The skills and abilities of Roberto Duran

[Ambling Alp]

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.

What an acurrate description of what happened. You forgot to mention that Leonard had Hearns in serious trouble several times during the fight and that Hearns never hurt Leonard. Skinny legs? Under desired weight? He weighed a whole 2 pounds under the limit.
Most importantly, Leonard won the fight.

How did Duran do against Hearns? He got knocked unconscious, fell on his face, out cold. Make all the excuses you want for Duran, that's embarrasing.
That never happened to Leonard.


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.

The fight was competitive. Leonard won several rounds and there were a few that were close. Did it ever occurr to you that Leonard was being gracious to his opponent? He did that with many of his other opponets as well.

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.

Just because the decison was controversial doesn't mean it was wrong. Hagler did nothing in the first 4 rounds and couldn't catch up. Yes, if they would have fought a few years earlier, Hagler would have been faster. So would Leonard.

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

You could certainly argue that Hearns should have got the decison. However, Leonard wasn't outboxed through most of the fight. He landed more punches than Hearns. In 2 rounds he battered Hearns all over the ring, and two of the judges scored those rounds 10-8, which is why the fight ended in a draw.

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

I pretty much agree. Although, shouldn't Leonard get a little credit for easily beating the man who had just beatne the great Iran Barkley?


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.

Yes he did beat Benitz convincingly. Benitez did beat Duran of course.

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.

No, they were more impressive than they appear 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.

The dog ate my homework excuse again. Roberto didn't train his hardest or he would have won.

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.

Yes, there were a few good lightweights in the 1970's, very few. There is nothing wrong with him fighting "bums", as long as you aren't impressed with the sheer number of his wins and knockouts.

You left out that Duran never gave Buchanan a rematch, even though he fought as a lightweight for many more years. You also forgot to mention that DeJesus beat Duran once, (knocked him down once)and knocked Duran down in their 3rd fight as well.
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.

Leonard went toe to toe with Duran for 15 rounds and Duran couldn't stop him.

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.

Yes that a big big blotch on his record. He quit in one of the biggest fights of his career.
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.

That's funny, I never heard anyone compare Duran to those guys or call him the greatest of all time during his lightweight days.

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.

So he beat up Cuevas? 5 other guys knocked him out, 14 other guys beat him. Going inot the duran fight, Cuevas had lost previous fight to Roger Stafford.

Davey Moore? this was what, his 13th fight? He was knocked out by other guys as well.

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.

Iran Barkley was underrated? Wow. His defense was tight? Iran Barkley?

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.

Sorry if the truth bores you. So are you saying no mas?

[theone]

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.

Although Hearns was ahead the fight was very competitive. Hearns, an all time great welter in his own right, lost the fight because Leonard was better period. For you to try to nit pick and downplay this victory is absolutely rediculous.

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.

There was no indictation before the fight that Hagler did not have enough left to beat Leonard. Hagler was still an active fighter, fighting at his natural weight against a natural welter who hadnt fought in a few years. At the very,very least the fight was a draw. Hagler did not win that fight.

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.

Minter is no Leonard. Maybe it was Ray who made Hagler look so horribly slow and sluggish.

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.

Every great fighter career can be made to look less impressive, especially the way you are nit pickin Leonards accomplishments.

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.

The perfect example of a Duran apologists double standard. If Leonards 2nd win over Duran doesnt matter, why does Leonards suppossed gift draw over Hearns matter in judging him?

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.

The stoppage was the refs decision. As you said, Leonard beat him convincingly. So why bring up the supposeded controversy?

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.

The great Duran excuses rear their ugly heads again. Undertrained, unmotivated, steak, etc..What was really wrong with Duran was that Leonard fought his fight and with alot more determination and huniliated him into quiting. Period.

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.

Of coarse Barkley is undderated! If Duran beat him he must have been one of the greatest middleweights of all time.

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 agree Duran is indeed a legend. But I also believe if the general consensus think he should be rated above Leonard, then the general consensus is wrong.

[Cojimar 1945]

How about Leonard vs Henry Armstrong? Who would rate higher out of these two?

