Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P?

[PowerPuncher]

REDROOSTER NOT ALLOWED ON MY THREAD - PISS OFF ROOSTER

Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P? The concensus to this answer is, NO. But I'm going to put forward an argument just to be annoying and give Leonard his due to.

1. Leonard's top 5 wins trump Duran's top 5 wins. Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Lalonde trump Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus, Barkley, Moore, quite undisputable

2. Leonard's prime weight resume is better than Duran's prime weight resume, ie Hearns, Benitez, Duran tops Buchanon, Dejesus

3. Both lost as champions, made adjustments and avenged their loss. Leonard's first loss is to a better fighter in Duran than Duran's first loss was in Dejesus. Both became better fighters from their loss.

4. Head to Head Leonard is 2-1, ignoring the 3rd match they are 1-1. But Leonard was more dominant in his win then Duran. We are led to believe Duran wasn't in the best shape. The idea that Leonard focused on movement, stick and run rather than fighting in close is discounted. How about this for an argument, Leonard figured out Duran's style and mastered it

5. Against common opponents Leonard is far and away above Duran. Against the fab 5 Duran is 1-5, Leonard is 5-1-1. Thats a landslide in Leonard's favour. Now most will argue Duran was above his best weight and past his prime but he was only 32-33 when he face Benitez, Hagler, Hearns. Leonard was also above his best weight and past prime against Hagler and the Hearns rematch

6. Both moved up 2 divisions to beat the P4P top champ in the face of Leonard and Hagler. The Hagler win gets horribly underrated and was a masterclass from Leonard. I would rate this on par if not better than Duran-Leonard 1. Both are pretty much 1 hit wonders at the weight

7. Both emphatically won titles at 154. Kalule seems the better more complete experienced, consistent champion but he later lost to Moore himself. Kalule also went onto beat Kalambay, which is a massive win as Kalambay himself beat McCallum and Graham. But Kalule lost to McCallum and Graham also, Moore career went down the toilet after Duran

8. Both won titles 4 weights above there best against similar opposition levels in LaLonde and Barkley.

Simply by looking at those points Leonard tops Duran in some categories and is his equal in the rest. Therefore this nothing wrong with having Leonard above Duran and they certainly shouldn't be leagues apart.

[McGrain]

They are close, they certainly shouldn't be "leagues apart", but I think it is more natural to have Duran higher. The weight he started at, the total dominance at LW - he's possibly the best LW there ever was - and, of course, the prime for prime win at a weight above his best over Leonard.

I have Duran at 7 or 8 and Leonard at 13 or 14 and I am pretty comfortable with that.

[Ezzard]

I don't think this has been thought through... I agree that there's not much in them. I would say that there's not much between Leonard and Hearns either.

Some of the points put forward are dubious though.

[enquirer]

I like your post PP. I think theoretically there i a case for ranking leonard equal or even above duran,for the exact points you made.
Leonard also has no 'unprofessional' outings or a quit job...
I think a case can be made for leonard being the best welter of all time above even robinson,his welter world title resume quality is better than robinsons...His win against hagler is also a masterpiece comparable with the duran win over leonard. (though i dont think it is as good as montreal.) And leonard also missed many of his peak years through injury....
However,was leonard ever as dominant as duran was at 135? NO. Was leonard as great at middle as duran was at welter? NO. Could leonard have fought an atg great prime lt heavy (spinks,moore,charles etc.) and taken him fifteen tough rounds? ( i take a 135 duran v 160 hagler to be equivelent to ray battling an atg lt heavy.) NO.
The final nail in the coffin is,if all of the fab four fought head to head and were all 135ers prime for prime who would come out top? ANSWER: duran runs them all out of the ring....

[Loewe]

REDROOSTER NOT ALLOWED ON MY THREAD - PISS OFF ROOSTER

Poor Rooster is not allowed to play :lol:

Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P? The concensus to this answer is, NO. But I'm going to put forward an argument just to be annoying and give Leonard his due to.

I don´t think it´s crazy but I think you to be either biased for Leonard or against Duran. There is not much between them but like with some fights: it´s close but clear.

1. Leonard's top 5 wins trump Duran's top 5 wins. Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Lalonde trump Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus, Barkley, Moore, quite undisputable

Won´t dispute that.

2. Leonard's prime weight resume is better than Duran's prime weight resume, ie Hearns, Benitez, Duran tops Buchanon, Dejesus

3. Both lost as champions, made adjustments and avenged their loss. Leonard's first loss is to a better fighter in Duran than Duran's first loss was in Dejesus. Both became better fighters from their loss.

You ignore here that Duran beat DeJesus 2 times and that he reigned for 8 years. How long did Leonard reign? Longevity counts quite a bit imo. Take that into account and Duran get´s the better of Leonard.
Also let me ask you this: Who would rank higher with only the career at their prime weight, Duran or Leonard?

4. Head to Head Leonard is 2-1, ignoring the 3rd match they are 1-1. But Leonard was more dominant in his win then Duran. We are led to believe Duran wasn't in the best shape. The idea that Leonard focused on movement, stick and run rather than fighting in close is discounted. How about this for an argument, Leonard figured out Duran's style and mastered it

Well, you totally ignore that Duran was two weightclasses above his prime weight in those fights. That adds a lot to his win, Leonard definitly fought a better fight in the second fight than in the first but Duran was also in bad shape fo the second one - even Leonard himself admitted that when he said they wanted so fast as possible again because they knew he could not be in shape.
Take all this into account and Duran got the better of Leonard.

5. Against common opponents Leonard is far and away above Duran. Against the fab 5 Duran is 1-5, Leonard is 5-1-1. Thats a landslide in Leonard's favour. Now most will argue Duran was above his best weight and past his prime but he was only 32-33 when he face Benitez, Hagler, Hearns. Leonard was also above his best weight and past prime against Hagler and the Hearns rematch

Yep, Leoanrd looked better but again you ignore the fact that Duran was always fighting two more wieghtclasses above his best than Leonard. It is also widely accepted that Duran was past it past the first Leonard fight.When you take that into account, Duran´s performances are even more remarkable.
Leonard was prime against Hearns and Benitez and at his best weight, Duran was fighting them 3 weightclasses above his bes weight while beeing past his best. In their first fights both were at or still very close to their prime. Leonard fought and beat Hagler 2 weightclasses above his best but Hagler was past his best himself and this is a discussed decision up until today. Duran on the other hand fought a prime Hagler while beeing past his best and 4 weightclasses above his best weight and Hagler had to do very well in the championship rounds to win the fight.
While on paper it´s very clearly that Leonard got the better of Duran in that one but when you look deeper it´s much much closer.

