed in the rematch.

Benitez was a natural welterweight. What are you talking about?
Duran had grown into welterweight, he probably couldn't have lost the weight to get down to lightweight by then anyway.
Many people may believe that Hagler won the Hagler-Leonard fight, but that doesn't mean he did. Leonard won the first four rounds easily, the rest of the fight was close. There is no way that Hagler won more than 5 rounds.

8. Duran has more KOs than Leonard has fights.
Quantity isn't as ii portant than quality. Leonard was much older when he started as apro, lost 5 years of his prime to eye trouble, and didn't fight club fighters until he was past 50.
Also, look at Durans record. 30 of his knockouts were against guys with losing records, 10 of them were in theri pro debut! Leonard had 2 fights in his whole career against guys with losing records.
Leonard had a higher ko % (.625) than Duran (.588).

9. Duran is considered as the best fighter in the lightweight class ever. Leonard is no even the best at 147, which was his best weight class.

Many people don't consider duran the best lightweight ever. Many consider. Gans, Benny Leonard, Ortiz, Armstrong, Ross etc better.
Gee, I wonder why most don't consider Leonard the best welterweight ever? Could it be that Ray Robinson was a welterweight?


10. Both of them were the best fighters of their generation. The best fighters of their respective primes. I do not see other fighters dominating 2 decades...That is IMPOSSIBLE. Duran was the 70s as Leonard was the 80s.
Don't know how that proves that duran was better so I won't respond to it.

11. Duran has more world championship fights than Leonard, even though Leonard has a better record at world title fights, he never muster a 14 fight world title win streak like Durans. Leonard won 3 title fights and lost to Duran. Then won 6 in a row and NEVER AGAIN had a title win streak.

You said yourself, Leonard had a better record than Duran in title fights. That more important than a streak.

12. Duran fought in 8 weight classes: bantam, feather, lightweight, jr welter, welter, jr middle, middleweight and super middle...Leonard??? Fought in 4...That is HALF the fights at weight classes that Duran had fought.

Umm, so what? Doesn't mean anything at all. He didn't win titles in more weight classes than Leonard.

13. Duran beat 4 hall of famers so far. Leonard beat 4 also. But Duran possibly with the wins over Barkley and Marcel, would have the edge here too. Duran from bantam to middle, fought more hall of famers than Leonard. Hey, probably DeJesus, like the way the IBHOF is selecting, has a SHOT at the IBHOF, so watch out, that would make Duran have 7 hall of famers over the 4 hall of famers of Leonard has beaten.

You have implied yourself that the Hall of Fame voting leaves something to be desired. Do you really think that if Barkley and Marcel get in that makes Duran better?
And lets compare the Hall of Famers. Besides Leonard himself, Duran's are Cuevas,Buchanan, and Palomino, they are nowhere near the the trio of Benetiz, Hearns, and Hagler.


14. Between, the 2, and comparing their records and career, I got to go with Duran. Ah, do not forget that Duran has more KOs in the 1st round (22 KOs) and have the record of KOs in every round from 1 to 15 in the modern era. Duran has more world title fight wins than Leonard...Can we say more about Duran??? What a career!!!

22 first round ko's Once again so what? 11 of them were against guys who had never won a pro fight before they fought Duran. None of the 22 were anything special at all.

Can we say more about Duran? Yes, he sure fought a lot of tomato cans.

Actually I think Salsa's debating points are the stronger ones in this case.

I would add that much of Leanord's actions were with "history" in mind. He was building a legacy, Duran was simply fighting fights. It's almost the quintessential "old guard" fighter and "new guard" fighter.

Sugar Ray was great, but was "managed" to look even greater. Some of his opponents with "winning" records added to the window dressing as is often the case today. I'm thinking "Baldomir" here.....a guy that Duran would have fought and Leanard just might have seen the problem in fighting and safely avoided him. (Safely because no one would even complain since his record was not as good as his capabilities) Follow my thinking here?) I'm not suggesting Baldomir could handle either of these greats.

Duran just fought people and let the history take care of itself, I think Sugar Ray as good as he was, always "managed" his moments to look the best that he could look in the history books. (Sometimes "records" are not indicative of "fighting capability".

I'm not really dissing either of them, just pointing out some interesting info.

Decagon I agree with you, you can "imagine" them to be tomato cans but we may not be able to be certain how good or bad some were. I think a good working fighter like Baldomir who can upset an apple cart is a good example. Something that is becoming more rare as time goes by but still possible especially in South American countries where people are still enjoying the fights too much to overanalyze all the fighters clinical abilites.

So what if Leonard managed his career shrewdly? Better for him to do that than get mis handled and exploited by someone who may not have his best interest at heart. Ray was smart, and did not allow himself to get screwed by the system the way most fighters, especially black, did. I say good for him.
Bottom line is Ray had one of the greatest careers ever. He was beating quality compition since his second year as a pro and beat better fighters than Duran. Its funny how Leonards accomplishments are lessened by nit picking, but every excuse in the book is used to explain every bad performance Duran ever had.