[elmersalsa]

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.

Nuff said...I could not agree better. Duran had more longevity, more dominance as champion, and more fights.

I cannot say nothing bad about Sugar Ray, he was indeed one of the best I have ever seen. But we mus put into account and consideration the time period that Duran fought these great legends. It was the 80s, not the 70s...No FIGHTER, NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR AWESOME HE WAS, COULD NOT DOMINATE 2 DECADES, Ampling alp...NOBODY DID!!!

The other thing is would Hearns or Benitez or Leonard beat a Marvin Hagler in his 20s being them in their 30s. Or could at least one of the 3 reach the distance??? Does are things that you gotta think about.

Leonard, with the exception of the Hagler fight, which was CONTROVERSIAL, beat all those guys in his 20s, in his weight class, AND IN HIS PRIME.

I imagine if Leonard at 33 could cope with that Hearns of 1984, the one that KOd the 33 year old Duran??? Do you think a Leonard at 33 would have won against Hearns being 26 years old and in his prime and at 154???

Just answer that question, please ampling alp???

[Ambling Alp]

I will answer your question (even though you still haven't answered my question of why you keep saying Benitez wasn't a natural welterweight when Leonard beat him. I have asked you atleast twice).

Do I think Leonard at 33, would beat Hearns at 26? Probably not. However Leonard would probably go the distance, and certainly wouldn't be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was when fought Hearns.

Please answer me these questions -

When Duran was 31, he lost to Kirkland Laing.
Do you think Leonard at 31, would have beaten Kirkland Laing?

When Duran was in his prime, he lost to Esteban DeJesus.
Do you think in his prime, Leonard would have lost to Esteban DeJesus?

Who do you think came out on top in Leonard and Duran's head to head battles? (We won't count the 3rd one that Leonard won).
Duran, who won a tough 15 round decision in their first fight, or Leonard who won by a 8th round TKO in their second fight?

Putting aside Leonard and Duran's head to heads fights, answer me this question;
Were the best fighters that Duran beat (Palomino, DeJesus, and Buchanan) were even close to the level of the best guys that Leonard beat (Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler)?

[Ezzard]

I will answer your question (even though you still haven't answered my question of why you keep saying Benitez wasn't a natural welterweight when Leonard beat him. I have asked you atleast twice).

Do I think Leonard at 33, would beat Hearns at 26? Probably not. However Leonard would probably go the distance, and certainly wouldn't be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was when fought Hearns.

Not a fair comparison. Duran was fighting 3 divisions up against one of the hardest punchers of all time. How about McLellan-Leonard at super middle same ages.

Please answer me these questions -

When Duran was 31, he lost to Kirkland Laing.
Do you think Leonard at 31, would have beaten Kirkland Laing?

Again unfair comparison. But weight differences apart Laing was an unfulfilled talent and Duran was washed up. Ray wouldn't have lost to him as Ray was always focused when he fought.

When Duran was in his prime, he lost to Esteban DeJesus.
Do you think in his prime, Leonard would have lost to Esteban DeJesus?

DeJesus was a top fighter. Styles always have a lot to do with it. Ray lost to Duran, a blown up lightweight. Would Duran have lost to Salvador Sanchez or Arguello, Pedroza? I doubt it

Who do you think came out on top in Leonard and Duran's head to head battles? (We won't count the 3rd one that Leonard won).
Duran, who won a tough 15 round decision in their first fight, or Leonard who won by a 8th round TKO in their second fight?

The records will always say it was so. There's more to it than records and statistics. Ray was the bigger man and a great in his own right.

Putting aside Leonard and Duran's head to heads fights, answer me this question;
Were the best fighters that Duran beat (Palomino, DeJesus, and Buchanan) were even close to the level of the best guys that Leonard beat (Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler)?

After those fights you've got Kalule but Ray's competition drops off quickly. Duran as an old fat man did better against the likes of Camacho than Ray did. Duran beat Laguna, DeJesus, Buchanan, Lampkin, Palomino, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley, lost a close decision to Hagler in his prime. Would Ray have gone 15 rounds with a prime Michael Spinks?