6. Both moved up 2 divisions to beat the P4P top champ in the face of Leonard and Hagler. The Hagler win gets horribly underrated and was a masterclass from Leonard. I would rate this on par if not better than Duran-Leonard 1. Both are pretty much 1 hit wonders at the weight

The Leonard Duran fought was better than the Hagler Leonard fought. I agree that Duran was better against Leonard than Leonard against Hagler also. But the decision of Leonard-Hagler is still discussed until today while nobody argues Leonard won against Duran.
Imo Duran´s win is a better one because of that and because Leoanrd simply was a better fighter than Hagler.

7. Both emphatically won titles at 154. Kalule seems the better more complete experienced, consistent champion but he later lost to Moore himself. Kalule also went onto beat Kalambay, which is a massive win as Kalambay himself beat McCallum and Graham. But Kalule lost to McCallum and Graham also, Moore career went down the toilet after Duran

Well, I think those wins are about even.

8. Both won titles 4 weights above there best against similar opposition levels in LaLonde and Barkley.

Well, I don´t think that there is much into Leonards lhw title he made Lalonde to come down in weight to fight him, weight-draining him. If the fight would have happened at lhw I would agree but not like that. Also, winning against Barkley after he beat Hearns, keep in mind Tommy beat Duran, is a better win imo. Also the size difference between Duran and Barkley was clearly bigger.

Simply by looking at those points Leonard tops Duran in some categories and is his equal in the rest. Therefore this nothing wrong with having Leonard above Duran and they certainly shouldn't be leagues apart.

They should not be leagues apart but in my oppinion only the Top4, Greb, Robbinson, Langford, Armstrong are clearly better than the other 16 of the top20. The rest is more or less interchangable but I think you shouldn´t rank Leoanrd above Duran, you can but you have to be biased to do so. Like I said it´s close but clear.

[ChrisPontius]

Sure he can.

[Bokaj]

I think both Loewe and enquirer made good points here, as did you PP. There are many aspects in this, but the one one big difference is Duran's longevity. He still had great performances and wins at an age when Leonard effectively was washed up. I highly value fighters who still manage to be very good even when their physical assets are greatly diminshed. Duran managed this more so than Leonard, I would say.

[natonic]

PowerPuncher, I have Duran rated at 5 and Leonard at 11, and if I was biased it would be toward Leonard. You make some very valid and well thought out points. I don't think it's outrageous to rate Leonard higher. I don't, but that's my opinion. In the history of the sport, we're probably talking about a handful of spots between these guys. I do agree with Loewe's point that all things being equal, you have to give credit to the longevity of Duran's reign at Lightweight.

[Ezzard]

REDROOSTER NOT ALLOWED ON MY THREAD - PISS OFF ROOSTER

Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P? The concensus to this answer is, NO. But I'm going to put forward an argument just to be annoying and give Leonard his due to.

1. Leonard's top 5 wins trump Duran's top 5 wins. Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Lalonde trump Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus, Barkley, Moore, quite undisputable

2. Leonard's prime weight resume is better than Duran's prime weight resume, ie Hearns, Benitez, Duran tops Buchanon, Dejesus

3. Both lost as champions, made adjustments and avenged their loss. Leonard's first loss is to a better fighter in Duran than Duran's first loss was in Dejesus. Both became better fighters from their loss.

4. Head to Head Leonard is 2-1, ignoring the 3rd match they are 1-1. But Leonard was more dominant in his win then Duran. We are led to believe Duran wasn't in the best shape. The idea that Leonard focused on movement, stick and run rather than fighting in close is discounted. How about this for an argument, Leonard figured out Duran's style and mastered it

5. Against common opponents Leonard is far and away above Duran. Against the fab 5 Duran is 1-5, Leonard is 5-1-1. Thats a landslide in Leonard's favour. Now most will argue Duran was above his best weight and past his prime but he was only 32-33 when he face Benitez, Hagler, Hearns. Leonard was also above his best weight and past prime against Hagler and the Hearns rematch

6. Both moved up 2 divisions to beat the P4P top champ in the face of Leonard and Hagler. The Hagler win gets horribly underrated and was a masterclass from Leonard. I would rate this on par if not better than Duran-Leonard 1. Both are pretty much 1 hit wonders at the weight

7. Both emphatically won titles at 154. Kalule seems the better more complete experienced, consistent champion but he later lost to Moore himself. Kalule also went onto beat Kalambay, which is a massive win as Kalambay himself beat McCallum and Graham. But Kalule lost to McCallum and Graham also, Moore career went down the toilet after Duran

8. Both won titles 4 weights above there best against similar opposition levels in LaLonde and Barkley.

Simply by looking at those points Leonard tops Duran in some categories and is his equal in the rest. Therefore this nothing wrong with having Leonard above Duran and they certainly shouldn't be leagues apart.

1) Where did 5 best wins as a benchmark come from? Doesn't this sort of favour Leonard? Also why no mention of Ernesto Marcel? If we got to top 10 then I think Duran is a clear winner. Also you have to factor in that Barkley etc were much bigger than Duran and that Duran was so past it by this point that most had this as a mismatch going in...

Also 2 guys on Leonard's list are moving up. Nobody is moving up to take on Duran.

2) Again put in Marcel, put in Dejesus twice... who is moving up etc...

3) What about if Duran had lost to Salvador Sanchez? How would that be viewed?

4) You could only really argue that is they'd have fought a 3rd time quickly after the second.

6) Duran was not a one hit wonder at 147. Take a look at his record. Duran's perfomance against Leonard was par excellence. I've never seen such a great example of boxing a bigger, stronger, faster man. Duran won that on pure skill. leonard's win is great and I agree gets downgraded tooeasily but is not on a apr with Duran's win.

7) except that Leonard was moving up one division whereas Duran was moving up 3. Moore was considered the next big thing at the time. 2 good fighters but again in a p4p sense what Duran achieved was much better.

8) Barkley was a warrior who beat Hearns, laLonde was a decent fighter with a punch. And in relative terms Duran was furtehr above his best weight than Leonard.