People that don't like Loenard often make vague negative comments about him that usually have little or no merit. You can say he was "managed" to look good, or that he had "history in mind", but the bottom line is that he he fought the best fighters of his time and unlike Duran, Leonard beat them all.

Beating one great fighter is much more impressive than beating 10 ordinary fighters.

Obviously the Boxrec database isn't 100% accurrate. However, it's not just a coincidence that when Duran fought guys that we never heard of in Panama, he knocks them out early, but when he fights guys we know are good he usually didn't. He never knocked out one good fighter in the United States in his whole career.

Duran was certainly an all time great. However, he had some negatives which should be held against him.

He quit in one of the biggest fights of his career. If Leonard would have done that, he would have gotten 10 times the criticism. But since tough guy Duran quit, lame excuse after lame excuse if given.

Many of wins, even after he lightweight champion, weren't against world class fighters.
It's true that no one fights a great fighter every time, but the quality of some of Duran's opposition was often ridiculaus.

Decagon wrote:Duran quit twice, too. If he hadn't done that, he'd probably be sitting at the top of my pound-for-pound list, or one step below Robinson.

What about old Hurricane Hank? I rate him number one.

BoxBuzz wrote:Actually I think Salsa's debating points are the stronger ones in this case.

I would add that much of Leanord's actions were with "history" in mind. He was building a legacy, Duran was simply fighting fights. It's almost the quintessential "old guard" fighter and "new guard" fighter.

I agree with these statements. Elmersalasa got it spot on with point #4. Could a featherweight have beaten Duran? I have a hard time imagining this.

Elmersalasa got it spot on with point #4. Could a featherweight have beaten Duran? I have a hard time imagining this.

Mosely accomplished the same feat when he stepped up from lightweight and beat Oscar DelaHoya. The only difference was that he wasnt dominated and humiliated in the rematch.

theone wrote:

Elmersalasa got it spot on with point #4. Could a featherweight have beaten Duran? I have a hard time imagining this.

Mosely accomplished the same feat when he stepped up from lightweight and beat Oscar DelaHoya. The only difference was that he wasnt dominated and humiliated in the rematch.

DLH was no Leonard. And Oscar had been champ at a lower weight so it's not the same thing at all.

DLH was a natural welter even when he fought at a lighter weights. Thats why his chin appeared much better the higher in weight he became. He had been an offical welter for three years, when he fought Mosely.

theone wrote:DLH was a natural welter even when he fought at a lighter weights. Thats why his chin appeared much better the higher in weight he became. He had been an offical welter for three years, when he fought Mosely.

I don't believe a natural welter could fight below weight effectively. I certainly don't believe for a moment that Leonard could have fought below that weight.

How do you define natural?

I don't believe a natural welter could fight below weight effectively. I certainly don't believe for a moment that Leonard could have fought below that weight.

How do you define natural?

DLH's goal was to win titles in as many weight classes as he could before he was through. He made this quite clear when he turned pro. He would drain himself all the way down to Jr lightweight when he first started to help accomplish this goal. At Jr light up to JRWelte, he always looked so much bigger than his opponents, because naturally he was.

theone wrote:

I don't believe a natural welter could fight below weight effectively. I certainly don't believe for a moment that Leonard could have fought below that weight.

How do you define natural?

DLH's goal was to win titles in as many weight classes as he could before he was through. He made this quite clear when he turned pro. He would drain himself all the way down to Jr lightweight when he first started to help accomplish this goal. At Jr light up to JRWelte, he always looked so much bigger than his opponents, because naturally he was.

If he could fight effectively at lightweight then he was a natural lightweight not a natural welterweight.

Ambling Alp wrote: Duran was certainly an all time great. However, he had some negatives which should be held against him.

He quit in one of the biggest fights of his career. If Leonard would have done that, he would have gotten 10 times the criticism. But since tough guy Duran quit, lame excuse after lame excuse if given.

.

That might be very unfair true, I give Leonard all the respect he deserves...Great Fighter...Bu he recognizes that Duran was better than him...He testified it in his own words. I do not think the fact of what you saying if Leonard would have quit would have been enlarged 10 times. He was not categorized as the "Macho Man", Duran was. Leonard would not had a greater IMPACT if he would have quit.


Other things you have said:
People that don't like Loenard often make vague negative comments about him that usually have little or no merit. You can say he was "managed" to look good, or that he had "history in mind", but the bottom line is that he he fought the best fighters of his time and unlike Duran, Leonard beat them all.

DURAN BEAT THE BEST GUYS OF HIS TIME, INCLUDING LEONARD, IN THE BIGGEST NIGHT IN BOXING OUTSIDE THE HEAVYS. You Forgot Buchanan, Marcel, Kobayashi, DeJesus, Lampkin, Palomino, and Mamby...All of them, good fighters!!!

Beating one great fighter is much more impressive than beating 10 ordinary fighters.