[BoxBuzz]

Did you see where Bert Sugar has Duran? Pretty well up the list.

[Seamus]

I'm missing something here. Why does Leonard have to go 15 rounds with Michael Spinks ?

[Ambling Alp]

I will answer your question (even though you still haven't answered my question of why you keep saying Benitez wasn't a natural welterweight when Leonard beat him. I have asked you atleast twice).

Do I think Leonard at 33, would beat Hearns at 26? Probably not. However Leonard would probably go the distance, and certainly wouldn't be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was when fought Hearns.

Not a fair comparison. Duran was fighting 3 divisions up against one of the hardest punchers of all time. How about McLellan-Leonard at super middle same ages.

You don't think that was a fair comparison? I was answering the question that the Duran supporter asked.
As for McClellan, well he was more of a Middleweight than a Superweight, I don't think that it would prove much, but I do think Leonard would beat McClellan. I guarantee that he would not be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was.

Please answer me these questions -

When Duran was 31, he lost to Kirkland Laing.
Do you think Leonard at 31, would have beaten Kirkland Laing?

Again unfair comparison. But weight differences apart Laing was an unfulfilled talent and Duran was washed up. Ray wouldn't have lost to him as Ray was always focused when he fought.

An unfair comparison? We are talking about Kirkland Laing here. An unfulfilled talent? Who else did Laing ever beat that showed he was a world class fighter?

Duran was wahed up at 31? Well, that just more evidence that Leonard was better.

When Duran was in his prime, he lost to Esteban DeJesus.
Do you think in his prime, Leonard would have lost to Esteban DeJesus?

DeJesus was a top fighter. Styles always have a lot to do with it. Ray lost to Duran, a blown up lightweight. Would Duran have lost to Salvador Sanchez or Arguello, Pedroza? I doubt it

First, since you didn't answer the question, does that mean you admit that Leonard would have beat Dejesus, who beat Duran?

Duran wasn't a blown up lightweight when he fought Leonard, that simply isn't true. His last fight as a lightweight was when he was 27. It's not like it was his first fight as a welterweight. It was his 8th fight at this weight. He wasn't a lightweight anymore, he was a welterweight. Fighters in the lower weight classes rountinely move up in weight. It's no big deal.
Was Leonard a blown up welterweight when he fought Hagler?

If a great featherweight moved up to lightweight, fought 8 times over a 2 year period,it would be certainly be possible that he could beat Duran. Henry Armstrong for example, would have had a great chance against Duran. As for the guys that you mentioned, it's hard to say. Certainly not Pedroza, but Arguello was a great lightweight. Sanchez died when he was 23, but it's like that he would have moved up in weight. If Duran would have beaten them, it doesn't mean that Duran was better than Leonard.

Who do you think came out on top in Leonard and Duran's head to head battles? (We won't count the 3rd one that Leonard won).
Duran, who won a tough 15 round decision in their first fight, or Leonard who won by a 8th round TKO in their second fight?

The records will always say it was so. There's more to it than records and statistics. Ray was the bigger man and a great in his own right.

The record actually make it out to be closer than it was. It's being charitable to just say that Duran lost by a 8 round TKO. He quit, which is much worse.

The bigger man excuse? Another lame excuse. They were both welterweights.

Putting aside Leonard and Duran's head to heads fights, answer me this question;
Were the best fighters that Duran beat (Palomino, DeJesus, and Buchanan) were even close to the level of the best guys that Leonard beat (Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler)?

After those fights you've got Kalule but Ray's competition drops off quickly. Duran as an old fat man did better against the likes of Camacho than Ray did. Duran beat Laguna, DeJesus, Buchanan, Lampkin, Palomino, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley, lost a close decision to Hagler in his prime. Would Ray have gone 15 rounds with a prime Michael Spinks?