I agree with the sentiment that there's not much to choose between them but Duran is still clearly above Leonard, not by much, but enough for it to be accepted.

[natonic]

"4) You could only really argue that is they'd have fought a 3rd time quickly after the second."

I think people, and I include myself in this, are way too quick to discount the 3rd fight. We all give Duran great credit for beating the huge Middleweight Barkley, but we want to completely discount the loss to Leonard within the same calendar year. I don't think it means as much as the first two, but to discount it is unfair to Leonard. Sure Duran was more equipped to handle Barkley's style better than Leonards, but Leonard was just several levels above Barkley as a fighter. Credit to him.

[PowerPuncher]

1.I think a case can be made for leonard being the best welter of all time above even robinson,his welter world title resume quality is better than robinsons...

2. Could leonard have fought an atg great prime lt heavy (spinks,moore,charles etc.) and taken him fifteen tough rounds? ( i take a 135 duran v 160 hagler to be equivelent to ray battling an atg lt heavy.) NO.

3. The final nail in the coffin is,if all of the fab four fought head to head and were all 135ers prime for prime who would come out top? ANSWER: duran runs them all out of the ring....

1. Yes and Leonard fought his Burley in Hearns, something SRR didnt do, obviously SRR has more depth at the weight

2. Perhaps if said LHW didnt take press him enough BUT you'd expect Leonard to be stopped. But we wouldnt pick SRR himself to do too well against Spinks/Moore/Charles

3. I think thats quite subjective, Duran remember lost against the fab 5 series 1-5. Now I think Leonard still takes a rematch. I think Benitez and Hearns may have his number even if smaller. But Duran wins an 8-4 or 10-5 type decision against Hagler if the same size. NOW Leonard has wins over all the Fab 5, even though both Hagler and Hearns were bigger men

[Sweet Pea]

1. Leonard's top 5 wins trump Duran's top 5 wins. Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Lalonde trump Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus, Barkley, Moore, quite undisputableObviously. Leonard has the best top 4 wins in the history of the sport likely, but aside from that his resume is quite thin in comparison to Duran's and most ATG's.


2. Leonard's prime weight resume is better than Duran's prime weight resume, ie Hearns, Benitez, Duran tops Buchanon, Dejesus
His top wins are better, he was NOT a more dominant fighter at the weight.


3. Both lost as champions, made adjustments and avenged their loss. Leonard's first loss is to a better fighter in Duran than Duran's first loss was in Dejesus. Both became better fighters from their loss.
The circumstances are very different with each fighter's career though, you're not taking that into consideration.


4. Head to Head Leonard is 2-1, ignoring the 3rd match they are 1-1. But Leonard was more dominant in his win then Duran. We are led to believe Duran wasn't in the best shape. The idea that Leonard focused on movement, stick and run rather than fighting in close is discounted. How about this for an argument, Leonard figured out Duran's style and mastered it
That's not much of an argument. Duran was clearly not the same, that goes without saying, people who dispute it are either biased and unwilling to compromise or simply don't understand what they're watching.


5. Against common opponents Leonard is far and away above Duran. Against the fab 5 Duran is 1-5, Leonard is 5-1-1. Thats a landslide in Leonard's favour. Now most will argue Duran was above his best weight and past his prime but he was only 32-33 when he face Benitez, Hagler, Hearns. Leonard was also above his best weight and past prime against Hagler and the Hearns rematch
Leonard lost the rematch to Hearns in reality, so he should be 5-2. Either way, as you said, Duran was fighting the much bigger fighters every time, normally nowhere near his prime, which wasn't the case with Leonard outside of his fight with Hagler. And only 32-33? Duran began boxing profesionally at age 16, that's 17 years under his belt. It's pretty clear he was past his prime post Leonard I, but his sheer passion made up for it when he was able to work up the motivation in certain matchups past his prime.


6. Both moved up 2 divisions to beat the P4P top champ in the face of Leonard and Hagler. The Hagler win gets horribly underrated and was a masterclass from Leonard. I would rate this on par if not better than Duran-Leonard 1. Both are pretty much 1 hit wonders at the weight
That's just bullshit, through and through. Duran dominated Leonard up until the late rounds when he let him catch up. Leonard arguably lost to Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time, both past their prime. Not even on par.


7. Both emphatically won titles at 154. Kalule seems the better more complete experienced, consistent champion but he later lost to Moore himself. Kalule also went onto beat Kalambay, which is a massive win as Kalambay himself beat McCallum and Graham. But Kalule lost to McCallum and Graham also, Moore career went down the toilet after Duran
The Kalambay fight was a clear robbery from all accounts, though I've not seen it.

8. Both won titles 4 weights above there best against similar opposition levels in LaLonde and BarkleyBarkley was at least a level above LaLonde.


Simply by looking at those points Leonard tops Duran in some categories and is his equal in the rest. Therefore this nothing wrong with having Leonard above Duran and they certainly shouldn't be leagues apart.
Not leagues apart, but Duran holds an edge IMO.

[DINAMITA]

REDROOSTER NOT ALLOWED ON MY THREAD - PISS OFF ROOSTER

Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P? The concensus to this answer is, NO. But I'm going to put forward an argument just to be annoying and give Leonard his due to.

1. Leonard's top 5 wins trump Duran's top 5 wins. Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Lalonde trump Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus, Barkley, Moore, quite undisputable

2. Leonard's prime weight resume is better than Duran's prime weight resume, ie Hearns, Benitez, Duran tops Buchanon, Dejesus

3. Both lost as champions, made adjustments and avenged their loss. Leonard's first loss is to a better fighter in Duran than Duran's first loss was in Dejesus. Both became better fighters from their loss.

