# The CHB Consensus ATG Ranking Thread/Poll (Question 2: Duran or SRL?)



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

For the purposes of this list, treat resume as the primary marker, with H2H capability as a secondary consideration.

Here's an old time favorite. I bet MAG shows up within the first 10 posts.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Here's Ray winning virtually every round against Benitez.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not sure but I think Pedderrs just might vote Leonard.


----------



## oldjoe (Jun 25, 2017)

Duran's my man, but Leonard has the better resume.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Duran 100%. It's a shame some people will disagree. He is the only correct answer here.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Chacal said:


> Duran 100%. It's a shame some people will disagree. He is the only correct answer here.


I'd love if you gave a breakdown, if you could. Even if only brief. I think a lot of posters will be on the fence and can be swayed with argument.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I'd love if you gave a breakdown, if you could. Even if only brief. I think a lot of posters will be on the fence and can be swayed with argument.


Duran dominated and cleaned up lightweight for the prime of his career. It'd be easy for some to look at his losses in his career and say Leonard, but Duran beat Leonard, Moore, Barkley and loads of other really good fighters and also looked better against Hagler than Leonard did all while past prime.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Not sure but I think Pedderrs just might vote Leonard.


:lol: I like to troll rossco about Dooran.



> Duran dominated and cleaned up lightweight for the prime of his career.


It wasn't a terribly stacked division and doesn't swing the balance for me.



> It'd be easy for some to look at his losses in his career and say Leonard,


3 of those losses came against fighters Ray defeated, stopping two of them.



> but Duran beat Leonard


Ray won both rematches conclusively.



> looked better against Hagler than Leonard did all while past prime.


Ray Leonard hadn't fought a single solitary round of competitive boxing for 3 years before outpointing Hagler at 160lbs.

Oh, and one important fact to remember that often gets glossed over here -- Ray beat Hagler, Dooran lost.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

C'mon revisionists, let's do this...


----------



## knowimuch (May 9, 2014)

Duran Duran


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

I used to think Duran.

But then Mag1965 made me realize Duran was actually bigger than Leonard or Hearns because he fought above 147 before those two.

So basically he was a bully who feasted on smaller men fighting the wrong fight.

It really should be Duran, he does have a lot of losses but those were already past his prime above his best weight.
He's older than the rest of the FAB4(Leonard, Hearns, Benitez), and even past it he could still show a lot.
Although above 147 his footwork really started to decline and he became very hot and cold.
But against the right fighter and going in with the right mindset he could still show flashes why he was once the default P4P #1.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Waaaaar


dyna said:


> I used to think Duran.
> 
> But then Mag1965 made me realize Duran was actually bigger than Leonard or Hearns because he fought above 147 before those two.


:lol: For real? Oh MAG.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Waaaaar
> 
> :lol: For real? Oh MAG.


Yes.

http://checkhookboxing.com/index.ph...iss-fighting-at-all.73280/page-8#post-2373662



> Duran fought at 154 in 1978, before Hearns, Benitez and Leonard fought there. Duran was not a natural 135. That is the nonsense of it all, and later he went up to 260 when he retired. Hearns only ended up near 200."


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Duran is a top 10 ATG, SRL A top 20 ATG.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

dyna said:


> and later he went up to 260 when he retired. Hearns only ended up near 200.


:rofl As if his current Panamanian Meatball form has anything to do with his fighting frame. I guess Naseem Hamed should have been fighting the likes of Tyson and Lewis.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> I used to think Duran.
> 
> But then Mag1965 made me realize Duran was actually bigger than Leonard or Hearns because he fought above 147 before those two.
> 
> ...


I don't believe Dooran was past his prime in 1980, or that he was a better Lightweight than he was a Welterweight, but I'm prepared to reevaluate my stance if you can point to two performances against a similar level of opposition at 135lbs that were better than the performances against Palomino and Leonard I.

And just for some people's reference, this is supposedly prime Roberto Dooran.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I don't believe Dooran was past his prime in 1980, or that he was a better Lightweight than he was a Welterweight, but I'm prepared to reevaluate my stance if you can point to two performances against a similar level of opposition at 135lbs that were better than the performances against Palomino and Leonard I.
> 
> And just for some people's reference, this is supposedly prime Roberto Dooran.


Oh yes, I had Edwin Viruet winning their first fight.

Duran had a lethargic period during his 135 time.
He was already hot and cold back then.

This was him at his best.Both fight 2 and 3.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> Oh yes, I had Edwin Viruet winning their first fight.
> 
> Duran had a lethargic period during his 135 time.


These lethargic periods defined Duran's entire career. It didn't matter if it was at 135lbs, 147lbs or higher.

The only rebuttal to bringing up Dooran's losses to Leonard, Benitez and Hearns is that he was 'past his prime'. The fact is, if you were to compile a list of Dooran's 5 greatest performances you would probably have one performance at 135lbs, two performances at 147lbs, and arguably two performanceS at 160lbs. A lot of people haven't even bothered to look at Dooran's Lightweight career so they just use the logic that 'hey, if he was so good at all these higher weights, he must have been spectacular and unbeatable at 135lbs'. But a lot of his Lightweight fights are actually really underwhelming showings against modest opposition. He was consistently winning as a Lightweight, but he wasn't consistently brilliant. He was able to get away with being subpar against that level of opposition but not not when fighting Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns or Wilfred Benitez.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> These lethargic periods defined Duran's entire career. It didn't matter if it was at 135lbs, 147lbs or higher.
> 
> The only rebuttal to bringing up Dooran's losses to Leonard, Benitez and Hearns is that he was 'past his prime'. The fact is, if you were to compile a list of Dooran's 5 greatest performances you would probably have one performance at 135lbs, two performances at 147lbs, and arguably two performanceS at 160lbs. A lot of people haven't even bothered to look at Dooran's Lightweight career so they just use the logic that 'hey, if he was so good at all these higher weights, he must have been spectacular and unbeatable at 135lbs'. But a lot of his Lightweight fights are actually really underwhelming showings against modest opposition. He was consistently winning as a Lightweight, but he wasn't consistently brilliant. He was able to get away with being subpar against that level of opposition but not not when fighting Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns or Wilfred Benitez.


Top 5 should be filled De Jesus 2 and 3 performances.
Leonard
Palomino
And Ernesto Marcel at 130. Stopping Ernesto at that young age is likely better than the Barkley win and better than his spirited performance against Hagler.

And Viruet got conclusively beaten in the rematch.

Duran also beat the great Buchanan at 135 and that could be substituted as one of Duran's best 5 performances with the Palomino win.

And yes, Duran always had cold moments in every division.
But at 154 and above he was clearly physically no longer the same, even during his hotter performances.
Saying he wasn't clearly past it at those weights (154+) is heresy, even if he always had colder moments.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

DOOOOORAN.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> Top 5 should be filled De Jesus 2 and 3 performances.
> Leonard
> Palomino
> And Ernesto Marcel at 130. Stopping Ernesto at that young age is likely better than the Barkley win and better than his spirited performance against Hagler.
> ...


Well I always want to stress that these things are subjective mate and I hope I can still maintain that tone here, but I simply cannot agree with any list that omits the Barkley performance. Barkley was a ridiculously big Middleweight and in the physical peak of his career, fresh off a devastating knockout win over Thomas Hearns, when he was outboxed, outpunched and outfought by an old, blown-up past prime Roberto Duran who really had no business contesting for a Middleweight title at that stage in his career. If they didn't record the fight then I never would have believed that things went down as they did. I consider it Dooran's greatest ever achievement outside of beating Leonard in 80. It's far more memorable than Palomino and I'd argue Marcel and De Jesus too.

Of course, the overriding point still remains, there isn't really a lot of evidence to suggest that Roberto Duran was a better more complete fighter as a Lightweight than he was a Welterweight.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

The younger, bigger Leonard beat guys past prime Duran lost to, fair play, but let's not forget 45 yo Duran was robbed blind against Comacho. A year later Comacho bitch slapped Leonard.

Competative at world level for 5 decades, man. Guy was a freak.

Even Ray admits Duran's greater.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

rossco said:


> The younger, bigger Leonard beat guys past prime Duran lost to, fair play, but let's not forget 45 yo Duran was robbed blind against Comacho. A year later Comacho bitch slapped Leonard.
> 
> Competative at world level for 5 decades, man. Guy was a freak.
> 
> Even Ray admits Duran's greater.


Leonard wasn't just younger and bigger, he was more talented. That's what allowed him to completely outbox Benitez whilst Dooran looked like he'd never boxed before when he fought the Puerto Rican.

Doooooran wouldn't even embrace Benitez after the schooling. Embarrassing.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Leonard wasn't just younger and bigger, he was more talented. That's what allowed him to completely outbox Benitez whilst Dooran looked like he'd never boxed before when he fought the Puerto Rican.
> 
> Doooooran wouldn't even embrace Benitez after the schooling. Embarrassing.


Benitez didnt school Duran, mate :lol: Was more a convinsing win than anything.

Leonard and Duran are as close as close gets in terms of complete talent. Duran being more old school with his craft. Leonard being more the flashy athletic type. Different, but both epic.

I don't even hate Leonard like you think. The guy was fucking God given.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

rossco said:


> Benitez didnt school Duran, mate :lol: Was more a convinsing win than anything.
> 
> Leonard and Duran are as close as close gets in terms of talent. Duran being more old school with his craft. Leonard being more the flashy athletic type. Different, but both epic.
> 
> I don't even hate Leonard like you think. The guy was fucking God given.


Watch Dooran vs Benitez again.

It was a thorough ass beating. I almost felt bad for Dooran. He maybe won 1 or 2 rounds...maybe. The definition of a schooling.






Those lead right hands....man, just imagine what a Floyd would do.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Just playing, rossco.

I mean, I do think Leonard was a better fighter, but Dooran was a stud too. When he felt like it.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Watch Dooran vs Benitez again.
> 
> It was a thorough ass beating. I almost felt bad for Dooran. He maybe won 1 or 2 rounds...maybe. The definition of a schooling.
> 
> ...


Duran looked sluggish as fuck with his faints n shit against Benitez. Likely ate a bad stake n had the shit's.

"Imagine what Floyd wound do" :lol: Fuck it, I'm taking the bait here. Floyd would back up in straight lines and shell up like he always does against mobile pressure. Getting beat up on the ropes by an offensive force he hasn't even been close to experiencing. He'd piss more blood than Buchanan did.

Happy?:good


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Just playing, rossco.
> 
> I mean, I do think Leonard was a better fighter, but Dooran was a stud too. When he felt like it.


I know you play mate. It's all good :good


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

"Hide behind the shoulder and hope for the best" :rofl @V-2


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Liking these threads @Bogotazo. Brings out the best in the forum I think. Makes great reading and throws up some good vids.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> Duran looked sluggish as fuck with his *faints* n shit against Benitez.


Even more so against Hearns


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Liking these threads @Bogotazo. Brings out the best in the forum I think. Makes great reading and throws up some good vids.


Bogo's the man.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> The younger, bigger Leonard beat guys past prime Duran lost to, fair play, but let's not forget 45 yo Duran was robbed blind against Comacho. A year later Comacho bitch slapped Leonard.
> 
> Competative at world level for 5 decades, man. Guy was a freak.
> 
> Even Ray admits Duran's greater.


Ray simply couldn't deal with the faster fighter, Camacho would have always slapped him silly

It's why I favour Howard Davis Jr too.
Roy Jones would have exposed Leonard too.

There's a reason why Leonard came out of retirement for Hagler but not for Roy.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

dyna said:


> Even more so against Hearns


I doubt it would have mattered in that one.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

It speaks volumes that whenever the apologists find themselves discussing Dooran's career, they spend more time making excuses for his losses than they do waxing lyrical about his victories. It's indicative. I believe in fighters taking accountability and ownership for their failings. That's why I could never be a passionate supporter of Dooran's because his legacy doesn't stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

As you were you sycophants, rewrite history. Things could have been different against a world class, all time great defensive master if only Dooran had trained and been focused. 'Kay. :good If it helps you get some kip at night time.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

So sluggish.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> I doubt it would have mattered in that one.


It's a joke about the way you spelled feint.
You misspelled it as faint.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

dyna said:


> It's a joke about the way you spelled feint.
> You misspelled it as faint.


I now see what you did there :lol:

My grammar on here's always been gash.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> I now see what you did there :lol:
> 
> My grammar on here's always been gash.


spelling*


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

dyna said:


> spelling*


Fuck off :lol:

Word structur and spelling.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Floyd would have probably outpointed Dooran 8 times out of 10. 8 times out of 10 Dooran didn't train...apparently.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Floyd would have probably outpointed Dooran 8 times out of 10. 8 times out of 10 Dooran didn't train...apparently.


He Pro-boaby would not have imo.


----------



## Thomas Crewz (Jul 23, 2013)

Tentatively going for SRL but i really dont know enough about Durans LW reign, which is obviously a huge part of his career.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Tentatively going for SRL but i really dont know enough about Durans LW reign, which is obviously a huge part of his career.


Purely based on resume.
Duran is not a top 5 lightweight.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

dyna said:


> Purely based on resume.
> Duran is not a top 5 lightweight.


Carlos Ortex ?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> Carlos Ortex ?


Carlos is #2 after Benny Leonard.

Shame about the footage part (for Benny)


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Tentatively going for SRL but i really dont know enough about Durans LW reign, which is obviously a huge part of his career.


Only special in its consistency and longevity otherwise it's not highlight reel stuff.

Dooran's career defining moments came above 147. The fans are okay with accepting the good north of 135lbs but not the bad.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

What a fucking fighter.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Leonard 1
De Jesus x 2
Buchanan
Marcel
Palomino
Cuevas
Iran Barkley
Davey Moore
The Viruet brothers
A competitive loss to Hagler

VS. 

Hearns 
Duran (No Más & late #3)
Hagler (if you scored it to him)
Benítez 
Lalonde 
Kalule
A. Viruet

Tough.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

:lol: 'A competitive loss to Hagler'

Duranism is a cancer.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dooran

Leonard 1 (if you scored it for him)
De Jesus x 2 (Probably had the most pathetic reign in Lightweight history)
Buchanan (balls shots did it)
Marcel (was fighting people with records of 24-18 and 13-7 only a year before)
Palomino (Coming off a dominant loss to Benitez and would retire after the Duran fight)
Cuevas (coming off a loss, hadn't fought for 14 months and would go on to lose 6 of his next 12)
Iran Barkley (if you scored it for him)
Davey Moore (only his 12th pro fight, best win came against Kalule who Ray beat)

VS.

Leonard

Hearns (Prime, undefeated, Stopped him, Hearns went on to destroy Dooran)
Duran (Prime, Stopped him and won easily on the cards for the rubber)
Hagler (if you scored it to him, Leonard hadn't fought for _3 years,_ beat Duran)
Benítez (undefeated and prime, went on to outbox Dooran easily)
Lalonde
Kalule (undefeated)
Pete Ranzany (had fought and beat better fighters than Marcel had)
Andy Price (had fought and beat better fighters than Marcel had, notably a prime Cuevas)


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> :lol: 'A competitive loss to Hagler'
> 
> Duranism is a cancer.


That loss is worth more than a lot of wins. If Jorge Linares went up and gave Golovkin a close fight his stock would increase tremendously. Worth a mention, as things usually are with Duran.



Pedderrs said:


> Leonard 1 (if you scored it for him)


No words.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> That loss is worth more than a lot of wins. If Jorge Linares went up and gave Golovkin a close fight his stock would increase tremendously. Worth a mention, as things usually are with Duran.


He fell short, he lost!

Would you have listed 'a competitive loss for Ray' if Ray had folded in the championship rounds against Hagler, just as Dooran did? The answer is no. Ray's performance is leagues, leagues, absolute fucking leagues ahead of Dooran's. He hadn't fought for 3 years for crying out loud!!!

I was in bed when I read your joke of a list Bogo. I had to get out of bed to set you straight. Intelligent boxing fans like yourself deluding yourself into thinking that the Cuevas win was worth shit.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> That loss is worth more than a lot of wins. If Jorge Linares went up and gave Golovkin a close fight his stock would increase tremendously. Worth a mention, as things usually are with Duran.
> 
> No words.


Dooran-Leonard I was a 2 point fight, Bogo.

Hagler-Leonard was a 2 point fight, Bogo.

Perfectly comparable.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> That loss is worth more than a lot of wins. If Jorge Linares went up and gave Golovkin a close fight his stock would increase tremendously. Worth a mention, as things usually are with Duran.


Duran was a fully established Welterweight and had campaigned numerous times at 154lbs before getting in the ring and losing to Hagler.

Linares has never campaigned north of 135lbs.

Yeah, not remotely comparable.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> He fell short, he lost!
> 
> Would you have listed 'a competitive loss for Ray' if Ray had folded in the championship rounds against Hagler, just as Dooran did? The answer is no. Ray's performance is leagues, leagues, absolute fucking leagues ahead of Dooran's. He hadn't fought for 3 years for crying out loud!!!
> 
> I was in bed when I read your joke of a list Bogo. I had to get out of bed to set you straight. Intelligent boxing fans like yourself deluding yourself into thinking that the Cuevas win was worth shit.


Leonard started out naturally bigger than Duran so no it wouldn't be quite as impressive.



Pedderrs said:


> Dooran-Leonard I was a 2 point fight, Bogo.
> 
> Hagler-Leonard was a 2 point fight, Bogo.
> 
> Perfectly comparable.


There's a difference between close and justified either way.

Addie won't be able to sleep tonight knowing Duran was meaner than Barrera, more skilled than Messi, AND had more sex appeal than Winona Ryder.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Leonard started out naturally bigger than Duran so no it wouldn't be quite as impressive.












RAY HAD NOT FOUGHT A SINGLE PROFESSIONAL ROUND OF BOXING FOR 3.....FUCKIN'....YEARS!!!!!!



> There's a difference between close and justified either way.


No, it's comparable. Both were 2 point fights.



> Addie won't be able to sleep tonight knowing Duran was meaner than Barrera, more skilled than Messi, AND had more sex appeal than Winona Ryder.


:lol:



> [


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I'd like to apologise for my outburst.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Love Duran and I think he's the more skilled fighter, but I gotta go with Leonard. His resume is just fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> Love Duran and I think he's the more skilled fighter, but I gotta go with Leonard. His resume is just fucking ridiculous.


Duran beat Cuevas though...and...some Vireut..twin


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> RAY HAD NOT FOUGHT A SINGLE PROFESSIONAL ROUND OF BOXING FOR 3.....FUCKIN'....YEARS!!!!!!


Ray Leonard as preparation was having fights without headgear behind closed doors, they were as close to pro fights as they got.

It wasn't like Henry Maske - Virgil Hill 2 where Maske literally came out of a 10 year retirement did some sparring and beat a still decent Hill.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> Ray Leonard as preparation was having fights without headgear behind closed doors, they were as close to pro fights as they got.
> 
> It wasn't like Henry Maske - Virgil Hill 2 where Maske literally came out of a 10 year retirement did some sparring and beat a still decent Hill.


:lol::lol::lol: Right.....


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

I cannot start this. All I will say is Ray fought and beat greater fighters than Duran ever did. That is a fact.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Well I always want to stress that these things are subjective mate and I hope I can still maintain that tone here, but I simply cannot agree with any list that omits the Barkley performance. Barkley was a ridiculously big Middleweight and in the physical peak of his career, fresh off a devastating knockout win over Thomas Hearns, when he was outboxed, outpunched and outfought by an old, blown-up past prime Roberto Duran who really had no business contesting for a Middleweight title at that stage in his career. If they didn't record the fight then I never would have believed that things went down as they did. I consider it Dooran's greatest ever achievement outside of beating Leonard in 80. It's far more memorable than Palomino and I'd argue Marcel and De Jesus too.
> 
> Of course, the overriding point still remains, there isn't really a lot of evidence to suggest that Roberto Duran was a better more complete fighter as a Lightweight than he was a Welterweight.


I knew Barkley would be beaten by Duran. He was made for him. The fight people forget with Duran is Benitez.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

dyna said:


>


A super featherweight.
Wins over both.
No excuses.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> :lol: 'A competitive loss to Hagler'
> 
> Duranism is a cancer.


He was ahead after 12 and looked considerably better than Leonard did in that fight against a better version of Hagler.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> A super featherweight.
> Wins over both.
> No excuses.


Only very few men have ever been as alpha.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I knew Barkley would be beaten by Duran. He was made for him. The fight people forget with Duran is Benitez.


Duran, almost 38 years old already a pro for 21 years.
25 lbs removed from his prime weight.
In against a huge middleweight who just walked through Hearns and smacked him out like a bitch
Iran ended up outboxed and smacked down by a lightweight.

But all meaningless because Barkley was a little flat footed and Duran was already fighting above 154 a year before Barkley.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chacal said:


> He was ahead after 12 and looked considerably better than Leonard did in that fight against a better version of Hagler.