So I guess you will admit that the top opponents that Leonard beat were a lot better than the top opponents that Duran beat.
So now your arguement is that Duran's 2nd tier opponents were better than Leonard's?
First of all, Duran never fought Laguna, Lampkin beat absolutely no one, Moore was in his 12th fight and lost to others as well, Barkley was ok but certainly nothing special. Cuevas, well I have talked enough about how overrated he is.
The Andy Price, Danny Lalonde, Davey Boy Green kind of guys that Leonard beat are very comparable to this group.
Even if you think that Moore, Lampkin, Cuevas etc were better, do you really think that Leonard would have lost to any of these guys?

Would Leonard have lasted 15 rounds against Michael Spinks? Well if Spinks fought like Hagler did against Duran, he certainly would.

[Seamus]

OK, I've got a serious hypothetical question for Duran fans. If Roberto Duran would have fought Alexis Arguello for the Light Weight title in 1981 or 82, who would have won ?

[DoubleM]

OK, I've got a serious hypothetical question for Duran fans. If Roberto Duran would have fought Alexis Arguello for the Light Weight title in 1981 or 82, who would have won ?

Arguello would have won, because Duran was lacking motivation by that point, and would have struggled to make the weight, big time. Oh, and Arguello was a terrific fighter himself.

'78 Duran though, that's a different story. I'll take Duran by late rounds stoppage.

[Seamus]

EXACTLY ! Double M. Duran would have been so weakened from getting back down to 135, that Arguello would have destroyed him in 81 or 82. And yes, Arguello was a great fighter who's best weight was below LW.

My point in asking this is just to show how ridiculous the arguments ad nauseum about Duran fighting 2 and 3 classes above his natural weight are. Plain and simple Duran stopped fighting at LW because he couldn't make the weight anymore. If Duran's winning the Middleweight title from Barkley is some kind of miracle because he was over 20 lbs over his so called "natural" weight, then James Toney's fighting for a world title 80 lbs over his, is a mega miracle.

[DoubleM]

You don't have to show me anything, Seamus

[Ezzard]

I will answer your question (even though you still haven't answered my question of why you keep saying Benitez wasn't a natural welterweight when Leonard beat him. I have asked you atleast twice).

Do I think Leonard at 33, would beat Hearns at 26? Probably not. However Leonard would probably go the distance, and certainly wouldn't be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was when fought Hearns.

Not a fair comparison. Duran was fighting 3 divisions up against one of the hardest punchers of all time. How about McLellan-Leonard at super middle same ages.

You don't think that was a fair comparison? I was answering the question that the Duran supporter asked.
As for McClellan, well he was more of a Middleweight than a Superweight, I don't think that it would prove much, but I do think Leonard would beat McClellan. I guarantee that he would not be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was.

Please answer me these questions -

When Duran was 31, he lost to Kirkland Laing.
Do you think Leonard at 31, would have beaten Kirkland Laing?

Again unfair comparison. But weight differences apart Laing was an unfulfilled talent and Duran was washed up. Ray wouldn't have lost to him as Ray was always focused when he fought.

An unfair comparison? We are talking about Kirkland Laing here. An unfulfilled talent? Who else did Laing ever beat that showed he was a world class fighter?

Duran was wahed up at 31? Well, that just more evidence that Leonard was better.

When Duran was in his prime, he lost to Esteban DeJesus.
Do you think in his prime, Leonard would have lost to Esteban DeJesus?

DeJesus was a top fighter. Styles always have a lot to do with it. Ray lost to Duran, a blown up lightweight. Would Duran have lost to Salvador Sanchez or Arguello, Pedroza? I doubt it

First, since you didn't answer the question, does that mean you admit that Leonard would have beat Dejesus, who beat Duran?

Duran wasn't a blown up lightweight when he fought Leonard, that simply isn't true. His last fight as a lightweight was when he was 27. It's not like it was his first fight as a welterweight. It was his 8th fight at this weight. He wasn't a lightweight anymore, he was a welterweight. Fighters in the lower weight classes rountinely move up in weight. It's no big deal.
Was Leonard a blown up welterweight when he fought Hagler?