Sugar Ray did the same thing like Duran...Were not Ranzany, Boy Green, Mu~iz (washed up version), Mayweather, Chiaverini ORDINARY??...Ohhhh, according to you I believe, were GREAT FIGHTERS, oh my

Obviously the Boxrec database isn't 100% accurrate. However, it's not just a coincidence that when Duran fought guys that we never heard of in Panama, he knocks them out early, but when he fights guys we know are good he usually didn't. He never knocked out one good fighter in the United States in his whole career.

Ain't he almost killed South Bronx's Davey Moore??? Duran KO'd Moore in 8 I believe... did it being washed up. Ooooh Moore was a young buck. A young buck that destroyed Ayub Kalule in 5, (Kalule gave Leonard problems) and then after the loss of Duran, Moore almost kills Benitez??? In 2 rounds??? THAT SEEMED TO ME HE WAS PRETTY GOOD.

Ain't he being washed up almost killed Pipino Cuevas??? Oh, Pipino was washed up TOO, that will be your response, DURAN WAS WASHED UP TOO IN THAT NIGHT.

Did Duran stopped Ray Lampkin??? Was not he good??? He looked pretty good to me when he came to challenge the champ in Panama
What about Esteban DeJesus??? Was he not very good??? Duran put him to crawl in spectacular fashion in the last fight and avenged the second fight by guess what???...By KO
Oooohhh What about Ken Buchanan??? It is the only loss Buchanan had by KO in his whole career.

Many of wins, even after he lightweight champion, weren't against world class fighters.
It's true that no one fights a great fighter every time, but the quality of some of Duran's opposition was often ridiculaus

After the lightweight days, Duran beat:
Leonard
Palomino
Moore
Barkley

That seems to me a pretty good company. I do not see Donny Lalonde in his ledger. Neither do I see Kevin Howard...The bottom line is, neither Lalonde nor Howard would have beat the guys above. OBVIOUSLY, THEY DID NOT BEAT ONE OF THEM NAMED SUGAR RAY.

theone wrote:DLH was a natural welter even when he fought at a lighter weights. Thats why his chin appeared much better the higher in weight he became. He had been an offical welter for three years, when he fought Mosely.

What a fornicating LIE was that???

Decagon wrote:If Ray Leonard had learned how to dry out and rehydrate the way current fighters do, he could have fought at 135, and fairly well. Bernard Hopkins sometimes talks about how he could have fought at welterweight, even though he never even got down to the jr. middleweight limit in his career.

what's your point? So every decent fighter from 10 years ago could have been fighting 10-15 lbs below the weight they did fight at? So Ray would have been 135 and Duran 120?

"Ooooh Moore was a young buck. A young buck that destroyed Ayub Kalule in 5, (Kalule gave Leonard problems) and then after the loss of Duran, Moore almost kills Benitez??? In 2 rounds??? THAT SEEMED TO ME HE WAS PRETTY GOOD."



Elmo, did you see the Moore - Benitez fight? Benitez wasn't "almost killed" by any stretch of the imagination. He WAS knocked down, I'll grant you that, but he twisted his knee and couldn't stand up properly. Like when Jaquot broke his ankle against Mugabi. The ref had no option but to stop it as he was alternately hopping around or just trying to prop himself up on the ropes. Check the fight, if you haven't seen it.

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Duran was certainly an all time great. However, he had some negatives which should be held against him.

He quit in one of the biggest fights of his career. If Leonard would have done that, he would have gotten 10 times the criticism. But since tough guy Duran quit, lame excuse after lame excuse if given.

.

That might be very unfair true, I give Leonard all the respect he deserves...Great Fighter...Bu he recognizes that Duran was better than him...He testified it in his own words. I do not think the fact of what you saying if Leonard would have quit would have been enlarged 10 times. He was not categorized as the "Macho Man", Duran was. Leonard would not had a greater IMPACT if he would have quit.

You don't really believe that Leonard really thinks Duran was better than him do you? Leonard has been gracious towards Duran (as he has with other opponents).
The point I was trying to mak about what have happened if Leonard would have been the one who quit is this : People would have said that he was a pretty boy and that he had no guts. However since Duran was the one to quit, many people just ignore it.


Other things you have said:
People that don't like Loenard often make vague negative comments about him that usually have little or no merit. You can say he was "managed" to look good, or that he had "history in mind", but the bottom line is that he he fought the best fighters of his time and unlike Duran, Leonard beat them all.

DURAN BEAT THE BEST GUYS OF HIS TIME, INCLUDING LEONARD, IN THE BIGGEST NIGHT IN BOXING OUTSIDE THE HEAVYS. You Forgot Buchanan, Marcel, Kobayashi, DeJesus, Lampkin, Palomino, and Mamby...All of them, good fighters!!!

No Duran didn't beat the best (except for the 1st Leonard fight). Benetiez, Hearns, and Hagler were far superior to these guys and Duran couldn't beat them.

Beating one great fighter is much more impressive than beating 10 ordinary fighters.