Hagler started off trying to outbox Duran. Big mistake. Made the same mistake with Ray, because he thought Ray would be easy to beat. Hagler needed to be scared of guys to do well.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Duran, almost 38 years old already a pro for 21 years.
> 25 lbs removed from his prime weight.
> In against a huge middleweight who just walked through Hearns and smacked him out like a bitch
> Iran ended up outboxed and smacked down by a lightweight.
> ...


Actually had Hearns respected Barkley he would have knocked him out in round 4 with cuts or body punches. Barkley was folding over, and that would have been to that point the earliest Barkley was knocked out. Duran lost easily to Benitez in 1982 and was demolished by Hearns when both were champs at 154.. To say Duran had a great great win here is not true. I knew he would win.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

When an ATG counter-puncher somehow unable to outbox t-rex reached Duran means that Hagler fought the wrong fight and not a credit to Duran's boxing ability.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> When an ATG counter-puncher somehow unable to outbox t-rex reached Duran means that Hagler fought the wrong fight and not a credit to Duran's boxing ability.


no because Benitez outboxed Duran and Hearns beat him easily. Hagler needed to be scared of guys to do well. and he was not against Ray or Duran. Against Hearns he was motivated and came to fight. Duran landed some nice counter rights, but nothing to hurt Marvin. I think the thing is why didn't Benitez get credit for outclassing Duran over 15 rounds.. in early 1982.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Actually had Hearns respected Barkley he would have knocked him out in round 4 with cuts or body punches. B


So it basically comes down to fighting the wrong fight.

Biggest cliche in boxing.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

To say a loss is a win. it really was not.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> no because Benitez outboxed Duran and Hearns beat him easily. Hagler needed to be scared of guys to do well. and he was not against Ray or Duran. Against Hearns he was motivated and came to fight. Duran landed some nice counter rights, but nothing to hurt Marvin. I think the thing is why didn't Benitez get credit for outclassing Duran over 15 rounds.. in early 1982.


Benitez gets enough credit.

But Duran was never the bull at 154 or above he was at 147 and below.
That's something you keep forgetting, Duran's physical decline above 147 was very clear.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> So it basically comes down to fighting the wrong fight.
> 
> Biggest cliche in boxing.


With Duran he lost to all the greats and did well against Moore and Barkley.. Seems like he couldn't deal with the faster elite speed and guys who knew how to win. You can mention Barkley. but Hearns was ready to knock him out.. he didn't take Barkley seriously like Marvin didn't take Duran seriously.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Benitez gets enough credit.
> 
> But Duran was never the bull at 154 or above he was at 147 and below.
> That's something you keep forgetting, Duran's physical decline above 147 was very clear.


 And when Duran wins he should get credit, but when he loses he was never what he was at 135, where his competition was not the Hearns,Leonard,Benitez level. He did not fight that level at lightweight. Duran fought until 2001. He did not decline, he could not catch Ray or deal with his speed or Benitez.. or Hearns for that matter.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Benitez gets enough credit.
> 
> But Duran was never the bull at 154 or above he was at 147 and below.
> That's something you keep forgetting, Duran's physical decline above 147 was very clear.


I cannot say Duran was too great because he beat Ray on Ray's decision to fight.. Ray admits to it. Ray does a rematch and wins easily. and the 3rd fight again outboxed Roberto easily.. Where are the real elite wins. Barkley and Moore?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> With Duran he lost to all the greats and did well against Moore and Barkley.. Seems like he couldn't deal with the faster elite speed and guys who knew how to win. You can mention Barkley. but Hearns was ready to knock him out.. he didn't take Barkley seriously like Marvin didn't take Duran seriously.


Yes, Hearns didn't take Barkley seriously so it's ok he lost and doesn't mean shit because he fought the wrong fight.

But Duran not training properly despite documented motivation problems and blowing up in weight between fights is just an excuse to hide the fact that he couldn't deal with speed.

And I've now heard 2 different excuses why Hagler looked lacklustre against Duran. (although excuses were from different posters)
Mag says it's because Duran wasn't taken seriously.
And from an other poster I've heard that Hagler was too fearful of Duran after the destruction of Moore and Cuevas.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> And when Duran wins he should get credit, but when he loses he was never what he was at 135, where his competition was not the Hearns,Leonard,Benitez level. He did not fight that level at lightweight. Duran fought until 2001. He did not decline, he could not catch Ray or deal with his speed or Benitez.. or Hearns for that matter.


James Toney fought till 2017 was he in his prime against Peter in 2007?

If you claim Duran didn't decline from 147 to 154, then you're either blind or just very biased.
No decline from 135 to 147 is a perfectly valid claim, but at 154 Duran was physically clearly not the same man.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Yes, Hearns didn't take Barkley seriously so it's ok he lost and doesn't mean shit because he fought the wrong fight.
> 
> But Duran not training properly despite documented motivation problems and blowing up in weight between fights is just an excuse to hide the fact that he couldn't deal with speed.
> 
> ...


Barkley was just another defense. He had fought Olajide. I found out Tommy might fight him one day later, which was early April of 1988. I think the fact Duran lost easily to Leonard,Benitez and Hearns says something. They were elite and he lost to all of them, and he beat Moore and Barkley to win his titles, guys who were more beatable. The only thing people say is, well Barkley beat Hearns, yeah but Duran did not beat Hearns in a rematch. Duran beat Moore, and Moore beat Benitez with an ankle injury, which still Duran never beat Benitez. Duran not training properly? Benitez never did either and he beat Duran easily over 15 rounds. As I stated years ago. Duran fights the best guys he will ever fight Leonard,Benitez, Hearns and he doesn't train well, and yet he fights lesser guys and he trains? Sounds like he knew he would not beat the elite guys and wanted an excuse. I mean really. Doesn't it? No Hagler did not take Duran too seriously. and he admits wanting to impress Duran with boxing and speed. Then he realized too many rounds were going away.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> James Toney fought till 2017 was he in his prime against Peter in 2007?
> 
> If you claim Duran didn't decline from 147 to 154, then you're either blind or just very biased.
> No decline from 135 to 147 is a perfectly valid claim, but at 154 Duran was physically clearly not the same man.


When did Toney win his last title and what is the criteria for someone beating Toney? Duran is given credit for beating Moore and Barkley. but when he lost in those same years (Hearns beat Duran half a decade before the Duran/Barkley fight and a weight division below). Duran fans want to give Duran credit for his wins at 160 or 154 or 147, but when he loses say he was not good at those weights. How can that be logical.


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

Love both, but... Robearto(e) DOOOORAN!

The Most Skilled Ever.

#MSE > #TBE



Bogotazo said:


> "Hide behind the shoulder and hope for the best" :rofl @V-2


:rofl

As much as I'd love to contribute to this wonderful topic for the 250th time, it'll just be all:










And I'd end up becoming a regular poster again for at least a couple weeks off the adrenaline of getting engaged. Nobody wants that. Now, if anyone is interested in discussing the curvature of spacetime, black holes, or measuring the energy and wavelength of photons and such...


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

V-2 said:


> Love both, but... Robearto(e) DOOOORAN!
> 
> The Most Skilled Ever.
> 
> ...


I have posted on this topic for the last 10 years going back to ESB. And my points are the same ,since history cannot change..


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

anyone who want to see my comment on Duran just look up the same name on ESB and MAG1965 and the same points 10 years ago. I have not changed in that.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

We actually have intelligent posters here saying Dooran's loss to Hagler is better than Ray's win. Ray was a career Welterweight and hadn't fought a professional boxing match in 3 years.

The revisionist history is absolutely mindboggling. Astounding.

'Duranism'.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> We actually have intelligent posters here saying Dooran's loss to Hagler is better than Ray's win. Ray was a career Welterweight and hadn't fought a professional boxing match in 3 years.
> 
> The revionist history is absolutely mindboggling. Astounding.
> 
> 'Duranism'.


no loss is worth a win, and Duran did lose that fight. Roldan fought Hagler months later and gave Hagler a tougher time than Duran did, just didn't go the distance, but Roldan was tough. Hagler needed motivation at this point in his career. Hearns made a mistake of talking to Hagler and arguing with him and getting Marvin mad. Although they went on a 21 city tour something like that, and they got on each other's nerves. So by the time the fight came up they were ready to brawl. and that favored Marvin. I guess the fight was great and made the fab 4 era much more remembered than it would have been otherwise.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> no loss is worth a win, and Duran did lose that fight. Roldan fought Hagler months later and gave Hagler a tougher time than Duran did, just didn't go the distance, but Roldan was tough. Hagler needed motivation at this point in his career. Hearns made a mistake of talking to Hagler and arguing with him and getting Marvin mad. Although they went on a 21 city tour something like that, and they got on each other's nerves. So by the time the fight came up they were ready to brawl. and that favored Marvin. I guess the fight was great and made the fab 4 era much more remembered than it would have been otherwise.


Even if Dooran beat Hagler, it wouldn't have been as impressive as Ray's win. Dyna is being disingenuous. Ray having a few organised sparring matches behind closed doors, with head gear on, is world's away from actually competing. Ray hadn't stepped fought in a competitive boxing match in 3 years. There is no way anybody should be coming out of a 3 year retirement to defeat one of the best fighters in the world just as Ray did in 85. Ray wasn't just woefully inactive he was naturally the smaller guy. A career Welterweight. I pity any poster that cannot fully appreciate Ray achievements. It's just sad.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Ray knew when to fight him and Hagler had only one fight in two years to that point, but Ray had a nice win. And Hagler again came out relaxed and right handed. Giving Ray the momentum. Where was the Hagler who fought Hearns? I always thought that Hearns performance was a once in a lifetime effort. It was too much to duplicate, which is why he didn't want to fight Hearns again. He knew it would be different in the rematch.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> When did Toney win his last title and what is the criteria for someone beating Toney? Duran is given credit for beating Moore and Barkley. but when he lost in those same years (Hearns beat Duran half a decade before the Duran/Barkley fight and a weight division below). Duran fans want to give Duran credit for his wins at 160 or 154 or 147, but when he loses say he was not good at those weights. How can that be logical.


The year before facing Peter, Toney was the WBA and IBA champ.
And right before Peter he fought the WBC champ to a draw.

Now you know that Toney was a title holder and held a WBC champion to a draw, do you think he was still near his 160/168 prime?


MAG1965 said:


> Duran fans want to give Duran credit for his wins at 160 or 154 or 147, but when he loses say he was not good at those weights. How can that be logical.


He was past his best at those weights, physical decline. He was still good but clearly not close to what he once was.(at 154+)
Nobody says he was no longer a good fighter, what is being said is that he was a declined fighter.

If you compare Duran at 147 with Duran at 154 or 160 the physical decline should be very clear, even a blind man should be able to see that.

What is being said that those losses shouldn't detract from Duran's legacy because Duran was already far past his best.
He was still good, but far past his best. Losing to Kirkland Laing is in no way an indicator of what Duran was in his prime.
And it doesn't mean that his great wins haven't happened, if you lose way past your best it doesn't detract from your legacy.



MAG1965 said:


> Duran fans want to give Duran credit for his wins at 160 or 154 or 147, but when he loses say he was not good at those weights. How can that be logical.


Or imagine this.

Imagine if Vasyl Lomachenko calls Golovkin a bitch and decided to fight Ward at 175.
If Ward slaps him into erectile dysfunction, does that detract from what Vasyl has done before fighting Ward?
I don't think Ward should get credit if he beats Vasyl because that's to be expected from a SMW fighting a FW/SFW
But if Vasyl beats Ward that would be the most amazing victory of all time.

Ward beating Vasyl would simply not be a win close as good as Vasyl beating Ward.

You've also made the argument in the past that because Duran kept on fighting for 2 more decades that he was somehow still near his prime around the time he fought Hagler.
You don't think fighters fight way past their best?

Was Roy Jones in his prime against Calzaghe because he fought a decade later against some bum?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Even if Dooran beat Hagler, it wouldn't have been as impressive as Ray's win. Dyna is being disingenuous. Ray having a few organised sparring matches behind closed doors, with head gear on, is world's away from actually competing. Ray hadn't stepped fought in a competitive boxing match in 3 years. There is no way anybody should be coming out of a 3 year retirement to defeat one of the best fighters in the world just as Ray did in 85. Ray wasn't just woefully inactive he was naturally the smaller guy. A career Welterweight. I pity any poster that cannot fully appreciate Ray achievements. It's just sad.


Ray was preparing without head gear.

Leonard had a very long training camp and did full 12 round fights without head gear and small gloves.

And 38 year old soft Duran beating a prime Hagler would have been more amazing than past-prime Leonard beating a past prime Hagler.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Ray knew when to fight him and Hagler had only one fight in two years to that point, but Ray had a nice win. And Hagler again came out relaxed and right handed. Giving Ray the momentum. Where was the Hagler who fought Hearns? I always thought that Hearns performance was a once in a lifetime effort. It was too much to duplicate, which is why he didn't want to fight Hearns again. He knew it would be different in the rematch.


No, you've got a case of the Duranism too. There was never an ideal time for a retired blown up Welterweight to fight a Middleweight champion who hadn't lost for, what, 11 years? There was no ideal time for that to take place. How many sports writers gave Ray a prayer of even lasting the distance let alone winning the fight prior to the opening bell?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> Ray was preparing without head gear.
> 
> Leonard had a very long training camp and did full 12 round fights without head gear and small gloves.
> 
> And 38 year old soft Duran beating a prime Hagler would have been more amazing than past-prime Leonard beating a past prime Hagler.


'Duranism'.

Leonard could have had a 5 year training camp, that still doesn't adequately prepare you for competition when you haven't fought a competitive round of boxing in 3 years.

Dooran lost to Hagler, Ray beat him. To spin that loss as more impressive than a win very few people predicted is pure delusion.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> The year before facing Peter, Toney was the WBA and IBA champ.
> And right before Peter he fought the WBC champ to a draw.
> 
> Now you know that Toney was a title holder and held a WBC champion to a draw, do you think he was still near his 160/168 prime?
> ...


I don' see what makes Duran the best ever or near it. If you say his years 147 and above meant nothing because he was past his prime, he has lightweight, and there was not elite competition there. So how can he be considered greatest ever. and if you count above 147 and selectively pick what fights make him look better, you still have to say he lost to all the elite guys he fought. Either way. The fight against Wilfred was ignored.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I don' see what makes Duran the best ever or near it. If you say his years 147 and above meant nothing because he was past his prime, he has lightweight, and there was not elite competition there. So how can he be considered greatest ever. and if you count above 147 and selectively pick what fights make him look better, you still have to say he lost to all the elite guys he fought. Either way. The fight against Wilfred was ignored.


Duranites basically see anything above 135lbs as a bonus, so they count the wins and dismiss the losses. It's intellectually bankrupt.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I don' see what makes Duran the best ever or near it. If you say his years 147 and above meant nothing because he was past his prime, he has lightweight, and there was not elite competition there. So how can he be considered greatest ever. and if you count above 147 and selectively pick what fights make him look better, you still have to say he lost to all the elite guys he fought. Either way. The fight against Wilfred was ignored.


Wilfred boxed Dooran's ears off no problems. It was an easy night's work for him.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Who beat better fighters? Ray
Who beat them more convincingly? Ray
Who won the H2H? Ray

Who is greater? Dooran.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I don' see what makes Duran the best ever or near it. If you say his years 147 and above meant nothing because he was past his prime, he has lightweight, and there was not elite competition there. So how can he be considered greatest ever. and if you count above 147 and selectively pick what fights make him look better, you still have to say he lost to all the elite guys he fought. Either way. The fight against Wilfred was ignored.


I said 154 and above, not 147 and above.

Who is considering him the greatest ever?

Nice straw men.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Who beat better fighters? Ray
> Who beat them more convincingly? Ray
> Who won the H2H? Ray
> 
> Who is greater? Dooran.


Who was the smaller man? Duran.

Does Carlos Monzon beating Jose Napoles automatically mean that he is greater than Napoles?
Or is it simply because Napoles was too small and got bulldozed?
Even had Napoles fought 5 times at middleweight and lost 5 times detract from the legacy he had made beforehand?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

And not training properly gave Wilfred a prime of like maybe 4 years at the top before he was completely washed up.

Should I consider Benitez's losses to subpar opposition as that he was somehow not elite?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> And not training properly gave Wilfred a prime of like maybe 4 years at the top before he was completely washed up.
> 
> Should I consider Benitez's losses to subpar opposition as that he was somehow not elite?


You're resorting to strawman arguments now.

Dooran was absolutely elite. Dooran was absolutely an ATG, but I don't think he was as great as Ray for the reasons that I've explained. You want to dismiss every loss Duran had north of 135lbs and it's unjustifiable. If he was good enough to beat Ray in the first fight, he doesn't become shot a couple of months later. Sorry. That's not how it works.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Duran fought Leonard 8 years after his first title fight.

How many fighters are still primed 10 years after their first title?
Benitez was 10 years after his first title.
Hagler 11 and Hearns 12.

Was Hearns prime when he fought Barkley for the second time?

Hagler's title reign didn't even last 7 years.

Is it so absurd to claim that Duran was past his best at any weight above 147?

Is Roman Gonzales still in his prime?
He should have had the win against Wisaksil Wangek but it's clear he's no longer at his best.

How many fighters remain at the top for 10 years and not be past it after their first decade?
Wilfred 10 years after his first title fight had become a punch bag.

Can you name me all those fighters who were at their prime for 10 years while moving up?
Or is Duran the only man who was in his prime for that long.

In the same timespan Roy Jones Jr went from beating up Hopkins with just one arm to gassing against Tarver in a disputed decision.
The two years after that he lost thrice and was KTFO twice.

Watch Terry Norris - Leonard if you want to know what 12 years did to Ray.

12 title defences, unbeaten at lightweight, first title in 1972 but somehow he wasn't past his best in 1982


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> You're resorting to strawman arguments now.
> 
> Dooran was absolutely elite. Dooran was absolutely an ATG, but I don't think he was as great as Ray for the reasons that I've explained. You want to dismiss every loss Duran had north of 135lbs and it's unjustifiable. If he was good enough to beat Ray in the first fight, he doesn't become shot a couple of months later. Sorry. That's not how it works.


Where did I claim he was shot against Leonard.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

A terrible premise in which to build your argument. Your logic would suggest that being prime is some kind of exact science. Career trajectories vary, fighter's bodies are rarely the same and they typically do not age at exactly the same rate. 

I haven't suggested Duran was in his prime for the Benitez loss, or even the Hearns loss. I'm simply arguing that being past your physical peak does not then negate losses. He must be held accountable for them, just as every other fighter that ever lived is held accountable for their losses. We aren't talking about Camacho or Vinny Paz, or Joppy, we're talking losses he suffered a year or two after his career best performance in one of the greatest wins in the history of the sport. Getting sparked out by Hearns does count against him. Getting woefully outboxed in the manner he did against Benitez does count against him. Quitting against Ray Leonard does count against him. The fact Dooran would put on great performances against good opposition long after these losses is evidence enough to suggest that Dooran was far from a shot item. Shot fighters are exempt from criticism, past prime fighters are not. And the manner in which he lost a lot of his past prime fights, in horribly one sided affairs, suggests to me that things would not have been different if Dooran was prime anyway.

Dooran was a good little fighter but Ray was more talented and proved it not only against Dooran himself, but in winning efforts against fighters that either sparked Dooran out with a single shot or boxed his ears off for 15 rounds. The facts are the facts, everything else is excuse making.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> A terrible premise in which to build your argument. Your logic would suggest that being prime is some kind of exact science. Career trajectories vary, fighter's bodies are rarely the same and they typically do not age at exactly the same rate.
> 
> I haven't suggested Duran was in his prime for the Benitez loss, or even the Hearns loss. I'm simply arguing that being past your physical peak does not then negate losses. He must be held accountable for them, just as every other fighter that ever lived is held accountable for their losses. We aren't talking about Camacho or Vinny Paz, or Joppy, we're talking losses he suffered a year or two after his career best performance in one of the greatest wins in the history of the sport. Getting sparked out by Hearns does count against him. Getting woefully outboxed in the manner he did against Benitez does count against him. Quitting against Ray Leonard does count against him. The fact Dooran would put on great performances against good opposition long after these losses is evidence enough to suggest that Dooran was far from a shot item. Shot fighters are exempt from criticism, past prime fighters are not. And the manner in which he lost a lot of his past prime fights, in horribly one sided affairs, suggests to me that things would not have been different if Dooran was prime anyway.
> 
> Dooran was a good little fighter but Ray was more talented and proved it not only against Dooran himself, but in winning efforts against fighters that either sparked Dooran out with a single shot or boxed his ears off for 15 rounds. The facts are the facts, everything else is excuse making.


At 154 those great performances were rather rare.