4. Head to Head Leonard is 2-1, ignoring the 3rd match they are 1-1. But Leonard was more dominant in his win then Duran. We are led to believe Duran wasn't in the best shape. The idea that Leonard focused on movement, stick and run rather than fighting in close is discounted. How about this for an argument, Leonard figured out Duran's style and mastered it

5. Against common opponents Leonard is far and away above Duran. Against the fab 5 Duran is 1-5, Leonard is 5-1-1. Thats a landslide in Leonard's favour. Now most will argue Duran was above his best weight and past his prime but he was only 32-33 when he face Benitez, Hagler, Hearns. Leonard was also above his best weight and past prime against Hagler and the Hearns rematch

6. Both moved up 2 divisions to beat the P4P top champ in the face of Leonard and Hagler. The Hagler win gets horribly underrated and was a masterclass from Leonard. I would rate this on par if not better than Duran-Leonard 1. Both are pretty much 1 hit wonders at the weight

7. Both emphatically won titles at 154. Kalule seems the better more complete experienced, consistent champion but he later lost to Moore himself. Kalule also went onto beat Kalambay, which is a massive win as Kalambay himself beat McCallum and Graham. But Kalule lost to McCallum and Graham also, Moore career went down the toilet after Duran

8. Both won titles 4 weights above there best against similar opposition levels in LaLonde and Barkley.

Simply by looking at those points Leonard tops Duran in some categories and is his equal in the rest. Therefore this nothing wrong with having Leonard above Duran and they certainly shouldn't be leagues apart.

You make a very good case for Leonard and I think SRL was a truly great fighter, an elite ATG IMO, top 15 p4p of all-time.

I think Duran should be a top 10 p4p of all-time and therefore a greater fighter than Leonard for the following reasons:

1.IMO, Duran's win over Leonard beats any win on Leonard's resume. Duran was a natural lightweight and so was fighting 12lbs above his optimum fighting weight. Leonard was a natural welter, was undefeated, and had just proved he was a magnificent fighter with his domination of Benitez. Duran, older and smaller, produced a STUNNING performance, IMO the greatest win by any fighter in a bout that there is camera footage of. Duran dominated the fight until the late rounds - the rounds were competitive yes, but Duran was winning the vast majority. It was a masterclass, and has the clear edge over Leonard's win over Duran, Hearns and Hagler in my eyes.

2.Longevity. Duran beat the excellent Ken Buchanan to win the world lightweight title in 1972. He beat Iran Barkley in 1989 to win the world middleweight title. These two great performances span 17 years. Leonard's first great performance was in 1979 v Benitez and his last was in 1987 v Hagler (or 88-89 if you think Lalonde or Hearns II were great performances- but I do not). Duran has 103 wins and 70 KOs. Leonard has 36 wins and 25 KOs. Before the rematch with Leonard, Duran was 71-1.

3.Rather than focusing on a couple of big names to decide who had the greater resume, widen the scope. Duran's top seven wins were: Buchanan, deJesus twice, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley. Leonard's were: Benitez, Hagler, Hearns, Duran... Kalule? Lalonde? Someone else to make up the seven? Duran has more top quality wins than Leonard.

4.The common opponents comparison is not fair, as they were all fought at weights that Leonard was more comfortable at, and when Duran was getting on in years. Duran was fighting 25lbs above his natural weight by the time he fought Hagler, 19lbs higher than his natural fighting weight when fighting Hearns. This comparison is not fair at all and proves nothing.

5.IMO, Duran was a better lightweight than Leonard was a welterweight. This is only my opinion though and is very much open to debate, but it is a reason I use in making my own decision, so I thought I should include it as this is my explanation of why I rate Duran higher. Many would disagree in favour of Benny Leonard or Joe Gans or others, but I believe Roberto Duran was the greatest lightweight in history. I do not believe Sugar Ray Leonard was the greatest welterweight in history. Duran lost to deJesus, but Duran then fought him again on a level playing field twice and beat him convincingly. Leonard lost to Duran, and even though he got redemption, Duran in all fairness was not the same guy in the 2nd fight. On top form, I think Duran would beat anyone who ever fought at 135. Anyone. I would fancy Robinson to beat Leonard, and I would give Griffith and Hearns (Tommy showed in the 1st fight he had the measure of SRL, I would've fancied him in an immediate rematch after their 1st fight) a very good chance, and Gavilan, Walker and Ross could also perhaps have beaten SRL.



As I said before, it's a very good thread, a good topic for argument, and a good case you put forward for SRL. I disagree, but both cases can be made.

[enquirer]

OkPP,but realistically duran is just a natural 135er,i could see him beating hearns and benitez at 135. He already beat leonard at 147,and hagler is a no brainer at 135. Its somewhat subjective,but i think the most dominant at any one weight historically and film wise is duran easily.
Hearns would probably be mashed by atg lt heavies,and even some 160 guys. Hagler never left 160. What duran did from 135 to 160 at elite world class level is far greater than all of the other fab four,duran also achieved many of these feats past his prime and without the benefit of having the height that ray and hearns had to increase functional bodyweight.
We dont hold the norris or camcho losses against ray,nor the second hearns loss v barkley (or if you want,the jones losses to tarver and johnson.) if we consider the fighter as well past his best,and duran had
had over seventy fights and thirteen years as a pro before tangling with Leonard. To me duran was duran up until 1980,after this he was a shadow of himself and past his effective weight class.

[natonic]

"That's just bullshit, through and through. Duran dominated Leonard up until the late rounds when he let him catch up. Leonard arguably lost to Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time, both past their prime. Not even on par."

Sweet Pea, that's a really strong statement, especially given that you've recently changed your tune on the Duran - Leonard fight. A little too strong in my opinion. As I recall, you had scored Duran - Leonard very close, then re-watched it and felt Duran won by a wider margin. I think those two fights are easily on par. Duran was a very live underdog against Leonard. People were fearing for Leonard's health against Hagler and gave him no chance. Hagler was viewed as nearly invincible. I think they're very comparable accomplishments.

[PowerPuncher]

1. You ignore here that Duran beat DeJesus 2 times and that he reigned for 8 years. How long did Leonard reign? Longevity counts quite a bit imo. Take that into account and Duran get´s the better of Leonard.

2. Also let me ask you this: Who would rank higher with only the career at their prime weight, Duran or Leonard?

3. Yep, Leoanrd looked better but again you ignore the fact that Duran was always fighting two more wieghtclasses above his best than Leonard. It is also widely accepted that Duran was past it past the first Leonard fight.When you take that into account, Duran´s performances are even more remarkable.

4. Leonard was prime against Hearns and Benitez and at his best weight, Duran was fighting them 3 weightclasses above his bes weight while beeing past his best.

5. The Leonard Duran fought was better than the Hagler Leonard fought.

6. But the decision of Leonard-Hagler is still discussed until today while nobody argues Leonard won against Duran.

7. Imo Duran´s win is a better one because of that and because Leoanrd simply was a better fighter than Hagler.

8. Well, I don´t think that there is much into Leonards lhw title he made Lalonde to come down in weight to fight him, weight-draining him. If the fight would have happened at lhw I would agree but not like that. Also, winning against Barkley after he beat Hearns, keep in mind Tommy beat Duran, is a better win imo. Also the size difference between Duran and Barkley was clearly bigger.