If a great featherweight moved up to lightweight, fought 8 times over a 2 year period,it would be certainly be possible that he could beat Duran. Henry Armstrong for example, would have had a great chance against Duran. As for the guys that you mentioned, it's hard to say. Certainly not Pedroza, but Arguello was a great lightweight. Sanchez died when he was 23, but it's like that he would have moved up in weight. If Duran would have beaten them, it doesn't mean that Duran was better than Leonard.

Who do you think came out on top in Leonard and Duran's head to head battles? (We won't count the 3rd one that Leonard won).
Duran, who won a tough 15 round decision in their first fight, or Leonard who won by a 8th round TKO in their second fight?

The records will always say it was so. There's more to it than records and statistics. Ray was the bigger man and a great in his own right.

The record actually make it out to be closer than it was. It's being charitable to just say that Duran lost by a 8 round TKO. He quit, which is much worse.

The bigger man excuse? Another lame excuse. They were both welterweights.

Putting aside Leonard and Duran's head to heads fights, answer me this question;
Were the best fighters that Duran beat (Palomino, DeJesus, and Buchanan) were even close to the level of the best guys that Leonard beat (Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler)?

After those fights you've got Kalule but Ray's competition drops off quickly. Duran as an old fat man did better against the likes of Camacho than Ray did. Duran beat Laguna, DeJesus, Buchanan, Lampkin, Palomino, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley, lost a close decision to Hagler in his prime. Would Ray have gone 15 rounds with a prime Michael Spinks?

So I guess you will admit that the top opponents that Leonard beat were a lot better than the top opponents that Duran beat.
So now your arguement is that Duran's 2nd tier opponents were better than Leonard's?
First of all, Duran never fought Laguna, Lampkin beat absolutely no one, Moore was in his 12th fight and lost to others as well, Barkley was ok but certainly nothing special. Cuevas, well I have talked enough about how overrated he is.
The Andy Price, Danny Lalonde, Davey Boy Green kind of guys that Leonard beat are very comparable to this group.
Even if you think that Moore, Lampkin, Cuevas etc were better, do you really think that Leonard would have lost to any of these guys?

Would Leonard have lasted 15 rounds against Michael Spinks? Well if Spinks fought like Hagler did against Duran, he certainly would.

Well Hagler fought so abdly becasue of the tactics employed by Duran. He gave ray the blueprint of how to beat Hagler. Make Hagelr lead and he has a much harder time. Duran was too old and too small to take advantage of his tactical appreciation of Hagler. Ray went straight back in training after seeing Duran's eprformance and only re-retired when he got droppd by Howard. A 30+ ray gets KO'd by a prime Spinks.

There, that's a fair attempt to answer even if you don't agree. Now it's your turn. Would a blown up featherweight have beaten a prime Duran?

[Ambling Alp]

Ezzard,
I already answered a similar question you had about Duran fighting featherweights, but I will answer this as well.
Do I think Duran in his prime would have lost to an overblown featherweight? No, I don't think he would have lost to an "overblown" featherweight.
Of course, we have different interpretations of what "overblown" means.

[DoubleM]

AA, what you say about Hagler is bullshit.

[Ambling Alp]

DoubleM,
Thank you for your eloquent and insightful constructive criticism.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I will answer your question (even though you still haven't answered my question of why you keep saying Benitez wasn't a natural welterweight when Leonard beat him. I have asked you atleast twice).

Do I think Leonard at 33, would beat Hearns at 26? Probably not. However Leonard would probably go the distance, and certainly wouldn't be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was when fought Hearns.

Please answer me these questions -

When Duran was 31, he lost to Kirkland Laing.
Do you think Leonard at 31, would have beaten Kirkland Laing?

When Duran was in his prime, he lost to Esteban DeJesus.
Do you think in his prime, Leonard would have lost to Esteban DeJesus?

Who do you think came out on top in Leonard and Duran's head to head battles? (We won't count the 3rd one that Leonard won).
Duran, who won a tough 15 round decision in their first fight, or Leonard who won by a 8th round TKO in their second fight?