You can look at most of his 154 fights and conclude that he was clearly past it compared to 147.
Massive struggles against Nino Gonzales, looking shot against Jimmy Batten, Kirkland Laing.

He looked good exactly 4 times above 147.
7 times if you include Pazianza, Camacho and Jorge Castro.

He was clearly past it and already had performances where looked shot/borderline shot before Hagler (Jimmy Batten)

Ray Leonard was a bigger man who fared better against other bigger men than Duran.

This is a P4P discussion so Duran's size is an issue here.
Quitting against Leonard counts because he was in a competitive fight in a weightclass he was clearly great it.
154 and above he was different, sometimes he'd still pull out a great performance.

But more often than not he looked bloated and lethargic.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Gonna need more than 20 votes here.


----------



## Ivan Drago (Jun 3, 2013)

For me, in a P4P sense, it has to be Duran.

Whilst Duran has a monster resume spanning 5 decades in as many weight classes I'd probably say Leonard's collection of top wins is slightly better than Duran's. _Slightly_. However, Duran has the single greatest win of the two in Leonard I.

Both absolute beasts on the eye test which admittedly I value less then resume.

Duran was the smaller man and his achievements at least equal Leonard's, if not surpass.

It's so fucking tough, to be 100% confident I'd have to revisit some fights I've skipped over or only caught once. I love what you're doing here Bogo.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> At 154 those great performances were rather rare.
> 
> You can look at most of his 154 fights and conclude that he was clearly past it compared to 147.
> Massive struggles against Nino Gonzales, looking shot against Jimmy Batten, Kirkland Laing.


Roberto Duran was not a prime fighter in '82, but he was still more than capable of beating Kirkland Laing and giving Wilfred Benitez a competitive fight. This is a very easy conclusion to come to once you consider that he was able to move up to Middleweight in '83 and give Marvin Hagler one of his toughest title defences. Indeed, Duran's woeful displays had a lot more to do with his depleting work ethic, out of ring habits and a lack of motivation. These are not excuses however and his legacy should suffer as a result. Just as Larry Holmes should be held accountable for losing to Michael Spinks, and how Marco Antonio Barrera should be held accountable for losing to Juan Manuel Marquez, Roberto Duran also needs to be held to account for losing to Wilfred Benitez. It was a pathetic display.



> He was clearly past it and already had performances where looked shot/borderline shot before Hagler (Jimmy Batten)


I can pin point a good number of really poor performances down at 135lbs against a similar level of opposition. Does it mean that Roberto Duran was past his prime, or is it more likely to mean that sometimes he just didn't turn up due to a weakness of character?



> Ray Leonard was a bigger man who fared better against other bigger men than Duran.


Ray Leonard's size does not explain why he has able to put on one of the best boxing displays ever seen in a professional ring against Wilfred Benitez, one of the most well respected and accomplished pure boxers the sport has ever produced. I doubt you'll find too many people denying that Ray was the naturally bigger guy but we are not talking gargantuan proportions here. The disparity in size certainly wasn't too big of a deal in Montreal, and Dooran fared quite well against the much bigger Marvin Hagler and Iran Barkley. Nah, it's short-sighted to suggest that the primary reason Leonard fared better against common opponents is due to his size. There are many variables to consider, including technical ability and strength of character.



> This is a P4P discussion so Duran's size is an issue here.


It's an issue. It isn't the issue.



> Quitting against Leonard counts because he was in a competitive fight in a weightclass he was clearly great it.


Right, so if Dooran isn't competitive then we don't count it? What other fighters in history are afforded this luxury?



> 154 and above he was different, sometimes he'd still pull out a great performance.


Indeed, he often did pull out a great performance, so what does that tell you? It tells you that his lesser performances had a lot more to do with mentality and work ethic than it did physical decline. Dooran is well within his rights to fuck about in training camp and give 60 percent on fight night but some of us are going to remember it when it comes to discussions such as these. Being a great fighter isn't all about natural ability and intangibles, it's about consistently turning up when the world is watching. I won't make allowances for Dooran.



> But more often than not he looked bloated and lethargic.


He should have trained properly.


----------



## oldjoe (Jun 25, 2017)

Duran was post-prime from the moment he beat Leonard. That was his mountain. He made more money in that one fight than his entire career to date. Him waving off the second fight should tell you all you need to know, his mindset had changed. Everyone's experienced it. _"I won't do another set / round today. That'll do."_ You walk away.

He then kinda took the piss, but boxing keeps rewarding those who were once great & popular... why they stick around so long.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

oldjoe said:


> Duran was post-prime from the moment he beat Leonard. That was his mountain. He made more money in that one fight than his entire career to date. Him waving off the second fight should tell you all you need to know, his mindset had changed. Everyone's experienced it. _"I won't do another set / round today. That'll do."_ You walk away.
> 
> He then kinda took the piss, but boxing keeps rewarding those who were once great & popular... why they stick around so long.


How fucking convenient.

And that's just it, Dooran didn't walk away. You guys pretend he did because it suits your sycophantic Dooran agenda, but he stayed around long enough to fight better fighters than himself. He should have left but he didn't


----------



## thegee (Feb 10, 2017)

@pedders, The record books says that Leonard beat Hagler, But most boxing fans firmly believe that he did"nt. one judge , actually gave it to Leonard 118-110, which fight was he watching? One gave it to Hagler 115-113, and the third judge gave it to Leonard 115-113. The Hagler camp turned down Harry Gibbs as the referee, because they thought he would be biased, in fact after watching the fight Harry gave the verdict to Hagler! Boxing is subjective, but I have watched the fight on numerous occasions and there is only one winner Marvellous Marvin,Regards Mervyn The Gee


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Leonard wasn't just younger and bigger, he was more talented. That's what allowed him to completely outbox Benitez whilst Dooran looked like he'd never boxed before when he fought the Puerto Rican.
> 
> Doooooran wouldn't even embrace Benitez after the schooling. Embarrassing.


Leonard never completely outboxed Benitez, he was losing the fightgoing into the last few rounds. Pulled on great in those few rounds but thats a massive iver statement. In the early rounds Benitez was makingRay look like a wild slugger.

Thats not a diss on Ray either, Benitez was just that good when he boxed athis best.


----------



## oldjoe (Jun 25, 2017)

Pedderrs said:


> How fucking convenient.
> 
> And that's just it, Dooran didn't walk away. You guys pretend he did because it suits your sycophantic Dooran agenda, but he stayed around long enough to fight better fighters than himself. He should have left but he didn't


Woah.

I voted Leonard so nothing convienent about my opinion on his prime (mentality anyway.)


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Leonard never completely outboxed Benitez, he was losing the fightgoing into the last few rounds. Pulled on great in those few rounds but thats a massive iver statement. In the early rounds Benitez was makingRay look like a wild slugger.
> 
> Thats not a diss on Ray either, Benitez was just that good when he boxed athis best.












http://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/wilfred-benitez-vs-sugar-ray-leonard

This is a site where anyone can submit their scorecards. 9 have been submitted for the Leonard-Benitez fight.

6 had Leonard up 138-127.

1 had Leonard up 138-128

Speechless. Just...speechless that someone thought Benitez was winning at any point.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

oldjoe said:


> Woah.
> 
> I voted Leonard so nothing convienent about my opinion on his prime (mentality anyway.)


Apologies buddy.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

thegee said:


> @pedders, The record books says that Leonard beat Hagler, But most boxing fans firmly believe that he did"nt. one judge , actually gave it to Leonard 118-110, which fight was he watching? One gave it to Hagler 115-113, and the third judge gave it to Leonard 115-113. The Hagler camp turned down Harry Gibbs as the referee, because they thought he would be biased, in fact after watching the fight Harry gave the verdict to Hagler! Boxing is subjective, but I have watched the fight on numerous occasions and there is only one winner Marvellous Marvin,Regards Mervyn The Gee


I've scored it for Ray every time.

What statistics and sources do you cite to conclude that 'most boxing fans' firmly believe he lost?

In any event, the scorecards are largely irrelevant. It was a monumental achievement just to see the final bell that night. A truly phenomenal performance by Ray.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

@PityTheFool Tell them the truth, man.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

This thread.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

I think how you treat wins and losses also matters in this context. I consider losses more like missed opportunities to add to your win resume, but I don't punish fighters for them. If you fail to win a medal one year but win it the next year, the failed attempt doesn't subtract from the accomplishment. Not everyone sees it like that but I think punishing fighters for losses rewards being risk averse and distorts who is more accomplished. Any argument involving Floyd often turned into "well he lost". We should focus on the wins more IMO.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I think how you treat wins and losses also matters in this context. I consider losses more like missed opportunities to add to your win resume, but I don't punish fighters for them. If you fail to win a medal one year but win it the next year, the failed attempt doesn't subtract from the accomplishment. Not everyone sees it like that but I think punishing fighters for losses rewards being risk averse and distorts who is more accomplished. Any argument involving Floyd often turned into "well he lost". We should focus on the wins more IMO.


Wins and losses should both be taken into account when discussing a fighter's all time standing.

It's not either or.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Wins and losses should both be taken into account when discussing a fighter's all time standing.
> 
> It's not either or.


But what do you mean by "take into account"? When talking about common opponents, sure. But I don't "subtract" from Barrera's win column, for example, because he lost to Junior Jones. Unless comparing him to someone who beat Junior Jones or their equivalent. I guess all I'm saying is someone's best wins shouldn't be diminished by unrelated losses.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> But what do you mean by "take into account"? When talking about common opponents, sure. But I don't "subtract" from Barrera's win column, for example, because he lost to Junior Jones. Unless comparing him to someone who beat Junior Jones or their equivalent. I guess all I'm saying is someone's best wins shouldn't be diminished by unrelated losses.


I agree with you.

Duran's losses to Benitez, Hearns and Hagler are absolutely relevant here because he is being compared to a man that defeated all three, stopping two of them.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chacal said:


> Duran 100%. It's a shame some people will disagree. He is the only correct answer here.


Why?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chacal said:


> Duran dominated and cleaned up lightweight for the prime of his career. It'd be easy for some to look at his losses in his career and say Leonard, but Duran beat Leonard, Moore, Barkley and loads of other really good fighters and also looked better against Hagler than Leonard did all while past prime.


He looked better against Hagler than Leonard coming off a three year lay off when he was already way past prime?
So much so that Duran shouted to Ray "You beat this guy"
So Leonard beats Hagler at a weight he's never fought at against the 7 year undisputed champion (who refused to fight Ray at 154) but Duran looked better?
I like you Chacal so I'll be more polite than you deserve here.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Why?


Duran's loss to Hagler is better than Ray's win, Pity.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> The younger, bigger Leonard beat guys past prime Duran lost to, fair play, but let's not forget 45 yo Duran was robbed blind against Comacho. A year later Comacho bitch slapped Leonard.
> 
> Competative at world level for 5 decades, man. Guy was a freak.
> 
> Even Ray admits Duran's greater.


Utter shite.Leonard was past prime every fight after 1982 and fought Camacho with a torn calf because he lifted weights for the first time in training and if you watch the fight he can clearly not get his punches off.
Try punching with a calf strain never mind a tear and buy that argument is basically you saying that Camacho was better than Leonard.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Duran's loss to Hagler is better than Ray's win, Pity.


Of course it was.Duran's loss to Hearns was also better than Ray's win over Duran.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> That loss is worth more than a lot of wins. If Jorge Linares went up and gave Golovkin a close fight his stock would increase tremendously. Worth a mention, as things usually are with Duran.
> 
> No words.


I agree.Leonard's loss to Duran is worth more than several wins some guys have.
But of course,we all know Duran punched Fuck out of Ray for 15 solid rounds.It's a travesty that the actual fight destroys the revisionism.
And the fact that Duran's quit job happened before most of the people who rewrite history were born has nothing to do with anything,especially those who argue that Ray never gave him a quick rematch even though his name was dirt and many at the time accused Duran of a fix.
Not to mention Ray Arcel who disowned him but what the fuck would he know?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Ray Leonard as preparation was having fights without headgear behind closed doors, they were as close to pro fights as they got.
> 
> It wasn't like Henry Maske - Virgil Hill 2 where Maske literally came out of a 10 year retirement did some sparring and beat a still decent Hill.


Yeah,he was the one with no headgear and sparring gloves whilst the others wore 10's and 8's with headgear.
So it's about as close to pro fights as you'll get.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Ray was preparing without head gear.
> 
> Leonard had a very long training camp and did full 12 round fights without head gear and small gloves.
> 
> And 38 year old soft Duran beating a prime Hagler would have been more amazing than past-prime Leonard beating a past prime Hagler.


Leonard wore bigger gloves for most of those spars against 8's and 10's.
So if the others had headgear on with smaller gloves,that's pretty much a hidden career of proper fights?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

thegee said:


> @pedders, The record books says that Leonard beat Hagler, But most boxing fans firmly believe that he did"nt. one judge , actually gave it to Leonard 118-110, which fight was he watching? One gave it to Hagler 115-113, and the third judge gave it to Leonard 115-113. The Hagler camp turned down Harry Gibbs as the referee, because they thought he would be biased, in fact after watching the fight Harry gave the verdict to Hagler! Boxing is subjective, but I have watched the fight on numerous occasions and there is only one winner Marvellous Marvin,Regards Mervyn The Gee


Most boxing fans?
How many of these fans did you poll for that one Merv?
A million? Three million?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> Duran's losses to Benitez, Hearns and Hagler are absolutely relevant here because he is being compared to a man that defeated all three, stopping two of them.


Sorry but they're not relevant at all because it's Duran we're talking about.
A close but still clear (as in not debatable) loss to Hagler is better than a close but clear win over the same fighter.
A horrendous KO from Hearns is better than a come from behind stoppage in one of the greatest comebacks ever in a fight.
A great win over Benitez is no use against a clear loss.
Why?
Because it's the greatest beneficiary of boxing revisionism ever.
The only thing missing is that Duran at least had the balls to fight Kirkland.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> Utter shite.Leonard was past prime every fight after 1982 and fought Camacho with a torn calf because he lifted weights for the first time in training and if you watch the fight he can clearly not get his punches off.
> Try punching with a calf strain never mind a tear and buy that argument is basically you saying that Camacho was better than Leonard.


Mate, that sounds like something a Doooran fan would write :lol:

Try fighting with the shit's :conf


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> http://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/wilfred-benitez-vs-sugar-ray-leonard
> 
> This is a site where anyone can submit their scorecards. 9 have been submitted for the Leonard-Benitez fight.
> 
> ...


10 scores by who exactly?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)




----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> Mate, that sounds like something a Doooran fan would write :lol:
> 
> Try fighting with the shit's :conf


I suppose.That wasn't really fair on Duran anyway.
I mean why should anyone expect the undisputed welterweight champion of the world with a rematch clause be expected to stay in shape?
I mean it's not like Ray,where years off and a raging Coke habit added to a career ending injury (which was the diagnosis) should get any credit for beating Hagler under those circumstances when poor Duran had a sore tummy and had his Noo Yawk party disturbed by that pesky cherry picker Leonard making him the biggest disgrace of post WWII boxing eh no?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> Mate, that sounds like something a Doooran fan would write :lol:
> 
> Try fighting with the shit's :conf


And the calf tear was true,but I only used it because to bring up Camacho is like bringing up Spinks beating Ali.
Ray should have retired after Hagler and the argument would still be the same here.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chacal said:


> He was ahead after 12 and looked considerably better than Leonard did in that fight against a better version of Hagler.


I take back the McGrory death stare mate.
That's actually a magnificent post.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Ray was preparing without head gear.
> 
> Leonard had a very long training camp and did full 12 round fights without head gear and small gloves.
> 
> And 38 year old soft Duran beating a prime Hagler would have been more amazing than past-prime Leonard beating a past prime Hagler.


So it's just a big old shame that soft Duran never won then isn't it?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

oldjoe said:


> Duran was post-prime from the moment he beat Leonard. That was his mountain. He made more money in that one fight than his entire career to date. Him waving off the second fight should tell you all you need to know, his mindset had changed. Everyone's experienced it. _"I won't do another set / round today. That'll do."_ You walk away.
> 
> He then kinda took the piss, but boxing keeps rewarding those who were once great & popular... why they stick around so long.


So the fact that he was considered the biggest disgrace in boxing after quitting and was accused of fixing the fight amongst other things is ok because he beat Leonard in Montreal in a much closer fight than revisionist history suggests?
I'm guessing oldjoe is a bit of a misnomer because if you were around when he quit I suspect you might view things a little differently.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

@PityTheFool

Whatever, can't handle the macho


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> @PityTheFool
> 
> Whatever, can't handle the macho


Of course.Camacho is clearly better then both.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> Of course.Camacho is clearly better then both.


Better than both.

More alpha than all


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

PityTheFool said:


>


In (un)fairness, Es Are El is the P4P most hated on fighter in the history of boxing. The majority of Dooran and Hagler fans are insufferable morons, and that's particularly unfortunate in regards to the former. I rate the Hearns and Benitez wins higher on his CV than either Hagler or Dooran anyway, if not partially because of all the incessant crying. Hearnz was drained, Benitez didn't train, Hagler was shot (yet people still claim he won?) and Robearto(e) ate all the pies. AD NAUSEAM.

It's just a pity they had to be 32-0, 38-0, 62-2 and 72-1 at the times he fought them with three of them P4P #1 and another in the top five per KO Magazine polls at the time. Also went up to 154 and dethroned the 36-0 lineal champ for a *tune up* prior to Hearns. Actually never looked sharper offensively IMO. Seriously, give the man his fucking due. Do other Dooran fans not see the profound error in their logic by detracting from this man's achievements? He's a Top 10 ATG, not 15-20. Nobody has a better five wins than that.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> I suppose.That wasn't really fair on Duran anyway.
> I mean why should anyone expect the undisputed welterweight champion of the world with a rematch clause be expected to stay in shape?
> I mean it's not like Ray,where years off and a raging Coke habit added to a career ending injury (which was the diagnosis) should get any credit for beating Hagler under those circumstances when poor Duran had a sore tummy and had his Noo Yawk party disturbed by that pesky cherry picker Leonard making him the biggest disgrace of post WWII boxing eh no?


I've never seriously defended Duran for No Mas. He fucked up. Simple as that. I've already gave you my serious thought's on that one months back with yourself and V-2. Think Pedd's was present as well.

I knew about Leonard's coke habit but not the injury, and I've never discredited Leonard's win over Hagler. You're venting your frustration on the wrong guy here, gadgie :lol:

I love Leonard, man :conf


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

V-2 said:


> In (un)fairness, Es Are El is the P4P most hated on fighter in the history of boxing. The majority of Dooran and Hagler fans are insufferable morons, and that's particularly unfortunate in regards to the former. I rate the Hearns and Benitez wins higher on his CV than either Hagler or Dooran anyway, if not partially because of all the incessant crying. Hearnz was drained, Benitez didn't train, Hagler was shot (yet people still claim he won?) and Robearto(e) ate all the pies. AD NAUSEAM.
> 
> It's just a pity they had to be 32-0, 38-0, 62-2 and 72-1 at the times he fought them with three of them P4P #1 and another in the top five per KO Magazine polls at the time. Also went up to 154 and dethroned the 36-0 lineal champ for a *tune up* prior to Hearns. Actually never looked sharper offensively IMO. Seriously, give the man his fucking due. Do other Dooran fans not see the profound error in their logic by detracting from this man's achievements? He's a Top 10 ATG, not 15-20. Nobody has a better five wins than that.


Fuck outta here with your intelligent common sense buddy.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> I've never seriously defended Duran for No Mas. He fucked up. Simple as that. I've already gave you my serious thought's on that one months back with yourself and V-2. Think Pedd's was present as well.
> 
> I knew about Leonard's coke habit but not the injury, and I've never discredited Leonard's win over Hagler. You're venting your frustration on the wrong guy here, gadgie :lol:
> 
> I love Leonard, man :conf


And I love you ya doss cunt!


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Better than both.
> 
> More alpha than all


Yip.His toe to toe duels after Rosario are all the proof you need of that.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> And I love you ya doss cunt!


Braw :good:lol:


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

rossco said:


> I love Leonard, man :conf


Montreal is the greatest single W in boxing history (IMO). SRL has a lot to do with that.



PityTheFool said:


> Fuck outta here with your intelligent common sense buddy.


I have fun with it and Dooran my boy, but you know I can get real with the shit.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

V-2 said:


> Montreal is the greatest single W in boxing history (IMO). SRL has a lot to do with that.
> 
> I have fun with it and Dooran my boy, but you know I can get real with the shit.