9. They should not be leagues apart but in my oppinion only the Top4, Greb, Robbinson, Langford, Armstrong are clearly better than the other 16 of the top20. The rest is more or less interchangable but I think you shouldn´t rank Leoanrd above Duran, you can but you have to be biased to do so. Like I said it´s close but clear.

1. Yes Duran has longevity and this is a quality BUT against who, outside of DeJesus and Buchanon the lightweight division was weak in this time. Leonards Welterweight reign is greater because he fought better overall opponents.

2. Tough question, legacy Leonard, ability at weight near equal

3. YEs Duran was above his best weight but he was in amazing shape at 147 and at his technical peak, I think Duran is on the back end of his prime. Leonard's wasnt as experienced or savy at 24, being young is not always an advantage. Leonard's movement in the rematch causes problems for Duran at any weight. So no I don't agree Duran got the better of Leonard, I actually favour Leonard, maybe 50-50

4. Yes Leonard was prime against Hearns/Bentiez, but Duran was only 2-4years off his best win when facing them. It was above Duran's best weight, but Benitez was above his best weight too.

Still Leonard is 5-1-1 (or 5-2), Duran is 1-5 against the fab 5. What Leonard did I'm not sure a prime equally sized Duran can due to stylistic problems.

5. The Hagler Leonard fought was P4P no1 and arguably the greatest MW ever, Leonard was out of championship fights for 4years.

6.You say the Leonard was better than Hagler, says allot about Leonard then :yep

7. Leonard beat Hagler on R by R basis, Leonard landed far more clean shots and so forth

8. I still think they are similarly quality wins, Barkley despite having a belt was hardly a great middleweight, Lalonde the same at LHW. Yes Leonard forced the catch weight, but still the weight was a big stretch for him

9. I rate Duran over Armstrong, he simply does EVERYTHING BETTER while being the same size and has better wins. I rate Duran slightly over Leonard, its a close call. I think there is an argument that Leonard could be over Robinson (YES I SAID IT), although I wouldn't. Greb and Langford because of lack of film are hard to judge but I don't rate pre-1940s fighters as high as a group as skills had peaked at this stage.

[DINAMITA]

"That's just bullshit, through and through. Duran dominated Leonard up until the late rounds when he let him catch up. Leonard arguably lost to Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time, both past their prime. Not even on par."

Sweet Pea, that's a really strong statement, especially given that you've recently changed your tune on the Duran - Leonard fight. A little too strong in my opinion. As I recall, you had scored Duran - Leonard very close, then re-watched it and felt Duran won by a wider margin. I think those two fights are easily on par. Duran was a very live underdog against Leonard. People were fearing for Leonard's health against Hagler and gave him no chance. Hagler was viewed as nearly invincible. I think they're very comparable accomplishments.

I have to agree with Pea. Duran's win over Leonard is a significantly greater victory than Leonard's over Hagler IMO. I only watched the Mugabi fight for the very first time last night, and it was very apparent this was no longer peak Hagler. It was equally apparent in Leonard's wins over Benitez in '79 and Hearns in '81, that the Leonard that Duran fought was absolute peak. Leonard over Hagler was a great win, but Duran's over Leonard was legendary IMO.

And obviously, Duran performed better on the night and won by a far clearer margin. It was definitive, Leonard over Hagler was not.

[enquirer]

Whilst i agree the duran win over ray is THE best win in boxing history,the leonard victory over hagler is very underrated and one of the great great wins of all times...

[PowerPuncher]

1.Rather than focusing on a couple of big names to decide who had the greater resume, widen the scope. Duran's top seven wins were: Buchanan, deJesus twice, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley. Leonard's were: Benitez, Hagler, Hearns, Duran... Kalule? Lalonde? Someone else to make up the seven? Duran has more top quality wins than Leonard.
.
1) Where did 5 best wins as a benchmark come from? Doesn't this sort of favour Leonard?

2) What about if Duran had lost to Salvador Sanchez? How would that be viewed?

3) Duran was not a one hit wonder at 147. Take a look at his record. Duran's perfomance against Leonard was par excellence. I've never seen such a great example of boxing a bigger, stronger, faster man. Duran won that on pure skill. leonard's win is great and I agree gets downgraded tooeasily but is not on a apr with Duran's win.

4) except that Leonard was moving up one division whereas Duran was moving up 3. Moore was considered the next big thing at the time. 2 good fighters but again in a p4p sense what Duran achieved was much better.

5. Barkley was a warrior who beat Hearns, laLonde was a decent fighter with a punch. And in relative terms Duran was furtehr above his best weight than Leonard.


1. Because Leonard has one of the best top4 wins of all times, he has a short career and this thread is made to make a case for him :lol:

Ok lets extent it to with 8 wins

Leonard: Duran (twice once past prime), Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, LaLonde, Kalule, Dave Green/Ranzany

Duran: Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus (twice), Moore, Palomino, Marcel, Cuevas (past prime/shot)

Top5 - Leonards are allot better. Last 3 Leonard's are weaker but both have a past prime fighter (Duran for leonard in 3rd and Cuevas for Duran). Leonard's resume doesnt have the greatest depth it was short but very very sweet and overall his wins ledger trumps Duran's

2. If Salvador Sanchez was born 10years earlier, had not died, gradually added weight while improving and jumped upto 135 and fought Duran beat him but Duran wins the rematch, is Duran better or worse? Probably better. Whats more this wouldnt have been an easy fight by any measure

3. Yes but Duran only really has 2 top wins at 147, and a bad loss

4. Yes but Duran's losses at 154 are pretty bad - Hearns blowout, Laing and Benitez. You could argue he rolled the dice more times than Leonard he was bound to get lucky once. Leonard rolled the dice less times so got a lesser score but won bigger from less rolls

5. But Barkley has so many losses on his record its ridiclous to an extent and he was blown by Benn in 1 round a year later. What would have happened if Duran faced Benn or Toney instead?