Putting aside Leonard and Duran's head to heads fights, answer me this question;
Were the best fighters that Duran beat (Palomino, DeJesus, and Buchanan) were even close to the level of the best guys that Leonard beat (Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler)?

u cant compare ages, EVERYONE PRIMES DIFFERENTLEY


leonard at 31 compared to duran at 31 is IRRELEVANT.




ali at 37 was completley shot, not even a contender anymore. walcott at 37 was as good a fighter as he ever been due to a late prime. so u cant compare ages.




u can only compare primes

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

for duran supporters i think a good question

is can ray leonard in his prime say 1982 step up to take on a 27 year old prime all time great middleweight like marvin hagler and beat him?


duran did it stepping up 12lb and beating leonard in leonards prime. could leonard do the same to hagler?

[Seamus]

Duran didn't step up 12 lbs to face Leonard. He hadn't fought at LW in almost 2 and a half years when he fought him. When Duran fought at WW for the first time, Leonard was the veteran of a grand total of 10 pro bouts.

[Seamus]

This is precisely what get's me about Duran's fans. Any time Duran wins above LW, it's regarded as some amazing achievement, but if he loses above LW it's because he's not fighting at his proper weight. And if you suggest he should have continued to fight at his best weight you're just being ridiculous because he couldn't make it down to LW anymore. That's a ready excuse that covers all bases.

And as a big SRL fan, I will say, NO, I don't think at his peak, he could have moved up to MW and beaten Hagler. Had he done that he wouldn't have been growing into the weight naturally.

[Ezzard]

This is precisely what get's me about Duran's fans. Any time Duran wins above LW, it's regarded as some amazing achievement, but if he loses above LW it's because he's not fighting at his proper weight. And if you suggest he should have continued to fight at his best weight you're just being ridiculous because he couldn't make it down to LW anymore. That's a ready excuse that covers all bases.

And as a big SRL fan, I will say, NO, I don't think at his peak, he could have moved up to MW and beaten Hagler. Had he done that he wouldn't have been growing into the weight naturally.

Duran's natural weight was lightweight; Leonard: Welterweight; Hagler: Middleweight.

Duran wasn't the same puncher at Welter/Jr Middle/Middle. Ray wasn't the same at Middle. Ray was a naturally bigger man than Duran. Ray never fought at lightweight. In a P4P debate we have to take this into consideration.

[Ezzard]

Ezzard,
I already answered a similar question you had about Duran fighting featherweights, but I will answer this as well.
Do I think Duran in his prime would have lost to an overblown featherweight? No, I don't think he would have lost to an "overblown" featherweight.
Of course, we have different interpretations of what "overblown" means.

Alp

I can think of but 1 featherweight who had a chance of beating Duran at lightweight and that's Armstrong. Of course Armstrong might have beateb Ray at Welter too.

[Ambling Alp]

You can spin it any way you want, the loss to Laing is an emabarrassing mark on Duran career.

This natural weight thing is a copout. Countless other fighters move up in weight as they mature. It's the rule, not the exception. Most guys don't stay at these lower weights their whole career.

It's silly to not hold defeats that guy has just because he moved up in weight class. Are you going to do that with everyone else, or just Duran?

For example Holyfield was a cruiserweight. He was undefeated at that weight class. When ranking all time fighters, (including all weight classes) are you only going to count his wins at heavyweight but not his losses? He gets credit for beating Bowe, but it doesn't count that he lost to him twice? His win over Tyson counts, but none of his losses to anyone count?
If you just judge him by the criteria that many Duran fans judge Duran, than you could make a serious case that Holyfield was the greatest fighter of all time. After all he never "really" lost, and he beat Qawi, Bowe, Tyson, etc.
Of course that arguement is silly, (Holyfield was great but not that great)but that is essentially the arguement that many Duran fans often make.
The Leonard win, counts, but the loss doesn't. Nor do the losses to Benetiz, Hearns or the great Laing.

There are many other fighters that you could make this arguement with, not just Holyfield.
When you move up in weight, you face the consequences. Both the wins and the losses count.

[Seamus]

Excellent points Ambling Alp, and in addition you can also list the categories of motivated Duran, which counts and unmotivated Duran which doesn't.