No laughing matter bra


----------



## thegee (Feb 10, 2017)

@PityTheFool, actually it was ten million, but seriously, the majority of British commentators thought that Hagler had won, and the American commentators were split 50-50, In the USA verdicts are mostly given to the aggressor in the fight and in this fight there was only one aggressor, and it was"nt Sugar. During the fight he held 30times and was not warned once by the referee, I can only go on talking to the people who watched the fight and there were a lot ( not ten million), and I did not know anyone who thought that Leonard had won, again it is a matter of opinion, and mine is that Marvellous Marvin won the fight. Regards Mervyn The Gee


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

V-2 said:


> In (un)fairness, Es Are El is the P4P most hated on fighter in the history of boxing. The majority of Dooran and Hagler fans are insufferable morons, and that's particularly unfortunate in regards to the former. I rate the Hearns and Benitez wins higher on his CV than either Hagler or Dooran anyway, if not partially because of all the incessant crying. Hearnz was drained, Benitez didn't train, Hagler was shot (yet people still claim he won?) and Robearto(e) ate all the pies. AD NAUSEAM.
> 
> It's just a pity they had to be 32-0, 38-0, 62-2 and 72-1 at the times he fought them with three of them P4P #1 and another in the top five per KO Magazine polls at the time. Also went up to 154 and dethroned the 36-0 lineal champ for a *tune up* prior to Hearns. Actually never looked sharper offensively IMO. Seriously, give the man his fucking due. Do other Dooran fans not see the profound error in their logic by detracting from this man's achievements? He's a Top 10 ATG, not 15-20. Nobody has a better five wins than that.





















@PityTheFool Easy work.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Ya'll ma boyz.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

But seriously, was I high when I watched Leonard-Benitez? It looked like a schooling to me....

@Hands of Iron @PityTheFool @rossco


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> But seriously, was I high when I watched Leonard-Benitez? It looked like a schooling to me....
> 
> @Hands of Iron @PityTheFool @rossco


To me it was a fight that Leonard was edging most of the rounds. So competitive, but not really close, and I don't think Leonard was behind before the stoppage. At all. It's been a few years but I remember my impression well: a chess match in which Leonard's jab was seriously impressive to me.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

@duranimal, where art thou?


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

rossco said:


> I've never seriously defended Duran for No Mas. He fucked up. Simple as that. I've already gave you my serious thought's on that one months back with yourself and V-2. Think Pedd's was present as well.
> 
> I knew about Leonard's coke habit but not the injury, and I've never discredited Leonard's win over Hagler. You're venting your frustration on the wrong guy here, gadgie :lol:
> 
> I love Leonard, man :conf





PityTheFool said:


> No laughing matter bra





Pedderrs said:


> Ya'll ma boyz.


SRL is the ace in Roberto's pocket when he is compared to virtually any other ATG fighter P4P because so few could ever boast a defining win so illustrious, but when they're directly compared it becomes very weird and difficult. Duran went into Leonard's domain and not only outfought and outboxed arguably the second-greatest welterweight of all-time in his prime, but he even looked the more skilled of the two while doing so. Not merely in the trenches, but even getting the better of it at mid-range as well.

Outside of their pair of prime bouts, SRL would seem to hold a very clear edge because while the likes of Buchanan, Marcel, Palomino and DeJesus are all A-class fighters I wouldn't quite put them on the level of a group consisting of Benitez, Hearns, Hagler and Kalule (Duran did what none of these men could). Of course, the Barkley win for Duran was absolutely remarkable given the circumstances even if IB was merely decent.



Chacal said:


> Duran dominated and cleaned up lightweight for the prime of his career. It'd be easy for some to look at his losses in his career and say Leonard, but Duran beat Leonard, Moore, Barkley and loads of other really good fighters and also looked better against Hagler than Leonard did all while past prime.


It should be said that Leonard actually cleaned house at 147 to nearly same extent Duran did 135 although it isn't often mentioned, it was just over a shorter period of time. SRL beat *a lot* of world-rated fighters, at least half a dozen before he even fought Benitez (!). Half of Duran's title defences at 135 weren't against rated opposition. The same #1 contender at the beginning of Duran's reign was still the #1 contender/titlist at the end of it.

Floyd Mayweather Sr. TKO10 (No. 6 WW)
Randy Shields UD10 (No. 4 WW)
Johnny Gant TKO8 (No. 4 WW)
Adolfo Viruet UD10 (No. 8 JWW) (@147)
Tony Chiaverini RTD4 (No. 4 LMW) (@154)
Pete Ranzany TKO4 (No. 5 WW)
Andy Price KO1 (No. 8 WW)
Dave Green KO4 (No. 7 WW)
Bruce Finch TKO3 (No. 6 WW)

In addition to:

Thomas Hearns TKO14 (32-0) [#1 P4P] [#1 WW/WBA Titlist]
Wilfred Benitez TKO15 (38-0-1) [#3 P4P] [RING/Lineal 147 Champ]
Marvin Hagler SD12 (62-2-2) [#1 P4P] [RING/Lineal 160 Champ]
Roberto Duran TKO8 (72-1) [#1 P4P] [RING/Lineal 147 Champ]
Ayub Kalule TKO9 (36-0) [RING/Lineal 154 Champ]


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> That loss is worth more than a lot of wins. If Jorge Linares went up and gave Golovkin a close fight his stock would increase tremendously. Worth a mention, as things usually are with Duran.
> 
> No words.





PityTheFool said:


> He looked better against Hagler than Leonard coming off a three year lay off when he was already way past prime?
> So much so that Duran shouted to Ray "You beat this guy"
> So Leonard beats Hagler at a weight he's never fought at against the 7 year undisputed champion (who refused to fight Ray at 154) but Duran looked better?
> I like you Chacal so I'll be more polite than you deserve here.


Don't be polite mate. You have a clear pro day agenda and I'd rather you spoke your mind than act this way.


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

Bogotazo said:


> @duranimal, where art thou?


:good Absolutly spot on! James Toney is just another example of a boxer who is streets ahead of this phantom farce Mayweather :yep

Fuckin skills!!! If mayweather had the skills he would'nt have spent these last 6 years avoiding all clear & present dangers, his resume is piss poor at best! Mayweather is just a gob shyte fraud, if Castillo can fuck him up & Judah best him for 5 rounds then Mayweather's gonna get fuckin murdered by Duran/SRL/Hearns & co. Only a premature ejaclator would think that mayweather has more skill!!!! SKILL? What fucking SKILL? Sqeaking past an old man in DLH, WBU standard HATTON! C Level scrapper GATTI, D Level BAG of CEMENT Baldomir:lol:

Mayweather is a joke & the jokes on boxing! Mayweather is shit scared to fight a midgit:yep How the fuck can anyone with an ounce of common sence say that this fraud Mayweather has more skill that Duran:lol: If the likes of SRL can have his arse handed to him then how the fuck is this one punch at a time! Stay on the ropes! Hide behind the shoulder & hope for the best! Where is the skill that will nullify Duran's all out assault & how the fuck is Mayweather going to be even able to breath!

Where is this so called skill that mayweather possess that can overcome the titans! He ai'nt fuckin got what it takes period! He'll always look good against selected opponants. But there is absolutly no way that he could ever overcome the premier league boxers like Duran/SRL/Benitez & Hearns. Mayweather is tailor-made for Duran & Duran is one of the slickest boxers out there, go read what Angelo Dundee said about him. AS an ealier poster quite rightly pointed out, these daft cunts who coo over Floyds cock don't actually understand the real meaning of Skill or as to how it ought to be correctly defined & presented. If mayweather had all this vaunted SKILL he'd not be the coward he is! Would he:lol:


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

V-2 said:


>


- Shut your mouth and know your role.


----------



## nuclear (Jun 15, 2015)

PityTheFool said:


> Of course.Camacho is clearly better then both.


duran was robbed in the first camacho fight though.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

nuclear said:


> duran was robbed in the first camacho fight though.


Got schooled so devastatingly, tried to end his life in a motorcycle crash.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

V-2 said:


> :good Absolutly spot on! James Toney is just another example of a boxer who is streets ahead of this phantom farce Mayweather :yep
> 
> Fuckin skills!!! If mayweather had the skills he would'nt have spent these last 6 years avoiding all clear & present dangers, his resume is piss poor at best! Mayweather is just a gob shyte fraud, if Castillo can fuck him up & Judah best him for 5 rounds then Mayweather's gonna get fuckin murdered by Duran/SRL/Hearns & co. Only a premature ejaclator would think that mayweather has more skill!!!! SKILL? What fucking SKILL? Sqeaking past an old man in DLH, WBU standard HATTON! C Level scrapper GATTI, D Level BAG of CEMENT Baldomir:lol:
> 
> ...


:rofl the exclamation points are so perfect.

"hope for the best" kills me every damn time. Where the hell was he circa Maidana 1?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)




----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

thegee said:


> @PityTheFool, actually it was ten million, but seriously, the majority of British commentators thought that Hagler had won, and the American commentators were split 50-50, In the USA verdicts are mostly given to the aggressor in the fight and in this fight there was only one aggressor, and it was"nt Sugar. During the fight he held 30times and was not warned once by the referee, I can only go on talking to the people who watched the fight and there were a lot ( not ten million), and I did not know anyone who thought that Leonard had won, again it is a matter of opinion, and mine is that Marvellous Marvin won the fight. Regards Mervyn The Gee


Who did Colin Hart think won Merv?
How did Marvin fare with "effective aggression"?
Who clearly showed the better ring generalship that night?
I can only go on the result,which was fair in mines' and many other peoples' view.
And to suggest Marvin won means that Ray did not win more than two rounds after the end of the fourth,which is,frankly ridiculous.And to suggest that the AP were 50-50 hardly indicates that most boxing fans thought that Marvin won.
I'd be more than happy to discuss this at length with you at a more Godly hour though,as it is one of my favourite debating subjects.
So perhaps you may like to indulge me in a more in depth analysis of the fight if you have time although I respect your opinion and experience enough to agree to disagree if that's your preference.
Regards,
PityTheFool


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

nuclear said:


> duran was robbed in the first camacho fight though.


The Leonard-Camacho fight is if no consequence to me mate.Those were the days when most non heavies were past prime at 28 and I have always made it clear that Ray was in his absolute prime in 81-82.
He performed a miracle by beating Hagler in 87 and should have stopped there.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

V-2 said:


> :good Absolutly spot on! James Toney is just another example of a boxer who is streets ahead of this phantom farce Mayweather :yep
> 
> Fuckin skills!!! If mayweather had the skills he would'nt have spent these last 6 years avoiding all clear & present dangers, his resume is piss poor at best! Mayweather is just a gob shyte fraud, if Castillo can fuck him up & Judah best him for 5 rounds then Mayweather's gonna get fuckin murdered by Duran/SRL/Hearns & co. Only a premature ejaclator would think that mayweather has more skill!!!! SKILL? What fucking SKILL? Sqeaking past an old man in DLH, WBU standard HATTON! C Level scrapper GATTI, D Level BAG of CEMENT Baldomir:lol:
> 
> ...


Yea but Floyd is fighting arguably the most dangerous pressure fighter there is in Conor McGregor.

But for real.
The way Floyd reacted to Alvarez's feints it's very clear that against Duran wouldn't have any trouble to take Floyd to the ropes.
Even a lethargic Duran.

And I think I've made this exact same post before.


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

Bogotazo said:


> :rofl the exclamation points are so perfect.
> 
> "hope for the best" kills me every damn time. Where the hell was he circa Maidana 1?





dyna said:


> Yea but Floyd is fighting arguably the most dangerous pressure fighter there is in Conor McGregor.
> 
> But for real.
> The way Floyd reacted to Alvarez's feints it's very clear that against Duran wouldn't have any trouble to take Floyd to the ropes.
> ...


Like honestly, the dude would be a human pretzel before Duran even laid a glove on him. There is no lethargic in fantasy H2H fights, it's peak form. For all the jokes and other funnies, "Montreal" Duran beats Mayweather's ass from pillar to post and absolutely wrecks him any time they engage in close quarters. Floyd is actually a good inside fighter and physically stronger than he's given credit for, but that shit is happening. Duran's craftsmanship, punch variety, defense and grit is too much in that office.


----------



## nuclear (Jun 15, 2015)

PityTheFool said:


> The Leonard-Camacho fight is if no consequence to me mate.Those were the days when most non heavies were past prime at 28 and I have always made it clear that Ray was in his absolute prime in 81-82.
> He performed a miracle by beating Hagler in 87 and should have stopped there.


not trying to hold it against you.

but to think duran was 45 when that happened and still most feel he shouldve won is crazy. it adds to his legend and is a factor in this discussion imo.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

If only Duran could cut the ring in a more conventional way like Chavez Sr.

Then the increased weight and sluggish feet wouldn't have affected him as much.


----------



## oldjoe (Jun 25, 2017)

PityTheFool said:


> So the fact that he was considered the biggest disgrace in boxing after quitting and was accused of fixing the fight amongst other things is ok because he beat Leonard in Montreal in a much closer fight than revisionist history suggests?
> I'm guessing oldjoe is a bit of a misnomer because if you were around when he quit I suspect you might view things a little differently.


If Pep can quit against Saddler and not suffer any damage to his reputation, can't see why Duran should. That's me, I can also appreciate Arcel fucking him off in embarrassment.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

oldjoe said:


> If Pep can quit against Saddler and not suffer any damage to his reputation, can't see why Duran should. That's me, I can also appreciate Arcel fucking him off in embarrassment.


Dislocated shoulder and a deep cut in the other.

Duran quit in a competitive fight for no reason other than being sick of a black guy imitating Edwin Viruet.


----------



## oldjoe (Jun 25, 2017)

dyna said:


> Dislocated shoulder and a deep cut in the other.


? Saddler broke Pep mentality, he quit same way Liston did (shoulder) and Duran (stomach.)

They were all great but judge them equally.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

oldjoe said:


> ? Saddler broke Pep mentality, he quit same way Liston did (shoulder) and Duran (stomach.)
> 
> They were all great but judge them equally.


No, there's a difference in quitting while being beaten up and quitting during a competitive fight midway through the round walking away.

Liston's quitjob was also disgraceful.
And he did it twice.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

V-2 said:


> Like honestly, the dude would be a human pretzel before Duran even laid a glove on him. There is no lethargic in fantasy H2H fights, it's peak form. For all the jokes and other funnies, "Montreal" Duran beats Mayweather's ass from pillar to post and absolutely wrecks him any time they engage in close quarters. Floyd is actually a good inside fighter and physically stronger than he's given credit for, but that shit is happening. Duran's craftsmanship, punch variety, defense and grit is too much in that office.





bballchump11 said:


>





MichiganWarrior said:


>


Betrayed again.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

But credit to Floyd.

When it comes to money.

He is the unquestionable GOAT.
How can anyone even compete?


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

dyna said:


> If only Duran could cut the ring in a more conventional way like Chavez Sr.
> Then the increased weight and sluggish feet wouldn't have affected him as much.


Both are obviosuly flawed and overrated.

But who was worse - who was more limited?

Cherry picks an obscure champ. Runs into an ATG. Petrified by speed advantage. Retires in shame.









Rematches a runner. Shits himself. Fakes retirement.









On the other hand.

Cherry picks a super featherweight. Gets KO'd mentally. Fights. Gets KO'd physically.





Ducks Colin "Death" Jones. Cherry picks Buck Smith's jockstrap boy. Gets outskilled. Finds out his opponent is literally a bum who doesn't train all. Has a mental breakdown.

















- So far, I've got this one dead even, D!


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

oldjoe said:


> ? Saddler broke Pep mentality, he quit same way Liston did (shoulder) and Duran (stomach.)
> 
> They were all great but judge them equally.


There was nothing wrong with Duran.
Totally different scenarios


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

Lester1583 said:


> Betrayed again.


It's actually been a pretty unwavering opinion for the last five years?

"This is why the general forum can't have nice things."

"I'm done"

@Bogotazo :rofl


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Vern Schillinger said:


> "I'm done"


Where are you gonna run to, Cock Master?

Steviebruno decapited you in the NBA thread.

Floyd is about to die.

Wu-Tang sold out.

Blade Runner is gonna be shit.

And you can't even bench Johnstown's face, on top of that.

Science sucks, Trump wins, **** everywhere.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

I think Leonard's body of work at WW must rank above Duran's at LW. He beat about as many ranked fighters but had by far the better high end wins.

But I'd probably rank Duran's work above LW higher than Leonard's above WW. But not as sure here. While the wins over Leonard and Barkley were extraordinary, he was also more inconsistent. 

I can really go both ways on this question.


----------



## thegee (Feb 10, 2017)

@PityTheFool, thanks for your well thought out reply, it would appear that we should agree to disagree, I look forward to further discussions with you in the near future, and maybe we can find something or someone that we both agree with, regards Mervyn The Gee


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Reading through this thread Duran's clear loss to Hagler seems better than Ray's close win... Wtf?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Nah, Floyd would Gatti Dooooran @V-2


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Reading through this thread Duran's clear loss to Hagler seems better than Ray's close win... Wtf?


Ray had some behind closed doors sparring matches so he was peak, man.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Doooran vs pure boxers


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Ray had some behind closed doors sparring matches so he was peak, man.


The insane shit that comes up when it comes to Duran and Leonard...


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> The insane hat comes up when it comes to Duran and Leonard...


I expect lunacy from the imbeciles, but some of the forum's best posters buy into this stuff. It's mad.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

There is a clip on youtube where I think it is Froch that gives his view on PBF-McGregor and touches upon the subject of inactivity (as in just living a normal life, not doing any pro training) and basically says that just a year makes a big difference. 

Coking, drinking and whoring for three years is not waiting for someone to get old. It's normally a death sentence on ever to be elite again.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> There is a clip on youtube where I think it is Froch that gives his view on PBF-McGregor and touches upon the subject of inactivity (as in just living a normal life, not doing any pro training) and basically says that just a year makes a big difference.
> 
> Coking, drinking and whoring for three years is not waiting for someone to get old. It's normally a death sentence on ever to be elite again.


And yet he managed to do it after 10 years.










The true German and European GOAT.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Duran eats a pizza during training and that's enough for people to say he didn't train and that any subsequent loss should be wiped from the record books.

Ray spends 3 years sniffing and boozing and comes back to beat THE MAN and it's only a wee bit impressive because he had some sparring matches leading up to the negotiations.

Yes, CHB logic.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Leonard has the best wins, probably more so than any other boxer on the planet however his injuries, retirements and long periods of inactivity hurt him in this one.

Duran has the greatest win from the two of them, the biggest fight either had was againsteach other and Duran won it clearly and fairly comprehensively.

Leonard won the series and deserves full props for the second fight, which is often denied to him.

The third fight was an utter farce from both fighters but Leonard was at least there to try and win it so fair play.

Duran has a far deeper resume whilst Leonards is more top heavy.

At the end if the day your probably going to weigh it up on whether Rays big five wins of Duran II, Hagler, Hearn I, Kalule and Benitez is overall better than Durans longer list of Leonard I, DeJesus II & III, Buchanan, Marcel, Kobayashi , Palomino, Cuevas, Barkley, Moore, Ishimatsu, Camacho I, Paziena I and Mamby.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

dyna said:


> And yet he managed to do it after 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Foreman, Ali, Tyson and Vitaly were other fighters that came back and enjoyed success, but that's not many and none of them came back to quite their previous level.

And Ali is the only one of them to beat anyone close to Hagler's level after coming back. So that makes two with Leonard in boxing history. Not a common occurence in other words.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Leonard has the best wins, probably more so than any other boxer on the planet however his injuries, retirements and long periods of inactivity hurt him in this one.
> 
> Duran has the greatest win from the two of them, the biggest fight either had was againsteach other and Duran won it clearly and fairly comprehensively.
> 
> ...


Why is Palomino, a past it Cuevas and Moore mentioned for Duran, but not Price, Bonds, Green and LaLonde for Leonard? Even someone like Mayweather was probably a better fighter when Leonard beat him than Cuevas was when Duran beat him.

And how about losses? Leonard only had had one loss, which was competitive, before Norris while Duran had had several one-sided ones at a similar age. Some to average competition.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

To be clear, I think it's fully reasonable to choose Duran and have done so myself before. I just have a problem with how some make a case for him.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Why is Palomino, a past it Cuevas and Moore mentioned for Duran, but not Price, Bonds, Green and LaLonde for Leonard? Even someone like Mayweather was probably a better fighter when Leonard beat him than Cuevas was when Duran beat him.
> 
> And how about losses? Leonard only had had one loss, which was competitive, before Norris while Duran had had several one-sided ones at a similar age. Some to average competition.


Because they are names, but when taken into context the wins are not very good. Palomino was ready to retire, Cuevas was actually shot, and Moore didn't have many pro fights and was never that green to begin with. The Marcel win isn't all that either.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Why is Palomino, a past it Cuevas and Moore mentioned for Duran, but not Price, Bonds, Green and LaLonde for Leonard? Even someone like Mayweather was probably a better fighter when Leonard beat him than Cuevas was when Duran beat him.
> 
> And how about losses? Leonard only had had one loss, which was competitive, before Norris while Duran had had several one-sided ones at a similar age. Some to average competition.