[DINAMITA]

1. Because Leonard has one of the best top4 wins of all times, he has a short career and this thread is made to make a case for him :lol:

Ok lets extent it to with 8 wins

Leonard: Duran (twice once past prime), Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, LaLonde, Kalule, Dave Green/Ranzany

Duran: Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus (twice), Moore, Palomino, Marcel, Cuevas (past prime/shot)

Top5 - Leonards are allot better. Last 3 Leonard's are weaker but both have a past prime fighter (Duran for leonard in 3rd and Cuevas for Duran). Leonard's resume doesnt have the greatest depth it was short but very very sweet and overall his wins ledger trumps Duran's

2. If Salvador Sanchez was born 10years earlier, had not died, gradually added weight while improving and jumped upto 135 and fought Duran beat him but Duran wins the rematch, is Duran better or worse? Probably better. Whats more this wouldnt have been an easy fight by any measure

3. Yes but Duran only really has 2 top wins at 147, and a bad loss

4. Yes but Duran's losses at 154 are pretty bad - Hearns blowout, Laing and Benitez. You could argue he rolled the dice more times than Leonard he was bound to get lucky once. Leonard rolled the dice less times so got a lesser score but won bigger from less rolls

5. But Barkley has so many losses on his record its ridiclous to an extent and he was blown by Benn in 1 round a year later. What would have happened if Duran faced Benn or Toney instead?

Benn was a natural middleweight, as was Barkley, as was Toney. Benn and Toney had great success at weights higher than 160. Duran was a natural lightweight, and was 38 years old when he fought Barkley. Whether Barkley had losses before or after, it must be accepted he was viewed as a rough, tough brawler at 160 and 168. That Duran was able to mix it with him 25lbs above his natural fighting weight and at age 38 was astounding, a far far better win than Leonard's over Lalonde or Kalule without a doubt.

[Robbi]

"That's just bullshit, through and through. Duran dominated Leonard up until the late rounds when he let him catch up. Leonard arguably lost to Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time, both past their prime. Not even on par."

Sweet Pea, that's a really strong statement, especially given that you've recently changed your tune on the Duran - Leonard fight. A little too strong in my opinion. As I recall, you had scored Duran - Leonard very close, then re-watched it and felt Duran won by a wider margin. I think those two fights are easily on par. Duran was a very live underdog against Leonard. People were fearing for Leonard's health against Hagler and gave him no chance. Hagler was viewed as nearly invincible. I think they're very comparable accomplishments.

Pea was brief with his reply. He forgot to mention that Leonard's first fight at middleweight was against Hagler. Duran on the otherhand had confidence and momentum on his side going into the first Leonard fight. If memory serves me correctly, 6 non title bouts at the weight. On paper before the first bell rang for both fights, Leonard probably had a tougher challenge than Duran did. Perhaps evens. Obviously that was because Leonard had one fight in 5 years. And during that fight against Howard, he was dropped and looked average. Thus a stronger case was made for Hagler knocking him out combined with being inactive.

It's still side with Duran's win over Leonard nonetheless.

[PowerPuncher]

Benn was a natural middleweight, as was Barkley, as was Toney. Benn and Toney had great success at weights higher than 160. Duran was a natural lightweight, and was 38 years old when he fought Barkley. Whether Barkley had losses before or after, it must be accepted he was viewed as a rough, tough brawler at 160 and 168. That Duran was able to mix it with him 25lbs above his natural fighting weight and at age 38 was astounding, a far far better win than Leonard's over Lalonde or Kalule without a doubt.

Actually Benn could have fought at 154 but fought at 160-168 because the money was there. Duran was probably a natural Welter by that stage, his natural weight going up with additional muscle mass. I wouldn't debate Duran is much smaller than all those men.

Credit to Duran, he beat the man who beat Hearns, but I dont think he would have fared too well against Hearns, Benn, Toney, Nunn, Kalambay, McCallum, Eubank at the time.

Ofcourse Leonard shut Duran out the same year at the middleweight limit

[mcvey]

REDROOSTER NOT ALLOWED ON MY THREAD - PISS OFF ROOSTER

Can Ray Leonard be Rated Above Duran All Time P4P? The concensus to this answer is, NO. But I'm going to put forward an argument just to be annoying and give Leonard his due to.

1. Leonard's top 5 wins trump Duran's top 5 wins. Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Lalonde trump Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus, Barkley, Moore, quite undisputable

2. Leonard's prime weight resume is better than Duran's prime weight resume, ie Hearns, Benitez, Duran tops Buchanon, Dejesus

3. Both lost as champions, made adjustments and avenged their loss. Leonard's first loss is to a better fighter in Duran than Duran's first loss was in Dejesus. Both became better fighters from their loss.

4. Head to Head Leonard is 2-1, ignoring the 3rd match they are 1-1. But Leonard was more dominant in his win then Duran. We are led to believe Duran wasn't in the best shape. The idea that Leonard focused on movement, stick and run rather than fighting in close is discounted. How about this for an argument, Leonard figured out Duran's style and mastered it

5. Against common opponents Leonard is far and away above Duran. Against the fab 5 Duran is 1-5, Leonard is 5-1-1. Thats a landslide in Leonard's favour. Now most will argue Duran was above his best weight and past his prime but he was only 32-33 when he face Benitez, Hagler, Hearns. Leonard was also above his best weight and past prime against Hagler and the Hearns rematch

6. Both moved up 2 divisions to beat the P4P top champ in the face of Leonard and Hagler. The Hagler win gets horribly underrated and was a masterclass from Leonard. I would rate this on par if not better than Duran-Leonard 1. Both are pretty much 1 hit wonders at the weight

7. Both emphatically won titles at 154. Kalule seems the better more complete experienced, consistent champion but he later lost to Moore himself. Kalule also went onto beat Kalambay, which is a massive win as Kalambay himself beat McCallum and Graham. But Kalule lost to McCallum and Graham also, Moore career went down the toilet after Duran

8. Both won titles 4 weights above there best against similar opposition levels in LaLonde and Barkley.

Simply by looking at those points Leonard tops Duran in some categories and is his equal in the rest. Therefore this nothing wrong with having Leonard above Duran and they certainly shouldn't be leagues apart.
You make a very convincing case,Duran is top 4 L for me Leonard top 3 W.you pays your money etc.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Can he? Yes. Does he? No. But it's still quite close. But Leonard's record at welter isn't better than Duran's at lightweight. Both have 3 great wins but Duran never lost his championship, Leonard did- a few months after he won it. Reigned less than 3 years in total, Duran did nearly 7.