Sugar Ray did the same thing like Duran...Were not Ranzany, Boy Green, Mu~iz (washed up version), Mayweather, Chiaverini ORDINARY??...Ohhhh, according to you I believe, were GREAT FIGHTERS, oh my

You are taking this out of context. Of course not every opponent that Leonard beat was an all time great. I was commenting on you being impressed with the sheer number of Durans' victories, which I don't think is important as the high qulaity of some of Leonard's.
For example, what easier, beating Marvin Hagler or going 10-0 against journeyman? I say it's much easier going 10-0 against the journeyman.

Obviously the Boxrec database isn't 100% accurrate. However, it's not just a coincidence that when Duran fought guys that we never heard of in Panama, he knocks them out early, but when he fights guys we know are good he usually didn't. He never knocked out one good fighter in the United States in his whole career.

Ain't he almost killed South Bronx's Davey Moore??? Duran KO'd Moore in 8 I believe... did it being washed up. Ooooh Moore was a young buck. A young buck that destroyed Ayub Kalule in 5, (Kalule gave Leonard problems) and then after the loss of Duran, Moore almost kills Benitez??? In 2 rounds??? THAT SEEMED TO ME HE WAS PRETTY GOOD.

Ain't he being washed up almost killed Pipino Cuevas??? Oh, Pipino was washed up TOO, that will be your response, DURAN WAS WASHED UP TOO IN THAT NIGHT.

Did Duran stopped Ray Lampkin??? Was not he good??? He looked pretty good to me when he came to challenge the champ in Panama
What about Esteban DeJesus??? Was he not very good??? Duran put him to crawl in spectacular fashion in the last fight and avenged the second fight by guess what???...By KO
Oooohhh What about Ken Buchanan??? It is the only loss Buchanan had by KO in his whole career.

I apologize for the mistake that I made here. I was referring to your earlier statement about Duran's 22 1st round knockouts and I meant to say that Duran never knocked out anyone good in the first round. (I left the first round part out) Obviously Duran knocked out some good fighters.
The main point that I was trying to make was that Duran would knockout guys in Panama very early, but he seldom did that when he fought someone we have heard of in the United States.

As for Davey Moore, you do know that Benitez broke his ankle and couldn't continue. If Benitez was his prime, he would have beaten Moore easily. You know Benitez was good, he did beat Duran after all.
Moore was nothing special. He lost other fights as well.
Many of wins, even after he lightweight champion, weren't against world class fighters.
It's true that no one fights a great fighter every time, but the quality of some of Duran's opposition was often ridiculaus

After the lightweight days, Duran beat:
Leonard
Palomino
Moore
Barkley

That seems to me a pretty good company. I do not see Donny Lalonde in his ledger. Neither do I see Kevin Howard...The bottom line is, neither Lalonde nor Howard would have beat the guys above. OBVIOUSLY, THEY DID NOT BEAT ONE OF THEM NAMED SUGAR RAY.

That really isn't a fair comparison. You are comparing who you feel are the worst guys that Leonard beat in his prime against the best that Duran beat.
Both Lalonde and Howard were better than many of the guys Duran fought.
Do I have to point them out? While he was lightweight chamion he fought:
Juan Medina (0-0), Javier Ayala (13-7-1), Ado;phus MclClendon (10-12-2), Flash Gasllego (10-14), Jose Vasquez (0-1), Adalberto Vanegas (0-0-1),Andres Salgado (0-2), Pedro Mendoza (0-0), Aliro Acuna (0-3),Alvaro Rojas (2-4), Bernrdo Diaz (1-5).
As a welterweight, he fought Ezequiel Obando (0-3), as Jr Middleweight he fought Manuel Zambrano (1-3) and Jorge Suero (0-0).
As a Super Middleweight, he fought Carlos Montero (5-4), Ariel Cruz (0-13).
There are many more that had mediocre records that I didn't mention.
Sure everyone fights some weak competition on their way up when they are getting experience, but Duran continued to constantly fight these low level opponents after he was a world class fighter himself.
Leonard never fought anyone near this bad after he reached his prime. He only fought 2 guys with losing records in his whole career and both were well before he ever foguht for a title.
You mentioned Lalonde and Howard as opponents that Leonard fought. Both were far better than the novices and club fighters that Duran fought.

Lalonde was the lightheavyweight champion. He beat world class fighters himself (Stewart, Davis, Hamsho). He was certainly many levels ahead of many of the guys Duran beat.
He certainly wasn't an all time great, but LaLonde is just as worthy as being in the Hall of Fame as Cuevas. Cuevas even lost to Andy Price, who Leonard knocked out in the first round while he was on the way up.
Why wouldn't Lalonde have a chance against Palomino, Moore, Barkley? His record is just as impressive.
Howard wasn't anything special, but at least he was an experienced fighter who had some skills. Most of his losses were to top fighters. He was the worst fighter that Leonard fought after

Do you really think that anyone Duran ever beat would have beat Leonard?
Leonard wouldn't have lost to DeJesus, and Kirkland Laing? Come on.
The best guys that Leonard beat were much better than the best guys that Duran beat. There is no question about that.
The worst guys that Leonard beat were much better than the worst guys that Duran beat.

I'm sorry if I came off as being too sarcastic earlier. Obviously not all of Duran's opponent were novices or journeyman. However, many of them certainly were.