Cuevas was only a couple of fights from Hearns, basically two years later so shot is probably harsh. He never reached the heights of his title run but its probably harsh to say he was a shot fighter unless you take it away from Hearns as well. Palomino was better than all those mentioned.

We can take losses into account but I tend to stick to wins. You count losses and then you penalise boxers for taking risks.

Cant directly compare age of boxers to performance as it doesnt work at all. Duran had near three times the amount of fights Leonard had at that point.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Because they are names, but when taken into context the wins are not very good. Palomino was ready to retire, Cuevas was actually shot, and Moore didn't have many pro fights and was never that green to begin with. The Marcel win isn't all that either.


Moore annihilated Kalule one fight before. The same Kalule that is classed as one of Leonards finest wins just a year after in more impressive fashion than Ray. Bit silly to ignore that.

Palomino had taken Benitez life and death the fight before and you can argue he won. Sounds like a guy ready to retire.

Marcel would go on after to beat ATGs and HOf worthy fighters.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Moore annihilated Kalule one fight before. The same Kalule that is classed as one of Leonards finest wins just a year after in more impressive fashion than Ray. Bit silly to ignore that.
> 
> Palomino had taken Benitez life and death the fight before and you can argue he won. Sounds like a guy ready to retire.
> 
> Marcel would go on after to beat ATGs and HOf worthy fighters.


Mate, you should never score fights.

And he actually did retire after the Duran fight .. :lol:

*Controversial Scorecard*
Clayton's score for Palomino was controversial, as most thought Benitez had clearly won the fight. Pat Putnam called Clayton's score "a shocker" and wrote: "The decision shouldn't have been close."

When Clayton's score was announced, Howard Cosell, who called the fight for ABC-TV, said, "I should like to talk to Mr. Clayton about that." In his 1986 autobiography, _I Never Played The Game_, Cosell called Benitez's performance "one of the most beautifully executed fights that I had ever witnessed."

Lew Wheaton of the Associated Press wrote: "Benitez had much the better of the fight."

Reflecting on the fight in a 2006 article, Michael Katz, who covered the fight for the _New York Times_, wrote:

I watched as the self-proclaimed "Bible of Boxing" put on a clinic. The art of self-defense was never more pervasive. The masterful Benitez won at least 12 of the 15 rounds, I figured. Then they announced a split decision. The crowd moaned. . . . Now, there are some ring officials of whom the late Frankie Carbo - the mobster who pretty much ran boxing in the Fifties - would say, "See that guy? I can buy him for a cup of coffee." I'm not saying Clayton was one of these. I'm not saying he wasn't, either. After the Benitez fight, I confronted the Philadelphian who was better known as a referee. I demanded that he explain his strange scorecard. "You've got to count body punches," he said. Palomino was a fine body-puncher, but in this fight, Benitez landed most of those shots. His elbows took care of Palomino's. I pressed on with the interrogation. Finally, Clayton said, "Well, the sun was in my eyes."
Bob Arum, who promoted the fight, was furious over Clayton's score. "Nobody in their right mind could have scored that fight for Palomino," he said.

Arum accused rival promoter Don King of trying to fix the fight. "We had heard rumors that Zach Clayton was under the influence of Don King and Bill Daley (King's Puerto Rico representative) and they wanted Palomino to win," he said.

Arum believed King wanted Palomino to win because Palomino didn't have an option for his next fight and was available to sign with King. Benitez, however, was committed to Arum.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Mate, you should never score fights.
> 
> And he actually did retire after the Duran fight .. :lol:


He had several fights after Duran and if you take every retirement as gospel that they are finished then theres a long list of great wins that turn into wins over fighters who were one foot into retirement.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> He had several fights after Duran and if you take every retirement as gospel that they are finished then theres a long list of great wins that turn into wins over fighters who were one foot into retirement.


Yeah, he had several fightS after Duran.


IN 1997!!!!!


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Yeah, he had several fightS after Duran.
> 
> 
> IN 1997!!!!!


I know but he didnt look too bad, even against soft conoettion. Theres nothi g to suggest Palomino was near past his best when he fought Duran.

I take it for conistency then the Hagler win has to go down as a fighter going into retirement considering he never fouggt again and spoke of retiring before Leonard?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> I know but he didnt look too bad, even against soft conoettion. Theres nothi g to suggest Palomino was near past his best when he fought Duran.
> 
> I take it for conistency then the Hagler win has to go down as a fighter going into retirement considering he never fouggt again and spoke of retiring before Leonard?


Considering Ray was a career Welterweight, hadn't fought professionally in 3 years, and was well known for indulging in class A drugs, booze and sluts, I think it's fair to say that the two aren't even remotely comparable. No, not even in the same stratosphere to be honest.

Besides, the general consensus is that Hagler wasn't at his best for Ray. I've never argued it, I don't remember anyone else arguing it. Shot? Far from it, but prime? Nah.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Does anyone here think Palomino came close to beating Benitez? Just out of curiosity...


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Considering Ray was a career Welterweight, hadn't fought professionally in 3 years, and was well known for indulging in class A drugs, booze and sluts, I think it's fair to say that the two aren't even remotely comparable. No, not even in the same stratosphere to be honest.
> 
> Besides, the general consensus is that Hagler wasn't at his best for Ray. I've never argued it, I don't remember anyone else arguing it. Shot? Far from it, but prime? Nah.


Why not. Your crux of the argument is that Palomino retired after the bout so shows he was finished.

I said the same was for Hagler just to show you how shit your argument was and you reply with a load of excuses that Leonard was a coke fiend.

Shit argument again, Duran was alsi a coke fiend so I guess that his excuses for Leonard II are all fair and we should take that as a shit win considering Duran had been on the piss for three months and needed a shit at the time?

Facts are neither were shot. Both may have emptied the tank somewhat but both had proven in prior fights they still belonged in the top echelons of their weight category.

Id say thats that debate put to bed.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Leonard hadn't fought professionally for 3 years before fighting Hagler. If you don't see the distinction then I simply cannot help you, Chatty.

Palomino was extremely vocal before the Duran fight that he wanted to start acting in Hollywood. He was coming off a dominant loss to Benitez and would then retire after losing to Duran. You argument that he arguably beat Benitez is outrageous. The split decision scorecard was criticised heavily by the press and the man commentating on the fight, Howard Cosell, vehemently opposed the scorecard too. Perhaps even more amusing was your response regarding Palomino's retirement, bringing up his comeback in 1997 as a rebuttal. 

I agree that Palomino wasn't shot, but he was coming off a dominant loss, talked about retiring before the Duran fight and then retired immediately after losing handily. The facts of the fight are wildly different to the narrative you were pushing. I'd be interested to see your scorecard for the Palomino-Benitez fight. In fact, I'd be interested to see your scorecard for Leonard-Benitez too. In your own time, buddy.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Considering Ray was a career Welterweight, hadn't fought professionally in 3 years, and was well known for indulging in class A drugs, booze and sluts, I think it's fair to say that the two aren't even remotely comparable. No, not even in the same stratosphere to be honest.
> 
> Besides, the general consensus is that Hagler wasn't at his best for Ray. I've never argued it, I don't remember anyone else arguing it. Shot? Far from it, but prime? Nah.


I understand that 3 years of booze and coke indulgence ain't good at all, but 3 years of fucking sluts is good cardio, mate.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Cuevas was only a couple of fights from Hearns, basically two years later so shot is probably harsh. He never reached the heights of his title run but its probably harsh to say he was a shot fighter unless you take it away from Hearns as well. Palomino was better than all those mentioned.
> 
> We can take losses into account but I tend to stick to wins. You count losses and then you penalise boxers for taking risks.
> 
> Cant directly compare age of boxers to performance as it doesnt work at all. Duran had near three times the amount of fights Leonard had at that point.


I said Cuevas was past it and he clearly was. Yes, it was only a bit over two years from the Hearns fight, but Duran's loss to Benitez was only one and a half years after his win over Leonard... And there it was no inactivity involved.

And what kind of risk was Laing? Benitez and Hearns were fighters that Leonard also faced.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> I understand that 3 years of booze and coke indulgence ain't good at all, but 3 years of fucking sluts is good cardio, mate.


It is.


----------



## thegee (Feb 10, 2017)

@Chatty , I suggest you have a look at two fighters records , before suggesting that Leonard has the best wins , "probably " more than any other fighter? Sugar Ray Robinson 173-19-6, 108 by K/O fought until he was 46, when he lost his title to Turpin he was 132-1, he lost to Joey Maxim at L/Heavy retired through heat exhaustion, he fought all the contenders including


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> I said Cuevas was past it and he clearly was. Yes, it was only a bit over two years from the Hearns fight, but Duran's loss to Benitez was only one and a half years after his win over Leonard... And there it was no inactivity involved.
> 
> And what kind of risk was Laing? Benitez and Hearns were fighters that Leonard also faced.


Beneitez was in his prime years when he fought Duran. No shame in a loss to Wilfredo, he was a great fighter. Just like theirs no shame in Cuevas losing to Duran or Hearns. Those two beatings probably finished him but he was still at his absolute best within a few years ot those fights.

Laing was a big risk really. High risk low reward fighter. Very talented but inconsistent fighter, lots of mental problems and abuse problems. Guy may have been able to compete at world level if he had applied himself more.

But what does a loss to Laing do. Its. Big upset but ultimately means very little, just shows Durans inconsistency once he hit a certain point in his career. Ray got dropped and made a meal out of Kevin Howard, great fighters often have fights where they underperform.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

thegee said:


> @Chatty , I suggest you have a look at two fighters records , before suggesting that Leonard has the best wins , "probably " more than any other fighter? Sugar Ray Robinson 173-19-6, 108 by K/O fought until he was 46, when he lost his title to Turpin he was 132-1, he lost to Joey Maxim at L/Heavy retired through heat exhaustion, he fought all the contenders including


I said top group win. Leonard may have the best five greatest wins in the histoty of the sport, if not then hes most definistely top five.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Leonard hadn't fought professionally for 3 years before fighting Hagler. If you don't see the distinction then I simply cannot help you, Chatty.
> 
> Palomino was extremely vocal before the Duran fight that he wanted to start acting in Hollywood. He was coming off a dominant loss to Benitez and would then retire after losing to Duran. You argument that he arguably beat Benitez is outrageous. The split decision scorecard was criticised heavily by the press and the man commentating on the fight, Howard Cosell, vehemently opposed the scorecard too. Perhaps even more amusing was your response regarding Palomino's retirement, bringing up his comeback in 1997 as a rebuttal.
> 
> I agree that Palomino wasn't shot, but he was coming off a dominant loss, talked about retiring before the Duran fight and then retired immediately after losing handily. The facts of the fight are wildly different to the narrative you were pushing. I'd be interested to see your scorecard for the Palomino-Benitez fight. In fact, I'd be interested to see your scorecard for Leonard-Benitez too. In your own time, buddy.


Hagler talked retirement before Leonard and retired just the same after. Also had a tough time with Mugabi before the fight who whilst looked a beats would have been handled with ease a couple years earlier imo.

So Leonard had been retired three years on a coke binge. Duran had been fighting on a coke binge, difference probablies shows that Durans career showed more inconsistency due to fighti g on rather than Leonard who didnt fight whilst he was off his tits, if he had hed probably have a very different resume.

Ill see if I can find the Leonard Benitez card as I posted it on here before. Ill have to rewatch Palomino-Benitez though and considering I just git back from Glastonbury last night and have been on the lash for a week straight, its probably unlikely that ill bother watching it tonight.


----------



## thegee (Feb 10, 2017)

@Chatty, sorry but I am having trouble with my computer, I had not finished, some of the names on his record Gavilan, Graciano,Pender,Ralph Jones,Moyer, Downes, Mims, Olson, so I think Leonard would have some way to beat that little lot,. As for dear old Archie, his record , 186-23-10, 132 byK/O fought until he was 44, some of the names on his record, Marciano , Patterson, Ali,Valdes, Maxim,Olson,Harold Johnson,Durelle, the two fights with Durelle are among the most savage I have seen So although Leonard was good, he is still a street away from these two greats of the ring. Regards Mervyn The Gee


----------



## oldjoe (Jun 25, 2017)

dyna said:


> No, there's a difference in quitting while being beaten up and quitting during a competitive fight midway through the round walking away.
> 
> Liston's quitjob was also disgraceful.
> And he did it twice.


I'm with you, Duran quit because he didn't fancy it - not because he was getting beat up.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Hagler talked retirement before Leonard and retired just the same after. Also had a tough time with Mugabi before the fight who whilst looked a beats would have been handled with ease a couple years earlier imo.


So we can determine that Marvin Hagler was past his physical prime? Great, I agree. Of course a past prime Marvin Hagler is a completely different assignment to a past prime Carlos Palomino, especially when you haven't fought competitively for 3 years.



> So Leonard had been retired three years on a coke binge. Duran had been fighting on a coke binge, difference probablies shows that Durans career showed more inconsistency due to fighti g on rather than Leonard who didnt fight whilst he was off his tits, if he had hed probably have a very different resume.


I'm not sure what the insinuation is here. Could you summarise?



> Ill see if I can find the Leonard Benitez card as I posted it on here before. Ill have to rewatch Palomino-Benitez though and considering I just git back from Glastonbury last night and have been on the lash for a week straight, its probably unlikely that ill bother watching it tonight.


I'm not asking you to re-watch the fight tonight, I'm just asking you to re-watch it. It's actually for your own benefit because if you continue to tell people that Palomino arguably beat Benitez then you run the risk of losing all credibility and you'll be ridiculed.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Beneitez was in his prime years when he fought Duran. No shame in a loss to Wilfredo, he was a great fighter. Just like theirs no shame in Cuevas losing to Duran or Hearns. Those two beatings probably finished him but he was still at his absolute best within a few years ot those fights.
> 
> Laing was a big risk really. High risk low reward fighter. Very talented but inconsistent fighter, lots of mental problems and abuse problems. Guy may have been able to compete at world level if he had applied himself more.
> 
> But what does a loss to Laing do. Its. Big upset but ultimately means very little, just shows Durans inconsistency once he hit a certain point in his career. Ray got dropped and made a meal out of Kevin Howard, great fighters often have fights where they underperform.


To be schooled just 18 months away from your greatest win hurts your resume. As does a loss to a fighter of Laings level. I can't the comparison between losing to Laing and knocking out Howard, really...


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> To be schooled just 18 months away from your greatest win hurts your resume. As does a loss to a fighter of Laings level. I can't the comparison between losing to Laing and knocking out Howard, really...


The Benitez fight wasnt a schooling, he won clearly but it was competitive at points. Marquez won his career best fight and lost his next one out, as did Frazier, as did many other greats.

Hearns got knocked out in three in under a year from his. Its boxing, it happens all of the time.

As for losing to fighters levels below you, thats happens as well. Ali got schooled by Jimmy Young, who was a good fighter but nowhere near Alis level. Ali turned up fat, out of shape and not taking his opponent seriously and he had to rely on a gift. Tyson got Kod by Douglas who Holyfield beat with ease one fight later, Toney lost without a doubt to Tiberi and again got a gift, doesnt take away from. His legacy though.

I could go on all night.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> So we can determine that Marvin Hagler was past his physical prime? Great, I agree. Of course a past prime Marvin Hagler is a completely different assignment to a past prime Carlos Palomino, especially when you haven't fought competitively for 3 years.
> 
> I'm not sure what the insinuation is here. Could you summarise?
> 
> I'm not asking you to re-watch the fight tonight, I'm just asking you to re-watch it. It's actually for your own benefit because if you continue to tell people that Palomino arguably beat Benitez then you run the risk of losing all credibility and you'll be ridiculed.


Leonard being inactive is irrelevant. The point you made was that Palomino was out the door, the point I made was as was Hagler. Just because a fighter has his eye on retirement doesnt mean they are shot or past it, Palomino wouod have still been a competitive world level fighter for years to.come. He lost two fights on the trot to two guys who are ranked top 100 of all time, hardly devasting results.

My point about them binging is that its a shit excuse, fuck loads of fighters binge all the time. If it sets them back itll show in their results, if not then who cares. If you gonna use Leonard being a coke head as a way to prop up his performance against Hagler then you have to do the same for every result Duran had from 1980 onwards and possibly before.

How much props should we give Pinklon Thomas, guy was a heroin addict through the peak of his career, does he get more props for being on harder drugs?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Leonard being inactive is irrelevant. The point you made was that Palomino was out the door, the point I made was as was Hagler. Just because a fighter has his eye on retirement doesnt mean they are shot or past it, Palomino wouod have still been a competitive world level fighter for years to.come. He lost two fights on the trot to two guys who are ranked top 100 of all time, hardly devasting results.


Leonard's inactivity became relevant the moment you made the comparison. Palomino was fresh off a dominant loss to Benitez, a fight you clearly haven't seen, and he was very vocal about his aspirations outside of the world of Boxing. The fact he would then retire immediately after the Dooran loss would suggest to me that he was no longer hungry and his heart was elsewhere. That's my feeling.



> My point about them binging is that its a shit excuse, fuck loads of fighters binge all the time. If it sets them back itll show in their results, if not then who cares. If you gonna use Leonard being a coke head as a way to prop up his performance against Hagler then you have to do the same for every result Duran had from 1980 onwards and possibly before.


Leonard doesn't need an excuse because he defeated Hagler, but what makes the achievement all that more impressive is his inactivity. Ray hadn't fought a professional round of boxing for 3 years. One does not need to be a professional fighter to understand that 3 years of inactivity is not ideal preparation for a championship fight against a dominant champion 13lbs north of your optimum weight.



> How much props should we give Pinklon Thomas, guy was a heroin addict through the peak of his career, does he get more props for being on harder drugs?


You are wilfully missing the point and I honestly don't have time for that, Chatty.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Leonard's inactivity became relevant the moment you made the comparison. Palomino was fresh off a dominant loss to Benitez, a fight you clearly haven't seen, and he was very vocal about his aspirations outside of the world of Boxing. The fact he would then retire immediately after the Dooran loss would suggest to me that he was no longer hungry and his heart was elsewhere. That's my feeling.
> 
> Leonard doesn't need an excuse because he defeated Hagler, but what makes the achievement all that more impressive is his inactivity. Ray hadn't fought a professional round of boxing for 3 years. One does not need to be a professional fighter to understand that 3 years of inactivity is not ideal preparation for a championship fight against a dominant champion 13lbs north of your optimum weight.
> 
> You are wilfully missing the point and I honestly don't have time for that, Chatty.


So you then gotta say Haglers heart wasnt in it and he wasnt hungry cobsidering he made the exact same statement before the Leonard fight?

And no you brought up his drug use which is irrelevant unless you want to conpare it across the board. Sure, coming back after three years is impressive but the wins a win no matter ehat the circumstances are.

If you want to delve into that then we are going to have to talk about cutting the number of rounds, weight draining opponents etc that Leonard did to get an edge as well. Fair is fair.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> So you then gotta say Haglers heart wasnt in it and he wasnt hungry cobsidering he made the exact same statement before the Leonard fight?


Hagler wasn't fresh off a dominant loss and had been clamouring for a Ray Leonard fight for years. He was also super competitive and was getting stronger as the fight wore on, which was in complete contrast to Palomino getting beat from pillar to post in his spanking at the hands of Dooran from opening bell to last. Non-comparable all things considered.



> And no you brought up his drug use which is irrelevant unless you want to conpare it across the board. Sure, coming back after three years is impressive but the wins a win no matter ehat the circumstances are.


Drugs were mentioned in conjunction with the inactivity. I don't really care if we consider the drug habit or not, the mere fact Ray was able to jump up to Middleweight after so long out of the ring elevates the victory tenfold. I mean, it's conventional wisdom.



> If you want to delve into that then we are going to have to talk about cutting the number of rounds, weight draining opponents etc that Leonard did to get an edge as well. Fair is fair.


Okay, let's talk about it.

Who did Ray personally weight drain?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Hagler wasn't fresh off a dominant loss and had been clamouring for a Ray Leonard fight for years. He was also super competitive and was getting stronger as the fight wore on, which was in complete contrast to Palomino getting beat from pillar to post in his spanking at the hands of Dooran from opening bell to last. Non-comparable all things considered.
> 
> Drugs were mentioned in conjunction with the inactivity. I don't really care if we consider the drug habit or not, the mere fact Ray was able to jump up to Middleweight after so long out the ring elevates the victory tenfold. I mean, it's conventional wisdom.
> 
> ...


Hagler looked like he had lost a step against Mugabi, in fact he looked like hed list a few and clearly his interest was waning in the sport.

He had wanted Leonard for years but he was also sick of Leonard using him as a prop. He wanted to win but I dont think his desire for boxing was as big as it was three years prior.