[Loewe]

Here we go again :lol:

1. Yes Duran has longevity and this is a quality BUT against who, outside of DeJesus and Buchanon the lightweight division was weak in this time. Leonards Welterweight reign is greater because he fought better overall opponents.

2. Tough question, legacy Leonard, ability at weight near equal

Did he really? I would argue that Hearns and Benitez weren´t better ww than Buchanan and DeJesus were lws. And Duran´s lw division was not weak, average perhaps but not weak. Still, dominating it like Duran did for 8 years, who did that in history? Right, only the greatest lws ever like Leonard, the other one :D , and Gans.
I think their accomplishments are equal, their win over top opponents were equal but Duran had more all-round depth in his resume and the better longevity. I rate both Top5 at threir weight but I think lw itsself was a slightly deeper division than ww.

3. YEs Duran was above his best weight but he was in amazing shape at 147 and at his technical peak, I think Duran is on the back end of his prime. Leonard's wasnt as experienced or savy at 24, being young is not always an advantage. Leonard's movement in the rematch causes problems for Duran at any weight. So no I don't agree Duran got the better of Leonard, I actually favour Leonard, maybe 50-50

Sure he was but he was still coming up from and still were a natural lw. The first fight was the last fight of prime Duran, he was on the slide after it. And argueing Leonard was not as experienced when you take his amateur career into account - not that it would influence his ranking but it is experience.
Leonard´s plan in the second fight would always trouble Duran I agree but you can´t ignore that Duran was not in shape when even Leonard himself admitted that. Duran won when both were at their best, Leoanrd did not therefore Duran got the better of Leonard.

4. Yes Leonard was prime against Hearns/Bentiez, but Duran was only 2-4years off his best win when facing them. It was above Duran's best weight, but Benitez was above his best weight too.

"only 2-4 years off" :lol: sorry but do you even read what you wrote? Duran lost to Laing in the meantime that should say you enough about how far past his prime Duran was at the time.
What was Benitez' best weight? SLW when he was 17 and still developing? Benitez was naturally a much bigger man than Duran. And even when you think 140 was his prime weight it would still be a weighclass above Duran´s prime weight.
You don´t give Duran enough credit for fighting and competing with legends at a weight tey were comfortable at. :bart

Still Leonard is 5-1-1 (or 5-2), Duran is 1-5 against the fab 5. What Leonard did I'm not sure a prime equally sized Duran can due to stylistic problems.

Yes, he is but like I said it looks better on paper than it does when you look deeper into these numbers. I take the lw Duran of the second or thrid DeJesus fight over the Leonard of the Benitez fight p4p anytime. I have absolutly no doubt about that.

5. The Hagler Leonard fought was P4P no1 and arguably the greatest MW ever, Leonard was out of championship fights for 4years.

Well, imo you can´t argue nobody but Monzon for the number one at mw but Hagler was a great mw, I agree. But Hagler was clearly past it himself, was fighting a stupid fight in the beginning and still arguable won. Leonard is known to pick his opponents at a time he thought he could beat them. That´s what happened there. Yes, Leonard was out for 4 years what made this win very remarkable but a win over a past prime Hagler just is not as good as a win over a prime Leonard.

6.You say the Leonard was better than Hagler, says allot about Leonard then :yep

For sure! Leonard was a great fighter, he could be ranked anywhere between 5 and 20 at an atg list as long as he is behind the already named locks for the first 4 places and Duran, Ross, Walker, Charles ... okay between 8 and 20 :lol: One of the greatest ever.

7. Leonard beat Hagler on R by R basis, Leonard landed far more clean shots and so forth

I also thought Leonard edged it but that does not mean many others have different oppinions ;)

8. I still think they are similarly quality wins, Barkley despite having a belt was hardly a great middleweight, Lalonde the same at LHW. Yes Leonard forced the catch weight, but still the weight was a big stretch for him

So, if smw was a big stretch for Leonard, 3 weighclasses above his best, what do you think mw was for Duran, 4 weightclasses above his best? And Duran gave one of the greatest mws of all time in a prime Hagler a very tough fight and beat a much bigger fighter in Barkley who just beat his conquereor Hearns. That´s better and more worth than beating Lalonde.

9. I rate Duran over Armstrong, he simply does EVERYTHING BETTER while being the same size and has better wins. I rate Duran slightly over Leonard, its a close call. I think there is an argument that Leonard could be over Robinson (YES I SAID IT), although I wouldn't. Greb and Langford because of lack of film are hard to judge but I don't rate pre-1940s fighters as high as a group as skills had peaked at this stage.

Well, I won´t comment that one since there is much in it that I think is just insane.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The Hagler win is often underrated, however i'd put it on the level of Stracey vs Napoles. A great fighter, still regarded as one of the best pfp but always on the verge of losing his crown.

[Robbi]

Here we go again :lol:



Did he really? I would argue that Hearns and Benitez weren´t better ww than Buchanan and DeJesus were lws. And Duran´s lw division was not weak, average perhaps but not weak. Still, dominating it like Duran did for 8 years, who did that in history?

Buchanan wasn't as good as Hearns. His long range boxing was up there with Hearns', thats about it. And thats being kind to Buchanan. Certainly nowhere near as powerful. Hearns was a much more difficult proposition. His longevity outlasts Buchanan by a absurd degree. IMO Buchanan's resume and career doesn't deserve HOF induction. I'm not picking on Kenny. Fighters like McGuigan and others don't deserve HOF stature.

De Jesus was a fine well rounded boxer. Bentiez was as well, then some. His defense was better than Estaban's. But I will concede that rumour has it that Bentiez trained for around a week for the Leonard fight. With that said, Benitez was on a roll having previously won difficult encounters prior to facing Leonard, Cervantes and Palamino for titles at 140 and 147.

Just over 7 years. Benny Leonard is up there with him. Infact, he surpasses him by a number of months.

[DINAMITA]

Actually Benn could have fought at 154 but fought at 160-168 because the money was there. Duran was probably a natural Welter by that stage, his natural weight going up with additional muscle mass. I wouldn't debate Duran is much smaller than all those men.

Credit to Duran, he beat the man who beat Hearns, but I dont think he would have fared too well against Hearns, Benn, Toney, Nunn, Kalambay, McCallum, Eubank at the time.