Alp

A lot of the guys you mention are tune up fights or training exercises. Chavez did the same. Some guys like to stay busy. You can't really hold that against them. If these were the only people he ever fought then fair enough but personally I'd rather a fighter stay busy and engage in tese contests rather than fight once a year as many do today.

As for Lalonde I don't think he compares favourablyu with Cuevas. Besides, Ray made up those weight stipulations to stop him from coming in too heavy.

Ezzard,
I guess if a world class fighter wants to fight tomato cans that his peragative.
However, the point that I am trying to make is that it's not that impressive to have a lot of wins and a lot of knockouts if so many of your fights are against low level opponents.

As for Cuevas, he was a good fighter, but certainly not great. He was agressive and had good pwer, but wasn't good defensively and didn't have a good chin. His career record is only 35-15, with no wins against a great opponent, and several losses against ordinary fighters. It's a disgrace for him to be in the Hall of Fame. La Londe doesn't belong either, but his career was just as good as Cuevas.
No one considers leonards win over LaLonde a big deal, and neither should people consider Duran's win over Cuevas a big deal.

Ambling Alp wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Duran was certainly an all time great. However, he had some negatives which should be held against him.

He quit in one of the biggest fights of his career. If Leonard would have done that, he would have gotten 10 times the criticism. But since tough guy Duran quit, lame excuse after lame excuse if given.

.

That might be very unfair true, I give Leonard all the respect he deserves...Great Fighter...Bu he recognizes that Duran was better than him...He testified it in his own words. I do not think the fact of what you saying if Leonard would have quit would have been enlarged 10 times. He was not categorized as the "Macho Man", Duran was. Leonard would not had a greater IMPACT if he would have quit.

You don't really believe that Leonard really thinks Duran was better than him do you? Leonard has been gracious towards Duran (as he has with other opponents).
The point I was trying to mak about what have happened if Leonard would have been the one who quit is this : People would have said that he was a pretty boy and that he had no guts. However since Duran was the one to quit, many people just ignore it.


Other things you have said:
People that don't like Loenard often make vague negative comments about him that usually have little or no merit. You can say he was "managed" to look good, or that he had "history in mind", but the bottom line is that he he fought the best fighters of his time and unlike Duran, Leonard beat them all.

DURAN BEAT THE BEST GUYS OF HIS TIME, INCLUDING LEONARD, IN THE BIGGEST NIGHT IN BOXING OUTSIDE THE HEAVYS. You Forgot Buchanan, Marcel, Kobayashi, DeJesus, Lampkin, Palomino, and Mamby...All of them, good fighters!!!

No Duran didn't beat the best (except for the 1st Leonard fight). Benetiez, Hearns, and Hagler were far superior to these guys and Duran couldn't beat them.

Beating one great fighter is much more impressive than beating 10 ordinary fighters.

Sugar Ray did the same thing like Duran...Were not Ranzany, Boy Green, Mu~iz (washed up version), Mayweather, Chiaverini ORDINARY??...Ohhhh, according to you I believe, were GREAT FIGHTERS, oh my

You are taking this out of context. Of course not every opponent that Leonard beat was an all time great. I was commenting on you being impressed with the sheer number of Durans' victories, which I don't think is important as the high qulaity of some of Leonard's.
For example, what easier, beating Marvin Hagler or going 10-0 against journeyman? I say it's much easier going 10-0 against the journeyman.

Obviously the Boxrec database isn't 100% accurrate. However, it's not just a coincidence that when Duran fought guys that we never heard of in Panama, he knocks them out early, but when he fights guys we know are good he usually didn't. He never knocked out one good fighter in the United States in his whole career.

Ain't he almost killed South Bronx's Davey Moore??? Duran KO'd Moore in 8 I believe... did it being washed up. Ooooh Moore was a young buck. A young buck that destroyed Ayub Kalule in 5, (Kalule gave Leonard problems) and then after the loss of Duran, Moore almost kills Benitez??? In 2 rounds??? THAT SEEMED TO ME HE WAS PRETTY GOOD.

Ain't he being washed up almost killed Pipino Cuevas??? Oh, Pipino was washed up TOO, that will be your response, DURAN WAS WASHED UP TOO IN THAT NIGHT.

Did Duran stopped Ray Lampkin??? Was not he good??? He looked pretty good to me when he came to challenge the champ in Panama
What about Esteban DeJesus??? Was he not very good??? Duran put him to crawl in spectacular fashion in the last fight and avenged the second fight by guess what???...By KO
Oooohhh What about Ken Buchanan??? It is the only loss Buchanan had by KO in his whole career.

I apologize for the mistake that I made here. I was referring to your earlier statement about Duran's 22 1st round knockouts and I meant to say that Duran never knocked out anyone good in the first round. (I left the first round part out) Obviously Duran knocked out some good fighters.
The main point that I was trying to make was that Duran would knockout guys in Panama very early, but he seldom did that when he fought someone we have heard of in the United States.