It is co parable because you using an excuse for one then dismissing it for another.

Leonard weight drained LaLonde. Brought him down to SMW and the cutting clearly effected his performance considering he blew up after a few strong rounds.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Hagler looked like he had lost a step against Mugabi, in fact he looked like hed list a few and clearly his interest was waning in the sport.


Hagler HAD lost a step. Who do you think is denying this?



> He had wanted Leonard for years but he was also sick of Leonard using him as a prop. He wanted to win but I dont think his desire for boxing was as big as it was three years prior.


I respect your opinion but it's largely irrelevant given how completely unprepared and outgunned Leonard was. There really is nothing to detract from the achievement.



> It is co parable because you using an excuse for one then dismissing it for another.


I have explained numerous times the distinctions between the two cases. I won't continually repeat myself.



> Leonard weight drained LaLonde. Brought him down to SMW and the cutting clearly effected his performance considering he blew up after a few strong rounds.


Meh, no one cares too much about the LaLonde debacle. It didn't seriously enhance Ray's legacy.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Hagler HAD lost a step. Who do you think is denying this?
> 
> I respect your opinion but it's largely irrelevant given how completely unprepared and outgunned Leonard was. There really is nothing to detract from the achievement.
> 
> ...


Leonard gets the props for beating the longterm middleweight champion and becoming the ubdisputed champ. Outside influences dont enhance or decrease the win. The win is the win just as a loss is a loss. We can agree to disagree on this cause no one is gonna budge.

The Lalonde win is still a top ten win for Leonard, I thibk its relevant to the overall debate. If you think Hearns won the second and Ray does himself then its probably his sixth best win on paper.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Leonard gets the props for beating the longterm middleweight champion and becoming the ubdisputed champ. Outside influences dont enhance or decrease the win. The win is the win just as a loss is a loss. We can agree to disagree on this cause no one is gonna budge.


You are the only person I have ever encountered in all of my years of watching and discussing boxing that thinks Ray's inactivity leading up to the Hagler fight is a non-factor. It obviously makes the achievement greater and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.



> The Lalonde win is still a top ten win for Leonard


That really isn't saying much, Chatty.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> You are the only person I have ever encountered in all of my years of watching and discussing boxing that thinks Ray's inactivity leading up to the Hagler fight is a non-factor. It obviously makes the achievement greater and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
> 
> That really isn't saying much, Chatty.


How not, a win is a win. I rank a win on the standing of the victory over the opponent and thats all that matters. Take outside factors into effect and the discussion gets marred as you can bandy about excuses for and against all day.

Its saying a lot when duscussing legacy if your saying Leonards possible sixth greatest win isnt much to care for.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> How not, a win is a win. I rank a win on the standing of the victory over the opponent and thats all that matters. Take outside factors into effect and the discussion gets marred as you can bandy about excuses for and against all day.
> 
> Its saying a lot when duscussing legacy if your saying Leonards possible sixth greatest win isnt much to care for.


Context is everything, Chatty.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Context is everything, Chatty.


Sure but we have a lot of other context going into the fight like Hagler having several wars which took sone out of him, the rounds being cut when Hagler was a 15 round fighter at the time. Leonard also continued boxing, just not conpetitively.

Its a great win, id rank it the third best win between the pair off them and I cant really be arsed with a Hagler v Leonard debate because its boring as fuck and all been said before numerous times over.

Lets get back to how you think Lalonde, one of Rays greatest wins is a bit meh.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Sure but we have a lot of other context going into the fight like Hagler having several wars which took sone out of him, the rounds being cut when Hagler was a 15 round fighter at the time. Leonard also continued boxing, just not conpetitively.


Indeed, and all of it is fairly innocuous in comparison to Ray being a retired coke fiend.



> Its a great win, id rank it the third best win between the pair off them and I cant really be arsed with a Hagler v Leonard debate because its boring as fuck and all been said before numerous times over.


It's an all time great win.



> Lets get back to how you think Lalonde, one of Rays greatest wins is a bit meh.


I think Ray's resume fares quite well even without LaLonde. Stoppage victories over great versions of Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns and Wilfred Benitez? A decision win over Marvin Hagler at Middleweight having not fought professionally for three whole years? Yeah, he's going to be okay.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Indeed, and all of it is fairly innocuous in comparison to Ray being a retired coke fiend.
> 
> It's an all time great win.
> 
> I think Ray's resume fares quite well even without LaLonde. Stoppage victories over great versions of Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns and Wilfred Benitez? A decision win over Marvin Hagler at Middleweight having not fought professionally for three whole years? Yeah, he's going to be okay.


Sure he is, hes a top 15 (maybes 10) fighter of all time. In most converstaions thats all thats needed for the convo to be out of sight. However, were talking about another top 15 (10) fighter so its all relevant at that point.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Sure he is, hes a top 15 (maybes 10) fighter of all time. In most converstaions thats all thats needed for the convo to be out of sight. However, were talking about another top 15 (10) fighter so its all relevant at that point.


Put it this way, it's a better win than Cuevas.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Put it this way, it's a better win than Cuevas.


Which is About 20th for Duran. Not really a great argument


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Which is About 20th for Duran. Not really a great argument





Chatty said:


> Leonard has the best wins, probably more so than any other boxer on the planet however his injuries, retirements and long periods of inactivity hurt him in this one.
> 
> Duran has the greatest win from the two of them, the biggest fight either had was againsteach other and Duran won it clearly and fairly comprehensively.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


>


Where did I say I put it in any order?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Where did I say I put it in any order?


There are only 14 wins even listed, Chatty.

I'll give you this opportunity to clarify your top 20.

GO!


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

I think Lalonde is a solid win tbf


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I think Lalone is a solid win tbf


I agree with you, but I would rather concede than get bogged down in a discussion over the credibility of the LaLonde win. It was a means to deflect from the debate at hand and I wasn't playing ball.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> There are only 14 wins even listed, Chatty.
> 
> I'll give you this opportunity to clarify your top 20.
> 
> GO!


Leonard I
Buchanan
De Jesus III
Marcel
Barkley
De Jesus II
Ishimatsu
Moore
Mamby
Palomino
(Camacho I) 
Castro II
(Paziena I) 
Kobayashi
Brooks
Cuevas

So 16th although you could argue a few others as well.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I think Lalonde is a solid win tbf


Lalonde is a solid win. Pedders said it was a nothing win which I hought was odd considering hes arguing against himself in saying so.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Lalonde is a solid win. Pedders said it was a nothing win which I hought was odd considering hes arguing against himself in saying so.


Please quote the post where I said or even implied Lalonde was a 'nothing win'.

You described it as a top 10 Leonard victory and I responded by suggesting that wasn't a particularly big statement considering Ray does not have ten great wins. It's not the quantity of wins that impresses with Ray's resume, it's the quality. The signature victories.



> Meh, no one cares too much about the LaLonde debacle. It didn't seriously enhance Ray's legacy.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Please quote the post where I said or even implied Lalonde was a 'nothing win'.
> 
> You described it as a top 10 Leonard victory and I responded by suggesting that wasn't a particularly big statement considering Ray does not have ten great wins. It's not the quantity of wins that impresses with Ray's resume, it's the quality. The signature victories.


You posted it yourself just there. No one cares.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> You posted it yourself just there. No one cares.





> Meh, no one cares too much about the LaLonde debacle.


I'm not looking for a semantic argument but your phrasing is changing the entire complexion of what I said. There was never any suggestion that it was a nothing win. In fact, I later described it as better than Dooran's win over Cuevas, a win you initially listed 8th.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm not looking for a semantic argument but your phrasing is changing the entire complexion of what I said. There was never any suggestion that it was a nothing win. In fact, I later described it as better than Dooran's win over Cuevas, a win you initially listed 8th.


I never listed any as 8th, I didnt put it in ordsr. Just plucked a load of fights from the top of my head but if you want to talk about ohrasing changing the conplexion of what I said....


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> I never listed any as 8th, I didnt put it in ordsr. Just plucked a load of fights from the top of my head but if you want to talk about ohrasing changing the conplexion of what I said....


Indeed, I'm being a little bit of a bastard with that one.

In any event, I feel as though our mediocre debate has devolved into tedium now. I don't agree with you when you suggest that victories should be judged in a vacuum. I believe there has to be context. And I strongly suggest you rewatch both Leonard-Benitez and Benitez-Palomino because I found your verdicts on both fights to veer wildly away from what actually happened, in both cases.

Other than that, you're an alright guy. I might follow you or something.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Indeed, I'm being a little bit of a bastard with that one.
> 
> In any event, I feel as though our mediocre debate has devolved into tedium now. I don't agree with you when you suggest that victories should be judged in a vacuum. I believe there has to be context. And I strongly suggest you rewatch both Leonard-Benitez and Benitez-Palomino because I found your verdicts on both fights to veer wildly away from what actually happened, in both cases.
> 
> Other than that, you're an alright guy. I might follow you or something.


Its all good, l its a fun debate. I dont mind Leonard ranking over Duran or vice versa tbh. Both great fighters. Pretty sure when I did a top 50 I had them 9th and 10th.

I didnt even know CHB had such options, not the time for me to be working stuff like that out either. I thought it was about 4pm but its actually near 10. I no longer have any perception if time after seven 5am sessions plus in a row.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Liking these threads @Bogotazo. Brings out the best in the forum I think. Makes great reading and throws up some good vids.


And educates the likes of me.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> The Benitez fight wasnt a schooling, he won clearly but it was competitive at points. Marquez won his career best fight and lost his next one out, as did Frazier, as did many other greats.
> 
> Hearns got knocked out in three in under a year from his. Its boxing, it happens all of the time.
> 
> ...


Those losses all hurt their legacy (well, Ali didn't lose and to say he was schooled is laughable - when did you see Benitez stick his head out the ropes to avoid Duran's attack?), and in none of those cases was there a one-sided loss to someone like Laing afterwards as well. Duran was 30-31 at this point and not far from his prime. It is delusional to say that these losses don't hurt his legacy.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Those losses all hurt their legacy (well, Ali didn't lose and to say he was schooled is laughable - when did you see Benitez stick his head out the ropes to avoid Duran's attack?), and in none of those cases was there a one-sided loss to someone like Laing afterwards as well. Duran was 30-31 at this point and not far from his prime. It is delusional to say that these losses don't hurt his legacy.


Ali Young was fairly one sided, it was a terrible robbery imo. Young outworked him and landed the better shots consistently throughout the fight. Think I had it 10-5/9-6 in rounds. Clear victory for Young.

Duran was an old 30 year old, was at around 80 pro fights at that point. Thats a lot when most of those had half the amount, considering hed had a few wars as well that amount of fights stacks up more decline than age does.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Ali Young was fairly one sided, it was a terrible robbery imo. Young outworked him and landed the better shots consistently throughout the fight. Think I had it 10-5/9-6 in rounds. Clear victory for Young.


It was a fight that could have gone either way. That was also the verdict of the ringside reporters of the time. And that Ali was three years older than the Duran who lost to Laing. And you talked about "schooling" when Young himself admitted that he stuck his head out the ropes because he couldn't get away from Ali's attack any other way, http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:22902



> Duran was an old 30 year old, was at around 80 pro fights at that point. Thats a lot when most of those had half the amount, considering hed had a few wars as well that amount of fights stacks up more decline than age does.


The loss to Benitez was 18 months after his win over Leonard, a year before taking Hagler the distance and and seven effing years before the win over Barkley. He was not a shot fighter by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

It's nice to see you contributing here, Bokaj. You were always one of my favourite posters over at ESB.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> It was a fight that could have gone either way. That was also the verdict of the ringside reporters of the time. And that Ali was three years older than the Duran who lost to Laing. And you talked about "schooling" when Young himself admitted that he stuck his head out the ropes because he couldn't get away from Ali's attack any other way, http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:22902
> 
> The loss to Benitez was 18 months after his win over Leonard, a year before taking Hagler the distance and and seven effing years before the win over Barkley. He was not a shot fighter by any stretch of the imagination.


Ali had the odd good round yet most of them he plodded about doing some showboati g and little else. He would beat Young if he had came in in any semblence of shape but that night he was a fat mess and it showed as he lost the majority of rounds clean and landed very little.

Never claimed Duran was shot, he was passed best and mentally wasnt dedicated to the sport any longer. Its not hard to find a million articles about Duran being on the lash all through training, turning up out of shape, bad dieting, pissing about. Dude went bust about three times in that decade alone. Add that to hitting your physical slide and thats why you got a massively inconsistent boxer.

If he felt the challenge or was under pressure to get a payday then hed put more effort in, most of the time he was di i g out on past glorys.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Ali had the odd good round yet most of them he plodded about doing some showboati g and little else. He would beat Young if he had came in in any semblence of shape but that night he was a fat mess and it showed as he lost the majority of rounds clean and landed very little.


Well, he did make Young stick his head outside the ropes. So many times he eventually got a standing eight count for it.



> Never claimed Duran was shot, he was passed best and mentally wasnt dedicated to the sport any longer. Its not hard to find a million articles about Duran being on the lash all through training, turning up out of shape, bad dieting, pissing about. Dude went bust about three times in that decade alone. Add that to hitting your physical slide and thats why you got a massively inconsistent boxer.
> 
> If he felt the challenge or was under pressure to get a payday then hed put more effort in, most of the time he was di i g out on past glorys.


Well, the Benitez fight and Hearns fight were certainly big fights, so he should have been prepared for them then. And for the Benitez fight he was. The commentators spoke about he had made weight already a week before the fight. Leonard, the expert commentator, actually thought he had overtrained.

But whether or not he had prepared well is really of no consequence. Being prepared and consistent is a big part of being a great fighter. For an ATG, losses like the ones to Benitez and Laing close to his physical prime are damaging. There just is no way past that.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Well, he did make Young stick his head outside the ropes. So many times he eventually got a standing eight count for it.
> 
> Well, the Benitez fight and Hearns fight were certainly big fights, so he should have been prepared for them then. And for the Benitez fight he was. The commentators spoke about he had made weight already a week before the fight. Leonard, the expert commentator, actually thought he had overtrained.
> 
> But whether or not he had prepared well is really of no consequence. Being prepared and consistent is a big part of being a great fighter. For an ATG, losses like the ones to Benitez and Laing close to his physical prime are damaging. There just is no way past that.


Not really, you can make an argument that Ali lost to Jones, Norton x2, Frazier and Young in and around his prime years. Five losses two to solid but really fringe fighters and two to Norton who was a good contender but was gifted his title when he won it (literally gifted it).

Barrera got bashed up of Junior Jones and lost conprehensively to him another time before losing every tound and being stopped by Pacquaio.

Charles got smashed up by Bivins and Marshall consecutovely and saw the canvas about 12 times.

Braddock won the world heavyweight title after a stint in the centre of his career where he went from a solid contender to a near journeyman.

Cases are littered with quality to great fighters having slumps or massively dipping in form.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Not really, you can make an argument that Ali lost to Jones, Norton x2, Frazier and Young in and around his prime years. Five losses two to solid but really fringe fighters and two to Norton who was a good contender but was gifted his title when he won it (literally gifted it).
> 
> Barrera got bashed up of Junior Jones and lost conprehensively to him another time before losing every tound and being stopped by Pacquaio.
> 
> ...


First we shouldn't confuse close fights with clear even one-sided losses. If so Viruet should also be mentioned against Duran.

But of the clear losses you speak, of course they hurt the legacy of the ones you speak. Of course Charles losses to Bivins and Marshall are relevant when comparing him to for example Robinson. In comparison between Barrera and Morales, Barrera's losses to Jones are bound to come up etc, etc. And of course for example Tyson would have ranked higher today if he had beat Holy instead of losing to him.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

I think what is forgotten when talking about the Hagler fight is to actually look at Leonard's performance. 

After clearly outboxing Hagler for the first half, Leonard's legs were gone after the sixth. From there on he relied solely on craft and will. And that's hell of a place to be against Hagler, even an aging version. But he pulled it off. That on it's own is remarkable.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> Of course Charles losses to Bivins and Marshall are relevant when comparing him to for example Robinson. In comparison between Barrera and Morales, Barrera's losses to Jones are bound to come up etc, etc. And of course for example Tyson would have ranked higher today if he had beat Holy instead of losing to him.


Losses are only relevant when a fighter is still able enough to be able to judge how a fight would have went during his prime.
Or if a fighter doesn't show improvements if it's during/before prime in a rematch or during other fights.

Ezzard beat both Bivins and Marshall in every rematch, conclusively
First Bivins fight was also a 165 pound Charles, not the 170-190 pound monster ultimately became.
Although Ezzard was elite already, he wasn't at his best and a heavier Charles ultimately beat both these fighters rather easily in multiple rematches. And according to what's put on boxrec he was injured in the first Marshall fight.

Those losses are about as relevant as Robinson losing his first match with Lamotta (they're not)
Once improved the rematches turned out different, the losses aren't relevant because the multiple rematches were against still good versions of Bivins and Marshall and every rematch led to one outcome: a W for Ezzard Charles.

Barrera's losses to Junior Jones are very relevant when it comes to H2H discussions because he just got cleanly outboxed and there are no excuses for him.


Bokaj said:


> And of course for example Tyson would have ranked higher today if he had beat Holy instead of losing to him.


Because that would have given him another win against a fighter, a win is always better than no win but is a loss worse than no fight?
What if Tyson had never fought Holy?
Imagine if Holyfield had died of a heart disease would Tyson be greater with no Holyfield on his resume or is he greater with that L or is he the same?

What if Tyson had lost the first match but won the trilogy?
Would that make him less great compared to winning twice but no trilogy?

Is losing worse than not fighting?
Or what if there is another timeline where Marciano went for 50-0 and he lost to Liston in a comeback.

Is alternative Marciano not as great as the real one because of the L?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> I think what is forgotten when talking about the Hagler fight is to actually look at Leonard's performance.
> 
> After clearly outboxing Hagler for the first half, Leonard's legs were gone after the sixth. From there on he relied solely on craft and will. And that's hell of a place to be against Hagler, even an aging version. But he pulled it off. That on it's own is remarkable.


What also gets forgotten is the performance Ray puts on in round 4,which is possibly the most underrated of his career but certainly one of the greatest.
People talk about Rigo and say it's a myth that Ray was a boxer who could move and fight on the back foot.
This round proves that he was the most versatile fighter of the modern game and certainly the most complete package I have ever seen.
Hagler is chasing shadows,throwing and missing by an inch at times.
That's got to burn crazy energy to move and concentrate like that,so he was certainly spent as you say but people here will try and say he never won a round after the sixth which is complete nonsense.
Jump to 4 minutes in this vid.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

I scored the fight a draw a long time ago, but I loved Leonard's performance. It showed how adaptable and versatile he was, because he was very rarely that movement-oriented. I loved reading the accounts of those no-headgear sparring matches that they treated like real fights, and how he had a very different strategy before he got rocked. Plus the spying on Hagler's camp that saw him frustrated with movement.

The whole read is fascinating.

http://grantland.com/features/hagler-vs-leonard/


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

V-2 said:


> Like honestly, the dude would be a human pretzel before Duran even laid a glove on him. There is no lethargic in fantasy H2H fights, it's peak form. For all the jokes and other funnies, "Montreal" Duran beats Mayweather's ass from pillar to post and absolutely wrecks him any time they engage in close quarters. Floyd is actually a good inside fighter and physically stronger than he's given credit for, but that shit is happening. Duran's craftsmanship, punch variety, defense and grit is too much in that office.


Very true, but I think if they fought a trilogy, Floyd would win at least 1 fight. I've seen Duran struggle too much in Leonard II, Lang, and Benitez to think that Floyd has no shot. Give him a Castillo II rematch strategy, and he'll pick up at least one win vs an inconsistent Duran


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

dyna said:


> Losses are only relevant when a fighter is still able enough to be able to judge how a fight would have went during his prime.
> Or if a fighter doesn't show improvements if it's during/before prime in a rematch or during other fights.
> 
> Ezzard beat both Bivins and Marshall in every rematch, conclusively
> ...


Wins in rematches goes a way towards redemption, but still better never to have that L. If Ali's first loss would have been to Holmes, his record would have been even more outstanding.

If you just take away the Holy fights from Tyson's record it definitely looks better.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Very true, but I think if they fought a trilogy, Floyd would win at least 1 fight. I've seen Duran struggle too much in Leonard II, Lang, and Benitez to think that Floyd has no shot. Give him a Castillo II rematch strategy, and he'll pick up at least one win vs an inconsistent Duran


This is exactly how I see it.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dooran struggled too often with pure boxers to think that he'd have an easy night's work with Floyd Mayweather.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> Wins in rematches goes a way towards redemption, but still better never to have that L. If Ali's first loss would have been to Holmes, his record would have been even more outstanding.
> 
> If you just take away the Holy fights from Tyson's record it definitely looks better.