Ofcourse Leonard shut Duran out the same year at the middleweight limit

Your guess at what Benn could or couldn't have done is irrelevant, he fought his career at 160 and 168. Duran couldn't be a "natural" welter by that stage, fighters only have one natural weight. That's why they call it natural. Of course Duran wouldn't have fared well against Benn, Toney, Nunn, Kalambay, McCallum and Eubank - of course he wouldn't!! He was a lightweight approaching 40 years old!!!! Toney ended up fighting at heavyweight, Eubank at cruiser, McCallum at light-heavy, Nunn and Benn spent long periods at supermiddle. They all had the best periods of their careers late 80s-mid 90s. Duran was a lightweight that had the best period of his career in the late 70s! What is your point?!?!?

You think Leonard could've beaten any of those guys?? He lost to Norris in '91 at LIGHT-MIDDLE! No chance. But again, that proves nothing.

A very irrelevant point from you PP. And you started this thread so well!

[Loewe]

Buchanan wasn't as good as Hearns. His long range boxing was up there with Hearns', thats about it. And thats being kind to Buchanan. Certainly nowhere near as powerful. Hearns was a much more difficult proposition. His longevity outlasts Buchanan by a absurd degree. IMO Buchanan's resume and career doesn't deserve HOF induction. I'm not picking on Kenny. Fighters like McGuigan and others don't deserve HOF stature.

De Jesus was a fine well rounded boxer. Bentiez was as well, then some. His defense was better than Estaban's. But I will concede that rumour has it that Bentiez trained for around a week for the Leonard fight. With that said, Benitez was on a roll having previously won difficult encounters prior to facing Leonard, Cervantes and Palamino for titles at 140 and 147.

Just over 7 years. Benny Leonard is up there with him. Infact, he surpasses him by a number of months.

Well, going by how they performed in the ring you are right. Going by resume and accomplishments strictly at lw for Buchanan and DeJesus and Hearns and Benitez there is not much between them. And the worh of a win is imo measured by that. Some people look good and go nowhere, some don´t and become greats.

Yeah, I know seven years not eight. And I wrote that only Leonard and Gans were anywhere near what Duran did at that weight.

[PowerPuncher]

Can he? Yes. Does he? No. But it's still quite close. But Leonard's record at welter isn't better than Duran's at lightweight. Both have 3 great wins but Duran never lost his championship, Leonard did- a few months after he won it. Reigned less than 3 years in total, Duran did nearly 7.

Bit of a stretch, Duran lost to another lightweight a few pounds above the lightweight limit a few years in. He technically didnt lose it, but he sort of lost the pride. They used to pull these above weight limit fights all the time in years gone by and they say now politics is bad

Anyone remember when Judah wanted to fight Mayweather at a 148 catch weight to keep his belts :lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

Bit of a stretch, Duran lost to another lightweight a few pounds above the lightweight limit a few years in. He technically didnt lose it, but he sort of lost the pride.


I wasn't really referring to the 'above weight' limit mate just the fact that his lost but in a non-title fight, therefore his actual reign is stronger than Leonard's. That's not to say it's not a great win for De Jesus- it is, and a very convincing one at that. If Duran was champ for three years then it'd be equal, but 7 is a decent tenure and he deserves to be rated higher at 135 than Ray does at 147.

[Mantequilla]

Kalule was a better fighter than anyone Duran beat at lightweight incidentally.

[teeto]

In response to the thread title- yes. P4p that is, if that term/concept is taken as who was better p4p, this can be seen as the better man regardless of weight at their best, or overall based on performances, all things considered, the case can be made for either man. Though the thread title does say all-time which lessens Leonard's chances here in my own humble opinion, that refers more to a legacy/greatness aspect in a viewpoint which can be justified. That is where i always take Duran, as the GREATER fighter, though i suppose the case can be made for Leonard, for me its always Duran in that repsect though.

[redrooster]

Sweet Pea gets my vote for most improved poster whose senses rival my own

[Robbi]

Sweet Pea gets my vote for most improved poster whose senses rival my own

:bolt

[he grant]

Yes. It is a tough call but it is not an unreasonable thought

[Loewe]

Sweet Pea gets my vote for most improved poster whose senses rival my own

Why do you insult poor little Sweet Pea :?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Kalule was a better fighter than anyone Duran beat at lightweight incidentally.


No he wasn't. All his best wins came against Has-Beens or inexperienced fighters.

[Ezzard]

1. Because Leonard has one of the best top4 wins of all times, he has a short career and this thread is made to make a case for him :lol:

Ok lets extent it to with 8 wins

Leonard: Duran (twice once past prime), Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, LaLonde, Kalule, Dave Green/Ranzany

Duran: Leonard, Buchanon, Dejesus (twice), Moore, Palomino, Marcel, Cuevas (past prime/shot)

Top5 - Leonards are allot better. Last 3 Leonard's are weaker but both have a past prime fighter (Duran for leonard in 3rd and Cuevas for Duran). Leonard's resume doesnt have the greatest depth it was short but very very sweet and overall his wins ledger trumps Duran's

2. If Salvador Sanchez was born 10years earlier, had not died, gradually added weight while improving and jumped upto 135 and fought Duran beat him but Duran wins the rematch, is Duran better or worse? Probably better. Whats more this wouldnt have been an easy fight by any measure

3. Yes but Duran only really has 2 top wins at 147, and a bad loss

4. Yes but Duran's losses at 154 are pretty bad - Hearns blowout, Laing and Benitez. You could argue he rolled the dice more times than Leonard he was bound to get lucky once. Leonard rolled the dice less times so got a lesser score but won bigger from less rolls

5. But Barkley has so many losses on his record its ridiclous to an extent and he was blown by Benn in 1 round a year later. What would have happened if Duran faced Benn or Toney instead?

Okay so you weren't making an attempt to look at this other than to promote Leonard... That's why you picked 5? 8? 10? 20? It's all arbitrary... Even so look at how past it Duran was. Look at how he was written off when he fought Cuevas, Barkley, Moore

2. Leonard lost to a guy whose best days were at 135. That tells you an awful lot abotu where they should be in a p4p sense.

I think the rest of what you say is based on numbers which just about sums it up... Your roll the dice theory puts boxing on a par with roulette and if you follow it through actually makes it preferable for a fighter to not have fought.

Like I said I appreciate your sentiment...none fo the fab 4 are that much better than the others...but it still clear who the number 1 is.