As for Davey Moore, you do know that Benitez broke his ankle and couldn't continue. If Benitez was his prime, he would have beaten Moore easily. You know Benitez was good, he did beat Duran after all.
Moore was nothing special. He lost other fights as well.
Many of wins, even after he lightweight champion, weren't against world class fighters.
It's true that no one fights a great fighter every time, but the quality of some of Duran's opposition was often ridiculaus

After the lightweight days, Duran beat:
Leonard
Palomino
Moore
Barkley

That seems to me a pretty good company. I do not see Donny Lalonde in his ledger. Neither do I see Kevin Howard...The bottom line is, neither Lalonde nor Howard would have beat the guys above. OBVIOUSLY, THEY DID NOT BEAT ONE OF THEM NAMED SUGAR RAY.

That really isn't a fair comparison. You are comparing who you feel are the worst guys that Leonard beat in his prime against the best that Duran beat.
Both Lalonde and Howard were better than many of the guys Duran fought.
Do I have to point them out? While he was lightweight chamion he fought:
Juan Medina (0-0), Javier Ayala (13-7-1), Ado;phus MclClendon (10-12-2), Flash Gasllego (10-14), Jose Vasquez (0-1), Adalberto Vanegas (0-0-1),Andres Salgado (0-2), Pedro Mendoza (0-0), Aliro Acuna (0-3),Alvaro Rojas (2-4), Bernrdo Diaz (1-5).
As a welterweight, he fought Ezequiel Obando (0-3), as Jr Middleweight he fought Manuel Zambrano (1-3) and Jorge Suero (0-0).
As a Super Middleweight, he fought Carlos Montero (5-4), Ariel Cruz (0-13).
There are many more that had mediocre records that I didn't mention.
Sure everyone fights some weak competition on their way up when they are getting experience, but Duran continued to constantly fight these low level opponents after he was a world class fighter himself.
Leonard never fought anyone near this bad after he reached his prime. He only fought 2 guys with losing records in his whole career and both were well before he ever foguht for a title.
You mentioned Lalonde and Howard as opponents that Leonard fought. Both were far better than the novices and club fighters that Duran fought.

Lalonde was the lightheavyweight champion. He beat world class fighters himself (Stewart, Davis, Hamsho). He was certainly many levels ahead of many of the guys Duran beat.
He certainly wasn't an all time great, but LaLonde is just as worthy as being in the Hall of Fame as Cuevas. Cuevas even lost to Andy Price, who Leonard knocked out in the first round while he was on the way up.
Why wouldn't Lalonde have a chance against Palomino, Moore, Barkley? His record is just as impressive.
Howard wasn't anything special, but at least he was an experienced fighter who had some skills. Most of his losses were to top fighters. He was the worst fighter that Leonard fought after

Do you really think that anyone Duran ever beat would have beat Leonard?
Leonard wouldn't have lost to DeJesus, and Kirkland Laing? Come on.
The best guys that Leonard beat were much better than the best guys that Duran beat. There is no question about that.
The worst guys that Leonard beat were much better than the worst guys that Duran beat.

I'm sorry if I came off as being too sarcastic earlier. Obviously not all of Duran's opponent were novices or journeyman. However, many of them certainly were.

THOSE RECORDS THAT YOU PUT OF THE FIGHTERS ABOVE ARE TOTAL INACCURATE. As a matter of fact, if we start comparing the total amount of TOMATO CANS that both Leonard and Duran fought there would not be an end...believe me!!!


Duran like Leonard fought the best competition available. You mentioned that Lalonde has as the same of great career as Pipino??? What the hell are you watching??? Pipino had 12 title defenses, 11 by KO. He is a HOF.

I AT LEAST CANNOT PICTURE LALONDE IN THE HOF.

If Cuevas is a DISGRACE FOR THE HOF, Then what would be LALONDE??? ....Answer: A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. Cmon Alp.

The other reason Leonard had better success of beating Hagler, Hearns and Benitez than Duran it was because Duran was fighting against top quality boxers out of his NATURAL weight class.

Duran also was in his 30s when he fought the Benitez, Hearns and Haglers. Hagler was a 28 year old and in his PRIME when he fought Duran at 32. Robinson would have lost to that same Hagler if Robinson would have challenged him at 32, don't you think???

Would Leonard, Benitez, and Hearns beat a Hagler in their 30s, being Hagler in his 20s and in his prime??? I do not think so.

Leonard beat all those guys in his prime, in his 20s, in his weight class. Benitez and Duran were not NATURAL WELTERS. What happened when he fought Terry Norris in his 30s??? Leonard got the beating of his life.

You think a Terry Norris would have beaten a Davey Moore or Iran Barkley???

Do you think Leonard at 37 would have beaten Iran???

Those are things that we have to think about. Leonard was finished at 32.

Well, I guess I will respond to your points again.
As for Leonard and Duran both fighting tomoto cans, name one that Leonard fought after he was a champion. Leonard didn't and that is my point.
Once Leonard made it to the top, he fought almost entirely world class competition. 16 of his last 18 opponents were either champions or ranked in the top 10.
Duran fought a lot of tomoto cans. It';s not just a coincidence that when he fought fighter no has heard of in Panama his record is much better than when he fought people we actaully have heard of. Duran fought many, many opponents who weren't ranked fighters or champions long after he was at the top.