There's "legacy" and then there's scrutinized resume. I think that losses hurt how we remember fighters and how good we think they are head to head, but shouldn't subtract from what they already accomplished. Look at Roy for example. Ignorant casuals talk crap about how all he had was athleticism and ridicule his losses, but when boxing heads sit down to rank him, we're not dwelling on those.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> There's "legacy" and then there's scrutinized resume. I think that losses hurt how we remember fighters and how good we think they are head to head, but shouldn't subtract from what they already accomplished. Look at Roy for example. Ignorant casuals talk crap about how all he had was athleticism and ridicule his losses, but when boxing heads sit down to rank him, we're not dwelling on those.


It's not about dwelling. It's that he'd of course rank higher if he had a better longevity. If you put a Hopkins like longevity on top of Jone's remarkable prime I think you might have something resembling an argument for nr p4p in terms of resume. As it is now you have no such reasonable argument.

I'd actually like to turn this and say that Duran is perhaps the only one where it's even slightly controversial to mention near prime losses when discussing legacy. And I see the no good objective reason for this. No one argues that Frazier was prime when Foreman steamrolled him, but that loss not only hurts his standing legacy wise but also in h2h discussions. But when talking about Duran it almost seems to be in bad taste to mention clear losses he had when he was 30-31 and far from done at the top level. That is just weird.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> It's not about dwelling. It's that he'd of course rank higher if he had a better longevity. If you put a Hopkins like longevity on top of Jone's remarkable prime I think you might have something resembling an argument for nr p4p in terms of resume. As it is now you have no such reasonable argument.
> 
> I'd actually like to turn this and say that Duran is perhaps the only one where it's even slightly controversial to mention near prime losses when discussing legacy. And I see the no good objective reason for this. No one argues that Frazier was prime when Foreman steamrolled him, but that loss not only hurts his standing legacy wise but also in h2h discussions. But when talking about Duran it almost seems to be in bad taste to mention clear losses he had when he was 30-31 and far from done at the top level. That is just weird.


Well in that case time is just an opportunity to get better wins. If you get more good wins, it adds. It doesn't make too much difference in my mind whether you do them all in a short span or stretch it out. It adds an extra sprinkle in underdog fights (Hopkins-Pavlik) but I don't treat it as a component that needs evaluation on its own.

I don't think I'd rank Frazier differently if he never fought Foreman to be honest. His wins are his wins. But that's just me.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Well in that case time is just an opportunity to get better wins. If you get more good wins, it adds. It doesn't make too much difference in my mind whether you do them all in a short span or stretch it out. It adds an extra sprinkle in underdog fights (Hopkins-Pavlik) but I don't treat it as a component that needs evaluation on its own.
> 
> I don't think I'd rank Frazier differently if he never fought Foreman to be honest. His wins are his wins. But that's just me.


A fighter's losses is part of what he did, so I can't see why they wouldn't matter. Sure, losses at the tail end of a fighter´s career is one thing, but in the middle of it is another.

Let's say that two fighters have wins of indistinguishable quality, really nothing in it, but one has substantially more prime/near prime losses than the other, would you not rank the undefeated fighter higher? I would.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> It's not about dwelling. It's that he'd of course rank higher if he had a better longevity. If you put a Hopkins like longevity on top of Jone's remarkable prime I think you might have something resembling an argument for nr p4p in terms of resume. As it is now you have no such reasonable argument.
> 
> I'd actually like to turn this and say that Duran is perhaps the only one where it's even slightly controversial to mention near prime losses when discussing legacy. And I see the no good objective reason for this. No one argues that Frazier was prime when Foreman steamrolled him, but that loss not only hurts his standing legacy wise but also in h2h discussions. But when talking about Duran it almost seems to be in bad taste to mention clear losses he had when he was 30-31 and far from done at the top level. That is just weird.


There is absolutely no question that Dooran is held to a different standard. He's afforded allowances other fighters are not. I don't know where that stems from, but I've continually had to deal with ludicrous claims from otherwise intelligent posters when discussing Duran. The idea that his loss to Hagler could ever be considered a greater achievement than Ray actually beating Hagler is lunacy. It's absurd. It has no basis in reality and yet I still find myself having to argue the point with otherwise really intelligent posters. Ultimately I think it comes down to a popularity contest. Ray Leonard is resented for a number of reasons and because of that some posters struggle to look at his career achievements from an objective view point.

As for the losses thing, I must admit this is some new age shit that I've never encountered before. The idea that losses aren't major factors when qualifying greatness. You'll have to correct me if I'm mischaracterising the debate but that's what it seems like to me. Losses are always relevant when gauging a fighter's all time standing... unless there were obvious mitigating circumstances surrounding the loss or if the fighter in question was a shot item at the time. Dooran's loss to Joppy doesn't matter. He was shot and we all know it. Dooran's loss to Benitez is a different story. The fight took place like a year after a career best performance against Ray Leonard and he was still relatively competitive throughout the 15th rounds against a world class opponent. The crucial point on this is that Dooran would remain a professional for many years after, notching up a number of very impressive performances and wins along the way. So all things considered there's no real basis to suggest Dooran was no longer a world class operator. It definitely counts.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> A fighter's losses is part of what he did, so I can't see why they wouldn't matter. Sure, losses at the tail end of a fighter´s career is one thing, but in the middle of it is another.
> 
> Let's say that two fighters have wins of indistinguishable quality, really nothing in it, but one has substantially more prime/near prime losses than the other, would you not rank the undefeated fighter higher? I would.


I elaborated on it a few posts back but losses don't subtract from accomplishments. If you fail to place in the Olympics one year but then win the gold the next time, there's no caveat to the win. To me a fighter's ranking depends on their "medal cabinet" so to speak. If someone beats them, they get a medal, but they don't take the other guy's medal away. Unless, as I mentioned, we're talking about common opponents and h2h ranking comparisons.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> There is absolutely no question that Dooran is held to a different standard. He's afforded allowances other fighters are not. I don't know where that stems from, but I've continually had to deal with ludicrous claims from otherwise intelligent posters when discussing Duran. The idea that his loss to Hagler could ever be considered a greater achievement than Ray actually beating Hagler is lunacy. It's absurd. It has no basis in reality and yet I still find myself having to argue the point with otherwise really intelligent posters. Ultimately I think it comes down to a popularity contest. Ray Leonard is resented for a number of reasons and because of that some posters struggle to look at his career achievements from an objective view point.
> 
> As for the losses thing, I must admit this is some new age shit that I've never encountered before. The idea that losses aren't major factors when qualifying greatness. You'll have to correct me if I'm mischaracterising the debate but that's what it seems like to me. Losses are always relevant when gauging a fighter's all time standing... unless there were obvious mitigating circumstances surrounding the loss or if the fighter in question was a shot item at the time. Dooran's loss to Joppy doesn't matter. He was shot and we all know it. Dooran's loss to Benitez is a different story. The fight took place like a year after a career best performance against Ray Leonard and he was still relatively competitive throughout the 15th rounds against a world class opponent. The crucial point on this is that Dooran would remain a professional for many years after, notching up a number of very impressive performances and wins along the way. So all things considered there's no real basis to suggest Dooran was no longer a world class operator. It definitely counts.


Yeah, one often fins oneself in surreal arguments when it comes to Duran, but the poll results are surprisingly balanced. Perhaps the pro-Duran contingent mainly is more vocal.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> There is absolutely no question that Dooran is held to a different standard. He's afforded allowances other fighters are not. I don't know where that stems from, but I've continually had to deal with ludicrous claims from otherwise intelligent posters when discussing Duran. The idea that his loss to Hagler could ever be considered a greater achievement than Ray actually beating Hagler is lunacy. It's absurd. It has no basis in reality and yet I still find myself having to argue the point with otherwise really intelligent posters. Ultimately I think it comes down to a popularity contest. Ray Leonard is resented for a number of reasons and because of that some posters struggle to look at his career achievements from an objective view point.
> 
> As for the losses thing, I must admit this is some new age shit that I've never encountered before. The idea that losses aren't major factors when qualifying greatness. You'll have to correct me if I'm mischaracterising the debate but that's what it seems like to me. Losses are always relevant when gauging a fighter's all time standing... unless there were obvious mitigating circumstances surrounding the loss or if the fighter in question was a shot item at the time. Dooran's loss to Joppy doesn't matter. He was shot and we all know it. Dooran's loss to Benitez is a different story. The fight took place like a year after a career best performance against Ray Leonard and he was still relatively competitive throughout the 15th rounds against a world class opponent. The crucial point on this is that Dooran would remain a professional for many years after, notching up a number of very impressive performances and wins along the way. So all things considered there's no real basis to suggest Dooran was no longer a world class operator. It definitely counts.


I don't think anyone here resents Leonard.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I elaborated on it a few posts back but losses don't subtract from accomplishments. If you fail to place in the Olympics one year but then win the gold the next time, there's no caveat to the win. To me a fighter's ranking depends on their "medal cabinet" so to speak. If someone beats them, they get a medal, but they don't take the other guy's medal away. Unless, as I mentioned, we're talking about common opponents and h2h ranking comparisons.


So in the hypothetical case I put up you'd not make a difference between two fighters with a for all practical purposes identical win record but where one has clearly more losses, and losses against a level of opposition the other didn't lose to?


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

And how it is not a dishonest argument to say "Duran is greater because he had more wins. Yes, he also had more losses, but that's only because he had more fights."?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> So in the hypothetical case I put up you'd not make a difference between two fighters with a for all practical purposes identical win record but where one has clearly more losses, and losses against a level of opposition the other didn't lose to?


Well it depends, does the record that has no losses also erase the fight altogether? Because then its a case of missing out on a top contender.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I don't think anyone here resents Leonard.


That's just one theory, Bogotazo. I'm trying to rationalise why any boxing fan would vehemently argue the case that Duran's loss to Hagler is worth more than Leonard's win over the same man. Do you have a more credible theory for this phenomenon?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> That's just one theory, Bogotazo. I'm trying to rationalise why any boxing fan would vehemently argue the case that Duran's loss to Hagler is worth more than Leonard's win over the same man. Do you have a more credible theory for this phenomenon?


Some people have scored it for Hagler. Add that to the fact Hagler was in his prime when chubby Duran fought him at arm's length, and you're comparing two competitive losses :conf

I wouldn't say it's better but I can see the argument.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> It's not about dwelling. It's that he'd of course rank higher if he had a better longevity. If you put a Hopkins like longevity on top of Jone's remarkable prime I think you might have something resembling an argument for nr p4p in terms of resume. As it is now you have no such reasonable argument.
> 
> I'd actually like to turn this and say that Duran is perhaps the only one where it's even slightly controversial to mention near prime losses when discussing legacy. And I see the no good objective reason for this. No one argues that Frazier was prime when Foreman steamrolled him, but that loss not only hurts his standing legacy wise but also in h2h discussions. But when talking about Duran it almost seems to be in bad taste to mention clear losses he had when he was 30-31 and far from done at the top level. That is just weird.


Not true though. Does Frazier get hurt all that much by the Foreman loss. Most acknowledge it was a stylistic nightmare for him just as he was for Ali and Ali was for Foreman. Frazier had good performances after Foreman 1 and I dont think people take away from him for the loss. At the end of the day most people have Frazier around 5-10 which would probably be the same if he had never fought Foreman at all.

As said before age doesnt really matter. Accumulative rounds does more to deteriate a boxer than age. If you look at this gen you have guys like BHop, Floyd, Wlad, Cotto, Pacman, Marquez fighting into their fourties or near but they for the most part will have fought less rounds than previous generations fighters who were burnt out at a younger age.

No doubt lifestyle plays a part as well as all those modern fighters are clean living fighters, we saw the fast decline in the likes of Hatton and Pavlik. Combining those two factors together is usually a recipe for disaster for boxers.

Its not like hes the only one either. Morales sat out in a near no show v Pacquaio and went to the limit with David Diaz even if you scored it for Morales. A few years later and hes taking young bucks like Maidana and Garcia to the edge. No surprise that during his lesser patch Morales was walking around about three stone overweight and not giving a fuck anymore.

Is it really an anomally because I dont think it is, the anomally is more so in the fact that some fighters are able to fight through their habbits and get in shape enough to gringld out some impressive victories.

The losses stop them from being greater than they were, they dont deduct from their legacy though.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Some people have scored it for Hagler. Add that to the fact Hagler was in his prime when chubby Duran fought him at arm's length, and you're comparing two competitive losses :conf
> 
> I wouldn't say it's better but I can see the argument.


You conveniently omitted a few pertinent details there. :lol:

In the worst case scenario from a Ray Leonard's point of view, you're still comparing a competitive loss between two active fighters to a competitive loss between one active fighter and a retired fighter that hadn't fought professionally in 3 years.

Apparently Dooran was harmed by the 4-5 month period after the first Leonard fight, what the fuck would three years have done to the man?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> You conveniently omitted a few pertinent details there. :lol:
> 
> In the worst case scenario from a Ray Leonard's point of view, you're still comparing a competitive loss between two active fighters to a competitive loss between one active fighter and a retired fighter that hadn't fought professionally in 3 years.
> 
> Apparently Dooran was harmed by the 4-5 month period after the first Leonard fight, what the fuck would three years have done to the man?


An important detail for sure. Duran would probably be a meatball.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Well it depends, does the record that has no losses also erase the fight altogether? Because then its a case of missing out on a top contender.


It's just two fighters with equal value of wins but one's win-loss ratio is substantially worse than the other's in a case where wear and tear is not a factor.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> It's just two fighters with equal value of wins but one's win-loss ratio is substantially worse than the other's in a case where wear and tear is not a factor.


Yeah I honestly can't punish the fighter for simply having losses. Though an undefeated streak is always better. I just never see myself using losses as a difference maker in a real comparison of greatness.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Not true though. Does Frazier get hurt all that much by the Foreman loss. Most acknowledge it was a stylistic nightmare for him just as he was for Ali and Ali was for Foreman. Frazier had good performances after Foreman 1 and I dont think people take away from him for the loss. At the end of the day most people have Frazier around 5-10 which would probably be the same if he had never fought Foreman at all.
> 
> As said before age doesnt really matter. Accumulative rounds does more to deteriate a boxer than age. If you look at this gen you have guys like BHop, Floyd, Wlad, Cotto, Pacman, Marquez fighting into their fourties or near but they for the most part will have fought less rounds than previous generations fighters who were burnt out at a younger age.
> 
> ...


If you take away Tyson's losses but keeps Frazier's there is absolutely Tyson's resume looks a a lot better in comparison than it does today.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> An important detail for sure. Duran would probably be a meatball.


Great little men giving great big men tough, competitive fights is not unheard of.

Great little men beating great big men despite not having fought for three years is unheard of.

It's an inescapable distinction and the reason why there can be no serious comparison between the two achievements.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Yeah I honestly can't punish the fighter for simply having losses. *Though an undefeated streak is always better.* I just never see myself using losses as a difference maker in a real comparison of greatness.


That's my point really.

A fighter that loses every other fight of his 40 fights (the losses are not lumped together at the beginning and/or the end, but every other fight is a loss) has a worse resume than a fighter than wins all of his 20 fights against the same level om competition.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> If you take away Tyson's losses but keeps Frazier's there is absolutely Tyson's resume looks a a lot better in comparison than it does today.
> 
> I'd probably have Frazier as a top 3 HW if he had retired directly after FOTC.


I disagree. Tysons losses dont really account for where he stands, he has a good resume but its filled with guys who werent elite and thats why he doesnt rank as high as guys with elite wins. The only one it really effects him against is Holyfield who can challenge him for his spot so its relevant then.

If Tyson didnt have losses his resume still wouldnt be huge and others would still have better wins than him with more questions answered so his place wouldnt really change.

A good example of this is Marciano who isnt often put in the top five heavies despite never losing and beating everyone in his division.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I disagree. Tysons losses dont really account for where he stands, he has a good resume but its filled with guys who werent elite and thats why he doesnt rank as high as guys with elite wins. The only one it really effects him against is Holyfield who can challenge him for his spot so its relevant then.
> 
> If Tyson didnt have losses his resume still wouldnt be huge and others would still have better wins than him with more questions answered so his place wouldnt really change.
> 
> A good example of this is Marciano who isnt often put in the top five heavies despite never losing and beating everyone in his division.


Well, put five losses in during those years and I'd rank him lower than I do today.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> That's my point really.
> 
> A fighter that loses every other fight of his 40 fights (the losses are not lumped together at the beginning and/or the end, but every other fight is a loss) has a worse resume than a fighter than wins all of his 20 fights against the same level om competition.


Let's take Floyd as an example. I have him losing the first Castillo fight. I don't think I'd place him any differently in any case because he's got Castillo on his resume from the rematch. Maybe subconsciously I'd be willing to rank him a bit lower because of the undefeated marker but I don't really pay much attention to that. I add up his wins. Castillo's name is on there. That's his worth in greatness.

Sorry if the discussion is getting tedious.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> It's not about dwelling. It's that he'd of course rank higher if he had a better longevity. If you put a Hopkins like longevity on top of Jone's remarkable prime I think you might have something resembling an argument for nr p4p in terms of resume. As it is now you have no such reasonable argument.
> 
> I'd actually like to turn this and say that Duran is perhaps the only one where it's even slightly controversial to mention near prime losses when discussing legacy. And I see the no good objective reason for this. No one argues that Frazier was prime when Foreman steamrolled him, but that loss not only hurts his standing legacy wise but also in h2h discussions. But when talking about Duran it almost seems to be in bad taste to mention clear losses he had when he was 30-31 and far from done at the top level. That is just weird.


I think Frazier is rated just fairly and the Foreman loss doesn't hurt him.

He doesn't have that many standout wins on his resume besides Ali.

Only thing I dislike Frazier for are his 2 horrible title defences post Ali. (Stander and Daniels)


Bokaj said:


> ut when talking about Duran it almost seems to be in bad taste to mention clear losses he had when he was 30-31 and far from done at the top level. That is just weird.





Bokaj said:


> I'd actually like to turn this and say that Duran is perhaps the only one where it's even slightly controversial to mention near prime losses


It's because of "The" Greats, Duran is the only one who's that inconsistent.

Greg Page also gets the Duran treatment if wasted potential is being discussed.
He doesn't have the title reign nor top wins of Duran so he's not ranked as a great.
But as far as H2H discussions go Greg Page is a mythical monster.(Tim Witherspoon too)

Buster Douglas too.

Who was that fat Cuban lightweight (?) who could shoulder roll again, forgot his name.
Recent fighter with great talent but was a fat ass.

Vitali Klitschko gets the treatment.

Nobody cares that Patterson quit against Ali despite coming off a very good win over Bonevana.

The reason you seem to think Duran is the only one who gets that treatment is because he's the most discussed out of the mentioned boxers. (Besides Vitali for a small timespan and he definitely got a ton of excuses for pizza face and quit job)


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Avenged losses are obviously not damning and I doubt Bokaj would seriously penalise a fighter in those instances.


----------



## Thomas Crewz (Jul 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Let's take Floyd as an example. I have him losing the first Castillo fight. I don't think I'd place him any differently in any case because he's got Castillo on his resume from the rematch. Maybe subconsciously I'd be willing to rank him a bit lower because of the undefeated marker but I don't really pay much attention to that. I add up his wins. Castillo's name is on there. That's his worth in greatness.
> 
> Sorry if the discussion is getting tedious.


Hmm not sure about this. Say if you are judging fighters from back in the day who often have 3-4-5+ fights vs the same guy, if fighter X has 1 win in the series, and fighter Y has 4 wins, I dont think you can ignore the losses in that scenario. Its pretty comprehensive who the better fighter is in that run of fights, and that surely has to play into how you rate a fighter overall?


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

dyna said:


> I think Frazier is rated just fairly and the Foreman loss doesn't hurt him.
> 
> He doesn't have that many standout wins on his resume besides Ali.
> 
> ...


That Page lost every other fight against top opposition even in his prime shows that he was no more than another contender. Because it's logical for just another contender to mix wins and losses against other contenders.

Now if he has those wins without any losses his record is closer to that of Salvador Sanchez than just your run of the mill contender.

And these other fighters have been discussed plenty and their prime and near prime losses always come up. Patterson's crushing losses to Liston definitely hurts him in these discussions. That his loss to Ali as a 37 year old in his last fight doesn't get mention might have something to do with that it was *against Ali *in his *last fight *when he was *37 years old. *And I'm surprised you've missed the times I've said that past prime losses in the tail end of one's career is a quite different thing than losses in prime or near prime.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Frazier getting decimated by Foreman doesn't hurt him? :shifty


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Hmm not sure about this. Say if you are judging fighters from back in the day who often have 3-4-5+ fights vs the same guy, if fighter X has 1 win in the series, and fighter Y has 4 wins, I dont think you can ignore the losses in that scenario. Its pretty comprehensive who the better fighter is in that run of fights, and that surely has to play into how you rate a fighter overall?