Cuevas is supposed to be such a big win for Duran, and you are right in that he was the WBA champion for 4 years. However, he was a paper champion. He was never close to being the best welterweight in the world. He wasn't even in the same league as Duran, Leonard, Benitez, Hearns or even Palomino.
His last fight before winning the WBA title was against Andy Price. He lost a decison. (Leonard knocked Price out in the first round). Somehow he got a title shot against Angels Espada. He never defended his title successfully against any great fighters in his 12 title defenses. when he finally fought a great one, Tommy Hearns, he was crushed in 2 rounds.
He even lost to Roger Stafford in the fight before he fought Duran, but we are supposed to be impressed with Duran's win over Cuevas?
Cuevas record was only 35-15, he lost to 15 different guys, and was stopped by 6 different guys. He has no wins over any great fighters.

The are literally hundreds of fighters more deserving of being in the Hall of Fame than Cuevas. Lalonde wasn't anything special either. He was 41-5-1. Like Cuevas, he had a few decent wins but nothing over anyone great. Unlike Cuevas, he was only knokced out twice. (Once by Leonard).
I'm not aruging that Lalone should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm saying that he was a good but not great fighter. You picked him as Leonard's weak opponent. Well, that says something about Leonard's competition if the weakest you can find was the lightheavyweight champion and was at about the same level as one of the best guys that Duran beat. (Cuevas).
Lalonde was certainly better than all of the tomatos cans that duran beat.

Yes it tru that duran was in his 30 when he fought Benitz, Hearns, and Hagler. However, that is decieving. He was just 30 when he fought Benetiz, just 32 when he fought Hagler (who was only 3 years younger) and 33 when he got crushed by Hearns.
Duran was only 31 when lost to the great Krkland Laing, which is inexcusable.
He was only in his mid 20's when lost to DeJesus, who was good but certainly not an all time great.

Would Leonard have beaten Hagler if they were both in their 20's? Well obviously we will never know. however, Leonard would have had an excellent chance. When he beat Hagler, Marvin was 32 and Leonard was 30. Leonard was coming off a huge layoff and had never fought at the weight before. Hagler was the one with the advantages.If Leonard wasn't coming off a layoff and had fought a few times at middleweight, he would had an excellent chance against Hagler.

As for Duran and Benetiz not being matural wleterweights, that isn't true. Duran had been a welterweight for 2 years. Guys move up in weight class allo of the time Most fighters don't stay in the lower weights their whole career. As for Benitez, that is ridiculaus to say he wasn't a natural welterweight. He beat Palomino at welter (Another win for duran that was supposed to be a big deal). Benitez went on to win the Jr Middleweight tile and of course beat duran at Jr Middle.

Yes, Leoanrd lost to Terry Norris in what you called the beating of his life. Leonard was 34 and had not fought in well over a year. He was counted out. (Like Duran against Hearns). Did you notice that he didn't quit?

Do I think Terry Norris would have beaten Davey Moore or Iran Barkley? Well yes. why in the world wouldn't he? Neither Moore or Barkley were anything special at all. Both lost several times to other fighters.

Leonard was up at 32? Well he did slap almost shutout Duran when he was 33.

Would Leonard have beaten Barkley when he was 37? Who knows. Who cares. Sure it was a nice win for duran at that age, but Barkley was a very flawed fighter and the decison just as easily could have gone the other way. It doesn't really prove that duran was better than Leonard.

By the way, besides Barkley, who was the best fighter that Duran beat after he was 32?

Once again, Leonard biggest win were much more impressive than Durans' and his worst opponents were much better than Duran's. Still Leonard had the better winning percentage, even had a better ko percentage than Duran. Why? Because he was better.

Listen:

Leonard was being soundly outboxed by Thomas Hearns until Hearns, who came in under his desired weight, lost his skinny little legs and got himself stopped.

Leonard was forced to fight in the trenches with Duran, and lost. Yes, forced to. Leonard even admits this himself. Duran won convincingly, too. He made a fool out of Leonard in the fifteenth, putting his hands by his sides and making Leonard miss with a nine-punch salvo, and later on, offering Leonard his chin, avoiding Leonard's punches and jabbing him back in the face. It must be noted that Leonard's wife went hysterical during the second and third rounds while watching her husband take a beating, before fainting in the eighth.

Leonard beat Hagler controversially. Many fans score it for Hagler, including myself. Yea, it was impressive that Leonard could win like that after such a long lay off... But Hagler was no spring chicken either. He might have only been thirty two, but he had battled through consistently tough competition for sixty six fights, and was well past his best. This is apparent from the film. Compare Hagler from the Minter fight to the one from the Leonard fight. The difference is astounding. It was Leonard's speed which 'won' him that fight - Hagler was, by that point, horribly slow and sluggish.

Leonard got a draw against Thomas Hearns... An unfair decision. Leonard was again outboxed through most of the fight, and was knocked down twice.

Leonard beat an ageing Duran... Means virtually nothing. Both lacked real motivation and youth.

Leonard's most convincing win was over Benitez - and even that was not without controversy. The stoppage was horrible. All the credit to Leonard though, he beat Benitez, an excellent boxer in his own right, convincingly.

Now - I'm not saying Leonard wasn't a great fighter. But his fights were not nearly as clear cut and impressive as they look on paper.

Take Roberto Duran though... Lost only twice in his prime in seventy five fights, and both times he was undertrained. Duran had something wrong with him in the second Leonard fight - what it was, we can't be sure. It was Duran's fault he never trained properly... It was Duran's fault he gorged a steak just two hours before the fight... It was Duran's fault he lost. But I believe at his best, he would have beaten Leonard similarly to the first time they fought. To Leonard's credit, he did devise a new and improved gameplan... And make no mistake about it, the fight would be closer than the first. But a prime Roberto Duran takes him.

Duran beat Buchanan and DeJesus - two excellent fighters. And he didn't beat them controversially - he whupped them both. Alright, the Buchanan win could be described as controversial - but come on, Buchanan was hitting Duran after the bell. To the former streetfighting Duran, this signalled a free-for-all, and so he proceeded to neutralize Buchanan in the most efficient way possible. Buchanan's fault. He shouldn't have hit Duran after the bell. Even so, Duran was kicking his ass anyway. Nobody treated Buchanan like that before.
Oh and Duran had defended his title for seven years, too. Whatever you think of his competition, there were a few good fighters there. Aside from the aforementioned Buchanan and DeJesus, there was Viruet, Lampkin and the Japanese guy whose name I've forgotten. Duran beat most of them pretty damn convincingly. All the bums in between? He was keeping busy. Nothing wrong with that. He was not defending his title against those same bums (except Rojas, a replacement), so there's nothing to complain about.
Anyway - then comes the Palomino win. Carlos was a very good welterweight, a former champion infact, and even though he may have been past his best, he was still a solid fighter. Duran educated him in the art of boxing, and schooled him over ten rounds. Duran won nine out of ten.
Then there's Leonard, of course. Duran was up from his best weight, and beat this top three welterweight quite convincingly. If only Duran had retained that same power he possessed at lightweight... Could we have seen a stoppage? Probably.
So... Duran beats Leonard, and celebrates. He's on top of the world, understandably, and celebrates for weeks. He piles on the weight. A vengeance-seeking Leonard makes sure a rematch is made immediately! Duran has plenty of time to prepare, but doesn't. Again, his own fault. Whatever happened that night, Duran quit, and lost. Big blotch on his record. Alright though... He still has all that lightweight dominance and the brief but brilliant successes at welterweight. Duran is a solidified legend already. Commentators, critics, historians, experts, The Pope, all these guys were putting Duran up with the likes of Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Harry Greb, Willie Pep, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Joe Louis, as early as 1974. Come 1978, many considered him the greatest lightweight of all time, and if not, easily in the top three along with Joe Gans and Benny Leonard. By 1980, after the first Leonard win, some were considering calling him the greatest fighter of all time. And with good reason.
Anyway - Duran, already the great he is, goes on to fight longer than he really should have, and at a weight he was not comfortable at. It must be noted that Duran's power was well below average once he reached middleweight, something which played a big part in his success early on. Duran relied on his skill, experience and toughness to beat the absolute piss out of Pipino Cuevas. Deserving Hall of Famer or not, Duran beat the shit out of him nonetheless. Then he did the same to Davey Moore - a, for some reason, highly regarded fighter. Both wins came with Duran the underdog.
After giving Marvelous Marvin Hagler a run for his money, Duran scored another huge upset by beating Iran "The Blade" Barkley - an underrated fighter fresh off of a fluke win over Thomas Hearns. That's right, I said underrated. Barkley was very methodical in the Duran fight, making use of his jab, not rushing in, keeping his defense tight. Now... Duran had the build of a true lightweight. Barkley on the other hand could have comfortably carried 175lbs on his tall frame, and fought without too much difficulty. He hit much harder than Duran, was stronger, younger, could probably take a bigger punch at that weight, and was just generally naturally bigger. Close decision or not, Duran's achievement was special. He even knocked the big guy down, and surprisingly, was the stronger of the two in the late rounds and took command of the fight, despite being the smaller man.
Duran by this point was pretty much a shot fighter though. He lacked motivation, was well past his best, and wasn't getting any younger. Even so, the old master with legendary status continued to have a couple more career redemptions. Despite officially losing, in reality, he probably won second fights with Hector Camacho Sr. and Vinny Pazienza. How old was Duran? Off the top of my head, probably about eighty five.

Roberto Duran is a true legend, and nobody can tell anyone otherwise. He is, by general consensus, deservedly rated above Ray Leonard on a list of great fighters...

I don't wish to debate this post, because to be quite honest, these Ray Leonard debates bore me after so long. Hopefully someone finds this post helpful.

Ray Leonard was a great fighter himself but I don't see anything wrong with ranking Duran ahead of him.