Generally the better fighter between the 2 will also have a better resume anyway so he would be ranked either way.


----------



## Thomas Crewz (Jul 23, 2013)

dyna said:


> Generally the better fighter between the 2 will also have a better resume anyway so he would be ranked either way.


Most likely but im sure not always. Drawing a blank trying to come up with an example though


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Hmm not sure about this. Say if you are judging fighters from back in the day who often have 3-4-5+ fights vs the same guy, if fighter X has 1 win in the series, and fighter Y has 4 wins, I dont think you can ignore the losses in that scenario. Its pretty comprehensive who the better fighter is in that run of fights, and that surely has to play into how you rate a fighter overall?


I included the caveat previously of common opponents or direct rivalries. I meant more two fighters or opponents who have nothing to do with each other.

How you score and evaluate Morales-Barrera/Pacquiao-Marquez/Pep-Saddler etc. definitely matters when comparing them.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Most likely but im sure not always. Drawing a blank trying to come up with an example though


Dooran-Leonard, according to at least 18 posters here.

Dooran does not have a better resume than Ray Leonard.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Frazier getting decimated by Foreman doesn't hurt him? :shifty


News to any discussion I've seen on the subject.

And Tyson's losses to Douglas and Holy doesn't hurt him? As I said: surreal.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> News to any discussion I've seen on the subject.
> 
> And Tyson's losses to Douglas and Holy doesn't hurt him? As I said: surreal.


There are losses...and then there's getting brutalised and almost decapitated in a horrendously one sided 2 round shellacking near your prime.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of consideration for a fighter's consistency in these discussions and I find that quite problematic when trying to rank fighters all time.


----------



## Thomas Crewz (Jul 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I included the caveat previously of common opponents or direct rivalries. I meant more two fighters or opponents who have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> How you score and evaluate Morales-Barrera/Pacquiao-Marquez/Pep-Saddler etc. definitely matters when comparing them.


I guess what i mean is that you wouldnt take Peps 1-3 (3kos) series loss to Saddler and use that as a big plus to his career, even despite getting a brilliant win. The losses change the context of that win.

If they fought once and Pep won, then that would be a bigger plus on his career evaluation than winning once and losing 3 times imo.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> There are losses...and then there's getting brutalised and almost decapitated in a horrendously one sided 2 round shellacking near your prime.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be a lot of consideration for a fighter's consistency in these discussions and I find that quite problematic when trying to rank fighters all time.


Yeah, going strictly by wins Norton isn't far from Frazier...


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Orlando Salido would love for you all to forget his losses. All 13 of them. That just leaves a stoppage win over an undefeated Juan Manuel Lopez and a close decision victory over the enigmatic Vasyl Lomachenko.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

I forgot about another fighter who gets the Duran treatment.

James Toney.
So often ranked ahead of Roy Jones.

How often do we see Tiberi mentioned?
How often is Toney excused of the Roy performance?
His fans don't even talk about the Griffin fights.
Drake Thadzi
Super close fight with Terry McGroom which could have went both ways.

Then he went on to outslug Jirov, stop Holyfield, looked great against Booker and then beat Ruiz dropping him on the way.

Yet he was drained in all the previous fights so it doesn't matter.

Duran isn't the only fighter to get his treatment, plenty of others do.
And Toney is also often mentioned as perhaps the most talented boxer ever.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Orlando Salido would love for you all to forget his losses. All 13 of them. That just leaves a stoppage win over an undefeated Juan Manuel Lopez and a close decision victory over the enigmatic Vasyl Lomachenko.


Salido hardly gets ripped for his losses though. If anything it has helped Salidos popularity as people love an underdog, especially a one that loves a tear up.

Similarly for Castillo who is classed as one of Floyds best wins yet has a load of uninspired loses scattered throughout his career.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

dyna said:


> I forgot about another fighter who gets the Duran treatment.
> 
> James Toney.
> So often ranked ahead of Roy Jones.
> ...


I see Tiberi mentioned a lot and he should be. To disregard that, Toney's many other lackluster performances and the Jones's loss is the mark of a fanboy to me.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> I forgot about another fighter who gets the Duran treatment.
> 
> James Toney.
> So often ranked ahead of Roy Jones.
> ...


Err....what? :lol:


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Salido hardly gets ripped for his losses though. If anything it has helped Salidos popularity as people love an underdog, especially a one that loves a tear up.
> 
> Similarly for Castillo who is classed as one of Floyds best wins yet has a load of uninspired loses scattered throughout his career.


Are you suggesting if we made all of the 13 losses disappear then Salido would actually be worse off?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Frazier getting decimated by Foreman doesn't hurt him? :shifty


How does it hurt his ranking. If he never fought Foreman would you rate him higher?

Not sure how you have your top ten but there ir thereabouts it usually goes something like this, mix the odd fighters around:

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Frasier
Johnson
Holyfield
Tyson or Liston

So it might hurt in in terms of Foreman being ahead of him but had those fights not happened other than Foreman who would you then leapfrog him over?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Some people have scored it for Hagler. Add that to the fact Hagler was in his prime when chubby Duran fought him at arm's length, and you're comparing two competitive losses :conf
> 
> I wouldn't say it's better but I can see the argument.


But Leonard was five years past prime and coming off a three year lay off! atsch

Of course that's if you don't count his "hidden career"


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Are you suggesting if we made all of the 13 losses disappear then Salido would actually be worse off?


If you wiped out the first eight then righted the Cruz and Martinez fight in his favour then he would obly have lost to the elite lot of Marquez, Gamboa and Garcia. Im not sure that would make any difference to how people saw him overall.

If you took away those defeats then he would likely be known for the guy who ended the Lopez hype and cheated Lomachenko and probably catch shit for not fighting any elite fighters.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Frazier getting decimated by Foreman doesn't hurt him? :shifty


It hurts him when comparing him to Ali. It doesn't hurt him when comparing him to Tyson, Marciano, etc. (in my book)


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

So are we gonna mark Leonard down for getting his shit pushed in by Norris. I mean it was only 18 months after two of his biggest wins on paper in Hearns II and Duran III???


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> How does it hurt his ranking. If he never fought Foreman would you rate him higher?
> 
> Not sure how you have your top ten but there ir thereabouts it usually goes something like this, mix the odd fighters around:
> 
> ...


The fight did happen.

Frazier either wins that fight or he loses that fight.

If he wins that fight, it elevates him. if he loses it, he doesn't win it, so it hurts him.

We should be thinking in those terms, Chatty.



> If you took away those defeats then he would likely be known for the guy who ended the Lopez hype and cheated Lomachenko and probably catch shit for not fighting any elite fighters.


He would be an undefeated world champion with wins over Juan Manuel Lopez and Vasyl Lomachenko.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Thomas Crewz said:


> Most likely but im sure not always. Drawing a blank trying to come up with an example though


Some of the very early fighters fit this description.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> So are we gonna mark Leonard down for getting his shit pushed in by Norris. I mean it was only 18 months after two of his biggest wins on paper in Hearns II and Duran III???


I mean...you obviously know this is a false equivalency, yeah?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> The fight did happen.
> 
> Frazier either wins that fight or he loses that fight.
> 
> ...


I know he fought him and thats the point of the post, if we eradicate it then how much highwr does he jump. If it hurt him legacy wise, how far did he drop?

He would be an undeafeated champion with a debateable win over Lomachenko in his second pro fight in which he came in heavy and ball shotted his way to a narrow victory over a guy who had never fought more than six rounds.

And he also beat a guy who would get knocked out of every top level fighter he fought including nearly being KOd by a coach.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I mean...you obviously know this is a false equivalency, yeah?


Aint they all though?

You cant make a timeframe for one guy then move it for another. The drop of form happens for a reason and you either take context for all or for none.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> I know he fought him and thats the point of the post, if we eradicate it then how much highwr does he jump. If it hurt him legacy wise, how far did he drop?


I don't understand the question.

The beatdown hurts his ranking because it happened. If it didn't happen, he would have won against Foreman.

If the fight was never signed, Frazier likely makes more title defences and people would consider him a bigger threat H2H.



> He would be an undeafeated champion with a debateable win over Lomachenko in his second pro fight in which he came in heavy and ball shotted his way to a narrow victory over a guy who had never fought more than six rounds.
> 
> And he also beat a guy who would get knocked out of every top level fighter he fought including nearly being KOd by a coach.


And as things stand, he's all of those things with 13 losses.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Aint they all though?
> 
> You cant make a timeframe for one guy then move it for another. The drop of form happens for a reason and you either take context for all or for none.


So the insinuation is that Duran in '82 was as useless as Ray was in '91?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I don't understand the question.
> 
> The beatdown hurts his ranking because it happened. If it didn't happen, he would have won against Foreman.
> 
> ...


Depends on who he fought, most likely it would have been Ali II which we have evidence of him losing and his career is similar without the two big loses. Still doesnt really effect his ranking. Maybes he squeezes ahead of Forman by default of Foreman not having the two Frazier wins. The point is the losses dont really harm a fighters legacy if he has the big wins to go with them/balance them out.

Thats why Salido is rated higher than Ottke by the majority.

As for Salido then you saying his losses havent really made any difference because in the grand scheme his achievements outweigh his losses. Again I doubt he rates any higher if we take away the loses.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> So the insinuation is that Duran in '82 was as useless as Ray was in '91?


The insinuation is that based on the evidence we have that shows Duran beating a prime Leonard clearly in 1980, that a loss to Laing in 1982 signifys that his career had took a slide and he wasnt the same fighter he was in 1980 unless we are going to insinuate that Laing was an elite level fighter also or Leonard wasnt very good in 1980?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> So are we gonna mark Leonard down for getting his shit pushed in by Norris. I mean it was only 18 months after two of his biggest wins on paper in Hearns II and Duran III???


Mark it down if you want.It was exactly what he needed to put an end to the hubris that kept him going on the Senior's tour far longer than he should have.
People act like conditioning was the same back then and everyone can be held to a Hopkins standard but inactivity and fitness were completely different then.Most non-HW's were considered to be fighting too long if they were still going at 30.
Leonard is almost unique in that every one of his greatest performances came in a genuine superfight.We saw how he struggled with far lesser fighters after 82 and he should have retired for good after Hagler.
But putting a guy like that on the HBO team was always going to get the better of him,and just like the third Duran fight shouldn't be held against Roberto,anything after Hagler should be seen for what it really was.
If Duran had the money,he wouldn't have been fighting all those years he did.
Leonard fought on purely out of Hubris,and he was clearly fighting at 60% of his best every fight after Hagler.
Norris should have been the best thing that happened to him,because no one in their right mind thinks that 1981 Leonard loses that fight.But again,ego ruined that and he made an arse of Camacho when he should have pulled out.I'm not even sure he wins that fight without the injury.
Why it's a slightly different criteria for Duran is that he is considered part of the Fab 4,so he doesn't get a pass for anything up to and including Hagler.
So you don't have to leave Norris out,but we're almost a decade past prime with large sections of inactivity.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Depends on who he fought, most likely it would have been Ali II which we have evidence of him losing and his career is similar without the two big loses. Still doesnt really effect his ranking. Maybes he squeezes ahead of Forman by default of Foreman not having the two Frazier wins. The point is the losses dont really harm a fighters legacy if he has the big wins to go with them/balance them out.


I'm not talking strictly in terms of ranking, Chatty.

Whenever a fantasy match up is brought up involving Joe Frazier and a monstrous puncher, people are inclined to side with the monstrous puncher in most cases because of what Foreman did to him. If that fight never occurred then I imagine Frazier would be considered a bigger threat H2H. It's inevitably damaging in one way or another for any fighter to get absolutely destroyed near their primes. I'm unmoved on that, really.



> As for Salido then you saying his losses havent really made any difference because in the grand scheme his achievements outweigh his losses. Again I doubt he rates any higher if we take away the loses.


Orlando Salido would be a P4P rated fighter currently, with an undefeated recorded, numerous titles defences and two signature wins over Lopez and Lomachenko. Isn't it a bit daft to suggest that he's no worse off with the 13 losses?



Chatty said:


> The insinuation is that based on the evidence we have that shows Duran beating a prime Leonard clearly in 1980, that a loss to Laing in 1982 signifys that his career had took a slide and he wasnt the same fighter he was in 1980 unless we are going to insinuate that Laing was an elite level fighter also or Leonard wasnt very good in 1980?


Who is suggesting Dooran was the same fighter in 82 as he was in 80?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Mark it down if you want.It was exactly what he needed to put an end to the hubris that kept him going on the Senior's tour far longer than he should have.
> People act like conditioning was the same back then and everyone can be held to a Hopkins standard but inactivity and fitness were completely different then.Most non-HW's were considered to be fighting too long if they were still going at 30.
> Leonard is almost unique in that every one of his greatest performances came in a genuine superfight.We saw how he struggled with far lesser fighters after 82 and he should have retired for good after Hagler.
> But putting a guy like that on the HBO team was always going to get the better of him,and just like the third Duran fight shouldn't be held against Roberto,anything after Hagler should be seen for what it really was.
> ...


Thats my point. You get it!


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm not talking strictly in terms of ranking, Chatty.
> 
> Whenever a fantasy match up is brought up involving Joe Frazier and a monstrous puncher, people are inclined to side with the monstrous puncher in most cases because of what Foreman did to him. If that fight never occurred then I imagine Frazier would be considered a bigger threat H2H. It's inevitably damaging in one way or another for any fighter to get absolutely destroyed near their primes. I'm unmoved on that, really.
> 
> ...


Fair enough head to head. Im strictly talking rankings here.

Bojak said Duran was still prime in 82.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Sigh. I'd be quite fine with "Duran's inconsistency when still a very live fighter hurts him a bit in comparison with Leonard, but his dominance at LW and longevity combined with some truly great wins and performances still edges him ahead of SRL for me". But to instead reinvent reality to make the case? Why?


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Fair enough head to head. Im strictly talking rankings here.
> 
> Bojak said Duran was still prime in 82.


Errh, no. Try "near prime".


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Errh, no. Try "near prime".


Past prime is a better word for it.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Fair enough head to head. Im strictly talking rankings here.
> 
> Bojak said Duran was still prime in 82.


Duran was close enough to his prime to make the victory significant. It was less than two years after his career best performance and he would continue to fight on for many, many years at a high level. The same cannot be said of Leonard in '91. It's non-comparable mate.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Duran was close enough to his prime to make the victory significant. It was less than two years after his career best performance and he would continue to fight on for many, many years at a high level. The same cannot be said of Leonard in '91. It's non-comparable mate.


He was mentally shot. Was fighting for money only and didnt really give a shit whether he won or not as long as he got paid. His prime ended the night he beat Leonard, after that boxing was just a means to make large sums of cash quickly.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Chatty said:


> He was mentally shot. Was fighting for money only and didnt really give a shit whether he won or not as long as he got paid. His prime ended the night he beat Leonard, after that boxing was just a means to make large sums of cash quickly.


He was mentally shot but somehow managed to take a prime Hagler close, beat-up an undefeated Moore and overcome the much larger Barkley at 37 years of age? I don't think anyone argues that Duran wasn't at his physical peak in 82 but mentally shot? Nope.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> He was mentally shot but somehow managed to take a prime Hagler close, beat-up an undefeated Moore and overcome the much larger Barkley at 37 years of age? I don't think anyone argues that Duran wasn't at his physical peak in 82 but mentally shot? Nope.


Sure, he picked fights to turn up for and anything else was a payday. Against Barkley he was broke and needed to win that to get Leonard III so was motivated to train, Hagler was a big payday and legacy fight. Laing was a fuck all fight he thought he could turn up for, barely train and get the win without trying.

If hed decided to take Laing as serious as he did Leonard in the firat fight, Laing wouldnt even be known today. If you go from taking every fight seriously and then stop training properly then how else would you describe it?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Thats my point. You get it!


But are you really comparing 82 Duran to 91 Leonard?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> He was mentally shot. Was fighting for money only and didnt really give a shit whether he won or not as long as he got paid. His prime ended the night he beat Leonard, after that boxing was just a means to make large sums of cash quickly.


That's a little too convenient for the argument.
So five months after he beat Leonard everything gets a pass because you think he didn't give a shit?
That's exactly the problem when it comes to Duranism.He quit on Leonard because he didn't give a shit and his giving Hagler a decent scrap tops a five year past prime and three year inactive Leonard coming back and beating Hagler (as some are saying)?
You can't debate with that logic.That basically means that Leonard making him quit doesn't count for shit but we can credit him with all the good stuff he done after.
And losing to Laing when he did is not even remotely comparable to Leonard losing to Norris


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> That's a little too convenient for the argument.
> So five months after he beat Leonard everything gets a pass because you think he didn't give a shit?
> That's exactly the problem when it comes to Duranism.He quit on Leonard because he didn't give a shit and his giving Hagler a decent scrap tops a five year past prime and three year inactive Leonard coming back and beating Hagler (as some are saying)?
> You can't debate with that logic.That basically means that Leonard making him quit doesn't count for shit but we can credit him with all the good stuff he done after.
> And losing to Laing when he did is not even remotely comparable to Leonard losing to Norris


I dont give him a pass for Leonard II, I give Leonard the full credit for victory and I certaibly dont rank a loss to Hagler over a win to Hagler. In fact I dont really count it towards Durans greatness because its a loss.

My poi t with Duran/Laing v Leonard/Norris was that people were putting a time span on Durans win over Leonard and saying he was still in or just about prime whereas Leonard gets cited as being shot but its the same period of distance from Hearns II which on paper would be a top seven win for Leonard (if you dont count it as a loss). So bit of double standards going on.

I do however understand Leonard was old and inactive and well past his prime, but at the same time I also acknowledge that Duran wasnt the near the same Duran that fought Leonard I when he fought Laing. Anyone who does must either think Laing turned elite world beater over night or that Leonard was domeatic level 18 months prior.


----------



## V-2 (Jan 1, 2017)

PityTheFool said:


> He performed a miracle by beating Hagler in 87 and should have stopped there.


He absolutely should've. Nobody is impressed by dragging Lalonde down to 168 and winning both Super Middle and Light Heavy straps in the same fight, most people felt he was given a gift draw against Hearns in an essentially meaningless past-prime rematch, nobody wanted Duran III aside from Roberto for the paycheck, he was embarrassed by Norris and utterly humiliated by Camacho. Could hardly have been more shit, made a complete ass clown of himself in the process and only added ammunition for people to hate him.

This isn't the man and fighter he was from 1977-82. It looks fucking horrible on him.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Past prime is a better word for it.


No. And is that your way of saying sorry for saying I said something I didn't?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> No. And is that your way of saying sorry for saying I said something I didn't?


Well if it wasnt past prime then your saying he was prime so then what I was saying was true.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Well if it wasnt past prime then your saying he was prime so then what I was saying was true.


Ok, so going more silly is the way for you? Alright.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Ok, so going more silly is the way for you? Alright.


If your going to continue to avoid the question.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

dyna said:


> Who was that fat Cuban lightweight (?) who could shoulder roll again, forgot his name.
> Recent fighter with great talent but was a fat ass.


Joan Guzman.

Dominican.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> That's a little too convenient for the argument.
> So five months after he beat Leonard everything gets a pass because you think he didn't give a shit?
> That's exactly the problem when it comes to Duranism.He quit on Leonard because he didn't give a shit and his giving Hagler a decent scrap tops a five year past prime and three year inactive Leonard coming back and beating Hagler (as some are saying)?
> You can't debate with that logic.That basically means that Leonard making him quit doesn't count for shit but we can credit him with all the good stuff he done after.
> And losing to Laing when he did is not even remotely comparable to Leonard losing to Norris


Bang on.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Err....what? :lol:


Years of looking through the classic section.

There are a lot who rank Toney higher than Jones.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

dyna said:


> Years of looking through the classic section.
> 
> There are a lot who rank Toney higher than Jones.


I rarely see it myself.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I rarely see it myself.


Yeah, can only remember the occasional fan boy.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I rarely see it myself.


I must admit,I've seen it a bit more than you would expect to.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

How would you rank their combined wins:

Duran v Leonard I
Leonard v Hearns I
Leonard v Hagler
Duran v Buchanan
Leonard v Duran II
Leonard v Benitez
Duran v Marcel
Duran v De Jesus III
Duran v Barkley
Leonard v Kalule


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Who beat better fighters? Ray
> Who beat them more convincingly? Ray
> Who won the H2H? Ray
> 
> Who is greater? Dooran.


exactly it really does not make sense. Duran beat the hell out of lesser fighters and was a dominant lightweight champ in a rather mediocre era.. None of those guys were close to elite. Ray really did beat the top guys in history, and had a short career, but he did win when he had to. Ray beat greater fighters than Duran. I think even Duran fans have to concede this. It is not arguable.


----------

